Hormozi Says Service-Based Models and Reputation Outlast AI Wave

The Diary Of A CEO

In an economy flooded with automated software, lasting value shifts away from wrapper products to unscalable service businesses, pricing power, and authentic human reputation.

AI-assisted summary of Alex Hormozi’s Warning: Stop Chasing AI, Build This Instead! — original source. Check the original for full context.

Source published: 2026-07-20

Detailed notes

## Background This episode of The Diary Of A CEO was published on YouTube on July 20, 2026. The page description introduces entrepreneur, investor, and author Alex Hormozi as he explains why founders should avoid blindly chasing AI trends and instead focus on real-world businesses, personal reputation, and long-term value creation. He also discusses scaling hurdles, team building, relationship dynamics, and personal hardships experienced during a record-setting business year.

## TL;DR Alex Hormozi joins host Steven Bartlett to challenge prevailing tech trends, arguing that durable wealth is created in uncool, real-world service industries rather than superficial AI wrapper startups. Hormozi breaks down key business fundamentals, including high-ticket pricing strategies, employee incentives, alignment with romantic partners, and managing operational complexity. He candidly reflects on navigating severe personal trials—including multiple lawsuits, his wife's medical crisis, and the death of his mother—while maintaining operational discipline. Ultimately, he emphasizes building non-digital moats based on reality, personal credibility, and emotional fortitude.

## Atmosphere & style The conversation carries an intensely grounded, pragmatic, and emotionally transparent tone, balancing rigorous business tactics with deep philosophical reflection. Hormozi's candid, no-nonsense delivery creates a sharp, analytical energy that contrasts smoothly with Bartlett's introspective questioning. The emotional arc transitions from high-level entrepreneurial strategy and market dynamics into raw vulnerability as Hormozi opens up about grief, mortality, and personal adversity. Listening feels like an intimate masterclass that blends hard-hitting operational discipline with quiet, reflective self-awareness.

## Key takeaways - [25:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=1528s) Aspiring entrepreneurs must focus on earning their first dollar to make business a concrete reality rather than an abstract concept, keeping overhead minimal to extend runway. - [30:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=1849s) Uncertainty and fear of judgment persist at all levels of business; hesitation often stems from caring about specific opinions rather than lacking practical knowledge. - [41:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=2500s) To achieve meaningful progress, founders must avoid 'options maxing' and commit decisively to a single path to trigger actionable feedback loops. - [01:07:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=4052s) In an AI-driven economy, real-world execution, unscalable high-touch value, and built trust are the primary moats that cannot be easily commoditized. - [01:09:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=4188s) Early-stage businesses should embrace unscalable operations and high-ticket pricing to establish immediate cash flow, deep customer relationships, and strong brand authority. - [01:13:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=4394s) Human behavior is dictated by environmental incentives; operators should structure conditions so that the desired outcome becomes the easiest and most attractive path. - [01:21:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=4915s) Scaling a service business requires niching down to a single target customer, which transforms custom, complex fulfillment into standardized, high-margin operations. - [01:23:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=5019s) Enduring business opportunities lie in timeless human needs or unglamorous, uncool industries where lower competition creates higher potential returns. - [01:26:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=5202s) Pricing serves as a powerful signal of value; targeting higher-budget customers reduces operational friction and improves profit margins. - [01:44:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=6279s) Choosing the right life partner and aligning long-term business conditions provides an irreplaceable foundation for sustained operational success. - [01:57:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=7057s) Framing life through the perspective of mortality helps eliminate anxiety around outside judgment and forces alignment with true personal priorities. - [02:00:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=7242s) Navigating severe crises requires managing open loops incrementally—taking 'one bite at a time' rather than trying to resolve every complex issue simultaneously. - [02:03:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=7388s) Mental toughness is built on four core vectors: Fortitude, Tolerance, Resilience, and Adaptability, enabling individuals to maintain output through hardship. - [02:17:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=8223s) Internal emotions naturally fluctuate like the weather; true performance requires decoupling personal discomfort from execution so bad days still produce good work.

## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=0s) Intro: Alex Hormozi on Grief, Focus, and Navigating the AI Wave

Steven Bartlett opens the episode introducing Alex Hormozi—entrepreneur, co-founder of Acquisition.com, and bestselling author—setting the stage for a conversation that spans business strategy, emotional resilience, and the shifting landscape of artificial intelligence. Alex shares a poignant personal story about executing a massive $106 million book launch that his mother was able to witness just four weeks before she passed away. He opens up about the immense emotional weight of that period and how he leaned into writing notes to himself on X (formerly Twitter) as a way to cope and remind himself to keep fighting through grief.

``` "People will judge how much you love someone by how much you choose to suffer. I don't think the person that you lost probably wants you to suffer." ```

Alex unpacks a core mindset shift: emotional discomfort is not a valid reason to derail your strategy or abandon your path. Transitioning into business strategy, Alex emphasizes that the foundational lesson of entrepreneurship is deciding whether you care more about your actual future than about what other people think of it. Starting a business requires letting a past version of yourself die and facing the fear of uncertainty head-on.

- **Record Launch:** Alex executed a $106 million launch witnessed by his mother shortly before her passing. - **Key Business Lessons:** Focus and patience remain the two single greatest competitive advantages because they run counter to basic human impulses.

---

[02:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=153s) How To Use AI As An Entrepreneur

Steven notes that AI is the dominant topic among founders at every level—from Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi to early-stage startup founders searching for defensible moats. Alex offers a sharp critique of how the broader business community is currently approaching artificial intelligence. While he champions tech adoption, he points out that most entrepreneurs are merely using AI to perform low-value tasks faster, or attempting to build thin wrappers around foundation models that will inevitably swallow their products whole.

Alex argues that business owners need to step back from "token maxing" and ask a simple, grounded question: *Is this actually making you more money right now?* He shares an anecdote about a business that was spending $11,000 per month on 11 overseas virtual assistants to handle data cleaning. To replace those VAs, the company spent $350,000 developing a custom AI system—effectively front-loading over three years' worth of labor costs to automate a back-office process that wasn't even the bottleneck of their business.

``` "People are using AI in the wrong places. They're trying to start AI businesses when they shouldn't start AI businesses. They should use AI in their business." ```

Customers do not buy technology for its own sake; they buy solutions to their specific problems. Advertising a feature as "AI-powered" can even backfire, as many mainstream consumers feel intimidated or skeptical of artificial intelligence.

- **The VA Example:** Spending $350,000 on AI automation to replace $11,000/month ($132,000/year) in virtual assistant labor locked up cash flow without solving the core constraint: lead generation and sales demand. - **Core Strategy:** Implement AI behind the scenes to optimize real operations rather than marketing "AI" as the primary selling proposition.

---

[05:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=300s) Where Will Value Come From In An AI World?

Addressing visions of a future where artificial intelligence and robotics make cognitive and physical labor abundant, Steven asks where true economic and human value will reside once raw intelligence is cheap. Alex identifies **stakes, accountability, and real-world risk** as the ultimate durable value drivers. AI can generate endless recommendations, but a human must ultimately assume responsibility for decisions, risk capital, own the legal entity, and navigate tax or legal liabilities.

``` "AI can give all of the recommendations in the world, but someone has to own the decision... Somebody has to be responsible." ```

Alex draws a compelling parallel to sports and media to explain why real human presence matters. Even though chess engines can easily defeat any grandmaster, human chess tournaments are more popular today than ever before. Similarly, fans tune into Formula 1 to watch drivers like Lewis Hamilton push limits at personal risk; taking the human driver out destroys the spectacle. In media and entertainment, authentic stakes—real money, real risks, and real physical realities—are what hold human attention.

- **Accountability as a Moat:** Ownership of decisions, financial liabilities, and regulatory risks cannot be delegated to an AI model. - **The Human Element:** Audiences demand real stakes and genuine human emotion; synthetic content lacks the gravity of real-world outcomes.

---

[07:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=432s) How To Generate Great Ideas In The Age Of AI

The discussion turns to critical thinking and mental space. Steven highlights how easy it has become for people to defer their baseline reasoning to frontier models like ChatGPT or Claude. Alex strongly warns against outsourcing your hardest thinking tasks to machines. In his experience testing identical, complex decision prompts across multiple top AI models, the output is frequently inconsistent or overly agreeable.

``` "If you delegate your decision-making to it, you get dumber... Do not delegate the hardest thinking work you have, because you will just get so weak, so fast." ```

Alex treats his brain as his primary business asset and works deliberately to keep it sharp. Rather than relying on AI for core strategy, entrepreneurs must cultivate clarity of thought and learn how to ask the right questions. The capacity for sound human judgment remains the ultimate bottleneck for success.

- **Model Inconsistency:** Testing the same complex prompt across Claude and OpenAI often yields wildly conflicting recommendations, confirming that final judgment must remain human. - **Cognitive Atrophy:** Offloading complex analytical work degrades problem-solving skills over time.

---

[08:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=516s) Why Long-Term Thinking Wins In Business

Alex introduces a visual exercise using physical blocks to illustrate how time horizons dictate foundational choices. If asked to build the tallest possible tower in 5 seconds, you stack a few blocks vertically as fast as possible. But if given 5 days or 5 years with unlimited blocks, you begin by laying a wide, robust base. Alex cites a piece of advice given to him early on by a mentor that reshaped his entire perspective on growth.

``` "The fastest way to build a $10 million business is not the fastest way to build a $100 million business." ```

Steven connects this to his own mindset shift with his holding company, Steven.com, and points to Elon Musk’s long-term play at Tesla and SpaceX. Instead of taking easy shortcuts—like buying off-the-shelf batteries or relying on third-party charging networks—Tesla spent years building custom battery architectures and a nationwide charging infrastructure from scratch. While those decisions seemed slow initially, they built an untouchable competitive moat years down the line.

``` "Focus and patience are the two enduring competitive advantages because they're so antihuman." ```

When founders prioritize quick exits over structural integrity, they end up with fragile businesses that feel like they might collapse in a light breeze during due diligence. True enterprise value requires digging a deep foundation before building upward.

- **The Block Analogy:** Short timeframes force narrow, unstable stacking; extended timeframes demand wide, structural foundations. - **The Plateau Effect:** Businesses built on shallow foundations inevitably hit a ceiling where they must take two steps back and rebuild their operations before they can grow again.

[13:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=780s) The Amazon Playbook and Why Retention Trumps Acquisition

Alex Hormozi and host Steven Bartlett reflect on Jeff Bezos's pivotal decision to build Amazon's core moat not around software alone, but around massive physical logistics—owning warehouses, trucks, and delivery networks. Hormozi notes that building an empire around gritty, physical infrastructure creates an almost unassailable position that no pure online competitor can easily unseat.

Transitioning to the common struggles of everyday founders, Steven asks about the mid-stage bottleneck: why so many entrepreneurs hit a ceiling at around $500,000 or $1 million in revenue and find themselves unable to break through to $10 million. Hormozi argues that these founders fail to reach scale because they rush through the product-market fit phase. They focus entirely on top-of-funnel customer acquisition while ignoring revenue stickiness—whether through repeat purchases (like buying a favorite soda) or recurring subscriptions (like Netflix).

``` COMPANY A (High Churn / Acquisition-Driven) Year 1: 100 new customers (100 total) -> $1M Revenue Year 2: 200 new customers (200 total) -> $2M Revenue (Lost Year 1 cohort) Year 3: 300 new customers (300 total) -> $3M Revenue (Lost Year 2 cohort) Result: High marketing spend, compressed margins, fragile business.

COMPANY B (High Retention / Stacking Model) Year 1: 100 new customers (100 total) -> $1M Revenue Year 2: 100 new customers (200 total) -> $2M Revenue (Retained Year 1 cohort) Year 3: 100 new customers (300 total) -> $3M Revenue (Retained Years 1 & 2 cohorts) Result: Exponential efficiency, predictable cash flow, massive enterprise value. ```

Hormozi illustrates this with a side-by-side comparison of two companies reaching $3 million in top-line revenue. Company A relies on aggressive marketing to replace every churned customer, whereas Company B retains its core customer base while steadily adding new ones. While both look identical on paper, Company B operates at a fraction of the acquisition cost, boasts healthier profit margins, and is ready to explode into a billion-dollar enterprise once scaled through distribution.

- **The Danger of Sales Skills:** Exceptional marketing and sales skills can mask a broken business by pouring leads into a leaky bucket, leading to catastrophic failure the moment acquisition slows. - **Revenue Retention as a Precondition for Scale:** Solving customer retention first is what turns mass distribution into a long-term enterprise rather than a temporary spike in sales.

> "If every time you get a customer, they never left, then the business will do nothing but grow."

---

[17:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=1069s) Fixing Bottlenecks: Pricing, Margins, and Selling Out of Your Own Wallet

When founders complain about being overwhelmed and running out of time, Hormozi digs straight into their unit economics. A lack of time is rarely the root problem; it is a symptom of razor-thin profit margins. Low margins leave founders unable to afford capable staff, trapping them inside day-to-day operations.

``` FEELING OVERWHELMED & OUT OF TIME │ ▼ Thin Profit Margins │ ▼ Unable to Afford Help │ ▼ ROOT CAUSES TO DIAGNOSE: ├── 1. Mispriced Offer (Too much value given for too low a price) └── 2. Weak Sales Motion (Failing to demonstrate premium value) ```

Hormozi highlights a critical psychological trap: **selling out of your own wallet**. Experts often undervalue their own skills because the work feels effortless to them. A mechanic assumes fixing a car is simple, forgetting that a customer is willing to pay a premium to avoid doing the dirty work themselves. Undercharging starves the business of margin, destroying the cash reserves and time required to recruit, hire, and onboard support.

- **Margin Health Check:** A business maintaining a 70% profit margin has an execution problem if the founder is overworked—they simply need to hire. If margins are low, the offer structure or pricing needs an immediate overhaul. - **The Value Disconnect:** Price must reflect the value delivered to the buyer, not the ease of execution for the seller.

> "Because it's been easy for you, you think it's easy for everyone. And because you think it's easy for everyone, you're not willing to charge a lot for it."

---

[19:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=1187s) Demolishing the "Unicorn" Myth in Hiring

Steven points out that many founders refuse to delegate because they believe nobody else can meet their standards or care as much about the business. Hormozi dismisses this as pure ego, emphasizing that a company exists to serve its customers, not to satisfy a founder's need to feel indispensable.

``` THE UNICORN MISTAKE Founder looks for 1 Person with: [Deep Technical Skill + Sales Chops + Cultural Sparkle] Result: Infinite search, founder burnout, zero delegation.

THE PRAGMATIC ASSEMBLY (Rhino + Horse + Fireflies) ├── Person A (The Rhino): Handles heavy operational execution ├── Person B (The Horse): Drives sales and client delivery └── Person C (The Fireflies): Adds creative spark and culture Result: Immediate coverage, scalable team structure. ```

Founders stall their hiring by searching for "unicorns"—rare individuals who possess the exact combination of skills, passion, and experience that the founder built over a decade. Hormozi advocates for breaking down those responsibilities across multiple people rather than waiting for a single mythical hire.

- **Time-Shifted Training:** Founders can teach a new hire in a fraction of the time it took them to learn initially because they can bypass all their past mistakes. - **Standard of Excellence:** The executive leading a department must hold the absolute highest standard for quality. If an employee develops a higher standard of performance than the founder, that employee should run the department.

> "They try to find in one person what they can more easily find in three."

---

[23:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=1402s) De-risking the Start: From "Wantrepreneur" to Entrepreneur

When asked if the nature of business questions has evolved in recent years, Hormozi notes that the fundamental friction remains unchanged: people spend months "thinking" about starting a business without taking action. To overcome this paralysis, founders must strip away the vague, intimidating idea of starting a business and execute four basic administrative actions.

``` 4 STEPS TO BECOME AN ENTREPRENEUR TODAY ┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ 1. Register an LLC │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 2. Open a business bank account │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 3. Set up payment processing │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 4. Ask a stranger for money for a service│ └─────────────────────────────────────────┘ ```

Completing these four steps shifts an individual's identity from a passive consumer to an active business owner. Just as a free subscriber transforms their behavior the moment they become a paying customer, an aspiring founder transforms their mindset the moment they process their first dollar from a stranger.

- **Overcoming Procrastination:** Waiting for a single insight to make starting easy is a trap. Action must precede confidence. - **The Power of Identity Shifts:** Crossing the line from non-buyer to buyer—or non-owner to owner—permanently alters decision-making and makes future growth far easier.

> "As soon as you do those four things, congratulations, you're a business owner. You've already beaten like 95% of people... and you've also changed your title from wantrepreneur to entrepreneur."

[25:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=1528s) Making Your First Dollar and Overcoming Fear

Alex Hormozi emphasizes that the fundamental objective for any aspiring entrepreneur is simply to earn their very first dollar. Once someone experiences that initial transaction, the concept of business stops being abstract—it shifts from confusion to a clear, tangible mechanism: building something or offering a service, getting paid, and then figuring out how to scale it. Addressing what advice he would whisper to his younger self starting out, Alex admits he hopes a future version of himself would say nothing at all, because that would mean everything turned out as it should. However, for those stuck at the starting line, the critical mindset shift comes down to deciding whose version of your life you care about more—your own desired future or someone else's expectations.

The primary barrier for most beginning entrepreneurs is fear of the unknown, which is completely justified given the real risks involved. However, Alex points out that every successful founder started in that exact same state of uncertainty. Rather than needing to see the entire path up the mountain, an entrepreneur only needs to focus on taking the next few visible steps as the fog gradually clears. Seeking absolute certainty from a world that offers none will keep people trapped at a "local maximum"—holding onto a modest, comfortable position out of fear of losing it, even though staying on that current path guarantees they will never achieve what they truly want.

- Fear and confusion only thrive in the vague; defining worst-case scenarios specifically eliminates catastrophic overthinking. - Embracing the initial awkwardness and being willing to "be cringe" is mandatory, because no one starts out looking polished or competent. - Extreme frugality provides a longer runway: Alex once lived in a house with six people, paying $400 a month to sleep on a mattress on the floor of a shared bedroom to minimize his living expenses.

[30:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=1849s) Navigating Uncertainty and Whose Voice You Care About

Reflecting on the nature of growth, Alex and host Steven Bartlett discuss how uncertainty never disappears—it actually scales alongside success. While beginners face straightforward, universal setup steps like registering an entity, setting up a bank account, and securing a payment processor, established founders are confronted with an expanding set of choices. Steven likens scaling a business to walking through a sequence of cryptically labeled doors, where opening one successful door unlocks ten or twenty more decisions rather than fewer. Success does not remove ambiguity; it expands optionality and increases the weight of decision-making.

``` [ Starting Point ] │ ▼ ┌──────────────────────┐ │ Legal Entity Setup │ │ Bank Account │ │ Payment Processor │ └──────────┬───────────┘ │ ▼ [ First Business Steps ] / │ \ ▼ ▼ ▼ ┌─────┐ ┌─────┐ ┌─────┐ │Door │ │Door │ │Door │ ◄── Increasing Optionality & Complexity └──┬──┘ └──┬──┘ └──┬──┘ / \ / \ / \ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ```

Alex points out that when people hesitate to take action, it is rarely due to a lack of practical knowledge. Instead, it usually stems from fear of disappointing or being judged by specific individuals in their life. By moving away from the vague idea of "what people will think" and explicitly naming the handful of people whose opinions hold them back, entrepreneurs can confront who is actually controlling their decisions.

- When Alex was preparing to sell his company Gym Launch, he realized he briefly hesitated because he worried an acquaintance in his circle wouldn't view a $46 million sale as "enough money" or legitimate. - Realizing that letting someone else's opinion dictate your major life decisions is equivalent to letting them control you provides the clarity needed to prioritize self-approval over external validation.

[33:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=2033s) Delaying the Jump and the Secret Half-Country Drive

Opening up about his personal backstory, Alex dispels the myth that he was always a bold risk-taker. Prior to taking the leap into entrepreneurship, he spent six agonizing months hesitating while working a corporate management consulting job. He had rehearsed a canned answer about going to business school before eventually launching a business. However, when evaluating the Chicago Booth MBA application question asking how the degree would serve his long-term goals, he ran first-principles math: taking on $60,000 a year in tuition while forfeiting two years of income equaled an opportunity cost of roughly $240,000. He decided he could reach his financial goals faster by taking his savings and launching a business directly.

During the low seasons at his consulting job, Alex read a self-help book every two days, only to realize his life remained completely unchanged because reading without taking action yields no transformation. He spent hours pacing his small apartment late at night on the phone with a friend, wearing down the fur on an IKEA cowhide rug while debating business ideas. Every time he brought up quitting his job to his father, his dad persuaded him to stay on the traditional path—graduating from Vanderbilt University in three years, doing corporate work, and heading to a top-tier Ivy League business school.

> "I acted with such cowardice that I had to drive halfway across the country before I could call my dad to tell him that I had quit my job and that I was going to start a business, because I knew that if I had done it while he was there, he would talk me out of it."

[36:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=2198s) Lessons and Legacy from Alex's Father

Alex contextualizes his father's cautious mindset by sharing his father's extraordinary immigrant journey. Having fled the Iranian Revolution, his father moved to France to attend medical school without speaking French, failing two consecutive years of organic chemistry before relocating to Belgium to start over. After successfully finishing medical school and marrying Alex's mother, they moved to the United States. Because his foreign medical degree wasn't recognized, his father spent two years running X-ray slides before securing a residency.

When his father decided to start a private practice in Baltimore rather than joining an established family clinic, he faced a $250,000 quote to construct a accredited outpatient surgery center. Lacking the funds, he read the legal construction specs, went to Home Depot, purchased the materials, and built the surgery center with his own hands to pass inspection. Shortly after the practice began succeeding, his parents underwent an acrimonious divorce, resulting in the locks being changed and his father having to start over once again from scratch. Knowing how hard-fought his family's financial stability was explains why his father viewed Alex leaving a prestigious career as an unreasonable gamble.

[38:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=2313s) The Desperate Need to Prove Yourself and the Fear of "Winning the Lottery"

Alex Hormozi reflects on a conversation with a mentor who reminded him that two years of intense anxiety about moving fast enough is practically nothing in the span of a 30-year career. Despite that wise perspective, Hormozi admits that early in his journey, he was driven by a desperate, burning desire to prove to his father, himself, and the world that he could achieve success strictly on his own merits.

To illustrate this psychological drive, he recalls a striking memory from his college days. He bought a lottery ticket when the jackpot hit nearly a billion dollars, but right before the winning numbers were drawn, he was overcome with pure terror. He realized that if he won a billion dollars overnight, he would never be able to prove to himself or anyone else that he had the actual "metal"—the grit, competence, and stamina—to build something from scratch. He notes with a laugh that while he would happily accept a billion dollars today, it is only because he has already established a proven track record and built his status through hard work. This same psychological need for complete ownership is why he refused to take out loans when launching his first business, choosing instead to bootstrap it entirely with his own saved money.

- **Perspective on time:** A year or two feels monumental when you are young, but it fades into irrelevance over a 20- to 30-year career horizon. - **Bootstrapping over leverage:** Hormozi chose to rely entirely on his personal savings rather than debt or outside capital to guarantee that any resulting success was undeniably his.

---

[39:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=2395s) How to Know If Entrepreneurship Is Right for You

Steven Bartlett raises a fundamental concern about business creators and influencers: by constantly promoting entrepreneurship, are they unintentionally leading people astray? Some people are far better suited to being great employees or working within established organizations, yet content creators often make business ownership seem like the only valid path.

``` ┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ THE TWO CRITICAL FRAMES │ └────────────────────┬────────────────────┘ │ ┌──────────────────────────┴──────────────────────────┐ ▼ ▼ ┌──────────────────────┐ ┌──────────────────────┐ │ 1. Specific Goals │ │ 2. Daily Execution │ │ Define EXACT outcome │ │ What actually changes│ │ beyond generic terms│ │ in your daily life? │ └──────────────────────┘ └──────────────────────┘ ```

To illustrate the subjective nature of career fulfillment, Bartlett shares an anecdote about a producer who had worked behind the scenes on *The Diary Of A CEO* for seven years, traveling the world with him from his kitchen table days to global sets. When Bartlett asked the producer, "Do you think I'm happy?" the producer immediately said yes. But when asked, "Would you want my life?" the producer violently and defensively exclaimed, "No!" The producer recognized that while Bartlett is happy, the intense stress, pressure, and lifestyle of an entrepreneur would be miserable for him.

Hormozi responds by outlining a practical framework for anyone evaluating whether entrepreneurship fits their life:

1. **Define the specific goal:** People often offer vague answers like "I want freedom," but goals must be grounded in precise, observable realities. 2. **Examine daily execution:** Determine what that goal actually changes about your day-to-day life and whether you actually enjoy those daily tasks.

---

[41:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=2500s) Beating Decision Fatigue and the Myth of "Option Maxing"

Addressing the common desire for "freedom," Hormozi points out a massive paradox: business owners are frequently the least free people in existence. The obsession with keeping all options open—what he calls "options maxing"—prevents true achievement. The richest and most fulfilling parts of life only occur *after* you exercise an option, walk through a specific door, and deliberately shut the other doors behind you.

Hormozi explains that the root cause of paralysis for both aspiring and seasoned entrepreneurs is sitting at the crossroads of unmade decisions. Unmade decisions linger indefinitely and drain mental energy. In contrast, making a definitive choice puts you into an active feedback loop where you test, learn, and adjust.

> "The secret to getting a life you want is making a commitment. But you will not get all lives you want... At some point you have to sit at the precipice and you have to make a trade."

* **The trap of options maxing:** Trying to maintain maximum flexibility prevents deep commitment to a single direction. * **Unmade decisions as an energy drain:** Delays in choosing a business model, target audience, or product create perpetual friction. * **Trial loops:** Taking action converts uncertainty into concrete data, allowing rapid iteration.

---

[43:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=2588s) Is It Easier to Start a Business Today?

Bartlett points out that the under-30 generation has grown up in a personal branding era where anyone can launch a business, leverage AI tools, or monetise content on platforms like LinkedIn. He highlights US data showing a dramatic, continuous post-COVID spike in new business applications per quarter.

Hormozi agrees that lower barriers to entry and universal access to information have pushed far more people across the starting line. However, he emphasizes that entrepreneurship remains rare relative to the total population because of a fundamental law of human motivation:

``` MOTIVATIONAL FORCE BALANCE

CURRENT POSITION NEW PATH ┌────────────────────┐ ┌────────────────────┐ │ Pleasure / Safety │ │ Potential │ │ (Carrots inside) │ │ Upside │ └─────────┬──────────┘ └─────────▲──────────┘ │ │ ▼ │ ═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ ▲ │ │ │ ┌─────────┴──────────┐ ┌─────────┴──────────┐ │ Pain / Stress │ ── Pain of Change ─► │ Pain of Staying│ │ (Sticks inside) │ Must Be LESS Than │ the Same │ └────────────────────┘ └────────────────────┘ ```

Invoking a classic Tony Robbins dynamic, Hormozi explains that people only take radical action when the pain of staying the same becomes greater than the pain of changing. Most people stay in comfortable jobs because they have too many "carrots" (stability, perks) keeping them in place and not enough "sticks" driving them out.

---

[46:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=2806s) Hard Problems vs. High-Value Opportunities

Bartlett asks whether life rewards individuals proportionally to the difficulty of the problems they solve. Hormozi rejects this straightforward linear idea, stressing two vital distinctions:

1. **Difficulty does not equal value:** Running a marathon is extremely difficult, but it generates zero direct revenue. You can spend years solving an extraordinarily complex technical problem that nobody is willing to pay for. 2. **Goal scale dictates required complexity:** If your objective is simply to become a millionaire, you do not need to solve groundbreaking or difficult problems. You just need to execute basic operations slightly better than local competitors who neglect their customers.

> "You can just have a pool cleaning business that just cleans better than the other guy and like shows up on time... all you got to do is knock on doors."

- **The Service Advantage:** Simple trades—like cleaning pools, servicing HVAC units, or plumbing—offer reliable paths to wealth because existing operators often suffer from poor customer communication and unreliability. - **Customer Care as a Moat:** In low-complexity service niches, basic operational discipline (showing up on time, answering calls) beats technical innovation.

---

[47:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=2851s) Why "Reality" Is the Ultimate Moat in an AI-Slop World

Addressing the massive influx of AI-generated content—what Bartlett terms a "tsunami of slop"—the hosts debate where competitive advantages lie when tools allow anyone anywhere to produce video, text, and graphics effortlessly. Social media consumption is plateauing or dropping among younger demographics while content supply is skyrocketing, diluting the value of standard posts.

Hormozi argues that in an era of infinite AI generation, **reality and reputation are the only remaining moats**.

``` ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ THE CONTENT MOAT │ ├───────────────────────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────┤ │ SYNTHETIC / AI SLOP │ REALITY-BASED MOAT │ ├───────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────┤ │ • Infinite, zero-cost supply │ • Verifiable real-world track record │ │ • Replicable quotes & concepts │ • Uncopyable physical stakes (IRL) │ │ • Low trust & declining value │ • High credibility & status │ └───────────────────────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────┘ ```

To prove his point, Hormozi points out that the world's most influential business commentators are figures like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Warren Buffett. If a schoolteacher in Des Moines quotes Warren Buffett word-for-word—or even offers slightly superior financial advice—they will never command Buffett's audience. The teacher forgot to build Berkshire Hathaway over a 60-year period. Real-world execution gives weight to words.

* **Fictional vs. Educational Content:** Fictional media will feel the disruptive shock of AI creation much harder than high-stakes educational content. * **The Curator/Standard Holder:** As AI tool adoption grows, human judgment is still required to filter low-quality output and maintain strict caliber control.

---

[49:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=2998s) How Alex Hormozi Is Future-Proofing His Content Strategy

Hormozi reveals how he has restructured his personal media strategy to withstand AI saturation and algorithmic shifts. Instead of producing generic advice videos, he double-downs exclusively on formats that only he can execute:

* **Live, In-Person Advisory:** Hosting hundreds of active business owners generating $500k to $10M+ in annual revenue who fly out in person to get real-time problem-solving on their actual operations. * **Real-World Stakes (IRL):** Launching shows like *Scale or Fail*, which feature real entrepreneurs risking real money and equity on camera.

Hormozi maps content along a spectrum defined by consumer execution risk:

``` LOW RISK HIGH RISK ◄────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────► Beauty / Makeup Tutorials Personal Finance Enterprise Business (Low risk if tip fails) (Dave Ramsey, Vivian Tu) (High stakes, proven track record needed) ```

In low-risk niches like beauty tutorials, viewers readily accept tips from AI avatars or unverified creators. But as you move toward high-stakes decisions like personal finance (e.g., Dave Ramsey's $300M/year media empire) or scaling multi-million dollar corporations, audiences demand verifiable, real-world proof that the speaker has actually done what they teach.

[52:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=3165s) Why Credibility and Proof of Effort Are the Ultimate Moats

Alex Hormozi highlights how the stakes of a business decision shape where people seek advice. In high-stakes environments—where a wrong call can ruin an entire company rather than just waste a day's worth of makeup—buyers and founders double down on the source's credibility. Host Steven Bartlett connects this directly to his own production philosophy for *The Diary Of A CEO*, emphasizing the twin pillars of content strategy: being **hard** and **scarce**. While anyone can leverage large language models to pump out quick videos, building a moat requires undertaking production feats that are extraordinarily difficult to replicate—like setting up a nine-camera studio shoot or securing top-tier guests like Alex Hormozi, Michelle Obama, or JD Vance. Hormozi notes that his ability to draw over 100 top-tier entrepreneurs to a private event in Las Vegas stems directly from real-world proof: running a portfolio generating over $250 million annually and owning a billion-dollar company like Skool, rather than just having a one-time $46 million exit.

``` THE CONTENT PROOF SPECTRUM

PROOF OF EFFORT PROOF OF OUTCOME (Starting / Low Capital) (Established / High Capital) ────────────────────── ─────────────────────────── • Raw work & time input • Real-world track record • Documenting the grind • Scale & revenue metrics • "Counting to 1,000,000" • "$250M+ portfolio" ```

To illustrate the opposite end of the spectrum, Hormozi warns creators and entrepreneurs to stay away from "commoditized tips and tricks" delivered without proof. When educational content lacks evidence of real-world results, viewers immediately face what he calls the "big wispy question: *Why should I listen to you?*" If a creator cannot answer that instantly, audiences default to proven authorities like Warren Buffett, where listening requires far less cognitive effort because their authority is unquestioned. For beginners who lack a long track record, Hormozi advises relying on **proof of effort**—citing MrBeast’s (Jimmy Donaldson) early viral success counting to a million. If you are starting out in sales, for example, record your entire 12-hour day, taking 22 calls with real stakes, and compress the best three minutes of real tactical breakthroughs into a single video.

* **Time Compression:** The primary value authority content offers is time compression—offering a "good deal" by distilling 14 years of painful business lessons into a 37-minute conversation. * **The "Wispy" Barrier:** Audiences naturally doubt unproven claims; without proof of outcome or proof of effort, viewers switch off immediately.

---

[56:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=3381s) The Value Equation Explained

Steven recalls recognizing an almost identical framework in Hormozi's books to one he had used years earlier when working with massive corporate clients like Uber and Coca-Cola. Hormozi breaks down the core **Value Equation**, which dictates how products, services, and even content are perceived and priced by consumers:

$$\text{Value} = \frac{\text{Dream Outcome} \times \text{Perceived Likelihood of Achievement}}{\text{Time Delay} \times \text{Effort \& Sacrifice}}$$

Hormozi carefully distinguishes between the elements of the denominator. **Effort** consists of the new actions you must start taking that you don't want to do (e.g., waking up early, eating unfamiliar foods, dealing with physical soreness), whereas **Sacrifice** encompasses all the enjoyable things you must stop doing (e.g., sleeping in, eating junk food).

``` DREAM OUTCOME (What you get: Wealth, Health) × PERCEIVED LIKELIHOOD OF ACHIEVEMENT (Trust, Proof, Guarantees) VALUE = -------------------------------------------------- TIME DELAY (Speed to get the result) × EFFORT & SACRIFICE (What you must start doing / stop doing) ```

To show how the variables dynamically shift value, Hormozi compares buying a $19 fitness PDF to hiring a $3,000-a-month personal trainer for three weekly in-person sessions:

Hormozi identifies **Time Delay** as the single most under-appreciated growth lever in business. If you want to disrupt an entire industry, simply examine what established competitors do and deliver the exact same outcome in half the time.

---

[59:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=3567s) Betting on What Doesn't Change & Delayed Gratification

The conversation turns to long-term business strategy, where Hormozi highlights Jeff Bezos’s famous core doctrine: instead of constantly guessing what will change in the future, figure out what will **never change** and bet heavily on those pillars. For Amazon, customers will always want lower prices, broader selection, and faster delivery 10 years from now. In terms of the Value Equation, Amazon's one-click purchasing eliminates effort, near-instant delivery minimizes time delay, and millions of 5-star reviews drive the perceived likelihood of achievement to near certainty.

Hormozi notes a fundamental flaw in human psychology: "People will abstract the value of a positive future outcome to zero if it is long enough in the future." Even when an outcome is virtually guaranteed—such as becoming wealthy by consistently investing $100 to $200 a week into an index fund over 30 or 40 years—the immediate satisfaction of buying a latte today overrides the long-term compounding return.

> "There are mistakes of picking the wrong path, but I think there are more mistakes of abandoning the right path."

* **Unteachable Lessons:** Concepts like consistency, patience, and focus are nearly impossible to observe externally. As Hormozi's business partner Shiran points out, "People only see the choices you made, not the options you had." * **The Casino Analogy:** Quoting casino mogul Steve Wynn, Hormozi explains that the best thing for a first-time gambler is to bet big and win immediately, creating a powerful reinforcing loop. Hormozi's ultimate wish for young entrepreneurs is that they experience a early "jackpot" explicitly tied to delayed gratification and sustained effort. * **The Compounding Curve:** Steven shares his own journey on Instagram and podcasting—posting 1,000 times on Instagram to reach 1,000 followers, before gaining 300,000 followers across just three carousel posts once momentum kicked in. After running *The Diary Of A CEO* for 3 years with minimal traction, growth suddenly went vertical, validating that success is always "slow, then fast."

---

[01:04:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=3867s) When to Push vs. When to Pivot

When asked how an entrepreneur can determine whether they should stick to a difficult path or pivot, Hormozi offers a clean framework for resolving one of business's hardest unanswerable questions:

* **When to Pivot:** Change direction if a **fundamental core thesis or assumption** underlying your business model has been tested and explicitly proven false through actual market activities. * **When to Push:** If your initial core thesis remains intact, but results are simply taking longer or requiring more effort than anticipated, double down and push through.

Steven adds that the essence of being a founder means moving forward before the world provides clear evidence—much like the early pioneers of reusable rockets. A founder must operate on internal conviction before market consensus catches up, continuously evaluating if they are offering a rare, valuable outcome to a dedicated audience.

Here is a detailed, faithful walkthrough covering this part of the conversation:

[01:05:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=3952s) The Power of Unscalable Business Models and Delivering Scarce Value

Steven Bartlett shares an anecdote from the early days of *The Diary Of A CEO*. Back when he was making Facebook videos that routinely hit 33 million views, nobody in his social or professional circles brought them up or treated him any differently. However, when he started a bare-bones podcast from his bedroom using a $100 Apple microphone and GarageBand, the reaction from his closest friends, Ash and Oliver, changed completely. When Steven missed a weekly upload, Oliver explicitly came to his office to ask when the next episode was coming out. That immediate demand proved he was delivering true, scarce value. That realization now drives how Steven bets on the future: focusing obsessively on scarce value, even if the delivery mechanism seems completely unscalable at first.

Alex Hormozi strongly agrees and points out a major mistake made by broke, early-stage entrepreneurs who refuse to do tasks because "they don't scale." Alex emphasizes that when starting out, it is fine to do unscalable things just to make money and generate cash flow. Furthermore, it assumes that your future self—equipped with more skills, experience, and capital—won't be able to figure out how to scale it later. When designing a business offer, Alex advises entrepreneurs not to sell out of their own wallets. Instead, start by creating the most absurdly high-value service imaginable: take the price you want to charge, add one or two zeros, and list everything you would have to do to make it worth that astronomical price (for example, driving a fitness client to the gym, grocery shopping for them, and cooking their meals for $100,000). You only need a handful of high-paying clients to build a massive cash-flowing foundation.

Doing unscalable, high-ticket work provides critical strategic advantages. First, high-paying clients are often wealthier and more sophisticated, and interacting with them forces an entrepreneur to adopt a broader, elevated worldview—much like golf caddies learning from millionaires on the course. Second, executing unscalable work hands you rich, real-world data that cannot be replicated through pure thought experiments. From a brand positioning standpoint, anchoring high with premium, private clients establishes you as an authority on the hill, allowing you to later introduce accessible, scalable products to the masses, exactly like Tesla's progression from the high-end Roadster down to the Model S and Model 3.

- Steven's first podcast setup: A $100 microphone plugged into GarageBand, edited by himself in his bedroom. - Alex’s high-ticket offer exercise: Take your baseline price, add one or two zeros to it, and map out every high-touch service needed to justify that price. - Strategic benefits of unscalable high-ticket offers: Immediate high margins, elevated client feedback, rich real-world data, and a top-down brand anchor (the "Tesla model").

---

[01:10:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=4206s) Solving Tomorrow's Problems with Future Resources

Steven Bartlett highlights the unscalable backend magic currently happening behind the scenes on *The Diary Of A CEO* set. While the interview is being recorded, a dedicated team is actively printing Polaroid photos of Alex and Steven, gathering quotes from fans of their previous episode, and assembling a custom physical book for Steven to sign and gift to Alex before he leaves. Simultaneously, the team runs 300 real-time ad variations to split-test Alex's name and intro framing. This complex operation stands in stark contrast to Steven editing raw audio on GarageBand years prior, illustrating how solving seemingly unscalable problems creates compounding enterprise value.

Alex frames this trap as a common psychological fallacy: attempting to solve tomorrow's problems using today's limited resources. Beginners paralyze themselves because they lack the money, connections, skills, and track record that their future self will possess. As long as an entrepreneur doesn't quit, stays locked into the feedback loop, and continually iterates over a long enough time horizon, winning is inevitable. Steven clarifies that this doesn't mean stubbornly pushing a proven bad idea—such as trying to sell doggy skateboards after 100 dog owners explicitly reject the product. Rather, it means quitting local bad tactics while remaining committed to the global pursuit of entrepreneurship.

- Real-time studio operations: Producing a custom signed book during the interview and split-testing 300 ad variations for episode titles and guest introductions. - The fundamental rule of business longevity: Iterate based on feedback; distinguish between quitting a bad local idea (e.g., doggy skateboards) versus quitting the global goal of building a business. - Reframing failure: Minor operational setbacks—failed headlines, lost hard drives, muted microphones—are simply necessary data points on the path to long-term success.

---

[01:12:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=4334s) Sponsor Break: Fiverr Pro

Steven Bartlett highlights the critical need for modern businesses to move fast without over-inflating their headcount. High-performing companies maintain agility by bringing in specialized, vetted talent for emerging domains such as AI-native strategy, no-code developments, and specialized product workflows. Steven notes that his own company relies on Fiverr Pro to access pre-vetted specialists who deliver to internal team standards while keeping pace with rapid execution requirements.

---

[01:13:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=4394s) Cultivating Self-Awareness, Behaviorism, and the Scale of Effort

Steven and Alex explore why self-awareness and solid judgment are so rare in business. Steven observes how aspiring entrepreneurs often approach him with grandiose claims—like wanting to build a space company—despite lacking any baseline domain competence or realistic grasp of reality. Alex explains that when your actions fail to produce your desired outcomes, your mental model of reality is fundamentally flawed. To build an accurate worldview, Alex relies on the principles of **behaviorism** and **operant conditioning**—the same reinforcement training framework used to train both human behavior and modern artificial intelligence models.

To illustrate how to manipulate conditions rather than relying on sheer persuasion, Alex shares a vivid analogy of a nurse trying to get a stubborn grandfather to take his mandatory medicine:

> "The nurse is at home with me and she's going to try and give grandpa the pill. And he says, 'It tastes like... I don't want to have it.' He just brushes her away. She comes back, she throws her hands up and she's like, 'You lead a horse to water, you can't make it drink.' Right? The operationalist or the behaviorist would say, 'No, you've made many other options the more likely option than taking the pill.' And so what we need to do is make the pill the nicest and easiest option available to him."

Alex details the behavioral setup: crush the pill into ice-cold lemonade, set out a bowl of salty peanuts, bring out a backgammon board, and tell grandpa he can play a game if he finishes the drink. By arranging environmental conditions, taking the pill becomes the most attractive path forward. Applied to business, successful founders succeed because the volume and attack vectors they launch to solve a problem are orders of magnitude greater than what beginners attempt. Alex recalls an early business mentor advising him to distribute flyers for his gym. Alex put out 300 flyers, got zero clients (and one angry call about a dinged car), and complained that flyers didn't work. His mentor revealed that his chain distributed 5,000 flyers per test batch, followed by 3,000 flyers every single day—totalling 150,000 flyers a month. Realizing the actual volume required was 100 to 500 times greater than his initial effort reshaped Alex's understanding of work ethic and operational scale.

- **Operant Conditioning / Behaviorism:** The core psychological framework Alex uses to align mental models with base reality and drive human action. - The Flyer Experiment: Alex tested 300 flyers; his mentor's baseline was 5,000 per test batch and 150,000 per month across 22 locations. - **Doing and Listening Simultaneously:** True self-awareness is built by actively executing, collecting painful real-world feedback data, and tuning your actions accordingly rather than passively consuming business books.

[01:18:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=4700s) How Incentives Drive Human Behavior and Marketing

Understanding human behavior comes down to a deceptively simple truth: people do not act outside of their incentives unless they are broken or pushing against societal bounds. Whether managing a corporate team or converting potential customers, the fundamental question must always be: *what are the underlying incentives driving their current decisions?* If a customer refuses to buy or an employee rejects a new process, it simply means buying or adopting that change has not been made the most convenient or appealing option available.

To write high-converting copy and structure compelling marketing, Alex Hormozi utilizes a direct four-part incentive framework based on positive and negative outcomes: * **Do the action $\rightarrow$ Get more good stuff** (e.g., join a fitness program, gain energy and longevity). * **Don't do the action $\rightarrow$ Get more bad stuff** (e.g., skip the program, face increasing health issues). * **Don't do the action $\rightarrow$ Get less good stuff** (e.g., lose out on active quality time with your children). * **Do the action $\rightarrow$ Get less bad stuff** (e.g., buy the solution, eliminate chronic pain or stress).

By constantly ping-ponging between these persuasive levers, marketers trigger deep emotional resonance—including the desire for approval from loved ones. Similarly, when leading large teams, simply demanding that employees adopt new tools like AI rarely works unless their daily incentive structure is altered to align with that task. Legendary copywriter Gary Halbert famously captured this nuance: marketers do not need to create demand out of thin air; they simply need to channel the massive stream of existing demand and direct a portion of it toward their product.

---

[01:21:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=4915s) Choosing the Right Market and Niching Down

When launching a new venture, the immediate goal is simple: get anyone to hand over money. Accepting payment from a stranger officially qualifies you as an entrepreneur. In the service sector—which accounts for nearly 80% of businesses in the US—founders typically start by taking on any client with "a pulse and a credit card." While taking whatever comes along is necessary for early survival, attempting to serve everyone quickly creates an operational bottleneck.

``` [ Phase 1: Survival ] [ Phase 2: Scale ($1M-$3M) ] Say YES to every paying client Niche down to 1 ideal customer avatar ------------------------------ ------------------------------------ • Complex, custom operations • Templatized, repeatable delivery • Diffused marketing message • Targeted, high-converting offer • High stress & low margins • Higher pricing & better retention ```

Between $1 million and $3 million in revenue, businesses face a critical fork in the road. To scale efficiently, founders must analyze their customer base and narrow their focus to the single avatar that pays the most with the least amount of friction. Switching from a generic position like "podcast agency for everyone" to a specialized position like "podcast agency helping doctors acquire patients" radically simplifies fulfillment. Instead of crafting ten customized solutions for ten different clients, the business delivers one standardized, highly scalable solution to ten identical clients.

* **Service sector market share:** Roughly 78% to 80% of US businesses are service-based. * **The Scaling Pivot:** Narrowing focus usually happens between $1M and $3M in revenue to transition from survival to streamlined efficiency.

---

[01:23:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=5019s) Identifying Unbeatable Business Opportunities

While automated AI agency models are currently popular, long-term success lies in betting on timeless human needs. Opportunities that endure tend to fall into distinct categories:

* **Beauty and Longevity:** The fundamental desire to look attractive and stay young is permanent. Med spas, peptide treatments, and longevity clinics are experiencing massive supply-demand imbalances and generating extraordinary returns. * **Wealth Management and Financial Risk:** Financial services and insurance thrive because individuals and institutions will always seek to fractionalize and transfer risk. * **Unsexy or Disliked Industries:** Businesses in unglamorous sectors—such as waste management, septic services, or specialized senior care disposal—carry an inherent "reputation discount." Because few people dream of entering these uncool spaces, competition is drastically lower, allowing disciplined operators to build massive fortunes.

A common trap for talented operators is staying trapped in a low-margin, operationally complex vehicle. For instance, scaling a service-based gym (focused on personal or semi-private training) requires managing dozens of low-skilled workers and maintaining delicate cultures for modest returns. Taking that exact same operational talent and applying it to a higher-margin, scalable industry instantly yields far higher financial rewards.

---

[01:26:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=5202s) The Wealth Distribution Realities of Moving Upmarket

A frequent mistake among beginner entrepreneurs is targeting broke customers simply because those are the people in their immediate network. To illustrate this mismatch, Hormozi breaks down total US wealth using a $100 model:

| Wealth Percentile Group | Share of Total Wealth (out of $100) | |:--- |:--- | | **Bottom 50%** | ~$2.00 | | **Next 40%** | ~$27.00 | | **Next 9%** | ~$36.00 | | **Top 1%** | ~$31.00 |

Selling to the bottom 50% creates a false perception that "nobody has money." Furthermore, working with low-budget clients is often far more stressful than serving enterprise clients. A cash-strapped startup founder spending a $10,000 budget will micro-manage every single detail because their personal livelihood is on the line. Conversely, a corporate client like Coca-Cola handing out six-figure budgets is significantly easier to manage operationally, provided the seller has built the necessary credibility and track record to earn the meeting.

> "Price is such a strong signal for value... If someone comes to me and says, 'Hey, I want to do all of your social media management for $2,000 a month,' I'm like, 'Dude, you can't even handle me.'"

In service businesses, price directly correlates with the maturity of the owner. When demand exceeds capacity, raising prices balances the equation while filtering for higher-quality clients, expanding profit margins, and signaling premium quality. Premium clients often view low prices as a red flag, assuming a cheap provider lacks the capacity or sophistication to execute at a high level.

### Price Testing and the Van Westendorp Analysis Alex explains how to determine optimal product pricing using the **Van Westendorp Price Sensitivity Meter**. By asking consumers four specific questions—concerning prices that are too expensive, too cheap (losing credibility), right on the edge, and absolute bargains—founders can plot the data and run an analysis. He mentions that while he used to do these calculations manually, founders can now feed the data into an AI tool and get comprehensive pricing curves in about six minutes.

The resulting data yields four critical pricing points on a graph, including the point of **marginal cheapness** where consumers suspect the product's quality. Hormozi notes that the price response often forms a bell curve, but can occasionally result in **double gaussians** due to distinct customer segments. By collecting customer demographics alongside the price survey, a business can precisely slice the data to discover different pricing curves for high-income versus low-income buyers.

---

### Treating Employees and Customers Through the Same Pipeline Shifting to core business concepts, Alex breaks down his philosophy that **every business problem is ultimately a marketing problem**. Whether a company is demand-constrained (needing more customers) or supply-constrained (needing more staff or operational capacity), the structural pipeline remains identical. Just as a customer funnel moves through lead generation, nurture, sales, onboarding, and retention/ascension, the talent acquisition pipeline follows the exact same stages: application generation, application nurture, interviews (sales), employee onboarding, retention, and career ascension.

Hormozi expresses horror at how poorly established businesses handle outbound messaging, job postings, and lead nurturing. He highlights that companies should invest in the same level of marketing polish for prospective employees as they do for paying clients. For instance, acquisition.com uses a 13-minute video sales letter (VSL) that breaks down how the business works, features employee testimonials, and builds complete proof for prospective hires.

* **Demand vs. Supply Constraints:** Roughly 70% of businesses coming through their doors are demand-constrained, while 30% are supply-constrained. * **The Employee Pipeline:** Treat candidates and employees with the same systematic rigor as customers by utilizing scripted interviews, roleplaying, and structured 30-60-90 day onboarding plans. * **The Ultimate Retention Question:** One of Hormozi's favorite management tactics is asking valued employees or key enterprise accounts, "What would it take for us to work together forever?" and then shifting pieces to lock in long-term exclusivity.

---

### The Power of Massive Referral Incentives and Elite Talent To illustrate the multiplier effect of proper incentives, Alex shares a story about a friend running a $10 million agency business who spoke with a mentor in the same space. The friend was offering agents a measly $500 referral bonus for bringing in new talent, despite a productive agent generating $250,000 in annual gross profit. When the mentor asked why he was spending only $500 to make a quarter-million dollars, the friend raised the referral incentive to $25,000, which helped scale the company from **$10 million to $400 million**.

Hormozi reflects on how his own standards for talent have radically increased over time, noting that his tolerance for letting mediocre people stay has plummeted. He shares an anecdote from a billionaire founder of a $100 billion publicly traded company who stated that at age 20 he thought hiring mattered, at 30 he thought it was important, and at 40 he realized it is **the single most important thing** in business.

---

### Choosing a Romantic Partner and Financial Success Transitioning into broader relationship advice, Hormozi declares that the best and worst decisions in life always come down to people. Prompted by a photo of his wife Leila on set, he reflects on the massive variance in life outcomes determined by your choice of partner. He calls marrying Leila **"the single best financial decision that I ever made."** He explains that Leila believed in him during the early days when he was just a 26-year-old gym owner with a handful of locations, providing unwavering support even when he doubted himself. Rather than struggling with baseline anxiety, Alex admits he occasionally struggles with **apathy**—asking himself why he should bother continuing when they already have enough money. He credits Leila with having bigger dreams, keeping his foot on the gas, and focusing deeply on building an incredible workplace culture.

* **The Battle Analogy:** Hormozi describes early business as "fighting a bear with your bare hands," whereas later-stage business is like "trying to slay a dragon, but at least you have an army." You only earn the right to face larger foes by surviving the scrappy early stages. * **Operational Leadership:** Hormozi praises Leila as a "pure operator" and brilliant leader, noting that without her operational prowess and dedication to the team, his trajectory and the company's success would look entirely different.

By the way, to unlock the full functionality of all Apps, enable [Gemini Apps Activity](https://myactivity.google.com/product/gemini).

[01:44:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=6274s) Aligning Conditions vs. Maximizing Happiness

Alex Hormozi reflects on the essential role his wife, Leila, plays in his success, admitting that without her, he would not have kept his "foot on the gas" or been able to operate a business as complex as their current enterprise. During the inevitable troughs in his motivation, she was the one who carried him. This prompts Steven Bartlett to raise a common dilemma for listeners: what should someone do if their partner is unsupportive or even actively opposed to their ambitions? Bartlett notes the tragic scenario where a founder dumps their partner, achieves massive business success over two or three years, and ends up wealthy but terribly lonely in a mansion, realizing too late that their drive was fueled by insecurity or shame and that they abandoned a good person.

Hormozi clarifies that his advice specifically addresses how to align conditions to maximize *business outcomes*, whereas maximizing subjective well-being and personal happiness requires completely different factors. To illustrate this distinction, he cites a favorite visual example from author Arthur Brooks:

> Imagine driving a brand-new Ferrari to a three-star Michelin restaurant, sitting alone in a corner booth eating the best food in the world, versus piling into a beat-up Toyota Camry with your five best friends to go to a Denny's. Which one are you going to enjoy more?

While it is obvious that piling into the Camry to go to Denny's brings more joy, most people structure their lives pursuing the solitary Ferrari path. Hormozi emphasizes that no partner is perfect because no person is perfect; it comes down to which trade-offs you are willing to accept. A partner might not actively support your career, but they might strongly support your subjective well-being, your hobbies, or your spiritual journey.

- **Arthur Brooks' Thought Experiment**: Compares solitary high-status luxury (Ferrari to a three-star Michelin restaurant alone) against shared low-status connection (beat-up Camry to Denny's with five best friends). - **Evaluating Relationships**: Success in personal life requires understanding what "stats" or trade-offs you are willing to accept in a partner, rather than expecting total perfection.

---

[01:47:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=6458s) Figuring Out What You Really Want

Hormozi recalls a powerful lesson from his former boss, who told him that figuring out what you want is 99% of the work, while the execution part is relatively easy. Although he initially pushed back on this idea—believing that achieving goals was the hard part—he realized that once you truly discern what you want several layers deep, you can simply align the world to go get it. Bartlett observes that discovering true desires is extremely difficult because near-term temptations and social media noise constantly push artificial wants. People naturally desire the upsides of every path without accepting the corresponding costs. Consequently, decision-making remains the ultimate high-leverage skill in life.

When asked for a framework to make better decisions, Hormozi points back to the fundamental question: *"What do I want to have happen?"* Bartlett shares his own experience from when he was 19 or 20 years old. A mentor named Mark gave him a diary, and on the very first page, Bartlett wrote down his goals to achieve before age 25: drive a Range Rover Sport as his first car, make a million dollars, get a six-pack, and find a girlfriend. At 24, while sitting in his Range Rover, he took a photo of that page. However, he quickly learned that achieving those initial wants merely updated his desires, teaching him within a short time horizon that those goals were not what truly mattered.

Hormozi adds that human desire is inherently psychological: we only want what we do not currently have. Singles long to be married, married people reminisce about being single, and non-parents want children. This occurs because human memory is evolutionarily wired to retain rewards while letting the memory of pain fade.

- **The Boss's Principle**: Figuring out what you genuinely want accounts for 99% of the effort; achieving it is just aligning resources once clarity is reached. - **Bartlett's 25-by-25 Goals**: At 19, wrote down a list consisting of a Range Rover Sport, $1,000,000, a six-pack, and a girlfriend—achieved the vehicle by 24, only to realize his true desires had shifted. - **Psychology of Desire**: Punishment and pain fade from memory while rewards stick, explaining why people return to past relationships or opt to have more children despite arduous experiences like pregnancy.

---

[01:50:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=6647s) Preparing for Fatherhood and the Control Paradox

The conversation shifts to Hormozi's personal life as he reveals that Leila is pregnant and due in four months. Asked about his feelings, he shares that he is stoked, but admits to feeling underlying fear about doing a good job as a father. Bartlett notices his visible apprehension, prompting Hormozi to detail the intellectual and existential paradoxes he has been wrestling with: how to define a "good parent" and a "successful child."

``` [ Parenting Inputs ] (Skills, Environment, Support, Soil/Water) │ ▼ ┌─────────────────┐ │ Child's Nature │ (Genetic Seed: Peach vs. Apple) └─────────────────┘ │ ▼ [ Life Outcomes ] (Happiness, Impact, Wealth, Relationships) ```

Hormozi questions whether a billionaire who ends up lonely and sad represents a successful outcome for a parent. Conversely, many highly successful individuals had rough or traumatic childhoods—does that retroactively make their parents "good" parents? Bartlett suggests removing both definitions entirely and focusing on inputs rather than outputs, referencing Jeff Bezos's philosophy of staying out of the output business. To illustrate the variation in outputs despite constant inputs, Bartlett shares his own family background as the youngest of four siblings raised in the same home:

* **Steven Bartlett**: Entrepreneur and university dropout. * **Jason**: Academic who rewrote textbooks to make them smarter and now works in Steven's business. * **Kevin**: A savant-level genius who could learn any language fluently in four weeks and was once ranked number one in the world at *RuneScape*, who ultimately chose not to enter the traditional corporate world. * **Sister**: Qualified as a lawyer and worked across hospitality.

Hormozi acknowledges that while nature and nurture each account for a portion of how a child turns out, his desire for control makes it difficult to ignore the outcome. He compares parenting to driving a car—where you must focus on shifting gears and filling the tank, but you still need to know your destination—and to growing a plant. While you cannot change an apple seed into a peach tree, you can control the soil, sunlight, and pruning. Reflecting on Leila's acceptance of his own unyielding personality, Hormozi concludes that his primary goal as a father is to equip his children with as many practical skills as possible so they can navigate life and achieve whatever *they* want.

- **Timeline to Fatherhood**: Leila Hormozi is four months away from giving birth to their first child. - **The Definition Paradox**: Struggles to reconcile whether a successful child is defined by happiness, societal impact, or external achievement, given that high achievement often stems from difficult childhoods. - **The Plant Analogy**: A parent cannot alter the fundamental genetic "seed" (apple vs. peach tree), but can steer variables like sunlight, water, soil quality, and pruning to maximize the child's potential. - **Core Parenting Objective**: Hormozi settles on focusing his resources on teaching his child actionable skills to handle life's challenges, rather than forcing a specific predefined output.

[01:57:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=7057s) Death, the "Smile Graph" of Happiness, and the Urgency to Stop Caring What People Think

Steven Bartlett highlights a post Alex Hormozi made on X (formerly Twitter) in February 2025. In the tweet, Alex reflects on what happens at a person's funeral: friends and family will argue over who gets their belongings, talk about the venue and food, summarize their life in two or three paragraphs, and quickly shift the conversation back to their own lives. Friends will drive away thinking about their to-do lists, some won't make it because something came up, and most people you know today won't even attend. "You're going to die. People move on in weeks, not years. Do what you want," the post concludes. Asked why this message is so vital, Alex explains that he thinks about death multiple times a day—a practice research links to higher subjective well-being.

Alex points to the "smile graph" of life satisfaction. Children are naturally happy, but as adults accumulate responsibilities between ages 45 and 55—taking care of both children and aging parents while managing peak career demands—unhappiness hits its trough. As people enter their 60s and 70s, happiness rebounds because elderly people, much like young children, have fewer social obligations and simply do not care what others think of them. Alex notes that he writes these tweets not as a sermon from a pulpit, but as personal reminders to pull that 80-year-old "don't give a damn" perspective into his present life.

- **The Funeral Tweet (Feb 2025):** Emphasizes that people move on within weeks after a death, so living to satisfy others' expectations is pointless. - **The Smile Graph of Well-Being:** Happiness dips lowest during middle age (ages 45–55) due to peak responsibility, then rises in old age as social friction fades. - **Goal:** Accelerate his mind-state so he cares as little about outside judgment today as an 80-year-old would.

---

[02:00:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=7242s) Facing standard "Open Loops": Nine Lawsuits, Medical Crises, and $100M Launches

Steven reveals another raw tweet Alex posted during that exact same month in early 2025: *"I haven't felt this miserable in years. Shit's just hard sometimes... You do the only thing you can do. Keep fighting."* Steven recalls texting Alex when he saw it because Alex rarely admits weakness publicly. Alex confesses that the first quarter of 2025 was the most difficult personal period he had faced in eight years. While Acquisition.com was making substantial money, everything outside of business was unraveling.

He was managing nine open lawsuits simultaneously—ranging from ex-employees to troubled portfolio investments—which created constant, agonizing "open loops" of rumination and catastrophizing. Around the same time, his wife Leila suffered a severe medical emergency (a torn colon) requiring an 18-month recovery and major surgery. Alex draws a comparison to a famous interview with hedge fund billionaire Bill Ackman, who described losing $1 billion, undergoing a divorce, and facing massive litigation all at once. Ackman’s survival strategy was to focus strictly on taking "one bite at a time," measuring progress month by month rather than trying to fix unresolvable problems overnight.

> "When you're going through those rough patches... you're not going to solve this in a day. You can't finish it. And I think that's what's so painful about it—you have this open loop that whenever something reminds you of it, you get into this loop again of rumination and catastrophizing."

- **Nine Active Lawsuits:** Ranging from employment disputes to investment fallout. - **Leila's Health Crisis:** A torn colon involving severe chronic pain and an 18-month recovery process. - **Bill Ackman's Mindset:** Focus on taking small daily steps to chip away at chaotic open loops rather than seeking immediate resolution.

---

[02:03:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=7388s) The Four Vectors of Mental Toughness: Fortitude, Resilience, Tolerance, and Adaptability

Following the unexpected passing of his mother in 2025—just one month after his record-breaking $106 million book launch for *$100M Money Models*—Alex wrote a framework on mental toughness for himself to figure out how to navigate severe grief and trauma. He breaks emotional response down into four specific behavioral vectors:

``` [Bad Event Occurs] │ ├── 1. Fortitude ────► How many bad events can occur before your behavior degrades? ├── 2. Tolerance ────► How severely does your behavior degrade (how low do you drop)? ├── 3. Resilience ───► How long does it take you to return to baseline function? └── 4. Adaptability ─► After recovering, are you better, the same, or permanently worse? ```

Alex realized that society often measures how much you loved someone by how deeply you choose to suffer after their passing—an assumption he explicitly rejects. Believing his mother would not want him to self-destruct, he deliberately maintained his daily habits: recording content, coaching businesses, and working out. Maintaining his routine was not coldness; it was his way of honoring her memory and continuing the path he started when he left home.

- **The $106M Launch Timing:** Alex's mother witnessed his record-setting launch weekend before passing away suddenly four weeks later. - **Rejecting Performative Grief:** Refused the notion that personal suffering is a metric for love. - **Controllable Actions:** Maintained core daily behaviors (fitness, content creation, business support) to actively generate positive emotions and stabilize his baseline.

---

[02:09:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=7780s) "Strivers," Genetics, and the Meaning of Happiness

When Steven asks if a past discussion on happiness with self-help icon Tony Robbins altered his outlook, Alex bluntly admits that it didn't. He struggles with the concept of "happiness" because he finds the word vague and poorly defined, though he clarifies that he is deeply fascinated, interested, and engaged by his life every single day.

He references author and social scientist Arthur Brooks's research on "strivers"—high achievers whose childhoods often follow a predictable pattern. Usually raised by high-expectation or immigrant parents who withhold affection until the child achieves something, strivers learn early that love must be earned. They carry this performance-reward loop into adulthood, becoming addicted to work as a proxy for receiving love. Furthermore, Alex notes Brooks's finding that roughly 50% of subjective well-being is purely genetic. Reflecting on his family's history with severe mental health challenges balanced by high intellect, Alex jokes that given his baseline genetic wiring, he might just be maxing out his remaining 50% capacity and crushing it as best he can.

- **The "Striever" Loop:** High achievers conditioned to view affection as something earned through tangible success, creating a lifelong obsession with work. - **50% Genetic Set-Point:** Half of a person's baseline happiness is genetically hardwired, shaping how they experience life regardless of external achievements. - **Engagement over "Happiness":** Prioritizes intense curiosity and deep daily interest in his work over an abstract pursuit of feeling happy.

[02:12:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=7925s) The Camus Approach to Meaning and Baseline Happiness

Alex Hormozi opens up about how he evaluates his own life satisfaction, admitting he does not really know how to judge how well he is doing on an absolute scale. He compares baseline happiness to physical height: if someone is born seven feet tall, everyone notices, but if someone is "born one foot tall in terms of happiness," they might learn to navigate life extraordinarily well at that height, yet people will still perceive them as lacking. His ultimate benchmark is simple: "I aggressively want to keep living," which he views as a very strong positive indicator.

Drawing on one of his favorite philosophers, Albert Camus, Hormozi cites the famous concept that the meaning of life is simply "the reason you don't kill yourself." While dark on the surface, he emphasizes how easily it flips into light: when asked what keeps them going, people immediately point to their children, spouse, and those who rely on them—which is precisely what gives life its meaning in that season.

---

* **The Camus Metric:** Meaning is defined by what keeps you anchored to life (family, responsibility, core projects), a target that naturally shifts across different decades. * **Internal Drive:** Hormozi notes that his personal drive and reasons for living are vastly different today than they were ten years ago, and will likely evolve again over the next twenty.

[02:13:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=7983s) Mental Health Privileges, Pride, and Leaving a Lasting Legacy

Steven Bartlett reflects on how interviewing diverse guests on *The Diary Of A CEO* shattered his assumption that everyone’s internal monologue functions the same way. He recalls a comedian telling him there was a voice inside his head actively rooting for his failure after every performance. Bartlett describes discovering that having a mind that isn't inherently self-sabotaging is a form of "mental health privilege" that few acknowledge. When asked how he reacts when people claim to be "amazingly happy," Hormozi candidly admits his first knee-jerk thought is that they probably have not even defined what happiness means and are just offering an easy answer.

``` +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | PERSPECTIVES ON HAPPINESS | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | "I aggressively want to keep living." — ALEX HORMOZI | | * Views internal baseline as variable weather rather than a static | | destination; refuses to promise happiness as a business outcome. | | | | "Isn't it crazy that there's a mental health mindset privilege?" | | — STEVEN BARTLETT | | * Highlights how wildly internal dialogue and baseline mental states | | differ from person to person. | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ```

When pressed on whether he experiences pride, Hormozi describes it as a deep, soulful feeling of fulfillment rather than an expressive outward emotion. Pointing to his physical books on the table, he shares that he writes with the explicit intent of leaving something behind that outlasts his personal fame. While his YouTube videos and social content will eventually vanish, he builds his books to endure long after people forget who he was. However, when asked if people should come to him for happiness advice, his response is direct: "No. Go find somebody who's really happy."

---

* **Tangible Legacy:** Hormozi views his books—not his social media channels or temporary online presence—as the only work with a real chance of surviving long past his lifetime. * **Quantitative Focus:** Hormozi intentionally refrains from selling happiness, choosing instead to focus strictly on measurable, quantitative business inputs: monetization, offer structure, and client acquisition.

[02:17:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=8223s) The Weather Model of Emotion and the 10% Rule

Explaining his worldview on human emotion, Hormozi presents a mental model he uses with his own sales teams: internal feelings are strictly like the weather. Just as there are sunny seasons and rainy seasons, a standard year of 365 days naturally produces statistically good and bad days due to the law of large numbers.

``` [ TOP 10% DAYS ] ---> ~3 days per month (~1 per week) [ AVERAGE DAYS ] ---> Fluctuating baseline weather [ BOTTOM 10% DAYS ] ---> ~3 days per month (36 days/year) ```

By this math, every single month will contain roughly three "bottom 10%" days purely due to statistical distribution, not because something is fundamentally broken in your life. The core mistake entrepreneurs make is treating emotional discomfort as a signal to make drastic tactical changes.

---

* **The Statistical Reality:** A normal year contains approximately 36 "bottom 10%" days (roughly 3 per month) and an equal number of peak "top 10%" days. * **Separating State from Action:** Hormozi’s fundamental rule for both business and life is that emotional discomfort is not a valid reason to change direction: "If I determine that I can have a bad day and still do good work, that is a good day." * **Avoiding Impulse Decisions:** Having a single miserable day is no reason to abandon a fledgling business or end a relationship; entrepreneurs must learn to tolerate temporary emotional lows without blowing up their long-term plans.

[02:18:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=8339s) Facing Superintelligence and Closing Reflections

Closing out the episode, Bartlett asks the traditional final question left by the previous guest: *"What would you do if you believed that superintelligent AI—better, faster, cheaper than the best humans at everything—was just a few years away?"*

Hormozi answers across two distinct dimensions: 1. **On the Business Side:** Double down on building real-world proof, verified track records, trust, and brand equity. In a world where everyone has access to the exact same superintelligence, a company’s reputation and distribution will remain key differentiators. 2. **On the Personal Side:** Reflect deeply on what it actually means to be human and why we are here in the first place—even lightheartedly acknowledging that buying a ranch with his wife Leila remains on the table.

Bartlett wraps up the interview by emphasizing the real-world value of Hormozi's published work—noting that the books in his *$100M Series* (*$100M Offers*, *$100M Leads*, and *$100M Money Models*) have surpassed 5 million copies sold overall, with his 2025 launch breaking the Guinness World Record by moving 2.9 million copies in a single day. Thanking Hormozi for providing practical, no-nonsense frameworks for entrepreneurs, Bartlett signs off as the show transitions to its closing recommendations.

---

* **AI Moat Strategy:** Brand equity, distribution, real-world customer proof, and reputation are the primary assets that superintelligent AI cannot instantly erode. * **Publishing Milestone:** Hormozi’s *$100M* book series has surpassed 5 million total copies sold, highlighted by setting a world record with 2.9 million sales in a 24-hour window.

## Notable quotes > [33:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=2033s) I acted with such cowardice that I had to drive halfway across the country before I could call my dad to tell him that I had quit my job and that I was going to start a business, because I knew that if I had done it while he was there, he would talk me out of it. — Alex Hormozi

> [41:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=2500s) The secret to getting a life you want is making a commitment. But you will not get all lives you want... At some point you have to sit at the precipice and you have to make a trade. — Alex Hormozi

> [01:13:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=4394s) The nurse is at home with me and she's going to try and give grandpa the pill. And he says, 'It tastes like... I don't want to have it.' He just brushes her away. She comes back, she throws her hands up and she's like, 'You lead a horse to water, you can't make it drink.' Right? The operationalist or the behaviorist would say, 'No, you've made many other options the more likely option than taking the pill.' And so what we need to do is make the pill the nicest and easiest option available to him. — Alex Hormozi

> [01:26:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=5202s) Price is such a strong signal for value... If someone comes to me and says, 'Hey, I want to do all of your social media management for $2,000 a month,' I'm like, 'Dude, you can't even handle me.' — Alex Hormozi

> [01:44:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=6279s) Imagine driving a brand-new Ferrari to a three-star Michelin restaurant, sitting alone in a corner booth eating the best food in the world, versus piling into a beat-up Toyota Camry with your five best friends to go to a Denny's. Which one are you going to enjoy more? — Alex Hormozi

> [02:00:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=7242s) When you're going through those rough patches... you're not going to solve this in a day. You can't finish it. And I think that's what's so painful about it—you have this open loop that whenever something reminds you of it, you get into this loop again of rumination and catastrophizing. — Alex Hormozi

> [02:00:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=7242s) I haven't felt this miserable in years. Shit's just hard sometimes... You do the only thing you can do. Keep fighting. — Alex Hormozi

> [02:17:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=8223s) If I determine that I can have a bad day and still do good work, that is a good day. — Alex Hormozi

## Mentioned Alex Hormozi, Steven Bartlett, The Diary Of A CEO, Gym Launch, Chicago Booth, Vanderbilt University, Home Depot, Tony Robbins, GarageBand, Apple, Tesla, Fiverr Pro, Gary Halbert, Coca-Cola, Van Westendorp Price Sensitivity Meter, Acquisition.com, Leila Hormozi, Arthur Brooks, Jeff Bezos, Jason Bartlett, Kevin Bartlett, RuneScape, Bill Ackman, Albert Camus, Guinness World Record, $100M Offers, $100M Leads, $100M Money Models

[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c)

中文简报

Hormozi称服务模式与个人声誉将经受住AI浪潮考验在充斥着自动化软件的经济环境中，持久的价值正从套壳产品转向难以规模化的服务业务、定价权以及真实的个人声誉。 Alex Hormozi 与主持人 Steven Bartlett 展开对话，对当下盛行的科技趋势提出质疑，指出持久的财富源于看似不够酷的现实服务行业，而非浮于表面的 AI 套壳初创企业。Hormozi 剖析了关键商业基本面，包括高客单价策略、员工激励机制、与伴侣理念一致以及应对运营复杂性。他坦诚地分享了自己在应对多起诉讼、妻子面临健康危机以及母亲离世等严峻个人考验时，如何依然维持运营纪律。最后，他强调要立足现实，依托个人信誉和情绪韧性来打造非数字化的护城河。 Alex Hormozi 警告创业者不要盲目追逐构建依赖大模型的纯 AI 外壳；在技术高度普及的时代，承担现实世界风险的责任感、实体落地能力与信誉，才是无法被轻易商品化的核心护城河。 (5:00) 多数企业难以跨越千万美元门槛的核心原因，在于急于获客而忽视了收入留存与健康的利润率；若不修复流失严重的商业漏斗并合理提高定价，再强的销售能力也只会加速创始人倦怠与业务脆弱度。 (13:00) 摆脱创业空想状态的关键在于立刻完成基础注册并赚取第一美元；极简的开支能为起步期争取更长的容错跑道，让商业从模糊恐惧转变为脚踏实地的真实交易机制。 (25:28) 行动停滞往往源自试图保留全部可能性的“选项最大化”（options maxing）陷阱；只有坚定选择单一路径并关闭其他退路，才能摆脱未决事项的内耗，开启真正有效的数据反馈与迭代循环。 (41:40)

Reading summary

Alex Hormozi argues that as artificial intelligence commoditizes cognitive tasks and creates a flood of synthetic content, enduring enterprise value relies on real-world stakes, human accountability, and foundational business economics rather than technological novelty. Real-World Stakes and Accountability as AI Moats (5:00) Hormozi critiques founders for chasing superficial AI wrappers and misallocating capital to automate non-bottlenecks, pointing to a company that spent $350,000 on custom software simply to replace $11,000 per month in overseas virtual assistants. He contends that customers buy outcomes rather than technology labels, noting that advertising features as 'AI-powered' can even alienate mainstream consumers who feel intimidated by the terminology. When raw intelligence becomes cheap, Hormozi asserts that economic value shifts toward stakes, capital risk, and regulatory accountability—responsibilities an AI model cannot assume. Just as human chess tournaments expanded after computers solved the game, audiences and clients continue to demand authentic risk. In content and advisory spaces, Hormozi argues that verifiable real-world execution, such as operating an active portfolio generating over $250 million annually, serves as the only durable defense against synthetic media saturation. Unit Economics, Pricing Power, and Retention (13:00) When diagnosing why entrepreneurs stall between $500,000 and $1 million in revenue, Hormozi highlights customer churn and rushed product-market fit. Founders frequently over-index on acquisition while ignoring stickiness, trapping themselves on a treadmill where they must replace their entire client base each year. Following Amazon's strategy of establishing defensible moats through physical logistics, Hormozi advocates anchoring business models in enduring consumer demands: lower prices, broader selection, and faster delivery. Furthermore, Hormozi identifies founder burnout as a symptom of poor unit economics rather than a lack of time. Low gross margins prevent companies from hiring capable operators, keeping the owner trapped in fulfillment. He warns against 'selling out of your own wallet' by underpricing expertise simply because it feels easy to the practitioner. Under Hormozi's Value Equation, price must reflect the client's dream outcome and perceived certainty rather than the seller's production effort, enabling businesses to command healthy margins and move upmarket. Eliminating Paralysis Through Execution and Commitment (23:22) Aspiring entrepreneurs frequently stall in 'options maxing,' attempting to preserve flexibility instead of committing to a clear direction. Hormozi maintains that unmade decisions actively deplete cognitive energy without providing real market feedback. To break this paralysis, he advises completing four administrative tasks: registering an LLC, opening a business bank account, establishing payment processing, and asking a stranger for money. Processing that initial transaction permanently shifts an individual's identity from consumer to business owner. In the early stages, Hormozi encourages founders to perform unscalable tasks to secure cash flow and refine their value proposition. He warns against the fallacy of trying to solve tomorrow's scaling challenges with today's limited resources. As an entrepreneur iterates within active feedback loops over a long horizon, accumulated capital, operational experience, and expanded staffing eventually allow those early unscalable workflows to systematize. Emotional Regulation and Behavioral Resilience (123:08) Reflecting on personal crises in early 2025—including managing nine simultaneous lawsuits, supporting his wife Leila through a major surgical recovery, and processing the sudden death of his mother four weeks after a record $106 million book launch—Hormozi defines mental toughness across four behavioral vectors: fortitude (how many negative events occur before behavior degrades), tolerance (the depth of the performance drop), resilience (the recovery time to baseline), and adaptability (whether one emerges improved or diminished). To navigate high-stress environments, Hormozi uses a 'weather model' of human emotion. Because statistical distribution guarantees approximately 36 'bottom 10%' days per year (roughly three per month), he maintains that a bad day reflects normal variance rather than structural failure. Hormozi adheres to the principle that emotional discomfort is never a valid justification to abandon an ongoing business strategy. While Hormozi emphasizes strict behavioral discipline and execution frameworks, the discussion acknowledges that internal mental states are heavily constrained by biology, citing social scientist Arthur Brooks's finding that roughly 50% of subjective well-being is genetically hardwired. Hormozi's approach focuses on controlling operational inputs, building undeniable track records, and managing baseline habits rather than expecting continuous emotional fulfillment from entrepreneurial pursuits.

精炼阅读摘要

Acquisition.com联合创始人Alex Hormozi在与Steven Bartlett的对话中指出，创业者盲目追逐AI噱头往往是在低价值环节耗费资本；在技术泛滥的时代，真正的商业护城河依然建立在物理实体责任、真实信誉、优质的单位经济学以及长期心智韧性之上。审视AI热潮与真实世界护城河 (2:33) Hormozi批评了当前创业圈对人工智能的技术盲从。他指出，多数创业者仅是将AI用于加速低价值任务，或围绕底层基础模型构建极易被替代的薄包装（wrappers），甚至本末倒置地投入巨额研发资金去自动化非核心瓶颈。例如，有企业耗费35万美元开发定制AI系统，仅为替代每月总支出1.1万美元的11名海外虚拟助手，这相当于预先支付了三年以上的劳动力成本去优化一个非瓶颈流程。此外，盲目打上“AI驱动”标签甚至可能适得其反，因为客户购买的是具体问题的解决方案，而非技术本身。在生成式AI引发合成内容泛滥的背景下，真正的经济价值正转向无法被算法替代的实体责任与风险承担。AI可以生成无数商业建议，但唯有人类必须对决策最终拍板，并承担资金亏损、法律诉讼及监管责任。正如国际象棋AI虽早已击败大师却未能削弱人类棋赛的吸引力一样，受众与消费者对真实的利害关系（stakes）有着不可替代的需求。可验证的真实商业战绩、重度资产投入（如亚马逊的物流仓储与车队网络）以及不可复制的个人声誉，构成了防范AI同质化竞争的核心壁垒。突破增长瓶颈：客户留存与单位经济学 (13:00) 许多企业在年营收达到50万至100万美元后难以突破至1000万美元，Hormozi认为关键瓶颈在于创始人急于扩张而忽视了客户留存与复购。单纯依赖获客拉动增长会使业务陷入高营销成本与利润受压的脆弱状态；反之，建立高留存的客户叠加模型才能形成长期的复利壁垒。与此同时，创业者普遍抱怨的“缺乏时间”往往并非时间管理不当，而是利润率微薄导致的表象。过低的利润使企业无力雇佣成熟团队，导致创始人深陷日常琐碎交付之中。针对定价困境，Hormozi警示创始人切忌“以自己的钱包做决策”（selling out of your own wallet），即因为某项技能对自身轻而易举就低估其市场价值。他提出评估价值感知的核心框架：产品价值取决于“梦想成果 × 实现感知概率”除以“时间延迟 × 努力与牺牲”。创始人应当将精力集中于能够承担高客单价的核心客户群体。根据他引用的美国财富分布模型，财富底部的50%群体仅占有约2%的社会财富，而前1%群体掌握了约31%的财富；向具备支付能力的高端细分市场靠拢，不仅能显著扩大利润空间以吸纳人才，还能大幅减少低预算客户带来的高沟通内耗。组织敏捷度：破除招聘幻觉与果断决策 (19:47) 在团队搭建与业务执行层面，Hormozi指出许多创始人由于自我意识过剩而拒绝授权，执着于寻找兼具深度技术、销售能力与文化契合度的“全能独角兽”。务实的做法是将复杂职能拆解为多名具体角色的协同，并利用结构化流程加速人才培训。此外，他主张将人才招聘视为与客户营销完全相同的漏斗体系，涵盖申请生成、候选人培育、面试筛选与入职晋升。他分享案例指出，一家规模千万美元的机构将员工引荐奖励从500美元大幅提高至2.5万美元后，成功吸纳顶尖人才，推动营收跨越至4亿美元。对于迟迟未能起步的潜在创业者，Hormozi强调行动必须先于信心。跨越从构想到落地的门槛，只需要执行四项基础行政动作：注册公司实体、开设商业账户、配置支付接口，以及向陌生人收取第一笔服务费用。针对拖延者普遍存在的“选项最大化”（options maxing）倾向，他指出未决的决策会持续消耗心智带宽；只有彻底做出承诺并切断其他退路，创业者才能进入真实的反馈回路中快速试错与迭代。心理韧性构建：情绪天气模型与抗压维度 (123:08) 结合自身在高压环境下的经历，Hormozi阐释了应对严峻危机的行为框架。在2025年第一季度，他曾同时面临九起商业诉讼、妻子Leila突发严重医疗危机需要漫长手术康复，以及母亲在其新书斩获1.06亿美元发售业绩仅一个月后意外离世。面对重压，他拒绝表演性的悲伤与停滞，坚持完成既定的录制、辅导与锻炼日常，并总结出心理韧性的四大行为维度：刚毅度（行为恶化前能承受多少负面事件）、耐受度（行为恶化程度的底线）、弹性（恢复基准工作状态的速度）以及适应力（恢复后是否实现能力跃迁）。 Hormozi向团队推行“情绪天气模型”：内在情绪如同天气的晴雨波动，依照大数法则，一年365天中在统计上必然存在约10%（每月约3天、全年约36天）的情绪极度低谷期。创业者最常犯的错误是将一时的情绪低落误判为战略或模式故障，从而冲动地改变方向或放弃业务。Hormozi指出，情绪上的不适绝不是战略偏航的合理依据；学会在糟糕的情绪状态下依然保持高质量的交付与推进，才是维持长期竞争力的关键心智。本期节目强调，无论技术环境如何演变，商业的核心逻辑依然根植于不可替代的人性需求、真实世界的实体壁垒与穿越周期的心理韧性。不过，对话中的策略主要依托于成熟服务业、实体交付与高毛利品牌运营的商业经验，在极度依赖纯技术底层突破或前沿资本密集押注的硬科技初创赛道中，该逻辑的适用边界仍有待进一步实践检验。

Detailed notes — zh

## Background 该内容由知名商业访谈频道《The Diary Of A CEO》（主持人 Steven Bartlett）于 2026 年 7 月 20 日发布在 YouTube 平台。页面简介显示，创业家与畅销书作家 Alex Hormozi 在对谈中警告创业者切勿盲目跟风 AI 浪潮，倡导转向管道工等抗风险能力强的实用型实体业务；他同时深入分享了现实凭证与声誉为何是 AI 无法撼动的终极护城河、为何收入留存比营销更关键、娶妻 Leila 是其最佳财务决策，以及在收入破纪录的一年如何直面人生最沉重的至暗时刻。 ## TL;DR Alex Hormozi 深入拆解了商业运作与创业决策的底层逻辑，呼吁创业者放弃虚幻的 AI 概念追逐，转向挖掘被低估的非主流刚需赛道并向高预算客户群迁移。他系统化提出了四象限动机说服模型、基于 Van Westendorp 的精准定价法，以及将人才招聘完全镜像为营销获客漏斗的高杠杆组织扩张体系。在人生哲学层面，他强调伴侣选择是胜率极高的“投骑手”式战略投资，并提出由刚毅、耐受度、韧性与适应力组成的心理韧性四大行为向量，指导个人在面对危机时保持行动定力。他最终指出，在超级人工智能即将颠覆智力劳动的未来，唯有现实世界的交付履历、商业信誉与分发网络才是无可替代的核心壁垒。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场对话在高密度、高穿透力的硬核商业战术拆解与直面生死逆境的深层情感剖白之间自如切换，兼具冰冷的手术刀式理性与滚烫的生命体验。Steven Bartlett 循循善诱、富有同理心的提问节奏，让 Alex Hormozi 展现出从极度理智的资本操盘手到面对母亲离世、妻子重病与官司缠身时坦诚反思的真实转变。没有空洞的励志鸡汤，只有坦然接纳统计学情绪波动与现实苦难的坚毅语调，让听众在获得实操战术军火库的同时，感受到一种被深刻理解与被硬核理智重新武装的静定力量。 ## Bulletin - [02:16:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=8200s) 面对超级人工智能（Superintelligent AI）冲击，纯数字产品与软件门槛将被大幅拉平，唯有现实世界的真实履历（Track record）、实体客户交易验证与个人声誉分发网络构成不可动摇的竞争壁垒。 - [01:28:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=5291s) 初创企业常陷入向低预算客户卖低价的恶性循环，高客单价不仅能有效筛选优质客户并保障健康利润率，其沟通与维护成本往往远低于低客单价客户。 - [01:37:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=5854s) 供给端招聘本质是获客营销的镜像闭环，将高产出人才的内推激励从 500 美元提升至 25,000 美元等杠杆举措，曾直接推动公司营收从 1000 万美元跃升至 4 亿美元。 - [02:16:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=8200s) 基于大数定律，一年中约有 36 天（每月约 3 天）处于底层的消极低谷，此类情绪低谷纯属统计波动，主观情绪不适绝非改变既定商业与人生轨道的正当理由。 ## Key takeaways - [01:18:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=4697s) 商业说服本质是动机机制的重构：人类绝不会做出违背自身动机的行为，与其空喊拥抱新技术，不如通过收益与代价的四象限模型重新校准激励天平。 - [01:21:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=4864s) 从无所不接到标准化聚焦：企业从 0 到 1 阶段可依赖全包大杂烩服务积累生存资金，但突破百万美元瓶颈时必须转向单客群，将交付升级为一次制作多次销售的标准方案。 - [01:23:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=5019s) 实体逆向红利与技能载体错配：传统广告代投放壁垒被削弱，而医美（Med Spa）、多肽疗法等实体刚需存在长期红利；将餐饮或健身房的重交付管理技能平移至轻交付高杠杆行业能产生数倍回报。 - [01:25:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=5146s) 逆向挖掘不酷的刚需行业：垃圾清运或老年人排污等让人难以启齿的业务自带认知折价与高利润，创业者应跳出底层资金贫困陷阱，向拥有绝对财富的高净值人群提供服务。 - [01:28:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=5291s) 价格是业务成熟度的关键信号：过低定价不仅吞噬利润，还会因缺乏信誉度直接劝退大型客户，高定价反而能降低沟通成本并吸引更成熟的买家。 - [01:30:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=5457s) 基于 Van Westendorp 价格敏感度模型优化定价：中小企业中有约 70% 属于需求受限、仅 30% 属于供给受限，借助 AI 快速测算价格阻断点与边际区间有助于释放商业潜能。 - [01:33:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=5616s) 镜像人才管道模型：供给端招聘应全流程镜像获客漏斗（线索获取、VSL 培育、面试考核、入职启动与晋升留存），留存顶级骨干的核心在于主动探明并满足其长期留任的排他性条件。 - [01:37:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=5854s) 高额裂变激励驱动爆发式增长：激励机制必须与人才创造的长期毛利直接挂钩，高额内推奖金是对核心生产力的高杠杆投资，而非成本开支。 - [01:38:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=5922s) 伴侣选择是胜率最高的长期财务投资：创业伴侣在面临极端风险与自我怀疑时提供无可替代的精神支撑，如同风投中投骑手而非赛马，直接决定了成功概率分布。 - [01:42:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=6167s) 互补合伙机制化解创业倦怠：创始人常面临冷漠与动力枯竭，需要具备大局愿景与文化凝聚力的合伙人操盘运营；商业成就与主观幸福属于两套逻辑，必须明确取舍。 - [01:47:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=6467s) 育儿的盆栽隐喻与记忆演化偏差：人类演化具有“惩罚淡化、奖赏留存”的遗忘机制；父母无法控制孩子产出的最终结果，应专注于提供扎实的技能输入与可控支持。 - [01:57:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=7045s) 主观幸福感微笑曲线与当下专注：幸福感在中年阶段触底并在晚年释怀回升；面对多重重大危机打击时，应借鉴比尔·阿克曼的专注策略，“每次只啃一小口”专注当下步伐。 - [02:03:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=7386s) 心理韧性的四大行为向量：逆境应对表现可拆解为刚毅（承受时长）、耐受度（变形底线）、韧性（恢复耗时）与适应力（恢复后机能状态），背负痛苦坚决前行是对逝者与逆境最好的回应。 - [02:09:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=7781s) 奋进者的心智回路与基因基线：成就上瘾者往往源于童年有条件的认可机制；个体主观幸福感约 50% 由先天基因决定，商业建议仅能解决可量化增长，无法包办无形的快乐。 - [02:16:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=8200s) 现实交易履历是超级 AI 时代的终极护城河：大数定律下每月数天的消极低谷属于正常波动，主观情绪不适不可作为放弃路线的依据；模型无法复制的是现实世界的声誉与真实客户交付凭证。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=0s) 14年商业与人生智慧：痛苦、恐惧与长期主义 Alex Hormozi 在开场中分享了一段极具情感冲击力的个人经历：他刚刚完成了一场销售额高达 1.06 亿美元的产品发布，母亲亲眼见证了这份辉煌，然而仅仅四周之后，母亲便撒手人寰。面对突如其来的巨痛，他陷入了“此时此刻我该如何继续面对生活”的叩问。为了给自己力量，他在社交平台上写下给自己的便签，提醒自己必须继续战斗。他直言，许多人常以“你选择承受多少痛苦”来衡量爱一个人的深浅，但逝去的亲人绝不希望看到活着的人沉溺于无休止的折磨中。由此，他将创业经验提炼并迁移至人生哲学：“我的情绪不适，绝不是我改变既定道路的充分理由。”很多时候，人们一遇到挫折或情绪低落，就盲目觉得生活糟糕透顶、急于全盘洗牌，但这往往是错误的冲动。回首 14 年的商业历程，Hormozi 总结了几个核心洞察：第一，创业初期的一切阻碍归根结底都是“恐惧”。人们之所以恐惧，是因为对确定性的执念，但“唯一能够获知答案的方式就是先迈出脚步”；创业者必须做出抉择——你究竟是更在乎自己的未来，还是更在乎别人对自己未来的评价？“某个版本的你必须在此刻彻底死去”。第二，打造一家 1000 万美元企业的最快路径，绝非打造一家 1 亿美元企业的路径；专注与耐心是唯二能带来持久壁垒的竞争优势，因为它们是极其“反人性”的。此外，他还强调把思考和决策直接外包给 AI 是极度愚蠢的举动，这只会让人脑退化，而自己的大脑是当前最锋利的资产。 - **情绪与决策的脱钩**：生活中的不适感并不意味着方向错误，不能仅因情绪沮丧而推翻长期目标。 - **初创期的恐惧根源**：人们在迈步前渴望100%的确定性，但确定性只能在行动过程中获得。 - **反人性的核心壁垒**：多数人追逐即时反馈，唯有极少数人能在专注与耐心这类反直觉的特质上建立长期壁垒。 --- ### [02:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=153s) 别盲目做“AI公司”：用AI做蠢事与虚假效率陷阱主持人 Steven Bartlett 指出，无论是在纽约与 Uber 首席执行官 Dara Khosrowshahi 交流，还是同寻找防御护城河的初创软件创始人沟通，AI 都是当下绕不开的绝对核心议题。Hormozi 对此态度鲜明：他虽是 AI 的坚定拥护者，但目睹了大量创业者在完全错误的场景下滥用技术。很多创始人利用 AI “以极高的速度做着极其愚蠢的事”，盲目开发那些基础底层模型数月内就会顺手碾碎的边缘工具。面对沉迷于“消耗更多 Token”的创业者，Hormozi 抛出了一个最朴素且致命的问题：“你到底有没有因此赚到更多的钱？” 为了揭示这种技术狂热背后的盲目，Hormozi 列举了一个真实案例：某家公司原本雇用了 11 名海外虚拟助理（VA）处理数据清洗与报价流程，每月人力总成本约为 11,000 美元，业务运转顺畅稳定。然而，管理层为了追求所谓的智能化，斥资 35 万美元研发了一套旨在替代这 11 名助理的 AI 自动化系统。这笔前期支出相当于预先烧掉了三年以上的人力开销。更为讽刺的是，这套数据清洗流程根本不是该企业的产能瓶颈，企业的根本痛点在于“市场需求不足、缺乏足够的新客户”。Hormozi 批评称，企业应该在业务内部善用 AI 作为赋能工具，而不是盲目将自己标榜为一家“AI 企业”；客户在乎的是实际交付的结果和痛点的解决，许多普通消费者甚至对 AI 抱有戒心，大肆宣扬 AI 标签不仅不能带来溢价，反而本末倒置。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: AI投资陷阱与正确路径对比 accDescr: 对比企业盲目进行AI自动化重构与聚焦核心业务瓶颈的正确做法 subgraph 错误路径["错误路径：虚假效率陷阱"] A["企业核心瓶颈：前端获客与需求不足"] --> B["忽视根本瓶颈"] B --> C["斥资 $350,000 开发 AI 自动化"] C --> D["替代月薪 $11,000 的海外VA"] D --> E["提前耗尽3年人力成本，营收毫无增长"] end subgraph 正确路径["正确路径：回归价值交付"] F["识别核心约束：扩大需求与成单"] --> G["利用 AI 赋能关键交付环节"] G --> H["聚焦客户关心的最终解决方案"] H --> I["切实提升盈利与净现金流"] end ``` - **资本错配的反思**：花费 35 万美元替代每年 13.2 万美元运转良好的低成本人力，且该环节非增长瓶颈，属于典型的负回报决策。 - **营销视角的误区**：创始人常以为自己对 AI 兴奋，客户就会买单；实际上客户只买单“确定性的问题解决方案”。 --- ### [05:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=300s) 智能廉价时代的终极护城河：责任、风险与真实的赌注针对埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）所预言的“未来工作将成为人类的选修项”，以及神经网络参数爆炸式增长导致认知成本归零的未来，Steven 提出了一个深刻的疑问：当机器在智能与体力上全面超越人类，甚至人形机器人触手可及之时，人类的价值究竟留存在何处？Hormozi 给出的核心答案是：**“真实的赌注”（Stakes）与责任承担**。AI 尽管能给出近乎完美的方案与建议，但它不是任何国家的公民，不缴纳税款，也无法对真实世界的灾难性后果负责。“AI 是建议者，而必须有人来担任最终决策的背书者”，法律主体、LLC 的所有权以及真金白银的资产损失，构成了不可替代的商业责任。 Hormozi 进一步将这一逻辑延伸至媒体与娱乐领域。如果 MrBeast（Jimmy Donaldson）的视频里宣称送出 500 万美元或一辆兰博基尼，但这一切都是 AI 生成的假象，视频将瞬间丧失一切吸引力，因为其中“没有任何真实的代价与风险”。正如国际象棋软件早就能够轻松击溃人类大师，但人类对棋王争霸赛的关注度却创下了历史新高；同样地，在 F1 赛车中，如果将 Lewis Hamilton 等顶级车手换成完全自主驾驶的 AI 赛车，观众便会关掉电视。人类天生需要见证“具备真实赌注与人身责任的博弈”，商业世界的溢价正是对判断力、下注决心和承担下行风险的补偿。 - **责任无法外包**：AI 生成策略没有任何违约成本与法律责任，人类承担风险是商业价值回报的前提。 - **内容消费的核心心理**：虚拟特效早已普及，受众对影视创作的敬畏大幅削弱，唯有“真实发生、具有现实后果”的人性博弈才具备长久吸引力。 --- ### [07:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=432s) 独立思考与认知肌肉：为何不应向AI外包大脑 Steven 观察到，尽管如今许多创业者倾向于将思考完全委托给诸如 ChatGPT 或 Claude 等前沿大语言模型，但 Hormozi 依然保留着大量独立深度思考的习惯；在智能泛滥的时代，提出好问题、具备高度批判性思维与穿透复杂表象的清晰度，正演变为主导性的竞争力。他询问 Hormozi 是如何保持专注思考的心理空间并持续孵化优质洞见的。对此，Hormozi 严厉告诫道：在现阶段盲目将思考与决策过程外包给 AI，是极其危险且致命的错误策略。思考本质上如同肌肉记忆，一旦人类停止推导底层逻辑、一味依赖机器直接给出的现成答案，认知能力就会迅速退化；如果放任这种惰性，创业者“只会变得越来越迟钝与愚蠢”。大脑是目前人类拥有的最核心、最具复利价值的王牌资产，在 AI 浪潮下最应当做的是持续磨砺这把心智之刃，而非在过早的依赖中亲手将其废弃。 ### [07:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=471s) 为什么把最硬核的思考外包给 AI 会让你变蠢使用 AI 一段时间的人都会意识到一个极其可怕的现象：你可以诱导并让 AI 同意你的任何观点。在做关键商业决策时，这种特性令人不寒而栗。Alex 提到，每当他觉得大模型似乎变聪明了一点时，就会给它们一个显而易见的决策问题做测试——同时打开 Claude、OpenAI（ChatGPT）等几个主流模型，输入一模一样的问题，结果每个模型的回答南辕北辙、各执一词。最终，这依然必须回归到创业者自身的商业判断力上。不仅如此，把决策权甩给 AI 还会带来更严重的恶果：**你会因此变蠢**。大脑是创业者目前拥有的最宝贵资产，必须全力保持敏锐。如果将最耗费脑力、最痛苦的深度思考外包给机器，你的心智肌肉会在短时间内迅速退化、变得极度孱弱。 - **模型逢迎陷阱**：大语言模型极易顺应用户的提示词偏差给出顺从的回答，无法作为严肃决策的单一依据。 - **判断力外包的代价**：认知科学家与业内专家的研究一致表明，放弃高难度思考会导致个人认知能力断崖式下跌。 --- ### [08:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=516s) 积木塔实验：5 秒与 50 年的时间视界差距在过去三四个月里，Alex 一直在反复琢磨一个核心命题：**当你的时间视界被极大拉长时，究竟会发生什么？** 普通创业者往往只盯着三到五年的周期，盘算着做大估值然后卖公司套现（Exit）；但如果将时间尺度拉长到 50 年甚至永远，从第一天起所做的底层基石决策将会截然不同。 Alex 在线下辅导创业者时经常做一个极其形象的积木实验： - **5 秒钟挑战**：如果规则是“给你 5 秒钟用积木搭一座尽可能高的塔”，参与者只会抓起几块积木垂直叠在一起。手一松，只要稍微吹一口气，整座塔瞬间就会坍塌。 - **时间视界延展**：如果给的时间是 5 分钟、5 天，乃至 5 年，且拥有无限的积木，搭建策略会彻底改变。想要建起百层摩天大楼，必须把地基挖得极深，选用完全不同的承重材料。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 商业时间视界与基石决策对比 accDescr: 对比短期 5 年套现思维与长期 50 年地基思维在商业结果上的巨大差异。 subgraph ShortTerm["短期思维（5 年套现 / 5 秒搭塔）"] A["追求即时速度与高估值"] --> B["浅地基、单薄结构"] B --> C["遭遇微风即摇摇欲坠"] C --> D["套现期战战兢兢，深陷增长停滞"] end subgraph LongTerm["长期主义（50 年永久 / 扎实地基）"] E["深度打磨产品与交付基础设施"] --> F["深挖地基、极强承重"] F --> G["客户终身留存，飞轮自然叠加"] G --> H["构筑 7 年后无法撼动的长期护城河"] end ``` 导师曾教给 Alex 一句让他受用终生的话：“**打造 1000 万美元企业的最快路径，绝非打造 1 亿美元企业的最快路径**；正如打造 100 万美元单人咨询公司的最快方式，绝非打造 1000 万美元公司的路径。”你或许可以凭借一个大客户、靠单人中介机构极速冲到 100 万美元，但这套逻辑在规模化时会立刻撞墙。 --- ### [10:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=621s) 工厂隐喻与抗拒人性的超级竞争优势主持人 Steven 结合自身的切身体会深表赞同。他将旗下的控股公司 Steven.com 定位为一项“要永远做下去的终身事业”，心态转变后，他的所有决策瞬间不同了。他开始疯狂执迷于埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）所说的“工厂体系”：造出一辆原型车很容易，但建造出能批量制造汽车的超级工厂要难上 50 倍。长期主义者往往在前几年看起来走得极慢、甚至有点“反常识”，但时间会沉淀出不可动摇的壁垒： - **马斯克的战略硬仗**：特斯拉创立之初本可以直接向福特等传统车企采购电池，但他选择从零自研全新电池架构；本可以使用第三方充电桩，但他选择在全美自建超充网络。SpaceX 亦是如此。这些在 7 年、10 年后转化成了坚不可摧的终极护城河。 - **贝佐斯的物流豪赌**：亚马逊从一家线上书店起步，却毅然决定重金自建卡车车队、仓储网络和全球物流体系。彼时所有人都在追逐轻资产互联网概念，而他却用最笨、最重的物理基础设施锁死了电商霸权。 - **专注与耐心的力量**：在这个被社交媒体（如 Instagram）即时快感主导的时代，“专注”与“耐心”是极其罕见的竞争优势，因为它们完全是反人性的。长期主义者在埋头做枯燥的招聘与地基搭建时，社交动态上往往毫无动静，而投机者却在疲于粉饰账面。许多追求快速退出（Exit）的创始人，其公司就像风中残烛。在并购尽调的 6 个月里，他们每天屏住呼吸、提心吊胆，祈求大客户千万别跑路、核心员工千万别离职；一旦某周营收微跌被买方质询，便只能仓皇打圆场掩盖裂痕。很多公司冲得极快随后骤然陷入停滞（Plateau），此时唯一的正解其实是退后两步、推倒重构地基。 --- ### [13:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=818s) 为什么绝大多数公司卡在 100 万无法突破 1000 万无数年营收达到 50 万或 100 万美元的创业者在街上遇到 Alex 和 Steven 时，总会绝望地发问：“我被卡在瓶颈期了，到底怎样才能做到 1000 万美元？” Alex 一针见血地指出了症结所在：**营收卡在 100 万美元的创业者，最根本的失误在于过早离开了“产品市场匹配”（PMF, Product-Market Fit）阶段**。他们没有把精力死磕在“让老客户持续重复付费”上，而是将精力全砸在了前端销售。 - **复购与留存的数学逻辑**：优质的商业模式依赖于客户自然频次复购（比如遇到好喝的汽水会不断回购）或订阅制带来的持续现金流（如 Netflix 会员）。如果每一个进门的客户永远不流失，业务无需任何花招也会自然向上叠加增长。 - **西西弗斯式的营销困局**：做到 100 万甚至 1000 万美元其实并不需要太复杂的系统，只要销售技能过硬，一年内硬推也能卖出来。然而，这批创业者的致命伤是客户留存极差——今年拉来的 100 万美元客户到年底流失殆尽。为了在第二年做到 200 万，他们不得不重新跑到市场上卖力获取 200 万的新客户。 - **规模化的认知错位**：年入 100 万的创业者试图在一年时间内塞进全部的新增销售额，却没意识到，真正通往 1 亿或 10 亿美元规模的商业帝国，靠的是产品价值带来的用户资产不断滚雪球，而非每年从零推石上山。 ### [15:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=925s) 客户留存与增长跑步机：为什么留存率决定公司生死 Alex Hormozi 提出了一个经典的两家公司对比模型：假设有 A 公司与 B 公司，它们在第一年都卖出 100 件产品（或获得 100 个客户），各自达成 100 万美元营收。然而两者的命运在此分道扬镳： - **B 公司（高流失率、重度依赖获客）**：第一年的 100 位客户全跑光了。但创始人极具进取心，声称“必须增长”，在第二年狂卖给 200 个新客户，实现 200 万美元营收；到第三年，之前的 200 位客户又流失得精光，毫无黏性，但他拼命卖给 300 个新客户，达成 300 万美元营收。 - **A 公司（高留存率、稳健复利）**：第一年获得 100 位客户、100 万营收，并成功留住了这全部 100 位客户。第二年，他们获客节奏不变，依然只拉来 100 位新客户，但由于老客户全部留存，客户总数达到 200 位，营收达到 200 万美元。第三年，他们依然保持招募 100 位新客户，老客户持续续费，总客户数累计到 300 位，营收同样达到 300 万美元。表面上看，两位创业者走到投资人面前时都宣称“我手头有一家 300 万美元年营收的企业”。但懂行的投资人永远会毫不犹豫地选择 A 公司。因为 B 公司为了在下一年维持甚至翻倍业绩，必须硬生生去卖给 600 个新客户；获取 300 个全新客户的营销与销售成本，远远超过获取 100 个新客户加维护 200 个老客户的成本。B 公司的利润率会被急剧压缩，陷入“不计代价盲目追求增长”的恶性陷阱。 Alex 指出，营销和销售能力太强有时反而极具危险性——你越擅长销售，短期内拉升收入越快，但如果你的产品像“车尾破了个大洞的公交车”，乘客一边上车一边往下掉，你就必须一刻不停地四处寻找更多分发渠道。一旦销售速度触及天花板或稍有停滞，整家企业就会轰然倒塌。相反，A 公司花心血解决了最艰难也是最核心的问题——让收入沉淀并留存下来。如果 A 公司这样的企业一旦接上庞大的流量与分发能力，瞬间导入 10,000 个新客户，它就能迅速蜕变为数十亿美元级的商业帝国。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 客户留存 vs 纯获客驱动模型对比 accDescr: 对比A公司的留存复利模型与B公司的获客跑步机模型 subgraph CompanyA["A 公司：留存复利模型（健康基石）"] A1["第 1 年：获客 100 （留存 100）"] --> A2["第 2 年：新客 100 + 老客 100 （总客户 200，营收 200 万）"] A2 --> A3["第 3 年：新客 100 + 老客 200 （总客户 300，营收 300 万）"] A3 --> Scale["接入分发渠道： 业务直接爆发至 10 亿美元量级"] end subgraph CompanyB["B 公司：流失跑步机（看似光鲜实则脆弱）"] B1["第 1 年：获客 100 （100 人全部流失）"] --> B2["第 2 年：硬卖 200 新客 （又全部流失，营收 200 万）"] B2 --> B3["第 3 年：狂卖 300 新客 （依然零留存，营收 300 万）"] B3 --> Collapse["获客成本飙升、利润承压： 销售一旦停滞，企业瞬间崩溃"] end ``` --- ### [17:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=1069s) 为什么创始人总觉得时间不够：定价过低与“用自己的钱包卖货” 许多创业者在做到约 100 万美元营收时，常向 Alex 倾诉：“我的客户很喜欢我，回头客不断，但我完全没有时间了，快被累死了。”Alex 面对这类诉求，第一句必问：“你的利润率（Margin）是多少？”时间不够用往往只是表层症状，而非根本病因。如果利润率极其微薄，企业就根本雇不起帮手来分担负荷。深层根因通常只有两个：要么是业务模式和 Offer 本身出了差错——交付内容太多、收费太低，承诺的条款与成本不成比例；要么是缺乏能够向客户证明高价值的营销与销售流程，导致无法收取溢价。在定价问题上，Alex 强调：“我们觉得自己‘配得上’多少钱根本无关紧要，唯一重要的是客户愿意为此支付多少。”新手创业者最常犯的错误，就是“拿着自己的钱包来给客户定价”（selling out of their own wallet）。比如一个擅长修车的人会觉得：“拧紧几个螺丝而已，又没什么难度，换成我自己肯定一分钱都不会付，甚至愿意免费帮人弄。”然而对于不想自己动手修车的顾客而言，他们极为乐意支付昂贵的价格换取省心。因为一件事情对自己很容易，创始人就误以为对所有人都很容易，进而不敢大胆收费。 - **恶性循环**：低定价导致低利润率 $\rightarrow$ 必须亲自承接所有繁重工作以维持微薄利润 $\rightarrow$ 业务量增加却不敢拒绝 $\rightarrow$ 个人精力被填满至毫无冗余产能 $\rightarrow$ 既没资金也没时间去面试、招募与培训新员工。 - **解题逻辑**：如果创始人已经拥有 70% 的高利润率还抱怨累，那么解决方式很简单——“去招人帮忙就行”；但如果没有高利润，问题则源于两三步之前的环节，说明 Offer 错了、销售机制错了，最核心的根源是产品定价严重偏低。 --- ### [19:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=1187s) 招人的致命误区：放下对“独角兽”的执念与创始人的自我虚荣不少创始人抱怨自己尝试过招人，但新员工把事情搞砸了，于是得出结论：“除了我，根本没人能把这件事做好，客户只认我。”Alex 毫不留情地指出，这纯粹是“虚荣心与自我（Ego）在作祟”。人们潜意识里渴望被证明自己是特别的、是不可或缺的，然而“商业的职责是为客户服务，而不是解决你个人的情感需求”。 Alex 认为，我们并没有自己想象的那么独一无二。如果创始人能够穿越回过去，其实只用花十分之一的时间就能把当初的自己教会，因为现在的你已经知道所有曾经踩过的坑以及哪些路径真正有效。与其苛求新人像你一样花费 10 倍时间摸爬滚打，不如把提炼出来的正确方法系统化地传授给他人。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 独角兽招聘谬误 vs 现实团队拼图 accDescr: 展示创始人试图招揽全能独角兽与用犀牛、骏马、萤火虫组合替代的对比 subgraph UnicornMyth["创始人幻想：全能独角兽（极其罕见/不切实际）"] U["'招一个和我一模一样的人' 身兼数职、吃过所有苦、包揽一切"] end subgraph RealisticHire["现实解法：拆解职责找专业拼图"] R["犀牛：负责坚硬的'独角' （执行核心攻坚技能）"] H["骏马：提供稳健的'身躯' （日常稳定运营与交付）"] F["萤火虫：制造闪耀的'火花' （特定创意或增彩环节）"] end UnicornMyth -.->|拆解需求| RealisticHire ``` 创始人在招聘时常陷入寻找“独角兽”的迷局——公司只有两名员工，自己包办一切，就妄想招来一个和自己一模一样、什么都会干的超人。Alex 形象地比喻： - 世界上没有活生生的独角兽，所以面试无数人也是徒劳。 - 但如果将需求拆解：想要那根锋利的角，你可以去找一头**犀牛**；想要优美的身体，你可以去找一匹**骏马**；想要闪闪发光的气质，你可以去找一群**萤火虫**。 - 绝大多数创始人试图在一个人身上索取原本分摊给三个人更容易做到的事情。这正如在亲密关系中，非要强求伴侣同时扮演你的教练、精神导师、心理咨询师和狂热啦啦队员一样荒谬。“我很特别，无人能取代我”只是创始人用来安抚自己的一种极具诱惑力的谎言。当然，很多早期创业者之所以死守“一个人单干”，深层原因还夹杂着不安全感与恐惧——自己一个人干既安全又可控，一旦招了人，就背负了按月发薪、对他人家庭与房贷负责的巨大心理压力。于是便找借口称“别人都做不好”。回顾自己最初招人时踩过的坑，Alex 直言最大的失误就是“标准定得不够高”。如果剥离掉一切浮华的外表，管理者的核心职责唯有一条——**坚守标准（holding the standard）**。既然你对最终结果负责，你就必须成为那个裁定何为合格与卓越的人；在任何一个部门中，身居最高位置的人，理应拥有最高的工作标准。 ### [23:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=1381s) 创业的门槛：破除模糊感，迈出最基础的四步主持人提及外界对个人品牌与商业的关注度与日俱增，并询问 Alex Hormozi 是否察觉到大家向他提问的内容发生了变化。Alex 的回答十分干脆：“并没有。”人们反复来问的问题几乎永远如出一辙：“嘿，我正在考虑做某件事，你觉得怎么样？我想做一个播客代运营机构，你怎么看？”Alex 笑着坦言，自己怎么看根本无关紧要。他通常会反问对方一个问题：“那你目前为止具体做了什么？”而十有八九，对方的答复都是：“额，我还没做呢，我只是在想。” ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 创业极简启动四步流程 accDescr: 从构想到成为真正企业家的四个极简动作：注册公司、开立银行账户、配置收款方式、向陌生人推销换取金钱。 A["注册有限责任公司 (LLC)"] --> B["开立企业银行账户"] B --> C["具备资金结算与收款能力"] C --> D["向陌生人提供服务并收取报酬"] ``` Alex 深入剖析了这类“只停留在空想阶段”的心态：人们之所以把这类想法挂在嘴边，要么是找不到其他商业话题可聊，要么就是一种“拖延式思考（procrastive procrastination）”，寄希望于大师给出某一句神奇的答案，能帮他们跨过启动的门槛。本质上，启动之所以如此困难，是因为“创业”在人们脑中是一个过于庞大且面目模糊（amorphous）的概念，就像面对任何完全不会做的事情一样，让人感到无从下手。Alex 指出，要打破这种迷茫，必须将其拆解为极其具体且微小的行动步骤： - **设立法律实体**：注册一家有限责任公司（LLC）。 - **开立商业账户**：去银行设立专门的企业银行账户。 - **打通支付链路**：具备能处理和接收资金的收款工具。 - **获取第一笔收入**：走向一个陌生人，询问能否为对方提供某项价值以换取报酬。一旦完成这四步，你就已经是一名真正的企业所有者，击败了 95% 仅仅停留在“想创业”阶段的人，身份也从“空想家（wantrepreneur）”正式转变为了“创业者（entrepreneur）”。Alex 将这种转变类比于客户的购买行为：当一个人只是消费免费内容时，他只是路人；一旦完成付费，其身份认同就发生了彻底转变，后续进行增购（ascension）和续费（renewal）的阻力会呈指数级下降。对于创业者而言，赚到“第一块钱”至关重要，它让你终于抓住了这件抽象庞然大物的实质一角，明白商业底层无非就是“提供服务收取报酬”或“制造产品卖出后设法量产”，除此之外的一切纠结都只是自我制造的混乱。 --- ### [25:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=1552s) 杀死别人眼中的你：穿透恐惧与拥抱“尴尬期” 当主持人问及，如果能穿越回当年 Alex 刚在起跑线上犹豫不决的时刻，他会向年轻的自己耳语什么建议时，Alex 给出了一个极具哲思的视角。他坦言自己深思过这个问题：如果 20 年后未来的自己突然出现在这个房间里，他希望那个未来的自己什么都不要说，因为“什么都不说就意味着当下的每一步都起到了应有的作用”。但如果真的必须去劝导那个迟迟不敢起跳的年轻自己，核心只有一句话：“你必须想清楚，你究竟是在乎自己的未来，还是更在乎别人对你未来的看法。” > “某一个版本的你必须死掉：要么是你渴望成为的那个版本的你死去，要么是别人渴望你成为的那个版本的你死去。而事实是，你和自己相处的时间，远比他们陪你的时间长得多。” 创业初期的一切阻碍归根结底都是恐惧，而这种恐惧完全合情合理，因为未知和风险是客观存在的。但每一位成功起步的创业者，最开始都处于一无所知的状态。唯一的解法就是带着信心启程：就像在浓雾中攀登高山，你永远不可能看清登顶的全貌，但只要迈开脚步，脚下的几步雾气就会散开，每走一步，下一步的路才会显现。人们常常陷入一种“渴望掌控全局”的病态执念，试图向一个毫无确定性可言的世界索取绝对确定性，而这与商业的本质背道而驰。谈到克服恐惧与心理包袱，Alex 强调每个人都必须坦然接受自己的起步阶段是极为笨拙且“令人尴尬（cringe）”的： - **放下体面与虚荣**：在起跑线上，你不可能看起来既酷又成功；所有人都能看出你水平不行，你自己也心知肚明，但必须“拥抱尴尬（embrace cringes）”。 - **打破局部最优（Local Maximum）**：人们往往被自己现有的舒适圈和微薄所得牢牢锁死，害怕冒险失去这一点点既得利益；但留在原地唯一的保证就是 100% 无法得到自己真正想要的生活，唯有行动才有一线转机。 - **彻底拆解失败的具象场景**：恐惧和迷茫只寄生在模糊不清的词汇中（例如抽象的“我会失败、所有人都会嘲笑我”）。一旦将失败具体化——比如“向 100 个人推销全部被拒”，结论不过是“调整方案再去问下一批 100 个人”，并没有致命威胁。 - **推演最极端的后备方案（Plan B）**：即便辞职失去收入且短期受挫，你依然可以住朋友家的沙发或搬回父母家。“低头回家”只有在你彻底放弃时才叫夹着尾巴做人；若向家人坦诚“我是为了攒下资本延长跑道、冲击大目标”，这就只是战略转移。 Alex 回忆起自己初期的极端节俭生活：当时他与另外 5 个人合租一套 6 居室的房子，甚至连其中的一个单间都要再和一个男生平摊。他每个月只花 400 美元房租，在地板上铺一张床垫度日，平时整天扑在外面工作。他感慨道，绝大多数人之所以无法走出第一步，是因为他们被自己的生活方式和面子戴上了手铐，不愿在短期内牺牲表面上的光鲜去追求长期的跃升；但如果一个人真正尝试压低物欲，会惊奇地发现维持生存所需要的成本其实低得惊人。 ### [30:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=1840s) 商业进阶的本质：越往上走，不确定性反而成倍放大面对长远眼光与短期牺牲的抉择，人们往往容易陷入一种认知误区。主持人 Steven Bartlett 指出，在很多年轻人甚至 18 岁的新手创业者眼中，像 Alex Hormozi 这样功成名就的企业家似乎早已洞悉了一切规律，生活里不再有恐惧、困惑、迷茫和歧义，也不需要为复杂的决策抓破脑袋，因为他们“掌握了所有标准答案”。但事实恰恰相反，在商业世界里，“不确定性贯穿了从始至终的每一步”。Steven 用了一个生动的比喻：创业就像面对一排贴着晦涩密码的门，好不容易选对一扇走过去，迎面而来的不是豁然开朗，而是另外 10 扇更加模糊不清的门；再选错一次，踩坑亏钱，被迫掉头；下一次选对了，面前又瞬间分裂出 20 扇门。你的成功越大，拥有的选择权（optionality）就越多，需要应对的未知与决策压力反而呈现指数级增长。 Alex Hormozi 深度认同这种感受，并指出这正是商业最耐人寻味的悖论：处于事业越早期的阶段，能够获得的建议反而越具体清晰。如果你连一家公司都还没有，第一步对全世界所有人来说都完全一样，没有任何秘密或歧义可言。但随着业务壮大、资源增加，企业形态变得极其复杂，面前的“门”也会成倍激增。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 创业不同阶段的确定性与选择权对比 accDescr: 展现从零起步的确定路径到规模化阶段面临的指数级选择与不确定性 subgraph Phase1["零起步阶段（极高确定性 / 极少分叉）"] A["注册法定公司实体 (Entity)"] --> B["开设商业银行账户 (Bank Account)"] B --> C["配置支付网关/刷卡结算 (Processor)"] C --> D["验证商业闭环与初次变现"] end subgraph Phase2["成长期与规模化阶段（极高不确定性 / 选择权爆发）"] D --> E{"战略决策之门（几何级倍增）"} E --> F["门 1: 资本配置与再投资"] E --> G["门 2: 团队扩张与组织架构"] E --> H["门 3: 新业务线 / 兼并收购"] E --> I["门 N: 退出、转让或第二曲线..."] end ``` - **从零起步的标准三大件**：任何生意的起步底层逻辑都相同，无非是“法定实体（Entity）+ 银行账户（Bank Account）+ 收款/信用卡结算通道（Payment Processor）”。 - **认知的残酷真相**：在最初阶段，你永远比以后任何时候都更清楚“下一步该做什么”，因此“不知道怎么做”纯属借口。 --- ### [32:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=1958s) 困住你的不是缺乏知识，而是某个特定之人的审判既然最初的行动步骤如此直白，为什么绝大多数人依然迟迟迈不出第一步？Alex 直言，根本原因与“不懂方法”毫无关系，而纯粹是因为恐惧——更准确地说，是你脑海中在听取谁的声音，你究竟在害怕让谁失望，或者在害怕谁的评判。人们总喜欢用一种宏大而模糊的借口来掩饰恐惧，比如“别人会怎么看我”、“外界会怎么议论我”。Alex 尖锐地指出，从来就没有什么抽象的“大众”，在你的潜意识里，那个声音通常具体到只有一两个人，“只要你敢把名字写出来，你会发现那不过就是詹姆斯（James）或者贝蒂（Betty）”。他坦言自己即便在财富自由阶段也未能彻底免俗：当年在考虑出售 Gym Launch 时，这是一次极其艰难的决定，而当时他迟迟不肯按下确认键的一个荒谬原因，竟是因为社交圈里一个甚至算不上亲密朋友的人。Alex 脑海中一直有个声音在打转：“他会不会觉得卖了 4600 万美元根本算不上真正的成功？他会不会觉得这不够上台面（not legit）？” 直到某一刻 Alex 猛然警醒：“我难道要因为顾忌这个人的看法，就放弃这笔交易，甚至让他操控我的人生吗？”当你用这种直白的语言直面问题时，内心的荒谬感与沉重感会瞬间爆发。无论那个人是你的母亲、叔叔、兄弟，还是身边的同事约翰，只要你过度渴望获得他的认可，本质上就是在把人生的遥控器拱手让人。“你必须学会把‘自我认可’置于任何外部评价之上。” --- ### [34:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=2040s) 撕掉 MBA 蓝图：第一性原理算出的 24 万美元账单 Alex 强调，大家今天在镜头前看到的这个果断自信的自己，绝不是当年那个坐在办公室里犹豫不决、畏缩不前的年轻人。在真正辞职创业之前，他在长达 6 个月的时间里陷入了严重的心理内耗。那时他拥有一套几乎能倒背如流的应酬套话：“我现在在做咨询，打算先去读个顶尖商学院，然后未来的某一天再自己创业。” 但当他开始用第一性原理（First Principles）解构这个看似完美的精英规划时，整个逻辑轰然倒塌： 1. **真实回报率考量**：顶尖商学院毕业后的起薪大约是每年 12 万美元。 2. **沉没成本与学费**：每年的学费高达 6 万美元，两年直接支出 12 万美元；而在读书期间无法全职赚钱，以他当时每年五六万美元的薪资计算，两年的机会成本又是 12 万美元。 3. **总账单对比**：去读两年商学院的隐形成本高达 24 万美元。Alex 拷问自己：“如果我把手里存下的那点钱直接用来创业，花两年时间，我难道干不到月入 1 万美元（年入 12 万）吗？我认为我可以。” 彻底打破这一幻想的临门一脚，是芝加哥大学布斯商学院（Chicago Booth MBA）的一道申请考题：“布斯商学院的 MBA 学位将如何帮助你实现短期和长期目标？”Alex 对着这道题苦思冥想了整整三天，最终不得不承认：这个学位对他的长期创业目标根本没有任何实质性帮助。商学院的入学测试反而成了逼他认清现实的解脱剂。 --- ### [35:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=2102s) 磨损的牛皮地毯，与一次“懦夫般”的跨国逃亡在下定决心前的这半年里，Alex 陷入了一种看似极度勤奋、实则停滞不前的自我感动之中。因为咨询工作有淡季和旺季，在空闲的淡季里，他几乎每两天就啃完一本成功学书籍。直到某天读完手头的一堆畅销书后，他环顾自己的现实生活，惊愕地发现一切都没有丝毫改变。“我当时有一种天真的幻想，以为只要不停地读这些书，我的生活就会奇迹般地自动发生转变。但我终于意识到：如果你不付诸实质行动，什么都不会发生。” 除了疯狂看书，他和另一位同样从事白领工作的朋友陷入了空想循环。两个人每天晚上都要通两到三个小时的电话，兴奋地畅想各种创业点子。Alex 当时在小公寓里铺了一张在宜家（IKEA）买的真皮牛皮地毯，因为每晚打电话时他在房间里来回焦躁地踱步，天长日久，那张牛皮地毯正中间竟然被他生生踏出了一条肉眼可见的磨损痕迹。然而，每当他鼓起勇气向父亲透露创业的想法时，得到的永远是一盆冷水。父亲总是理智而严厉地告诫他：“千万别不理智。你现在有一份体面的好工作，你一直在按部就班地走在正轨上——你用三年时间就从范德堡大学（Vanderbilt University）高分毕业，在这家公司干满两年，接着去读顶尖常春藤商学院，前途一片光明，这才是你应该走的路！” 因为父亲的威严和屡次劝阻，Alex 坦言自己当时表现得像个不折不扣的“懦夫”：他辞掉工作后，根本不敢当面告诉父亲。他独自一人开着车，一路狂奔穿越了大半个美国，直到彼此距离相隔千山万水，他才敢在公路上拿起电话拨给父亲，坦白自己已经辞职、准备放手一搏。因为他心知肚明，如果当着父亲的面，自己百分之百会被再次说服并妥协。 --- ### [36:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=2198s) 父亲的硬核奋斗史：逃离伊朗、家得宝自建手术室与残酷离婚当 Steven 拿出事先准备的家庭旧照时，话题转向了 Alex 父亲的过往。Alex 动情地表示，外人眼中看到的所谓商业成功，如果跟父亲一生的成就相比，根本不值一提。父亲所经历的一切，不仅塑造了整个家族的命运，也深刻解释了为什么他当年会那样竭尽全力阻止 Alex 冒险。父亲的人生是一部跨越战乱与阶层的残酷生存史： - **逃亡与语言绝境**：在伊朗伊斯兰革命爆发期间，父亲被迫逃离祖国流亡欧洲。他孤身前往法国想考取行医资格成为医生，但他当时连一句法语都不会说。在完全不懂法语的情况下硬啃有机化学（Orgo），导致他连续两年考试挂科。在兄弟的建议下，他转赴比利时，重新在陌生的语言环境中死磕，最终以惊人的毅力硬生生完成了全部医学院学业，并在那里结识了 Alex 的母亲。 - **学历清零与底层熬炼**：毕业后他们前往美国，但父亲在欧洲获得的医学学位在美国完全不被承认。为了争取到一个住院医师培训（Residency）名额，他处处碰壁——当时的美国医疗体系更青睐本土毕业生，根本没人愿意接纳一个操着浓重中东口音、履历空白的外国医学生。整整两年时间，堂堂正正的医学毕业生只能靠在医院里搬运、整理 X 光胶片打杂糊口，苦熬两年后才终于拿到了住院医师资格。 - **在家得宝徒手搭建手术室**：在终于完成规培回到巴尔的摩（Baltimore）后，骨子里极具韧劲的父亲做了一个极其大胆的决定：他不愿寄人篱下加入岳父与妻子的合伙诊所，而是决定独立单干。当时要在私人诊所内部配建一间合规的独立手术中心，外部承包商的报价高达 25 万美元——在那个年代这是一笔天文数字，父亲根本掏不出来。于是他找来医疗建筑的全部法规和技术指标，研究得一清二楚后，独自一人跑到家得宝（Home Depot）采购建材工具，亲手一砖一瓦地把手术室硬生生建了出来，并且一次性通过了官方所有的严苛验收与安全检查。 - **中年婚变与毁灭性打击**：然而好景不长，正当诊所业务走上正轨、刚见起色时，父母爆发了极其丑陋惨烈的离婚大战。对方直接更换了诊所大门的门锁，导致父亲的病人前来看诊时连门都进不去，四处茫然不知所措。父亲只能在巨大的精神与财务重创下，再次从废墟中赤手空拳重建自己的事业。正是经历过流离失所、异国歧视、身无分文以及人到中年的归零危机，父亲对“安稳”与“体制内阶梯”有着刻入骨髓的敬畏与渴望。在他看来，儿子历经千辛万苦拿到顶级名校文凭、进入咨询巨头，是家族几代人流血牺牲换来的最高避风港，绝不能任由 Alex 轻易拿去豪赌。 ### [38:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=2312s) 渴望证明自己与“中彩票的恐惧” 在回顾父亲对自己职业生涯的影响时，Alex Hormozi 提到父亲总以几十年执业生涯的视角来宽慰他：年轻时一两年的蹉跎在漫长的人生维度里微不足道，日后甚至根本不会记得。然而年轻气盛的 Alex 当时心里只有一个执念：他极度渴望证明自己能够完全凭自己的能力独立成功。当主持人问及究竟想向谁证明时，Alex 笑称“向所有人——包括我自己、我父亲，以及整个世界”。他分享了一件听上去极度荒谬却真实存在的往事：大学期间，彩票奖金累计到约 10 亿美元时，他也买了一张凑热闹。但就在开奖号码即将揭晓的那一刻，他内心涌起的居然不是期待，而是一种纯粹的恐惧——他害怕自己真的中了 10 亿大奖。因为一旦靠中彩票暴富，他将永远无法向自己和外界证明自己到底有没有真本事、能不能靠硬实力做出成绩。虽然现在的 Alex 调侃说如果现在有人送他 10 亿，他会欣然笑纳，但那是因为他如今早已建立起无法被剥夺的成就、社会地位与实打实的行业战绩（Track Record）。出于同样的心理，Alex 最初创业时坚持不向外界借贷，全部使用自己省吃俭用攒下的积蓄。他需要这项事业从始至终完完全全属于自己。他坦言父亲的出发点极其纯粹且充满善意，给出的也是适合绝大多数普通人的良策，但那套稳妥的建议并不适配他野心勃勃的目标。 - **不借贷创业**：Alex 在起步时拒绝接受贷款或外部资助，完全依靠个人积蓄自负盈亏，以确保成果的纯粹性。 - **10 亿美元彩票恐惧**：对过早获得非努力所得的财富产生抗拒，根源在于不希望丧失检验与证明自身“含金量”（Mettle）的机会。 --- ### [39:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=2395s) 谁适合创业？幸福的主观性与“未做决定的代价” 主持人提出了一个深刻的自省：作为商业内容创作者，他们频繁鼓吹创业，这是否会在无形中把一部分原本适合安稳职场的人引入歧途？为了探讨“普通人如何判断自己该不该创业”，主持人分享了一个幕后故事：他曾问一位跟随他 6 至 7 年、从自家餐桌一路拍摄到全球各地的核心节目制作人：“你觉得我幸福吗？”对方毫不犹豫地回答“幸福”。但当紧接着被问到“那你愿意过我这种生活吗？”时，制作人立刻极其强烈、甚至带着防卫性的大笑着拒绝：“绝对不要！”这生动揭示了人生路径的高度主观性：在外人看来令人羡慕的成就与幸福，其背后承受的高压、牺牲与生活方式，并非每个人都能承受或渴望。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Decision Making and Commitment Flow accDescr: 展示从迷恋可能性到做出具体承诺、放弃其他选项的决策闭环 subgraph Trap["决策陷阱：过度追求保留选项"] A["迷恋绝对自由 / 可能性最大化"] --> B["面临岔路口：停滞不前"] B --> C["未做出的决定 (永远耗费认知带宽)"] end subgraph Solution["破局之道：明确目标与坚定承诺"] D["具体化目标 (排除模糊恐惧)"] --> E["行使选择权 (走入一扇门)"] E --> F["主动割舍其余门后的可能性"] F --> G["快速试错与反馈循环 (持续推进)"] end C -.->|破局转变| D ``` 针对如何判断，Alex 提出了关于目标界定与决策机制的框架： 1. **目标与日常的极度具体化**：大多数人开口就是追求“自由”或“财务自由”，但这种空泛的词毫无意义。恐惧源于具体，目标也唯有具象到细枝末节才能指导决策。你必须问清自己：“我究竟想让什么发生？而这会如何切切实实地改变我的‘日常生活’细节？” 2. **警惕对“保留选项”的病态执念**：人们往往陷入对“完全自主”和“可能性最大化”（Options Maxing）的病态崇拜，以为把所有门都虚掩着就是自由。但人生所有顶级的体验与成果，全都在“行使选择权并坚决迈进一扇门”之后才会发生。跨过一扇门，必然意味着放弃其他所有门。 3. **未做决定的终极内耗**：许多人在创业初期或扩张阶段，耗费数月甚至数年停留在“我要做哪类产品、建哪种公司”的十字路口。Alex 指出，陷入持续测试的反馈循环并不可怕，可怕的是迟迟不做决定——因为“未做出的决定可以无休止地悬而未决”，那是吞噬创业者时间与潜力的真正黑洞。 --- ### [43:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=2588s) 创业门槛降低后的现实：痛苦才是转变的开关主持人指出，如今在个人 IP、数字工具与内容经济的爆发下，30 岁以下的年轻一代似乎不再像父辈那样在一家单位深耕三四十年，而是试图利用现成工具做自由职业、做品牌。统计数据表明，特别是疫情之后，美国每季度新成立的企业数量呈现极具攻击性的增长态势，创业门槛和信息壁垒已被大幅拉低。既然工具与信息如此唾手可得，为何真正迈出步伐并成功的人依然只是少数？Alex 认为，核心阻碍在于**动力机制（Motivation）**的失衡： - **胡萝卜过多，大棒不足**：大多数职场人拥有太多让他们留在舒适区的“胡萝卜”（可观的薪水、体面的职位、安全的生活），而促使他们逃离现状的“大棒”（危机感与压迫感）却不够沉重。 - **痛感差值理论**：正如托尼·罗宾斯（Tony Robbins）的名言所述，**“维持现状的痛苦，必须大于改变所带来的痛苦”**，真正的行动才会发生。绝大多数人虽然嘴上抱怨现状，但内心承受的折磨尚未突破那个临界阈值。只有当不改变的痛苦彻底压倒对未知的恐惧时，一个人才会义无反顾地投身于创业的惊涛骇浪之中。 --- ### [44:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=2687s) 商业插播：精准受众营销与创作者痛点播客在此处切入了赞助商与产品介绍环节，探讨了现代商业中的获客与运营痛点： - **LinkedIn Ads（营销受众与决策者直达）**：在企业日常运营中，市场预算往往批复迅速，却经常颗粒无收。其根本原因不在于文案创意或产品 Offer 本身，而在于广告推送给了没有采购决定权、也无法引荐业务的错误受众。LinkedIn Ads 能够让企业基于职位、资历等级、企业规模、行业及专业技能精准定向核心决策人，在主流广告网络中斩获最高的 B2B 广告支出回报率（ROAS）。在 `linkedin.com/diary` 投放首期 250 美元可获赠 250 美元广告抵用金。 - **Flightcast（播客跨平台分发与数据痛点）**：针对内容创作者在传统托管平台上面临的痛苦——跨平台分发繁琐（同一段庞大的视频文件不得不分别手动上传至 YouTube、Spotify 等各渠道）、数据割裂且深度分析匮乏。为此专门打造了 Flightcast（`flightcast.com/doac`），集成 AI 分析工具与全托管增长功能，为头部创作者与新兴播客消除繁琐摩擦，建立内容分发的竞争优势。广告结束后，对话回到核心议题，主持人向 Alex 抛出下一个沉重的问题：“你认为人生的回报，真的与你所解决问题的难度成正比吗？” ### [46:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=2816s) 解决难题并不等于赚钱：普通人如何成为百万富翁并非所有困难的事情都具有商业价值。如果你拼尽全力跑完一场马拉松，这件事确实极其艰难，但它并不会自动为你带来收入；世界上充斥着大量无法变现的艰难挑战。商业变现的核心很大程度上取决于你设立的目标规模：如果你仅仅想成为一名百万富翁，根本不需要去攻坚尖端、高难度的世界级难题。在这个层面上，创业者真正要做的，只是比那些严重怠慢客户的现有同行做得稍微好一点点——而现实中这种低质经营的同行比比皆是。比如经营一家游泳池清洁公司，你只要做到按时上门、清洁得比别人更干净细致，然后挨家挨户敲门询问房主是否愿意更换服务商即可。因为现有的清洁公司大概率根本没把客户放在心上。 - **努力与变现的错位**：付出巨大的体力或心智努力（如跑马拉松），并不天然等同于创造商业价值。 - **百万富翁的现实门槛**：无需颠覆行业，只需在同质化、服务粗糙的基础民生服务（如泳池清洁、家政管道）中提供可靠、准时的基本服务，就能抢占大量客户。 --- ### [47:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=2851s) AI 内容海啸下的供需冲击：“现实才是真正的护城河” 当下的内容创作领域正处于一个奇特而极端的转折点。无论是在孟买还是在曼哈顿，任何一个年轻人都可以借助大语言模型（LLM）和生成式 AI 批量制作视频、图片、套用名人格言，甚至安排 AI 代理自动发布。然而从供需关系来看，受众的注意力和需求是相对固定的，甚至《金融时报》（Financial Times）的报告指出，自 2022 年以来，Z 世代在社交媒体上的使用时长已开始出现小幅下滑。在需求停滞甚至微跌的背景下，海量的“AI 垃圾内容”（AI slop）如海啸般涌入市场，导致单篇内容的平均价值被大幅稀释。与此同时，平台算法变得愈发残酷——哪怕坐拥 1,000 万粉丝的账号，一条动态也可能只有区区 2,000 个点赞，与 15 年前拥有百万粉丝即可轻松斩获百万曝光的黄金时代相去甚远。面对这种人人皆可一键生成内容的泛滥世界，内容创作者的护城河究竟何在？Alex Hormozi 给出了极其明确的定论：“现实就是护城河”（Reality is the moat）。当机器能模拟一切文本与音画时，唯有你在物理现实中取得的成就、积攒的品牌与声誉无法被伪造。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: AI时代的内容供需与护城河逻辑 accDescr: 展示AI内容供给爆炸与需求见顶的矛盾，以及现实成就作为最终护城河的流转机制 subgraph Market ["市场供需错配"] A["生成式 AI / LLM 普及 内容生产边际成本趋零"] --> B["AI 垃圾内容泛滥 供给发生剧烈冲击"] C["用户注意力见顶 社交媒体使用时长停滞/微跌"] --> D["单篇内容价值稀释 算法机制愈发残酷"] end subgraph Moat ["现实与声誉护城河"] E["现实中的商业成就与经历 （实体企业 / 长期履历）"] --> F["不可替代的个人品牌与信誉"] F --> G["穿透算法与内容海啸的权威背书"] end B --> D D -.->|单纯拼产出失效| Moat ``` 埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）之所以是全球最具影响力的商业博主，是因为他拥有世界顶级的实体商业帝国并贵为全球首富；杰夫·贝索斯（Jeff Bezos）坐拥巨大声量，因其缔造了亚马逊；沃伦·巴菲特（Warren Buffett）每一次开口都能吸引全球投资者跨洋聆听。即使爱荷华州得梅因市的一位普通教师逐字逐句背诵巴菲特的投资名言，甚至能给出比巴菲特更精妙的建议，也绝不可能获得同等的关注度——因为那位教师唯独少建了一个伯克希尔·哈撒韦，没有长达数十年的真实商业战绩作为支撑。 --- ### [49:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=2998s) 风险连续谱理论：AI 时代如何重构内容策略针对算法异动和 AI 泛滥的现状，Alex Hormozi 调整了自身的内容制作哲学：专注于做“唯有自己能做”的事情。绝大多数人无法做到每个月吸引数百位年收入在 50 万、300 万、500 万乃至 1,000 万美元以上的实体企业老板专程飞赴现场，在聚光灯下围绕真实的商业经营痛点展开即兴问答。这种在线下真实世界（IRL）、带着真金白银利害关系（Real stakes）的即兴专业展示，是现阶段任何 AI 分身或低门槛创作者都无法复制的。 Alex 提出了一个用于评估内容受 AI 冲击程度的“风险连续谱”（Risk Continuum）模型。在界定这个模型前，他首先严格区分了娱乐与教育的根本属性：娱乐的唯一目的是“被消费”，而教育的最终目的是“改变人的行为”。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 内容类型与用户决策风险连续谱 accDescr: 从左到右展示随着用户行动风险升高，内容对现实信誉背书的依赖呈指数级上升 subgraph LowRisk ["低风险：轻度娱乐 / 技巧"] A["美妆教程 / 虚构创作 后果：化坏一次妆容 对真实信誉要求极低"] end subgraph MidRisk ["中风险：财务管理"] B["个人理财咨询 后果：损失部分积蓄 代表：Dave Ramsey 等头部IP"] end subgraph HighRisk ["高风险：商业与组织决策"] C["商业实战策略 后果：企业破产 / 巨大负债 必须依赖极高的现实战绩与信誉"] end LowRisk --> MidRisk --> HighRisk ``` - **娱乐类内容**：受 AI 冲击最为猛烈，除非创作者能在现实世界中引入真实的人格、真实的代价与戏剧张力； - **低风险教育（如美妆教学）**：用户尝试失败的代价仅仅是顶着不好看的妆容度过一天，因此即便是 AI 生成的虚拟美妆博主，只要视觉教程实用，观众也完全乐意照做； - **中风险教育（如个人理财）**：涉及真实的金钱损失，受众需要真实资质背书。例如 Dave Ramsey 的号召力来源于他自身亿万富翁的资产背景以及年营收数亿美元的媒体公司体量，此外还有 Vivian Tu 或 Erica Kullberg 等具有专业合规背景的创作者； - **高风险教育（如企业经营管理）**：听取错误建议的代价可能是全盘皆输、公司破产。当决策后果越严重、试错风险越高，受众就越会无条件倾向于向拥有绝对现实信誉的源头寻求解答。 --- ### [53:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=3183s) 稀缺性、权威感与新手突围：“结果证明”与“过程证明” 对话主持 Steven Bartlett 结合《CEO日记》（The Diary Of A CEO）的制作机制，对这一逻辑进行了共鸣补充：对抗 AI 泛滥的核心关键词是“困难”（Hard）与“稀缺”（Scarce）。用 9 台专业摄影机进行全方位实景摄制、邀请到 Alex Hormozi、米歇尔·奥巴马（Michelle Obama）或 JD·万斯（JD Vance）亲临现场进行深谈，本身就是在制作工艺与人脉资源上构筑了极高的执行门槛。Alex 亦坦言，如果当年自己只有 4,600 万美元的企业退出经历，或许无法吸引如今规模的企业家群体；但如今 Acquisition.com 旗下的投资组合年营收突破 2.5 亿美元、持股的 Skool 估值跨过 10 亿美元门槛，并且在现实中继续操盘线下实体连锁企业，这种从现实经营中源源不断输出的权威感，让他的内容完全脱离了“纯粹的内容创作者”维度。面对内容创作的全面去中心化，创作者必须彻底摒弃没有真实业务支撑的、同质化严重的“技巧与捷径”（Commoditized tips and tricks）。在教育类内容中，任何观众在点击进来的头几秒都会在心底暗问：“我凭什么听你的？”（Why should I listen to you?）。消费权威人士的内容心智负担极低，因为观众信任其结果无需费力辨别真伪；而消费无名之辈的理财建议，受众则必须耗费大量脑力去推敲推导。对于刚起步、尚未拥有辉煌成果的新手，Alex 给出了破局路径：如果暂时拿不出**“结果证明”**（Proof of outcome），就必须全力展示**“过程证明”**（Proof of effort）——诚实地记录自己一步一个脚印解决问题、投入汗水的真实历程（正如早期 MrBeast 记录无数次尝试的努力过程一样），以真实的行动替代虚张声势的说教。 ### [55:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=3334s) 努力的证明与时间的压缩在内容创作和商业交付中，“努力的证明”（proof of effort）具有极大的说服力。MrBeast 早期最火爆的视频之一就是他数数一直数到一百万；当你一无所有时，你唯一拥有的就是时间和努力。如果一个新人想做销售相关的内容或服务，最好的做法不是空谈理论，而是打开摄像机记录下一整天做销售的真实画面。当遇到高难度问题并成功克服时——那是拥有真实赌注的现实生活——只需截取那个高光片段并展示给观众：“今天我打了 22 通电话，用 3 分钟带你看最精彩的博弈；我工作了 12 个小时，为你提炼出最有价值的瞬间。”观众天然想要这种“超值交易”。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Alex Hormozi 的价值公式构成 accDescr: 价值等于梦想结果与感知达成概率的乘积，除以时间延迟与努力牺牲的乘积。 subgraph 分子["分子：最大化提高价值"] A["梦想结果 (Dream Outcome)"] B["达成概率认知 (Perceived Likelihood of Achievement)"] end subgraph 分母["分母：最小化减少阻力"] C["时间延迟 (Time Delay)"] D["努力与牺牲 (Effort & Sacrifice)"] end A --> Value["整体价值 (Value)"] B --> Value C -.->|降低分母| Value D -.->|降低分母| Value ``` 这本质上是对“时间进行压缩”（compression of time）。大众之所以愿意倾听经验丰富、走在前面的人，正是因为后者能压缩时间。你当然可以花 14 年自己去摸索商业规律，但如果有人能将 14 年的心得浓缩进 37 分钟里，这就是一笔极其划算的买卖。 ### [56:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=3381s) 拆解“价值公式”（The Value Equation） Alex Hormozi 详细阐述了他在《$100M Offers》中提出的“价值公式”（The Value Equation），该公式由四个变量组成，决定了任何产品、服务乃至内容的吸引力： 1. **梦想结果（Dream Outcome）**：不同结果的价值存在天然高低。帮你理发与帮你打造完美身材相比，好身材更有价值；而让你成为亿万富翁，其价值又远超好身材。 2. **达成概率认知（Perceived Likelihood of Achievement）**：即风险的反面，顾客潜意识里认为自己拿到结果的可能性有多大。花 19 美元买一份健身 PDF 电子书，与花 3000 美元雇一名私人教练每周当面指导 3 次，后者给人的达成信心要高得多。 3. **时间延迟（Time Delay）**：从付出行动到获得结果需要多长时间。如果 3 分钟就能塑形，其价值就远高于需要 3 个月或 3 年的方案。 4. **努力与牺牲（Effort & Sacrifice）**：二者有着细微差别。“努力”是你做出决策后不得不开始做的反人性事情（例如健身需要早起、忍受肌肉酸痛、吃难吃的健身餐）；“牺牲”则是你不得不放弃的原本喜欢的美好事物（比如不能再睡懒觉、不能再吃高热量垃圾食品）。这套公式不仅适用于商业交易，也完全契合内容消费。比如看视频学投资，观众预期获得投资知识（结果），预期主讲人能带来干货（达成概率）；但如果视频长达 4 小时，其时间成本与牺牲（放弃看 Netflix 的娱乐时间）就远高于 3 分钟短视频。Alex 指出，商业中被低估最严重的杠杆就是“时间延迟”：如果你想彻底颠覆一个传统行业，最直接的打法就是观察所有人是怎么做的，然后用**一半的时间**把它做完，市场上永远有人愿意为此支付高额溢价。 ### [59:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=3567s) 贝索斯的“不变法则”与终局视角的折扣效应亚马逊创始人 Jeff Bezos 曾提出一个核心底层逻辑：与其押注瞬息万变的技术风向，不如押注未来“不会变的事情”。十年后，消费者依然想要更低的价格、更丰富的选择、更快捷的配送（2 小时送到永远优于 2 天送达）。亚马逊的极速一键下单、海量五星好评系统，本质上都是在系统化地践行价值公式——降低认知风险、减少努力阻力、缩短等待时间。人性的一大悲剧在于：**如果一个积极的未来结果被推迟得足够遥远，人们在心理上会将其贴现（折现）为零**。 - 哪怕这是一笔稳赚不赔的买卖——例如每周坚持将 100 到 200 美元定投到指数基金中，坚持三四十年几乎必然能成为富人； - 但因为结果在 30 年后，而眼前的拿铁咖啡和即时享受就在今天，时间折现会让绝大多数人放弃长远回报。 ### [01:01:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=3675s) 隐形的护城河：一致性、专注与耐心有些商业和人生的真理是极难直接传授的“不可教教训”（unteachable lessons），只有亲身经历才能领悟。Alex 提到一名跟随他多年的老员工曾说：“我看了你很多年的视频内容，但直到我看到你每天凌晨 4:00 就准时出现在办公室——而且你明明早已财务自由、根本不需要这么做——我才真正被这种一致性（Consistency）震撼。这是在任何内容里都看不见的，视频里能看到的只是最终的产出。” - **一致性需要自身具备一致性才能见证**：即使放一段 10 秒钟的延时摄影，观众也无法真正体会那种日复一日的沉重质感。 - **专注（Focus）难以被旁人目睹**：正如 Alex 的合伙人 Shiran 所说：“人们只能看到你做出的选择，却看不见你当初拒绝了多少选项。”因此外界看不见你的极度聚焦，他们只能看到你赢了。 - **耐心（Patience）也是隐形的**：马拉松比赛中，人群只会拥挤在起跑线和终点线欢呼，没人愿意在漫长而枯燥的中途守候。商业与个人成长也是如此，大众往往只能见证开局与加冕，中间枯燥坚持的岁月永远隐没在深处。赌场的运营哲学也印证了即时反馈的魔力：赌场大亨 Steve Wynn 曾表示，最理想的状况是新手第一次踏入赌场时下重注并大获全胜，这种即时且强烈的正向强化会让人一辈子沉迷博彩；最坏的情况则是他们初次下注就赔光离开，从而彻底远离赌局。在创业与积累中，缺乏早期反馈往往导致人们极难坚持，而真正决定终局的，恰恰是极少数人穿越枯燥中场时的耐心与定力。 ### [01:03:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=3791s) 复利曲线与延迟满足的力量 Alex 谈到，他对自己未来的孩子或任何刚刚起步的人最大的期许，就是希望他们生命中能发生一件让他们真正领悟“延迟满足”的事情——通过持续不断的付出，推迟享受成果，最终赢得巨大的回报与惊喜。因为一旦你尝到了延迟满足的甜头，理解了“如果你愿意等待，成果可以变得多么庞大”，你的底层思维就会彻底蜕变。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 复利增长轨迹 accDescr: 展现从前期漫长的平淡积累到后期垂直爆发的复利曲线性质。 subgraph S1["前期：积累期"] A["持续投入与推迟奖励"] --> B["漫长平缓的低增长"] end subgraph S2["拐点：爆发期"] B --> C["突破临界点"] C --> D["指数级垂直拉升"] end ``` 主持人 Steven 极为认同这一观点，并分享了自己的亲身经历：他过去做 Instagram 时，前 1,000 条帖子才积累了 1,000 个粉丝；然而后来在他拥有 7,000 粉丝时，由于平台刚推出轮播图（Carousels）机制并予以大力推流，他仅发了 3 条帖子就暴涨了 30 万粉丝。那一刻他顿悟了复利曲线的真实形态：成功总是“先极慢，后极快”。后来创立播客《The Diary Of A CEO》时，前三年几乎无人问津，随后突然呈现垂直式的指数级爆发。很多初入局者因为没有熬过那段漫长的“慢速期”，便过早自我怀疑，觉得自己不够好、搞砸了或是太笨，因而半途而废。 --- ### [01:04:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=3867s) 创业者的终极难题：何时死磕（Push），何时转型（Pivot） Alex 指出，创业中选错方向的错误确实存在，但“过早放弃正确的道路”造成的遗憾往往更多。面对创业者经常纠结的无解问题——“何时应该继续死磕，何时应该果断转型？”Alex 提出了一个清晰的判断准则： - **何时转型（Pivot）**：如果你在创立业务之初所依赖的**核心基本假设**，已经在实际的业务运营中被证伪，那么果断转型是合理的。 - **何时死磕（Push）**：如果你的商业假设与核心论点依然成立，仅仅是因为进展没有预期的那么快、过程没有预期的那么轻松，那就必须咬牙死磕到底。 --- ### [01:05:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=3915s) 创始人直觉：为少数人提供“稀缺价值” Steven 分享了作为创始人的本质：优秀创始人往往走在整个世界现有证据的前面。在无人理解时就提前下注，需要极强的内心框架。他自己的核心框架就是问自己：“我是否正在为哪怕一小群人提供‘稀缺价值’（Scarce Value）？” 他回忆起早期做 Facebook Watch 视频时，虽然一条情感视频能轻松拿到 3,300 万播放量，但身边没有任何人觉得这有什么了不起，甚至无人提及。然而当他在卧室里花 100 美元买了个苹果麦克风、插在 GarageBand 里自学剪辑并发布了第一期《The Diary Of A CEO》播客后，他的两位好友 Ash 和 Oliver 在办公室听完后的神情截然不同，完全被震撼了；当下一周没有更新时，Oliver 甚至追着催更：“下期节目什么时候出？”这种来自少数人的真诚反馈，让他确认自己创造了真正的稀缺价值，哪怕这件事在当时完全不具备可扩张性。 --- ### [01:06:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=4008s) 为什么初创期要做“不可扩张”的事情针对许多初学者张口闭口“这不可扩张（not scalable）”的心态，Alex 毫不客气地指出：“你现在连钱都没有，还谈什么可扩张？你大可先去做不可扩张的事，把钱挣到再说！”而且这种担忧本质上低估了未来的自己——随着能力和资源的增长，未来的你自然会找到规模化的方法。 Alex 引用他的著作《$100M Offers》中的定价法则：创业伊始，不要受制于自己钱包的厚度，要去打造一个极具超高价值的产品。不管原本打算收多少钱，在价格后面加上一到两个零： - 比如将原本普通的健身指导变成开价 10 万美元的极致私教服务：亲自去客户家里、帮客户买菜做饭、开车接送客户往返健身房以确保万无一失。 - 哪怕外界质疑“这根本不可扩张”，但只要能拿下 5 个客户，现金流就彻底解决了。做不可扩张的高端服务，能带来两大核心红利： - **认知升级**：高定价吸引更有钱的客户，与比自己更富有的人近距离打交道，就像高尔夫球场上的球童向富翁学习一样，他们对商业和世界的看法会彻底颠覆并重塑你的认知。 - **获得真实深度数据**：在亲手执行不可扩张环节的过程中，你收集到了竞争对手坐在办公室空想永远无法获得的真实数据，随后你才能明确哪些环节能够提炼、拆解并被规模化。在品牌战略上，这类似于特斯拉（Tesla）的路径：先从超高定价、不可扩张的高端跑车 Roadster 做起，建立高维品牌认知与丰厚现金流，随后推出 Model S，最终逐步向下延伸做大众车型。当你有一小群高净值私董/私教客户时，面对买不起的大众群体，你顺理成章推出的规模化产品就会拥有极高的溢价锚定效应。 --- ### [01:10:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=4206s) 商业价值的本质是解决“看似无法扩张”的问题 Steven 对此深表赞同，并指出商业创造价值的精髓，恰恰在于解决那些“最初看起来根本无法规模化”的难题。他以本场播客现场正在发生的事情为例：演播室后方的团队此刻正在实时制作一本专属纪念册。工作人员拍下两人坐在沙发上的拍立得照片，收集上一期播客粉丝的真实好评，手工粘贴书写，以便在采访结束的第一时间拿给 Steven 签名并亲手送给 Alex；与此同时，团队还会通过投放 300 组广告 A/B 测试不同文案来敲定如何包装介绍 Alex 的名字。从当年一个人在卧室拿着 100 美元麦克风连 GarageBand 的简陋录音，到如今高度工程化却依然充满手工温度的极致流程，一切都是从最初那个“不可扩张”的起点一步步演变而来的。 ### [01:10:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=4242s) 用今天的资源解决明天的问题：局部失败与全局放弃许多创业者在起步阶段感到寸步难行，根源在于陷入了一种认知误区：试图用“今天的资源”去解决“明天的问题”。当前的你确实没有足够的资金、技能、人脉、资源或过往业绩，但这完全合情合理，因为未来的你才会拥有这些能力。真正的难点在于，对现在的你而言，“未来的自己”完全是一个陌生人。Alex Hormozi 制作大量商业内容的初衷，就是尽可能帮助新手迈出第一步，让他们相信只要不轻言放弃，就一定能找到解决办法。商业成功的核心逻辑其实极为质朴：只要不断获取真实的市场反馈，吸纳这些反馈并持续迭代，拉长到足够长的时间维度，你就必然会赢。但这绝不意味着盲目坚持一个糟糕的想法。如果在向一百位狗主人推销“狗狗滑板”后，没有一个人愿意买单，甚至在把实物摆在他们面前时依然无人问津，那就必须果断放弃做狗狗滑板。这里必须厘清“局部失败（Local Failure）”与“全局失败（Global Failure）”的界限：放弃一款没有市场需求的产品只是局部失败，而彻底放弃创业本身才是全局失败。在寻找正确路径的过程中，必然会踩遍无数个坑——正如制作播客时可能会经历惨淡的单期播放量、糟糕的标题包装、录完整期才发现麦克风没开，甚至是存有音频的硬盘被盗。经历上百次这样的挫折完全正常，只要它们没有演变成“我再也不做这件事了”的全局性放弃，你就依然走在赢的路上。 - **明天的资源**：不要因当下缺乏资本和人脉而焦虑，随着商业实践的推进，未来的能力与资源会逐步到位。 - **局部 vs 全局失败**：放弃被市场验证为无效的产品（如“狗狗滑板”）是明智的止损，但绝不要因此退出商业探索本身。 --- ### [01:12:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=4335s) 中场赞助：轻量化团队与专业技能外包许多企业在扩张时面临的现实困境是，既想拥有大公司的产能与专业度，又无法承受臃肿的团队编制，且内部往往缺乏所有领域的前沿技能。当前那些发展迅速的成功企业，普遍展现出极高的敏捷度：通过快速引入外部专家来填补能力空白。播客团队自身在过去一年中，也在 AI 原生策略、无代码开发（No-code builds）以及产品工作流等领域频繁借力外部专家，并推荐通过经平台严格审核的 Fiverr Pro 寻获各领域的高水准人才，从而在不牺牲交付质量的前提下保持轻量、高效的敏捷运转。 --- ### [01:13:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=4394s) 自我认知与底层现实：行为主义的“喂药”哲学商业世界中最稀缺也最难传授的超能力，往往被归结为“自我认知”或“商业判断力”。现实中常有人怀揣登月般宏大却脱离实际的幻想，而旁人一眼便能看出他们根本不是宇航员。所谓自我认知，本质上是对“底层现实（Base Reality）”的精准映射。如果你付出了巨大努力，渴望的结果却始终没有发生，那么要么是你对客观世界的认知模型出了错，要么是你代入的变量有偏差。Alex 培养这种现实感的方法论源自于心理学中的“行为主义（Behaviorism）”与操作性条件反射——这正是现代训练人工智能（强化学习）和训练人类所共通的底层逻辑。当创业者将自己和客户都视为接受环境反馈的受训对象时，就能做出远比主观臆断更为准确的行为预测。为了说明如何操纵现实条件达成目标，Alex 举了一个形象的“喂药”案例：如果家里有一位患病的爷爷拒绝吃降压药，护士常常在劝说无果后摊手抱怨“你可以把马牵到水边，但无法强迫它喝水”。但行为主义者的视角完全不同——爷爷不吃药，是因为在当前环境下，拒绝吃药比吃药更容易、更舒服。解决之道不是靠空洞的说服，而是主动重构环境条件： 1. 把苦涩的药丸碾碎，溶入冰镇柠檬水中。 2. 端上一盘高盐分的花生米，让爷爷吃完后感到口渴。 3. 摆出爷爷连续三周一直想玩但被拒绝的西洋双陆棋盘，并告诉他：“只要喝完这杯柠檬水，我就陪你下一盘。” 在这种精心设计的外部条件下，爷爷把药喝下去的概率几乎是百分之百。高明的商业运作从来不是去硬性说服用户，而是重新排列各种条件，让期望的行为成为阻力最小、诱惑最大的自然选择。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 行为主义环境设计流程 accDescr: 展示如何通过改变环境因素消除阻力、创造需求并促成目标行为。 A["目标：让拒绝服药的爷爷服药"] --> B["消除阻力：将药丸碾碎溶入冰镇柠檬水"] B --> C["激发需求：提供高盐花生诱发口渴感"] C --> D["正向激励：以渴望已久的下棋机会作为对价"] D --> E["结果：目标自愿喝完柠檬水，达成预期目标"] ``` --- ### [01:15:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=4534s) 数量级的认知鸿沟：300张传单与15万张传单的差距成功者与初学者在解决同一个问题时，最大的差距往往不在于聪明程度，而在于“攻击向量的覆盖面与执行数量级”。初出茅庐的人通常只找了三个人推销，听到拒绝就认定这门生意做不成；而成熟玩家的行动体量往往比新手高出数个数量级。Alex 分享了自己早年开健身房时的亲身经历：一位旗下拥有22家门店的商业导师建议他通过发传单进行线下获客。Alex 随后散发了300张传单，结果不仅毫无客流，唯一接到的电话还是被车主投诉传单刮伤了车漆。两周后导师过问结果，Alex 带着些许怨气准备质问对方的方法根本不管用，导师却平静地询问他的测试样本量。当听到“300张”这个数字时，导师表示300张根本测不出任何有效结论——在导师的体系中，单次测试批次就是5,000张起步；一旦验证有效，每天会固定分发3,000张，也就是单月分发150,000张传单。 300张与150,000张之间存在着500倍的鸿沟。新手在山脚仰望高山时往往觉得不可思议，但所有庞大的规模化能力都是从单次动作起步的。只有当你亲自忍受大体量执行带来的低效折磨——例如为了验证效果一次性做300组标题的 A/B 分割测试——这种痛苦才会倒逼你去寻找自动化和流程化的提效路径。一旦你把原本极其痛苦、繁琐的流程彻底跑顺并实现高效率，你就完成了极少数人愿意去碰的“稀缺工作”，这构成了别人难以复制的竞争护城河。 - **导师的营销数量级**：测试批次为 5,000 张，正式推广阶段每天分发 3,000 张，单月规模高达 150,000 张传单。 - **痛感驱动效率**：面对庞大工作量时的低效痛苦，是倒逼创始人打磨流程工具、建立系统化效率的最佳动力。 - **做与听的双向闭环**：光看书（只听不做）无法建立敏锐度，盲目蛮干（只做不听）则无法修正航向；只有在大量行动中获取痛感数据并即时迭代，才能真正形成深刻的自我认知与商业洞察。 ### [01:18:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=4697s) 人性动机与说服力四象限模型谈话深入探讨了商业运作的底层动力——人类的行为动机（Incentives）。Alex Hormozi 直言，自己花了整整十年时间才终于领悟并确立了这个简单的真理：人类绝不会做出违背自身动机的行为，除非他们是反社会人格障碍者（Psychopaths），而后者往往因为做出违背社会动机的行为（例如杀人）最终进了监狱。无论是组建团队还是获取客户，创业者首先要问的根本问题不是“他们为什么不按照我说的做”，而是“他们在做决策时面对的激励机制是什么”。销售不顺畅，本质上是因为你没有把“从你这里购买”设计成最方便、体验最好的选项；给候选人发了 Offer 却被拒绝，也是因为在对方的动机天平（Seesaw）上，你所提供的回报并没有抵消其付出的代价。 Alex 借此分享了他撰写所有营销文案与说服逻辑的底层数学框架——“四象限说服法”： - **做你期望的事**：得到更多好事（+ / +）； - **不做你期望的事**：遭遇更多坏事（- / + 负面驱动）； - **不做你期望的事**：错失既有好处（- / - 减少好事）； - **做你期望的事**：避免或减少坏事（+ / - 减少坏事）。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 四象限说服与动机框架 accDescr: 展示采取行动与不采取行动在正面和负面结果上的四种说服组合 subgraph DO["客户采取行动（做你期望的事）"] A["+ / + 获得更多好事 （健康体魄、家人共处）"] B["+ / - 减少糟糕情况 （降低疾病风险、解除痛苦）"] end subgraph DONT["客户不采取行动（拒绝行动）"] C["- / - 错失潜在好事 （错过孩子成长、缺少他人认可）"] D["- / + 遭遇更多坏事 （健康恶化、产生更多医疗开销）"] end ``` 这种在“行动与不行动”、“获得奖励与承受损失”之间的往复切换，就是最高效的说服。Alex 举了一个健身项目的例子：如果你不报名参加，你不仅在未来会错失与孩子奔跑玩耍的高质量时光（减少好事），健康每况愈下（增加坏事），而且你极度渴望获得认可的重要之人也不会给你那份赞许；反之，加入项目则能收获充沛活力并摆脱隐疾。这套逻辑不仅适用于文案，也是管理上百名员工的组织行为学核心：站在团队面前空喊“请大家拥抱并使用 AI”毫无意义，因为员工既有的激励结构只是为了安稳完成手头的本职工作；要想改变人的行为，必须重构其背后的激励机制。 --- ### [01:21:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=4864s) 顺应需求与从“大杂烩”到精准客群的跃迁讨论转向了需求与注意力的本质。主持人提到《创新者的窘境》（The Innovator's Dilemma）一书中人类受制于激励体系的论述，Alex 则引用传奇文案大师 Gary Halbert 的名言指出：“我们不要去凭空创造需求，我们要去引导需求（channel it）。”需求就像奔流的江河，它原本就存在于世界中；优秀的商业行为只是在河道上开凿一条小沟渠，让水流自然偏向自己。注意力同样如此——世界上每个人每时每刻都在消耗注意力，内容创作者绝非无中生有地制造注意力，而是让自己的内容成为比其他替代品更具吸引力、更容易触达的选项。这种引导机制落实到商业实操中，最核心的高杠杆决策就是“到底为谁服务”（确定 Avatar 和细分市场）。针对初创期是否必须一开始就确定目标受众，Alex 给出了“既要也不要”的坦诚剖析： - **0 到 1 阶段（生存期）**：只要有人愿意付钱，哪怕对方只是“有心跳且有信用卡”，你都得接单。在美国，78% 至 80% 的企业属于服务业，绝大多数人起步时都是“无所不接”的大杂烩服务商（例如宣称“我可以帮任何想要启动播客的人做代理服务”），这对于生存积累资金和经验是必经之路； - **100 万至 300 万美元阶段（规模化瓶颈）**：一旦跨入此区间，服务所有客群的弊端暴露无遗，交付端极其混乱低效。此时创始人必须做出减法抉择：通过实战数据识别出哪类客户事少钱多、价值最高，然后彻底转向单客群战略。当业务定位从模糊的“通用播客代理”收窄为“专为医生群体通过播客获取患者”，前端营销便能以极具杀伤力的穿透力击中目标受众，而后端交付也可以被彻底标准化、模板化和系统化。商业的效率逻辑从“为 10 个不同的人剪裁 10 次”（Cut once, sell once）升级为“做出一套标准方案，重复销售给 10 个同类人”（Cut once, sell twice / sell many times）。 --- ### [01:23:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=5019s) 实体逆向机遇与技能错配的商业高地面对主持人关于“年轻人在当今时代该做何种业务切入起步”的提问，Alex 剖析了代理服务业的迭代以及更具确定性的商业风向： - **代理机构的演变**：传统的 Meta 广告代投放 agency 如今极度内卷，壁垒已大幅降低；但新兴的细分领域依然存在红利，例如 Reddit 声誉管理代运营（随着 Reddit 平台影响力和搜索权重的暴涨而兴起），以及针对短视频的切片分发代运营（Clipping agencies）； - **AI 以外的永恒人性赌注**：抛开帮小微企业做 AI 自动化的普遍机会，商业中最值得押注的是“未来绝不会改变的人性渴望”——人们永远渴望变美、渴望青春永驻。因此，抗衰老医疗水疗（Longevity Med Spa）、多肽（Peptides）疗法及医美赛道正在迎来巨大的供求失衡红利，且将长期保持爆发力； - **财富管理与低技能行业的高额利润**：Alex 观察到财富顾问（Wealth Advisers）等赛道中，许多从业者所获得的超高收入与其技能复杂度并不匹配，这类行业本身带有巨大的赛道溢价。在谈及不同行业的难度鸿沟时，Alex 举例说明了“技能与收益的错配”：如果你能在竞争残酷、低容错率的餐饮业做到年营收 2,000 万美元，换到一个高杠杆行业可能早已做到 2 亿美元。他曾与一位年营收 1,000 万美元的服务型健身房老板深入交流（此类属于重交付的私教或半私教工作室，与仅靠场地设备躺赚的 Crunch Fitness 完全不同）。这家健身房雇佣了 100 多名低技能员工，老板必须耗费巨大心血维持服务体验和企业文化，业务起步容易却极难规模化。Alex 对该老板直言：“以你管理上百号低技能员工并持续交付优质体验的能力，如果把这套极其强悍的组织管理技能平移到其他高利润率、轻交付的商业模式中，商业成就将远超现在。” ### [01:25:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=5146s) 寻找非主流机会与美国财富分配模型 Alex Hormozi 指出，如果一个人拥有很强的技能，但把它放在一个平庸的业务载体上，回报就会大打折扣；相反，将同样的技能投入到更优质的载体中，收益会成倍增加。从大行业分类来看，财富管理与金融相关服务始终表现强劲，而保险业务在未来也会持续繁荣，因为风险客观存在，人们始终需要通过保险来分散与切分风险（fractionalize risk）。另外，长寿（Longevity）与医美抗衰也是巨大赛道。另一个更值得关注的维度是“任何不酷、让人在社交聚会上难以启齿的业务”。Alex 举例说，没有人在聚会上愿意自豪地说“我是做垃圾清运的”或“我是给老年人处理人体排泄物排污的”，这种话听起来远不如“我是一名医生”体面。然而，现实中做废品处理的人完全可能是身价数十亿的超级富豪，因为这往往是被主流目光忽视、带有认知折价（discount）但又不可或缺的真实刚需。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 美国财富分配模型 accDescr: 展示将美国财富抽象为100美元时，不同人群所占有的份额及初创企业的定位困境 subgraph WealthModel["全美财富折算模型（总额 $100）"] P1["底层 50% 人口 仅占约 $2"] P2["中层 40% 人口 占约 $27"] P3["上层 9% 人口 占约 $36"] P4["顶层 1% 人口 占约 $31"] end subgraph Pitfall["初创创业者的认知陷阱"] Trap["自身身处底层 50% 仅接触到底层群体 误以为全天下都没钱 陷入向穷人卖低价的死循环"] end P1 -.-> Trap ``` Alex 分享了他全网最喜欢但也因此“只获得了大概 30 万播放量”的一个深度分析视频：如果把全美的财富折算成 100 美元，把人口分成 100 个人： - 底层 50% 的人口加起来仅仅占有大约 2 美元； - 紧随其后的 40% 人口占有大约 27 美元； - 处于前 10% 至前 1% 之间的 9% 人口拥有大约 36 美元； - 处于金字塔尖的顶层 1% 人口单独占有大约 31 美元。初创创业者最容易犯的致命错误，就是他们起步时身处这底层 50% 的区间，身边打交道的人也全在此处。这导致他们的世界观严重失真，误以为所有人兜里都没钱，于是试图向同样身无分文的人群兜售廉价产品，最终导致自己长期陷入贫困循环。 ### [01:28:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=5291s) 为什么高端客户反而更容易服务：服务大客户与向高价值市场迁移主持人非常赞同这一观点，并分享了自己早年运营服务型公司的亲身经历。创业初期，他向那些只有 App 创意的初创公司创始人销售营销服务，对方全年的营销预算大约只有 1 万美元，而他报出的价格也是 1 万美元。结果这些创始人整天盯紧每一个指标，逐个计算每一个下载量，神经紧绷到如同押上了自己的房屋抵押贷款（“where he'd put his mortgage on the line”）。然而，当公司业务逐步向高端市场转移后，他们开始与可口可乐（Coca-Cola）这样的大企业合作，合同预算往往达到六位数甚至更高。令人啼笑皆非的是，从客户管理的角度来看，服务可口可乐反而比服务那个做约会软件的个人创业者轻松、从容得多。不过主持人也指出，向高价值客户群迁移并不容易，因为大企业极度看重信誉（credibility）、过往战绩（track record）以及现实成果。Alex 对此表示，起步阶段做亲友生意没问题，但如果目标是赚更多的钱，就必须主动向高端市场（upmarket）迭代： - **价格是业务水平的强信号**：在服务行业中，价格与业务及创始人的成熟度几乎呈 1:1 的直接正相关。一个优秀的服务企业交付质量好，需求自然会超过供给；当供不应求时，正确的商业决策就是提价。 - **低价往往直接劝退大客户**：如果有人向 Alex 报价“每月只要 2000 美元就能全包你的社交媒体运营”，Alex 会断然拒绝，因为在这个价格区间下，对方从商业模型和成本上根本无法胜任这种高强度的专业需求；而如果是 1.5 万美元一个月，即便对方只是个小团队，也可以被视作能力极强且深度参与的高性价比外部兼职员工。 - **高客单价的多重红利**：更高的价格不仅带来更优质、不纠缠的客户，还能换来更健康的利润空间、更少的管理内耗，同时还能作为专业能力的高端信号。 ### [01:30:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=5457s) 范西斯滕多普（Van Westendorp）价格敏感度分析与商业瓶颈拆解为了在推出新产品时精准制定价格，Alex 经常使用诞生于 20 世纪 70 年代的**范西斯滕多普价格敏感度度量模型（Van Westendorp Price Sensitivity Meter）**。过去需要人工绘制散点图，现在借助 AI 工具，输入用户调研数据只需几分钟就能完成分析。该模型主要通过向目标受众提出四个核心问题来绘制曲线： 1. **过高阻断价**：价格达到多少时，你会觉得太贵而根本不予考虑？ 2. **过低怀疑价**：价格低到多少时，你会怀疑产品质量太差而不可能有价值？ 3. **边际可接受高价**：价格达到多少时，你觉得偏贵需要深思熟虑，但最终仍会咬牙购买？ 4. **物美价廉价**：价格低到多少时，你觉得非常划算、是不可错过的超值优惠？ ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: Van Westendorp 价格敏感度分析四问 accDescr: 展示范西斯滕多普价格分析中的四个核心价格感知阈值 subgraph FourQuestions["范西斯滕多普核心 4 问"] Q1["1. 贵到不可考虑 Too Expensive"] Q2["2. 便宜到怀疑品质 Too Cheap"] Q3["3. 昂贵但勉强能买 Expensive / Consider"] Q4["4. 物超所值/极度划算 Bargain / Good Deal"] end FourQuestions --> Output["AI 散点分析与曲线积分 确定最优价格区间与细分画像"] ``` 在散点分布图上，曲线之间会形成“边际便宜点”（超过此点多数人会怀疑其真实品质）与“过贵点”。通过计算曲线下面积（Area under the curve），商家能够精确定位在不同销售模式（例如高摩擦的人工深度销售，或是无摩擦的自动化自助下单）下的最优定价区间。Alex 特别补充，实际数据往往不是单一的正态高斯分布，而是会出现“双高斯分布”（double Gaussians），因为受众内部存在显著分层。只要结合受众的人口统计学特征（如富裕程度、公司类型、行业赛道）切片分析，就能为不同画像的群体定制出极其精准的初始定价策略。当被问及他输出的众多商业理念中哪些最核心时，Alex 总结道，他的畅销书和方法论万变不离其宗，本质上都是在解决三件事：**“卖给谁（Who）、卖什么（What），以及如何让他们买单（How）”**。此外，他的内容重点之所以始终放在客户获取（Acquisition）上，是因为根据其投资和咨询的大量 100 万至 5000 万美元规模的中小企业样本观察： - 约 **70%** 的企业处于**需求受限（demand constrained）**状态，即产能尚可，急需拓展客户来源； - 只有约 **30%** 的企业处于**供给受限（supply constrained）**状态，即订单电话接连不断，但缺乏足够的客户代表、技术工人或交付能力。 ### [01:33:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=5616s) 一切业务问题本质上都是营销问题：从客户管道到人才管道 Alex Hormozi 指出，如果把商业书籍和底层逻辑放在一起纵览，会得出一个极具启发性的结论——“商业中的每一个问题，本质上都是营销问题”。他以漏斗管道的视角剖析企业运转：在常规的客户需求端（Demand Side），流程通常依次为获取线索（Lead Generation）、线索培育（Nurture）、销售转化（Sales）、入职/交付启动（Onboarding），以及后续的客户留存（Retention）和增购升单（Ascension）。而很多企业主所面临的瓶颈其实并非需求不足，而是供给受限（Supply Constrained）——比如个体创业者手里有大批潜在客户，但分身乏术，如果能无限复制自己就能赚取成倍利润。针对这种供给瓶颈，其解决逻辑与获客管道完全镜像：供给端的对应环节就是“获取职位申请（Application Generation）、培育候选人（Nurture）、面试考核（等同于销售转化）、新员工入职（Onboarding）、员工留存（Retention），以及晋升通道（Ascension）”。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 客户漏斗与人才漏斗的镜像对照 accDescr: 对比商业中客户需求端与人才供给端的全流程管道 subgraph Demand["客户需求端 (Demand Side)"] direction LR D1["获取线索 (Lead Gen)"] --> D2["线索培育 (Nurture)"] D2 --> D3["销售转化 (Sales)"] D3 --> D4["交付入职 (Onboarding)"] D4 --> D5["留存与增购 (Retention & Ascension)"] end subgraph Supply["人才供给端 (Supply Side)"] direction LR S1["发布招聘 (Application Gen)"] --> S2["候选人跟进 (Nurture)"] S2 --> S3["面试考核 (Sales / Interview)"] S3 --> S4["入职培训 (Onboarding)"] S4 --> S5["留存与晋升 (Retention & Promotion)"] end ``` 这种镜像思维意味着企业对待人才的管道必须如同对待客户一样系统化。如果管理者擅长获客却不懂招人，直接复制这套营销模型即可；反之亦然。现实中，许多规模稍大的企业主如果回头去翻看公司对外发布的招聘广告或外联话术，往往会感到“惊悚”，因为那些文字枯燥乏味，没有任何人愿意回复。在培育环节，很多公司缺乏及时的候选人跟进与材料推介，而 Acquisition.com 会为求职者提供一个长达 13 分钟的视频销售信（VSL），由 Alex 亲自出镜透明讲解商业版图、各个分支机构，并展示员工满意度案例与实际证据。在面试环节，既然销售有严格的话术脚本与角色扮演演练，面试同样需要结构化问卷与全套演练。在员工入职与留存阶段，Alex 强调清晰的 30/60/90 天入职路线图和必须消化的核心信息，以确保新员工迅速掌握业务。面对核心顶尖骨干，Alex 最喜欢问的一个问题是：“要怎样做，你才愿意一辈子留在这里工作？不用客气，直接告诉我你的条件。”一旦获得明确答复，他便能开始调整内部资源去满足这些条件。这一策略与对待大客户的逻辑如出一辙——询问客户“怎样才能让我们成为你终身唯一的服务商”，进而通过锁定排他性长期合同并附赠额外价值来构筑不可动摇的护城河。 - 招聘文案与外联模版需要由专业营销视角把关，避免发布无人回应的枯燥广告。 - Acquisition.com 为应聘候选人设计了 13 分钟的 VSL 视频销售信，全景展示业务并建立信赖感。 - 面试应配备标准化脚本与严格的日常模拟演练（Roleplay），其杠杆回报不亚于销售客户。 - 设定明确的 30/60/90 天新员工赋能计划，加速人才从新人到高绩效产出者的转变。 - 留存核心员工的关键问句：“What would it take for you to work here forever?（你需要什么条件才愿意永远留在这里工作？）” --- ### [01:37:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=5854s) 裂变激励的杠杆效应：把 500 美元奖励变成 25,000 美元绝大多数商业难题的根底都可以归结为“如何让更多人知晓你的事业”——要么是吸引人来购买，要么是吸引人来共事。既然企业会针对老客户持续做营销并鼓励客户转介绍，就同样需要对内部员工进行持续营销与转介绍激励。Alex 分享了一位朋友的真实商业案例：这位创业者经营着一家年收入约 1,000 万美元的经纪类业务公司，旗下主要依靠经纪人团队开展业务。在向该领域一位成就卓越的行业前辈请教时，前辈询问他目前提供给员工的内部推荐奖金是多少。该创业者回答说，如果经纪人成功引荐一名新经纪人入职，公司会发放 500 美元的奖励。那位导师随即追问：“一名高绩效的熟练经纪人，每年能为你创造多少毛利？”创业者算完账后回答：“每年大约 25 万美元毛利。”导师接着反问：“所以为了获得每年 25 万美元的稳定毛利润，你居然只愿意掏出 500 美元作为引荐奖金？如果有人能直接给你带来 25 万美元，你愿意花多少钱买下这个机会？”创业者略作思索回答：“至少 5 万美元吧。”导师立即点醒他：“那为什么不先将推荐奖励直接提高到 25,000 美元？”该创业者采纳建议，将内部引荐奖励从微不足道的 500 美元一举拉升到 25,000 美元。重赏之下，顶尖经纪人蜂拥而至并全力裂变，推动这家原本卡在 1,000 万美元规模的公司一路狂飙，最终成长为一家年营收达 4 亿美元的行业巨头。 - 招聘顶尖猎头与支付丰厚的内推奖金在商业账目上从来都不是成本，而是极具杠杆率的绝佳交易。 - 激励机制必须与人才带来的长期实际毛利润（Gross Profit）呈合理比例挂钩，而非仅作象征性的微额补贴。 - 业务从 1,000 万美元跃升至 4 亿美元的关键飞轮，在于彻底打破获客与招聘激励的认知局限。 --- ### [01:38:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=5922s) 人才标准与人生最重要的决策：娶 Leila 是最成功的财务投资回顾自己的创业心路历程，Alex 坦言随着时间推移，自己最大的蜕变在于对人才标准的极度苛求，以及对平庸表现零容忍的决绝态度。Steven Bartlett 深度认同这一点，并引用了一位曾掌舵千亿美元市值上市公司的创始人的感悟：“20 岁时我觉得招聘有点用；30 岁时我觉得招聘蛮重要；到了 40 岁我才大彻大悟，招聘是商业中唯一最重要的事情。”这一铁律在人际关系与人生合伙人的选择上同样完全适用——一个人一生中做出的最好和最坏的决定，归根结底都是关于“人”的抉择。 Steven 指着录音棚内摆放的照片提到 Alex 的妻子 Leila Hormozi，并感慨如果当初换了一个伴侣，如今的人生走向将产生难以想象的巨大偏差。Alex 深思后坦言：“从财务角度来看，娶 Leila 大概是我这辈子做过的最成功的一笔投资。”他强调，这并不是说自己在择偶时是带着功利算计去追求财务最大化，而是 Leila 从始至终全心全意地支持他，很多时候 Leila 对 Alex 能力的信任甚至远远超过了他对自己的信心。即便随着事业规模持续膨胀、商业赌注与风险成倍放大，这种来自伴侣的绝对支撑也从未动摇。 Alex 坦诚分享了一段经历：有一次他要去协助一家团队解决极其棘手的高难问题，临行前面临巨大的心理负担，忍不住向 Leila 表露担忧；Leila 当场打断他，斩钉截铁地鼓励道：“万幸的是，你正是这方面最顶尖的专家，你能给他们的帮助比任何人都多。”Alex 动情地表示，无论这句断言在客观上是否百分之百准确，在那一刻这就是他最需要听到的力量源泉。Alex 补充道，即使到了今天，自己也绝非拥有坚不可摧的绝对安全感，他同样会产生自我怀疑和无法解题的恐惧，且随着盘子越来越大，失败的代价值得警惕，心理压力与早期毫无二致；唯一的区别在于，如今的自己拥有了更多可以调动和对抗风浪的资源。 - 随着商业认知的成熟，企业家的招聘标准必须持续走高，对庸才留任的容忍度则需降至零点。 - 伴侣的选择构成了人生方差最大的核心变量，长期的商业成就极大依赖于身后坚固的心理与战略同盟。 - 即使是操盘过亿业务的顶级企业家，面对复杂高风险挑战时依然会遭遇自我怀疑；成熟并不代表压力消失，而是学会带着充沛的资源与笃定的支持去直面风险。 ### [01:41:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=6094s) 创业者的成人礼与伴侣的“下注” 在创业的后期阶段，面对的挑战就像去斩杀一头巨龙，但此时你至少已经拥有一支属于自己的军队。敌人的体量虽然变大了，但你手中所掌握的资源也同样变多了，从某种意义上说，后期甚至比刚刚起步时要更容易应对。然而，任何人只有经历过最初一无所有的早期阶段，在没有资源的绝境中淬炼出坚韧（grit）与随机应变的野蛮生长能力（scrappiness），才算通过了创业的“成人礼”，从而赢得直面更强大敌人的资格。正是在这段艰难时期，Leila Hormozi 选择全力支持并押注在 Alex 身上。Alex 用风险投资中“投骑手而非投赛马”的原则来比喻：当 Leila 遇见他时，Alex 只有 26 岁，名下仅仅经营着几家不起眼的健身房，远不是如今名声显赫的商业投资人。但 Leila 当时坚信，无论未来走向何方，Alex 都会不知疲倦地拼尽全力去实现目标。伴侣的选择从根本上决定了人生的概率分布——你所结婚的对象，要么会极大地提高你达成目标的可能性，要么会将其无情地拉低。 - **早期的淬炼价值**：缺乏资源时逼出来的拼搏与敏锐度，是后期指挥团队、驾驭复杂大局的前提。 - **伴侣的“骑手投注”法则**：投资一个人未来的执行力与拼搏精神，而非仅仅看他当下的存量资产。 --- ### [01:42:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=6167s) 为什么没有妻子 Leila，Alex 无法取得今天的成就当被问及如果至今仍保持单身是否还能拥有今天的成就时，Alex 毫不犹豫地给出了否定回答。他坦言自己从未受焦虑困扰，真正折磨他的是冷漠与倦怠（apathy）——他经常会陷入“既然我们已经赚了足够多的钱，何必还要费劲折腾”的虚无感中。实际上，Leila 的梦想比他更加宏大。Alex 对金钱虽然一直有高目标，但当财富积累到一定程度时，他就感觉已经足够了；这就像他健身增肌到 250 磅且保持极低体脂率时，便觉得“这已经完全足够，可以适当下调了”。然而对 Leila 而言，创业从来都不是为了钱，她最大的梦想是打造一个“让所有人都热爱来上班的地方”。在这种互补的双人结构中，Leila 是 Acquisition.com 背后不可替代的纯粹运营操盘手与杰出领导者。Alex 自嘲道，自己拥有清晰的自知之明：员工们或许清楚 Alex 擅长什么，但整个团队真正忠诚的对象是 Leila，因为她总是默默陪伴、支持着每个人。如果没有 Leila，Alex 早就松开事业的油门退居二线，不仅无法留住顶级管理人才，更难以驾驭如此复杂的商业版图；正是 Leila 在他无数次动力跌入低谷的艰难时刻，将整个局面扛了起来。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Leila 与 Alex 的互补合伙体系 accDescr: 展现 Alex 与 Leila 在动力、技能与管理上的互补飞轮 subgraph Alex["Alex Hormozi（前端突破）"] A1["面临动机枯竭与倦怠 （Apathy）"] A2["长于定价、营销、销售与商业模型"] end subgraph Leila["Leila Hormozi（后端基石）"] L1["宏大愿景：打造让人热爱的公司文化"] L2["顶级运营能力与团队凝聚力"] end A2 -->|"配合稳固组织"| Biz["驱动业务实现数亿美元规模"] L1 -->|"托举动力低谷"| A1 L2 -->|"留住顶尖人才"| Biz ``` --- ### [01:44:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=6297s) 当伴侣不支持你的野心：主观幸福与商业目标的权衡面对许多人“伴侣不支持自己创业野心，甚至站在对立面”的现实困境，Alex 强调首先必须认清自己的终极目标是什么。如果为了追求商业成就而断然抛弃伴侣，独自奋斗两三年赚得豪宅豪车后，很多人最终迎来的往往是极致的孤独；他们回过头才发现，当初驱动自己的不过是不安全感与羞耻心，反而弄丢了真正善良合拍的人。谈及人生选择，必须把“最大化商业成果”与“最大化主观幸福感（subjective well-being）”这两套完全不同的评估体系区分开来： - **Arthur Brooks 的思想实验**：想象你开着一辆崭新的法拉利来到米其林三星餐厅，独自一人坐在靠窗角落享用顶级美食；或者，你和五个最好的朋友挤在一辆破旧的丰田 Camry 里，嘻嘻哈哈地去吃 Denny's 平价快餐。毫无疑问，第二种场景带来的真实快乐远超前者，但现实中绝大多数人却都在盲目追求第一种生活。 - **接受不完美的伴侣“属性面板”**：世上不存在完美的人，因为我们自己就充满缺陷。面对伴侣，核心在于你愿意在对方的各项属性上做出怎样的取舍与妥协（trades）。对方或许无法在商业野心上给你赋能，但如果能在精神世界、业余生活或情绪健康上提供支撑，同样是无价的陪伴。 - **前雇主的至理名言**：“搞清楚自己真正想要什么占了 99% 的功夫，动手得到它反而是容易的部分（Figuring out what you want is 99% of the work. The easy part is getting it）。”唯有层层剥开内心看清本质愿望，你才能调整身边的所有条件去达成它。 --- ### [01:47:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=6459s) 认清自己真正想要什么，是人生中 99% 的难题明确自身真实意愿之所以极度困难，是因为现代人被短视的诱惑与外部杂音彻底包围，社交媒体和周围环境不断向大脑灌输“你必须拥有这个”。人们总是既想要每条道路带来的收益，又企图逃避每条道路必须付出的代价。因此，在纷乱的诱惑中筛选出底层信号、做出高质量的决策（Decision-making），虽然听起来最枯燥乏味，却是整个人生中杠杆率最高的能力。主持人 Steven Bartlett 分享了自己 19 岁时的亲身经历：一位导师送给他一本笔记本，他在第一页写下了 25 岁前必须实现的目标——“路虎揽胜运动版（作为第一辆车）、100 万美元、六块腹肌、女朋友”。到了 24 岁，他果然坐进了新买的揽胜座驾里拍下了那张笔记本的照片，但他随即发现，真正得到之后这些物质并不能带来预期的满足感，人会随着经历不断迭代自己真正想要的东西。追求错误目标的代价往往是不可逆的：许多人一生将成为亿万富翁设为终点，一路上不惜牺牲家庭、友情与身心健康；当他们终于登顶时，却发现错过了陪伴父母的最后时光，打过去的电话再也无人接听。人类心理往往陷入“永远只渴望自己未曾拥有的事物”的怪圈——没有孩子的人渴望生儿育女，而有了孩子的人又在怀念曾经独处的自由。想要弄清楚自己到底要什么，往往唯有亲自去体验并做出取舍。 ### [01:49:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=6597s) 人类的记忆偏差与奖赏机制人类天生倾向于美化过去的经历而遗忘痛苦。单身的人渴望结婚，步入婚姻的人又时常怀念单身时的自由。Alex Hormozi 指出，这完全是一种行为机制：惩罚带来的痛苦会随时间消退，而奖赏的记忆却会长久留存（"punishment fades. Reward sticks."）。正因如此，人们醉酒后经历严重的宿醉时发誓"再也不喝酒了"，但仅仅七天之后就会端起酒杯；面对前任时也是如此，明知道彼此性格不合、甚至过去相处时觉得对方疯狂，隔了一段时间后依然会产生怀恋与复合的冲动。这种记忆过滤机制在进化生物学上具有生存意义。在原始狩猎采集时期，人类必须记住哪里能摘到浆果，而不能被沿途经历的危险和艰辛所吓退。女性的分娩过程同样如此：尽管怀孕和生产对许多母亲来说是一场极其艰辛甚至痛苦的折磨，但最终诞生的婴儿带来了无法言喻的奖赏，剧烈的痛苦记忆便逐渐淡化，促使她们愿意再次选择生育。 --- ### [01:50:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=6647s) 初为人父的期待、恐惧与控制欲对话顺势转向了 Alex 即将迎来的新身份——妻子 Leila 已经怀孕，预产期在四个月后。被主持人问及当下的心境时，Alex 坦言自己兴奋之余夹杂着掩饰不住的恐惧。作为一名凡事追求掌控的创业者，他正面临前所未有的心理拉锯：该如何定义一名"好父母"？又该如何定义一个"成功的孩子"？ ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 定义好父母与成功孩子的思考困境 accDescr: 展示 Alex Hormozi 在定义好父母与成功孩子之间面临的逻辑悖论与权衡 subgraph Problem["核心定义困境"] A["如何定义一个成功的孩子？"] --> B1["追求幸福快乐 (Happy Child)"] A --> B2["对社会产生巨大影响力 (Maximum Social Impact)"] end subgraph Paradox["成才悖论"] B2 --> C["世界上许多极度成功的人 童年并不快乐甚至创伤累累"] C --> D{"这是否意味着 他们的父母是'好父母'？"} end subgraph Tradeoff["育儿路线抉择"] B1 --> E["截然不同的抚养方式"] B2 --> E E --> F["难以在同一孩子身上兼顾两者"] end ``` 这种追问本质上触及了人生的终极意义： - 如果将好父母定义为培养出拥有"世俗成功"的孩子，那么很多取得了登峰造极成就的人，童年时期其实并不快乐甚至充满创伤，难道要将虐待或忽视他们的父母称为"好父母"吗？ - 如果父母的目标仅仅是希望孩子快乐，这固然很好，但培养快乐的孩子与培养能对社会产生重大影响力的领袖，其养育方式存在根本性的冲突。 - 习惯了为确定目标优化资源的 Alex 承认，让他像其他人建议的那样"放下对结果的预设、顺其自然"是几乎不可能的，因为他本能地想要掌控一切、明确前进的方向。 --- ### [01:52:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=6779s) 过程与结果：四兄弟姐妹的差异与植物隐喻主持人结合自身家庭经历分享了另一种视角。作为家里的老幺，他和三个兄妹在完全相同的家庭与父母环境下长大，最终的人生轨迹却天差地别： - **主持人自己**：反叛的创业者，没上大学； - **哥哥 Jason**：学术天才，曾在重写教材后被媒体报道，后来进入主持人的公司负责核心业务； - **二哥 Kevin**：堪称奇才的天才学者，曾自称只要给一个月时间就能流利掌握任何语言，还曾打到网络游戏《RuneScape》（江湖）全球第一，吸引无数人观战，但他最终选择远离职场； - **姐姐**：考取了律师资格，并在餐饮酒店等行业工作。即便是资深企业高管，也普遍承认自家的几个孩子性格迥异。这说明基因与复杂微观环境交织下的混沌效应使得结果（Output）根本无法精准预测。引用 Jeff Bezos 的理念，父母应当像商业实验一样，**不要插手无法掌控的结果（Output），将注意力完全倾注于可控的输入（Input）**。主持人提出了"盆栽隐喻"：播下一颗种子后，无论你多么渴望它长到六英尺高、长出一百片叶子，你唯一能做的只是浇水和提供阳光，它最终会成为它原本该有的模样。Alex 对此展开了深刻的思辨：虽然他无法将一颗桃树种子变成苹果树，但在环境输入上，他仍然可以通过控制土壤养分、光照强度以及合理修剪枝叶，来决定它究竟是长得最高还是结出最多的果实。最终，Alex 谈到了妻子 Leila 身上最珍贵的品质——她从不试图改变 Alex，完全接纳他本来的模样。面对即将出生的儿子和未来的孩子们，Alex 总结出了最务实的教养哲学：放弃把孩子塑造成特定模样的执念，将核心精力放在为他们赋能上，尽可能武装他们所需的各种技能，让他们未来能够有能力追求属于自己的人生。 ### [01:57:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=7045s) 育儿的核心目标与向死而生的顿悟在谈及为人父母的终极目标时，Alex Hormozi 梳理出了自己深思熟虑后的定论：他将倾尽自己所拥有的一切资源，尽可能赋予孩子应对现实生活所需的能力与技能。他认为，只要孩子具备了足够的生存与发展技能，未来无论他们选择去伦敦还是去洛杉矶，他们都有能力走完自己的路。随后，主持人提及 Alex 在 2025 年 2 月发布的一条引人深思的推文，并当场朗读了原文： > “在你的葬礼上，亲朋好友会争论谁来继承你的遗物。人们会闲聊现场的食物和场地。你的一生会被浓缩成两三段简短的文字。大家的对话很快就会从你的生平转移到他们自己的生活琐事上。你的朋友开车离开时，心里盘算着自己待办事项清单上的下一件事。有些人甚至因为临时有事压根不会出席。而你今天所认识的大多数人，那天甚至根本不会在场。你终将死去。人们在几周之内就会释怀并继续生活，而不是几年。想做什么，就去做吧。” Alex 坦言自己每天都会多次想到死亡。在他看来，对死亡的清醒认知实际上与个体的主观幸福感呈正相关。随着年龄增长，老年人非常清楚自己时日无多，这种认知反而赋予了他们极大的释怀。他提到一条描绘人类一生主观幸福感走势的“微笑曲线”：孩提时代极为快乐；随着年岁渐长、责任不断增加，幸福感持续下滑，并在 45 岁到 55 岁之间触底（即所谓的“中年危机”或生活重压期）。在这个阶段，人们往往处于职业与收入的巅峰期，但同时要赡养父母、抚育子女，承受着极大的精神拉扯与压力；而一旦跨入 60、65、70 岁，幸福感又重新回升。 Alex 观察到，老人和小孩在很多方面惊人地相似：他们依靠他人照顾，整天主要在玩乐，肩上几乎没有重担，而且完全不在乎别人的眼光。就像蹒跚学步的幼童敢穿着芭蕾舞短裙配牛仔靴出门一样，行将就木的老人心里也只有一句“老子快死了，谁在乎”。Alex 表示自己一直近乎痴迷地思考一个问题：“等我 80 岁时会如何看待世界？我怎样才能把那种心境提前到现在？”他清楚自己现在对外界看法的在乎程度远高于 80 岁时，因此他希望尽全力将未来的超脱“拉到当下”。他在社交平台上写下的这些关于死亡的文字，从来不是站在道德讲台上的居高临下，而是写给他自己的“备忘录”和自我救赎。 --- ### [02:00:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=7232s) 八年来最黑暗的季度：九起官司、妻子重疾与至亲离世那条推文的背景，正是 Alex 个人八年以来经历的最艰难、最痛苦的季度（2025 年第一季度）。当时他在推特上写道：“多年来我从未感到如此痛苦。有时生活就是这么操蛋。你会经历艰难的赛季，遭遇惨痛的失败，而更难熬的是你不知道它何时才会结束。但请记住它终会结束。所以对于任何正在经历低谷的人，去做你能做的唯一一件事：继续战斗。” 主持人透露自己看到推文后立刻给 Alex 发了短信，因为在此之前从未见过他如此公开发泄脆弱。Alex 解释说，讽刺的是，那段时间他的商业运转得非常好、赚了很多钱，而且他当时还没有孩子牵绊，但商业之外的所有变量几乎全线崩溃： - **诉讼缠身**：他手头同时处理着多达 9 起悬而未决的官司，涉及离职员工纠纷以及数笔投资暴雷引发的连锁波及，导致他时刻担心自己被卷入泥潭。 - **妻子重病**：妻子 Leila 遭遇了严重的结肠撕裂，需要长达 18 个月的漫长恢复期；当时她正处于动手术前最剧烈、最折磨的剧痛阶段。 - **未闭合的情绪死循环**：这类复杂事件根本无法在一天内解决，悬而未决的状态就像一个“未闭合的死循环”，只要有任何风吹草动触发，大脑就会陷入反刍、胡思乱想和灾难化思维中。 Alex 从对冲基金经理比尔·阿克曼（Bill Ackman）的一次访谈片段中汲取了应对策略。阿克曼在经历巨亏数十亿美元、离婚官司及多起诉讼缠身的多重打击时提到：面对这种无法速决的难关，唯一的办法就是“每次只啃一小口”，专注于当下脚下能走的每一步，过一两个月回头看时，只要能看到自己在一点点蚕食问题、取得进展即可。 --- ### [02:03:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=7386s) 心理韧性的四大行为维度模型在同年母亲去世后，Alex 为自己撰写了一篇探讨“心理韧性”（Mental Toughness）的文章。他强调，这绝非要求自己在母亲去世时冷血无情，而是为了理清：“当惨剧降临时，我究竟应该以何种姿态应对？”他将一个人遭遇变故后的反应拆解为四个关键的行为向量： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 心理韧性四大行为向量模型 accDescr: 展示遭遇逆境时评估个体心理韧性的四个关键维度：刚毅、耐受度、韧性与适应力。 subgraph Phase1["遭遇逆境阶段"] A["重大打击 / 负面事件发生"] --> B["刚毅 Fortitude 能够承受多少打击行为才发生改变"] end subgraph Phase2["行为跌落与恢复阶段"] B --> C["耐受度 / 跌落幅度 Tolerance 行为恶化到何种底线程度"] C --> D["韧性 Resilience 恢复到正常基准状态所需时长"] end subgraph Phase3["成长与重塑阶段"] D --> E{"适应力 Adaptability 恢复后的机能状态评估"} E -->|负向| F["永久受损 Worse"] E -->|中性| G["恢复原样 Same"] E -->|正向| H["超越以往 Better"] end ``` Alex 定义的这四个维度包括： 1. **刚毅（Fortitude）**：在自身行为发生变形之前，你能承受多少或多长时间的打击？一个在精神上具备极致刚毅的人，哪怕遭遇无限打击，日常行为依然能保持如常，不迁怒伴侣，不懈怠工作。 2. **耐受度 / 跌落幅度（Tolerance）**：一旦跨过忍耐阈值，你的行为会恶化到什么程度？仅仅是对下属有些缺乏耐心，还是彻底失控乃至沉溺恶习？ 3. **韧性（Resilience）**：在行为跌入低谷后，你需要花费多长时间才能重新恢复到原有的正常机能基准线？ 4. **适应力（Adaptability）**：当你终于重回基准线时，你是在认知与机能上变得比受挫前更好、维持原样，还是永久性地变得更糟？通过将这四个行为维度进行量化映射，Alex 得以在人生的至暗时刻客观审视并支撑住自己。他感慨当时的心境极其复杂：他刚操盘完成了高达 1.06 亿美元规模的图书发布，母亲生前亲眼见证了这一壮举，但仅仅四周后母亲便撒手人寰。这一切让他深刻体会到了在漫长商业长跑中，现实的无常与精神力量的真正价值。 ### [02:05:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=7552s) 商业巅峰与母亲的意外离世：爱与痛苦的假说亚历克斯·霍尔莫齐（Alex Hormozi）回顾了他耗时多年的商业图书“三部曲”计划的收官之作。在第一本书《$100M Offers》中，他以近乎免费或 99 美分的价格出售，并附赠了一套完整的课程，这种破天荒的让利模式打破了以往所有商业书籍的发售常规；到了第二本书《$100M Leads》，他组织了一场轰动全网的超大规模发售，但他甚至没有变现，仅仅是为了向所有人展示顶级广告效应的威力；而到了第三本书《$100M Money Models》，他将无懈可击的产品方案、庞大的流量广告以及后端极致的变现商业模式熔于一炉，最终创下了单周末吸金 1 亿美元的商业奇迹。然而，就在这个数年心血结出累累硕果的高光时刻，命运却开了一个残酷的玩笑——短短一个月（约三周）后，他的母亲在一场离奇的意外中不幸离世。面对这突如其来的灭顶之灾，霍尔莫齐不得不逼迫自己理清思绪：面对至亲离去，自己究竟该如何活着并呈现怎样的状态？他敏锐地察觉到社会舆论中一种扭曲的道德绑架：“人们往往会根据你选择承受多大的痛苦，来评判你有多爱一个人。”霍尔莫齐对此提出了强烈质疑：凭什么痛苦的程度能等同于爱的深度？他认为，任何真正爱你的逝者，绝不可能希望看到你沉浸在痛苦中无法自拔。带着这种清醒的觉察，他果断拒绝了“必须靠自我折磨来证明深情”的预设。在最灰暗的日子里，尽管内心跌入谷底，霍尔莫齐依然紧紧抓住自己唯一能掌控的事物：他坚持录制内容，因为帮助企业让他感到充实；他坚持去健身房举铁，因为运动让他身体分泌积极的荷尔蒙。面对斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）关于他当时是否拥有俗称的“动力”的提问，霍尔莫齐坦言，那并不是通常意义上的干劲，而是两股朴素的力量：第一，他深信母亲绝不愿看到他就此停步放弃；第二，这些习惯是让他免于沉沦的良药——在极其糟糕的状态下，唯有保持生活节奏不变，才能一步步将自己从泥潭中拉出来。面对外界“你应该停下来好好哀悼”的评判，他坚定地反驳：哀悼从来没有标准范式，为何自己的悲伤必须活成别人定义的样子？ - **三部曲发售策略**：《$100M Offers》（以 99 美分与免费课程重构价值认知）、《$100M Leads》（只做曝光不做变现以展示广告威能）、《$100M Money Models》（将优质产品、广告与变现模型合一，周末创收 1 亿美元）。 - **可控日常（Controllables）**：遭遇重创后尽量少改变原有生活轨迹，通过持续健身与商业赋能维持心智锚点。 --- ### [02:08:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=7687s) 以适应力面对创伤：延续母志是最好的悼念谈及极少在公众面前曝光的母亲，霍尔莫齐流露出了难得的深情与脆弱。与严格严厉的父亲不同，母亲是一位极其温柔、无论何时都全心全意相信他的女人。为了走出丧母之痛，他将“适应力”（Adaptability）作为自我重建的核心支点，反复叩问自己一个极具挑战性的问题：“在什么样的语境或世界里，这场失去能让我变得更好？” 社会通常将创伤定义为一种不可逆的负面烙印——坏事发生，人生便永久贬值。而霍尔莫齐坚信从创伤中汲取成长力量的可能性。他意识到，证明自己能够背负痛苦继续前行，正是对母亲在天之灵最崇高的缅怀与敬意。当年他毅然离开家乡独自打拼时，母亲是少数理解并支持他追求梦想的人；如今他虽然走得更远、更接近当初的目标，但追寻的方向从未改变。不因至亲的逝去而半途而废，咬紧牙关在既定道路上继续战斗，才是对母亲最好的交代。 --- ### [02:09:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=7781s) 幸福的定义与“奋进者”的心智回路话题转向霍尔莫齐与托尼·罗宾斯（Tony Robbins）曾经进行过的一场备受瞩目的对谈。斯蒂芬好奇那场对话是否改变了他对“幸福”的认知，因为霍尔莫齐曾多次表示幸福从不是他人生的高优先级目标。霍尔莫齐无奈地轻笑了一声坦言，虽然说自己被改变了会是个极佳的节目金句，但事实是那场对话并未真正撼动他的看法。对于“你现在究竟幸不幸福”的追问，霍尔莫齐表示自己对这个词始终感到困惑，因为大众对幸福的定义含混不清——虽然他能体会到快乐（Joy），但正如人们在葬礼上也可能偶尔露出笑意一样，短暂的情绪并不能概括人生的全貌。相较于“幸福”，他更愿意用“极具沉浸感与好奇心”来形容自己的日常状态，他对自己从事的事业感到无比着迷。霍尔莫齐援引哈佛学者阿瑟·布鲁克斯（Arthur C. Brooks）针对“奋进者”（Strivers，即追求卓越的高成就群体）的研究，深度剖析了这一群体的心理成因。布鲁克斯指出，奋进者的童年经历几乎如出一辙：通常在第一代移民家庭等高压环境中长大，父母出于望子成龙的严苛标准，往往会扣留无条件的关爱与认可，只有当孩子取得优异成绩时才给予奖励。久而久之，孩子在大脑中固化了一种认知：**爱不是天生的，爱必须通过赢和成就来赚取**。当这套回路被反复强化，并在现实世界中不断兑现胜利后，他们便彻底对这种“通过无休止工作来获取认可”的机制上了瘾。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 奋进者（Striver）成就成瘾心理回路 accDescr: 展示从童年有条件的爱到成年后对工作和成就无休止成瘾的恶性强化循环。 subgraph 童年形成期 A["高压严苛的抚养环境"] --> B["仅在取得成绩时获得认可"] B --> C["形成信念：爱是赚取来的"] end subgraph 成年强化期 C --> D["进入社会疯狂工作与竞争"] D --> E["取得现实成功并获赞赏"] E --> F["深陷获取认可的'爱之瘾'"] F --> D end ``` --- ### [02:11:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=7902s) 基因基线、加缪与“活着的目的” 除了奋进者心理回路，阿瑟·布鲁克斯的另一项研究也给霍尔莫齐带来了极大的释然：一个人的主观幸福感（Subjective Well-being）大约有 50% 是由基因先天决定的。霍尔莫齐坦言，虽然自己在世俗层面极为幸运，但母亲家族的基因谱系中存在严重的心理和精神健康隐患，尽管家族成员往往在特定领域才华横溢。他打比方说，身高两米一（7英尺）的人走在街上一目了然，但某些人天生在“幸福感知力”上只有一英尺高；哪怕他们通过后天极大的心理训练将这一英尺的潜能发挥到极致，打出了漂亮的球技，外人依然只会觉得他们不够乐观。霍尔莫齐认为自己或许已经把那 50% 的遗传限额发挥到了天花板，而如今“极其强烈的求生欲”对他而言就是一个足够积极的健康指标。霍尔莫齐借用了存在主义哲学家阿尔贝·加缪（Albert Camus）的观点来诠释生命的意义。加缪曾指出，探寻生命意义的根本反面就是自杀问题，而人生的终极意义，往往就藏在“你为什么不选择结束生命”的答案之中。这个看似灰暗的问题在现实中却能转化出惊人的力量——当人们被这样提问时，脱口而出的往往是孩子、伴侣或是仰仗自己的人，而这些牵挂本身正是他们活着的锚点，这一答案随着岁月流逝也会不断演变。斯蒂芬深有感触地谈到，通过长期采访各界名流，他深切体会到不同人脑内世界的鸿沟与所谓“心理健康特权”的存在。斯蒂芬分享了一位喜剧演员的经历：该演员脑海中常年盘踞着一个刻薄的内置声音，不仅在每一次表演前后疯狂咒骂其懦弱无能、当众丢丑，甚至发自内心地期盼他彻底失败。这种天生平和或天生自毁的心智差异，构成了人们鲜少察觉的隐形特权。最后，当斯蒂芬问及霍尔莫齐听到有人不假思索地宣称“我过得超级幸福”会有何感受时，霍尔莫齐直言不讳地指出，他的第一直觉往往是对方根本没认真思考并界定过何为幸福，不过是随口挑了一个最省事的标准答案来应付场面罢了。 - **主观幸福感遗传率**：约 50% 由先天基因决定，后天境遇与努力只能调控剩余的半数空间。 - **加缪式生命审视**：生命的意义等同于“阻止你结束生命的那个理由”，它随人生阶段而动态重塑。 - **心理健康特权**：大脑内部自发的声音模式（是建设性的支持还是破坏性的诅咒）因人而异，构成不同个体极不平等的心理起点。 ### [02:14:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=8064s) 骄傲、传世之作与“不要向我寻求快乐建议” Alex Hormozi 坦承了他内心最真实的感受：回顾至今为止的人生与成就，他深感自豪。当主持人 Steven Bartlett 追问“自豪到底是一种怎样的情绪、如果在脸上会呈现何种表情”时，Alex 解释说，对他而言这并不是一种外露的表情，而是一种充实而直击灵魂的体验（"very soulful for me"）。正是这种被工作彻底填满的充实感驱使着他不断前行。他深知生命终有尽头，当自己离世、世人渐渐遗忘他的名字时，他所有的 YouTube 视频与网络内容都将随风消散，而唯独写下的这些书籍最有可能穿越时间长河留存下来。因此，他写作时总是设定一个前提——未来的读者压根不知道 Alex Hormozi 是谁。针对主持人提出的犀利问题——“大家应该向你寻求关于‘快乐’（Happiness）的建议吗？”，Alex 果断回答：“不，去找那些真正快乐的人吧。”许多人理所当然地认为，学习财务自由与创业都是为了通往终极的北极星——快乐；如果打造出上亿美元的企业却无法换来快乐，那这一切的意义何在？面对质疑，Alex 明确划清了边界： - **拒绝兜售无形幻想**：市面上充斥着贩卖“快乐”的人，但他绝不在此列。他只出售能够量化、被验证的事物（Quantitative things）——如果触达更多人群，收入就会增长；如果有更好的变现体系与更快的现金回流机制，业务就会壮大；如果产品优惠足够诱人，客户就无法拒绝。 - **职责范围的界限**：财富与商业成功究竟会把个人的内心引向何方，早已超出了他的业务范畴与承诺。 --- ### [02:16:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=8198s) 情绪如天气：大数定律下的“垫底 10% 日子” Alex 提出了一个看待人类心智与情绪波动的独特心智模型：人的内在情绪就像天气一样变幻无常，既有艳阳高照也有阴雨绵绵，并且存在各自的季节周期。即便生活环境大幅改善，人体的“基线”（Baseline）也会自动适应。在商业与生活中，很多人因为无法忍受坏情绪而频繁做出灾难性决策。为了向团队解释这种不可避免的心理波动，Alex 引用了统计学上的大数定律： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 一年情绪波动与大数定律分布图 accDescr: 展示一年365天中按大数定律分布的情绪好坏比例，强调垫底10%日子的必然性与应对策略。 subgraph YearDistribution["一年 365 天的情绪分布"] direction TB HighDays["50% 高于平均水平的日子"] LowDays["50% 低于平均水平的日子"] TopTen["每年约 36 天（每月约 3 天） 属于年度表现最好的 Top 10%"] BottomTen["每年约 36 天（每月约 3 天） 属于年度最糟糕的 Bottom 10%"] end subgraph EmotionalDiscipline["创业与人生准则"] direction TB Reaction["负面情绪来袭（坏日子）"] WrongAction["错误做法：将情绪宣泄到事业或婚姻上，推倒重来"] RightAction["正确做法：忍受不适，情绪低谷绝非改变既定行为的充分理由"] end BottomTen --> Reaction Reaction --> WrongAction Reaction --> RightAction ``` - **垫底 10% 的必然性**：一年 365 天中，有 36 天属于全年中最为低谷的“垫底 10% 日子”，折合每月约 3 次。这些坏日子的出现纯粹源于统计波动，没有任何外在原因。同样，每月也会迎来大约 3 次状态爆棚的“Top 10% 日子”。 - **情绪不适不是改变路线的理由**：“情绪上的不适绝非改变我行动的充分理由（"my emotional discomfort is not an adequate reason to change what I'm doing"）”。如果不喜欢整体的人生走向，大可做出系统性改变；但如果只是仅仅今天感觉糟糕，绝不要一时冲动与妻子离婚，也不要把挫败感撒在正在起步的脆弱业务上。 - **好日子的终极定义**：只要度过了一个糟糕透顶的垫底日子，却依然把该做的高质量工作完成了，那这一天就是成功的一天。 --- ### [02:19:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=8340s) 超级人工智能来临后的对策与护城河面对上一位嘉宾留下的经典盲盒提问——“如果你确信在短短几年内就会出现比最优秀的人类更快、更强、更便宜的超级人工智能（Superintelligent AI），你会怎么做？”，Alex 从商业和个人两个维度进行了剖析： 1. **商业层面的护城河**：Alex 表示他会全力以赴积累**现实世界的真实凭证**（Real world proof）以及尽可能庞大的**客户实际交易履历**（Track record）。在人人都拥有超级 AI 访问权限的未来，唯有不可替代的信任（Trust）、真实声誉（Reputation）与分发网络（Distribution）才能成为对抗模型同质化的差异化资产。 2. **个人哲学层面的思考**：他会极其严肃地反思何为“人性的本质”（What it means to be human），以及自己最初为何来到这个世界。 3. **田园生活的设想**：当主持人调侃他是否会干脆去买个农场或牧场隐居时，Alex 笑着回应并没有完全排除这种可能，透露妻子 Leila 一直对农场生活非常狂热，甚至在他们早年第一次把公司卖掉套现时，就差点真正出手买下过一处农场。 --- ### [02:20:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=8440s) 节目收尾与破纪录的商业经典在节目的尾声，主持人 Steven Bartlett 盘点了 Alex 的重磅动态并给予极高评价： - **YouTube 全新创投竞赛**：Alex 启动了类似《龙穴之室》（Dragons' Den）与《创智赢家》（Shark Tank）的全新系列节目，邀请创业者同台角逐 10 万美元的创业投资基金。 - **现象级图书纪录**：Alex 的《$100M》（1亿美元）系列丛书（包括《$100M Offers》、《$100M Leads》与《$100M Money Models》）全球累计销量已突破 500 万册；其中新书更创下了 24 小时内狂销 290 万册的吉尼斯世界纪录。 - **极致的实操性**：Steven 称赞这些书之所以成为创业新人与业务规模化阶段创始人的“商业圣经”，在于它摒弃了假大空的哲学黑话与繁琐术语，直接配上 Alex 亲笔手绘的图表，清晰说明“第一步做什么、第二步做什么”，为创业者节省了长达十年的摸索试错成本。 ### [02:22:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=8551s) 结语与后续视频推荐在全期访谈的尾声，主持人向屏幕前的观众做最后的致意与收尾。他提到，平台系统已经根据每位观众独特的偏好与观看习惯，个性化推荐了最适合他们的下一个精彩视频。主持人热情地鼓励大家点击屏幕上推荐的视频继续观看，并确信每位观众都会从中有所收获、喜欢上接下来的内容（"Check this video out and I bet you you might love it"）。 ## Notable quotes > [01:28:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=5291s) Where he'd put his mortgage on the line — Steven Bartlett > [01:33:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=5616s) What would it take for you to work here forever? — Alex Hormozi > [01:44:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=6297s) Figuring out what you want is 99% of the work. The easy part is getting it — Alex Hormozi > [01:49:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=6597s) Punishment fades. Reward sticks. — Alex Hormozi > [02:16:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=8200s) My emotional discomfort is not an adequate reason to change what I'm doing — Alex Hormozi > [02:22:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=8551s) Check this video out and I bet you you might love it — Steven Bartlett > [01:21:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=4864s) Cut once, sell many times — Alex Hormozi > [01:21:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c&t=4864s) Cut once, sell once — Alex Hormozi ## Mentioned Alex Hormozi, Steven Bartlett, Leila Hormozi, Acquisition.com, Gary Halbert, Arthur C. Brooks, Jeff Bezos, Bill Ackman, Tony Robbins, Albert Camus, Van Westendorp Price Sensitivity Meter, $100M Offers, $100M Leads, $100M Money Models, Coca-Cola, Crunch Fitness, RuneScape, Dragons' Den, Shark Tank, Meta, Reddit ## Video description Every founder is being told to build an AI company. Alex Hormozi says almost all of them will be gone within months, that the best move is the exact opposite of what the market is saying, and that in a world of AI the only moat left will be reality and your reputation. Alex Hormozi is a entrepreneur, investor and author. He is the co-founder of Acquisition.com, a portfolio of 16+ companies generating over $250 million a year, and the author of the $100M series: '$100M Offers', '$100M Leads' and '$100M Money Models', whose 2025 launch sold 2.9 million copies in a single day and broke the Guinness World Record for the fastest-selling non-fiction book in history. He explains: ◼ Why the practical businesses, like plumbing, are the real opportunity, not the ones built on top of AI models ◼ Why delegating your hardest thinking to a machine makes you weak ◼ Why reality and reputation are the only moats AI can't erode ◼ Why revenue retention matters more than marketing or sales ◼ Why marrying his wife Leila was the best financial decision he ever made, and how the right partner changes your odds ◼ He opens up about one of the hardest years of his life, in the same year he made more money than ever The views expressed are those of the guest, and this conversation is intended for general informational purposes only. This podcast and its associated materials should not be used as a substitute for professional financial, legal or business advice. 00:00:00 Intro 00:02:33 How To Use AI As An Entrepreneur 00:05:00 Where Will Value Come From In An AI World? 00:07:12 How To Generate Great Ideas In The Age Of AI 00:08:36 Why Long-Term Thinking Wins In Business 00:13:38 Why Most Businesses Never Reach $10 Million 00:18:30 How To Price Your Product Or Service 00:19:47 The Biggest Hiring Mistakes Founders Make 00:23:22 Why Starting Feels So Hard 00:25:52 What Alex Would Do Differently Starting Again 00:30:49 What To Do When You Feel Uncertain In Business 00:33:53 Why Alex Delayed Starting His Business 00:36:38 The Lessons Alex Learned From His Father 00:39:55 How To Know If Entrepreneurship Is Right For You 00:41:40 How To Beat Decision Fatigue 00:43:08 Is It Easier To Start A Business Today? 00:44:47 Ads 00:46:46 Is Doing Hard Things Always Worth It? 00:47:31 How To Succeed As A Content Creator 00:49:58 How Alex Is Adapting His Content For The Future 00:53:03 Why Credibility Is Your Biggest Competitive Advantage 00:56:21 The Value Equation Explained 01:01:56 Why Delayed Gratification Pays Off 01:04:27 How To Know You're On The Right Path 01:05:14 Does Your Business Need To Be Scalable? 01:09:48 Why Unscalable Businesses Can Be Great Opportunities 01:11:19 How To Know When It's Time To Quit 01:12:14 Ads 01:13:14 Why Self-Awareness Is A Business Superpower 01:17:43 Stop Planning And Start Doing 01:20:34 How To Incentivise People And Find The Right Audience 01:23:39 Business Ideas You Could Start Today 01:26:42 Why You Should Sell To People With More Money 01:32:51 Why Employees And Customers Deserve The Same Treatment 01:38:42 Why Hiring Is Everything 01:39:30 How To Choose The Right Romantic Partner 01:44:57 What If Your Partner Doesn't Support Your Business? 01:47:38 How To Figure Out What You Really Want In Life 01:50:47 Becoming A Dad: How Alex Feels About Fatherhood 01:57:47 How Alex Thinks About Death 02:09:40 Are You Actually Happy? 02:18:59 What Happens If Superintelligence Arrives In Just A Few Years? Alex Hormozi: ◼ Acquisition.com -https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/6QgE53x (https://www.acquisition.com/) ◼ YouTube -https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/BEwaKl4 (https://www.youtube.com/@AlexHormozi) ◼ Instagram -https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/qSyA93 (https://www.instagram.com/hormozi/) ◼ X -https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/6LaEqiX (https://x.com/alexhormozi) ◼ LinkedIn -https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/2Vqmjxe (https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexhormozi/) ◼ Skool -https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/DLi0vBN (https://www.skool.com/) ◼ '$100M Money Models' - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/4ExripR ◼ 'The Game' podcast - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/9X40GGc The Diary Of A CEO: ◼ Join DOAC circle here - https://doaccircle.com/ ◼ Buy The Diary Of A CEO book here - https://smarturl.it/DOACbook ◼ The 1% Diary is back - limited time only: https://bit.ly/3YFbJbt ◼ The Diary Of A CEO Conversation Cards: https://linkly.link/2hm7r ◼ Get email updates - https://bit.ly/diary-of-a-ceo-yt ◼ Follow Steven - https://g2ul0.app.link/gnGqL4IsKKb Sponsors: Flightcast - Check out https://www.flightcast.com/DOAC7 LinkedIn Marketing - https://www.linkedin.com/DIARY Fiverr - https://fiverr.com/diary and get 10% off your first order when you use code DIARY [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmwyBgzj8c)

Source quotes

[88:11] Steven Bartlett: Where he'd put his mortgage on the line [93:36] Alex Hormozi: What would it take for you to work here forever? [104:57] Alex Hormozi: Figuring out what you want is 99% of the work. The easy part is getting it [109:57] Alex Hormozi: Punishment fades. Reward sticks. [136:40] Alex Hormozi: My emotional discomfort is not an adequate reason to change what I'm doing [142:31] Steven Bartlett: Check this video out and I bet you you might love it [81:04] Alex Hormozi: Cut once, sell many times [81:04] Alex Hormozi: Cut once, sell once

Source quotes

[33:53] Alex Hormozi: I acted with such cowardice that I had to drive halfway across the country before I could call my dad to tell him that I had quit my job and that I was going to start a business, because I knew that if I had done it while he was there, he would talk me out of it. [41:40] Alex Hormozi: The secret to getting a life you want is making a commitment. But you will not get all lives you want... At some point you have to sit at the precipice and you have to make a trade. [73:14] Alex Hormozi: The nurse is at home with me and she's going to try and give grandpa the pill. And he says, 'It tastes like... I don't want to have it.' He just brushes her away. She comes back, she throws her hands up and she's like, 'You lead a horse to water, you can't make it drink.' Right? The operationalist or the behaviorist would say, 'No, you've made many other options the more likely option than taking the pill.' And so what we need to do is make the pill the nicest and easiest option available to him. [86:42] Alex Hormozi: Price is such a strong signal for value... If someone comes to me and says, 'Hey, I want to do all of your social media management for $2,000 a month,' I'm like, 'Dude, you can't even handle me.' [104:39] Alex Hormozi: Imagine driving a brand-new Ferrari to a three-star Michelin restaurant, sitting alone in a corner booth eating the best food in the world, versus piling into a beat-up Toyota Camry with your five best friends to go to a Denny's. Which one are you going to enjoy more? [120:42] Alex Hormozi: When you're going through those rough patches... you're not going to solve this in a day. You can't finish it. And I think that's what's so painful about it—you have this open loop that whenever something reminds you of it, you get into this loop again of rumination and catastrophizing. [120:42] Alex Hormozi: I haven't felt this miserable in years. Shit's just hard sometimes... You do the only thing you can do. Keep fighting. [137:03] Alex Hormozi: If I determine that I can have a bad day and still do good work, that is a good day.

Original transcript

[0:00] I do a $ 106 million launch. My mom got [0:02] to see it, which is really cool. She [0:03] dies four weeks later. [0:06] It was just like, how am I supposed to [0:07] show up right now? So, I write these [0:09] tweets as notes [music] to self. [0:11] >> I'd never heard you talk like that [0:13] publicly before. [0:14] >> Yeah. I'm like, what do I need to hear [0:16] right now? And I was like, I I'll write [0:17] that, which is like I just have to keep [0:19] fighting. And [music] people will judge [0:20] how much you love someone by how much [0:22] you choose to suffer. I don't think the [0:23] person that you lost probably wants you [0:25] to suffer. One of the lessons that I've [0:26] learned from an entrepreneurship [0:28] perspective translated into life is we [0:30] [music] will get these moments of [0:31] dissatisfaction or discomfort and be [0:33] like I'm life sucks. I need to change [0:35] something. But my emotional discomfort [0:37] is not an adequate reason to change what [0:38] I'm doing. And so there's all these [0:40] other skills that are still required to [0:41] be successful in business. But if I can [0:43] compress 14 years of business advice, [0:45] the first thing I would say is you have [0:46] to decide whether you care more about [0:47] your future than what other people think [0:48] about your future. Like someone's [0:50] version of you has to die because [0:52] everything in the very beginning of [0:53] entrepreneurship comes down to one thing [0:54] which is fear. And it makes sense to be [0:55] afraid and it's because we want [0:57] certainty, but the only way to know is [0:59] to start. The second thing I've learned [1:00] is that the fastest way to build a $10 [1:02] million business is not the fastest way [1:03] to build a $und00 million business [1:04] because focus and [music] patience are [1:07] the two enduring competitive advantages [1:09] because they're so antihuman. And so [1:11] this is where entrepreneurs will [1:12] skyrocket. And I'll unpack that concept. [1:14] So how are you thinking about your [1:16] business, the world of AI? [1:17] >> I'm a big AI advocate, but people are [1:19] using AI in the wrong places. like [1:21] outsourcing thinking and decision-m to [1:23] AI is a really bad decision because you [1:25] will just get dumber. This is the best [1:26] asset I've got for now. So, I want to [1:28] keep it as sharp as I can. Finally, this [1:30] is like the the absolute raw truth I [1:31] could possibly give, which is the single [1:33] best financial decision that I ever [1:34] made. And that [snorts] is [1:38] this is super interesting to me. My team [1:40] given me this report to show me how many [1:41] of you that watch this show subscribe. [1:43] And some of you have told us according [1:44] to this that you are unsubscribed from [1:46] the channel randomly. So, favor to ask [1:48] all of you, please could you check right [1:50] now if you've hit the subscribe button, [1:51] if you are a regular viewer of the show [1:53] and you like what we do here. We're [1:54] approaching quite a significant landmark [1:56] on this show in terms of a subscriber [1:57] number. So, if there was one simple free [2:00] thing that you could do to help us, my [2:02] team, everyone here to keep this show [2:04] free, to keep it improving year over [2:06] year and week over week, it is just to [2:08] hit that subscribe button and to double [2:09] check if you've hit it. Only thing I'll [2:10] ever ask of you, do we have a deal? If [2:12] you do it, I'll tell you what I'll do. [2:14] I'll make sure every single week, every [2:16] single month, we fight harder and harder [2:18] and harder and harder to bring you the [2:19] guests and conversations that you want [2:20] to hear. I've stayed true to that [2:22] promise since the very beginning of the [2:23] D of Sio and I will not let you down. [2:26] Please help us. Really appreciate it. [2:27] Let's get on with the show. [music] [2:33] Alex, I I feel like we have to start [2:35] with AI because it is front of mind for [2:39] both I think my audience but also for [2:41] entrepreneurs that I speak to at every [2:44] step in the journey whether they are I [2:45] was with Adara who's the CEO of Uber the [2:47] other day um in New York and he that's [2:49] what the conversation was about AI but [2:51] then I speak to startup founders who are [2:52] trying to build a software company and [2:54] can't find a moat that is defensible [2:57] those conversations are about AI. What [2:58] is your how are you approaching this as [3:00] an entrepreneur? How can we use AI to do [3:02] the things that are the art the normal [3:04] functions of the business at a way [3:06] better, way faster, etc. What I'm seeing [3:08] a lot especially with founders or people [3:10] are starting out is they're using AI to [3:12] do a lot of dumb things really fast and [3:15] they're trying to build companies that [3:17] the models are going to swallow up [3:18] pretty much immediately anyways or [3:20] already have for super users and it's [3:21] just going to like become easier. And [3:24] the question that I would ask for the [3:25] entrepreneurs who are you know AI maxing [3:27] right now and again I think it's very [3:29] good to adopt new technology is are you [3:31] making more money [3:33] >> just the very simple are you making more [3:35] money now and even though you're token [3:38] maxing [laughter] [3:39] >> and spending all this tokens like are [3:40] you making more money and I had a a [3:42] business I looked at the other day they [3:43] had 11 VAS that were doing I can't [3:46] remember some sort of like data cleaning [3:47] work [3:48] >> VAS [3:48] >> yeah virtual assistants so lowkilled [3:51] labor overseas that was doing work and I [3:53] think it was something in the [3:54] neighborhood of like $11,000 a month is [3:56] what they were paying for these 11 VAS. [3:58] And they were doing a good job and it [3:59] all worked. And they then spent $350,000 [4:03] to try and create an AI system that [4:06] would replace what these 11 virtual [4:08] assistants were doing. But that means [4:10] they spent three plus years of costs on [4:14] what these 11 virtual assistants were [4:16] doing. And it wasn't even the constraint [4:19] of the business. It was just a process [4:21] they could automate. Not that they [4:23] should automate it because it's not the [4:25] thing that's limiting their growth. And [4:26] so they still need more customers and [4:28] that wasn't the thing. This was like [4:29] part of their their quote process or [4:31] something, but that wasn't the [4:32] limitation. They didn't have enough [4:33] demand. [4:34] >> People are using AI in the wrong places. [4:37] They're trying to start AI businesses [4:38] when they shouldn't start AI businesses. [4:40] They should use AI in their business. [4:42] They're trying to advertise as AI [4:43] businesses when you should just [4:44] advertise the thing that your customer [4:46] cares about, which is the solution to [4:47] their problem, the outcome. None of [4:49] that's changed. But because you got [4:50] really excited about it, you think your [4:52] customers are going to be excited about [4:53] it. But most people are a lot of people [4:54] are afraid of AI. Um, so it's not [4:56] necessarily even a positive and it's not [4:58] making you more money, which is the [4:59] final question. [5:00] >> When you listen to someone like Elon [5:01] Musk, he says that work will become [5:02] optional in in the in the future. And I [5:05] sat here with a couple of experts on AI. [5:07] Then they kind of explained to me what [5:08] it is. And from a very simplified [5:10] perspective, this machine that has these [5:12] neural nets in it, which have lots of [5:14] parameters, basically connections like [5:15] the human brain does. And when they [5:17] train it, the parameters become [5:19] reinforced to the the ones that made the [5:21] right decision. And the ones that made [5:23] the wrong decision are like basically [5:24] cut out. Again, I'm simplifying this. [5:26] >> These brains, these digital brains are [5:28] getting bigger and bigger and bigger. [5:29] Um, it's it's like almost inconceivable [5:31] to me based on what they've said to me, [5:33] these area experts, that at some point [5:35] it isn't able to do a lot of the [5:37] cognitive work that people are currently [5:39] doing. My question really here is like [5:41] where does the value remain in a world [5:43] where intelligence [5:45] is cheap [5:47] >> and abundant and um higher one could say [5:51] and also in a world where robotics are [5:52] coming over the horizon too like where [5:54] is the value I think stakes for example [5:57] AI can give all of the recommendations [5:59] in the world but someone has to own the [6:01] decision [6:01] >> and so as of [clears throat] right now [6:03] maybe it will in the future AI isn't [6:04] isn't a citizen of any you know any [6:06] country it doesn't pay taxes and so [6:08] somebody has to be responsible [6:09] >> it's a liability Yeah. [6:10] >> Yeah. [6:11] >> And upside on on the flip side. And to [6:13] take this into different domains from [6:14] the media perspective, imagine Jimmy [6:16] said Mr. Beast has a video and like Mr. [6:19] Beast is going to replace by AI. He's [6:21] not going to get replaced by AI because [6:23] if he had a video that said $5 million [6:25] and the $5 million wasn't real and the [6:27] Lamborghini wasn't real, there'd be no [6:30] stakes. [6:30] >> Yeah. [6:31] >> Like chess, right, has become more [6:33] popular now than it's ever like than [6:34] it's been in recent history. But robots [6:37] can beat humans at chess. [6:38] >> Mhm. But no one cares. [6:40] >> I think about the F1 as well. You'd [6:41] still want Lewis Hamilton in the car. [6:42] You take him out the car, you stop [6:44] watching F1, [6:44] >> right? So humans want stakes. And so [6:48] there's the compensation side of it, [6:49] which is that somebody's going to be [6:50] responsible. Someone has to risk the [6:51] money. Somebody paid for the token. [6:52] Somebody owns the LLC. Someone is is [6:54] owns this. And so there is value in the [6:56] judgment and the assumption of risk and [6:59] upside. [6:59] >> Mhm. [7:00] >> Which can be money or just the [7:01] responsibility. From a media [7:03] perspective, we still have to introduce [7:04] stakes into the into the show. Now, of [7:06] course, there's going to be the fiction [7:06] world. They're going to be much harder [7:07] hit. But if you're trying to do a [7:09] reality TV show, the real part has to be [7:12] there. [7:12] >> One of the um things that I find really [7:14] interesting about you is you spend a lot [7:16] of time thinking and in a world of [7:17] artificial intelligence, a lot of people [7:19] are now deferring their thinking to [7:22] these frontier models like chatb or [7:23] claim or whatever. And um we've spoken [7:26] about this before, but one of the things [7:27] we both agree is that knowing the right [7:29] questions to ask, clarity of thought, [7:30] critical thinking, making the decision [7:32] is going to be one of the things in a [7:33] world of AI that's critically important. [7:34] So my question to you is like how are [7:36] you having good ideas cultivating good [7:39] ideas and giving your space your sort of [7:40] mental space to be able to think about [7:43] problems? [7:44] >> Mhm. [7:44] >> What's your practice? [7:45] >> I'll I'll take this from two different [7:47] angles. So first is I think outsourcing [7:49] thinking to AI as of right now is still [7:51] a really bad decision if you it's like I [7:54] think anybody who's used AI for any [7:55] period of time knows that you can get it [7:56] to agree to anything. And that's [7:59] frightening when it comes to making [8:01] decisions. And so every time I'm like [8:03] you know I think it has gotten a little [8:04] better. I'll just give it like a really [8:05] obvious decision to make. I'll go, [8:06] "Okay, let's open up uh Claw. Let's open [8:08] up OpenAI. Let's look like let's open [8:10] all of them up and I'll ask the same [8:11] question to all three and they're just [8:13] all over the place." And so I'm like, [8:15] "Okay, this is still back to my [8:17] judgment." Right? Number two is that if [8:19] you do delegate your decision-m to it, [8:22] you get dumber. Now, there's all this [8:23] research. I'm sure you've had people in [8:24] the podcast who talked about it, and [8:25] it's like I for sure like this is the [8:27] best asset I've got for now, so I want [8:29] to keep it as sharp as I can. Do not [8:31] delegate the hardest work you the [8:33] hardest thinking work you have because [8:34] you will just get so weak so fast. A new [8:36] idea that sprung into my mind over the [8:38] last I'd say three to four months that [8:39] I've kind of been chewing with is this [8:41] idea of what happens when you go long. M [8:44] >> so long-term thinking and how you build [8:47] differently today if you just extend the [8:50] time horizon and then how you can like [8:51] beat competition just by like instead of [8:54] thinking in terms of okay you know [8:55] founders they always think in terms of 5 [8:57] years and then exit but what happens if [8:59] you think in terms of like 50 years what [9:01] are the different decisions you make in [9:02] terms of the foundational blocks [9:05] >> and this is why I have these blocks cuz [9:06] I saw you do something on YouTube with [9:07] some blocks before [9:08] >> could you explain this idea of sort of [9:09] long-term thinking in terms of [9:11] foundations [9:11] >> we do this exercise in person with [9:13] entrepreneurs I think it's so powerful [9:14] which is if I were to say, "Hey, build [9:16] me the tallest tower using a series of [9:18] blocks." If I say, "You have 5 seconds." [9:23] You're going to you're right here, [9:24] right? And that's that's all you got. [9:26] And you're like, "Oh, it's time. Hands [9:27] off." If I said, "Okay, now let's assume [9:29] we had a little bit more blocks than I [9:30] could build in in 5 seconds." And I [9:32] said, "Okay, what if I said you had 5 [9:33] minutes? Would you build it differently? [9:35] What if I said you had 5 days? What if I [9:37] said you had 5 years? [9:38] >> And you have unlimited blocks, [9:39] >> right?" Yeah. And so what happens is the [9:41] foundation completely changes based on [9:43] the height of the building because of [9:44] the time horizon you're thinking in. [9:46] >> Yeah. [9:46] >> I had a mentor tell me this um a long [9:49] time ago and it like really stuck with [9:50] me which is the fastest way to build a [9:52] $10 million business is not the fastest [9:53] way to build a $100 million business. [9:56] >> Even in the fastest way to build a [9:57] million dollar business is not the [9:58] fastest way to build a $10 million [9:59] business. Like you could probably build [10:00] a oneperson agency to a million dollars [10:02] a year pretty quick. One client, [10:04] >> right? Yeah. It's just like it's just [10:05] you could do it really quickly. getting [10:07] to a hundred though, you you think about [10:10] it differently. You would. And so I [10:12] think um to your point, one of the still [10:15] outstanding competitive advantages that [10:17] you can have as an entrepreneur from a [10:18] thinking perspective is just thinking [10:19] longer. [10:20] >> Yeah. [10:21] >> It's really been front of mind to me. [10:22] It's funny cuz when I started thinking [10:23] about, do you know why it is? It's [10:25] because I told myself in this season of [10:27] life [10:28] >> Mhm. [10:28] >> that I was going to do the business that [10:30] I'm running now, which is our holding [10:31] company called Steven.com forever. And I [10:33] immediately noticed that I made a [10:34] different set of decisions. I started [10:36] thinking about the factory I called it [10:38] which is you know Elon's example of it's [10:40] building a prototype is easy building [10:42] the factory that builds the cars is 50x [10:44] harder. I started obsessing over the [10:46] factory which in in part in this analogy [10:47] could also be seen as the foundations [10:49] that we lay to make this durable over [10:51] the long term. And then speaking of Elon [10:53] I look at the decisions he made with [10:55] both SpaceX which I'm an investor in and [10:57] Tesla where he was like you know I could [10:59] have bought the batteries from Ford but [11:01] I'm going to make a completely new [11:02] battery from scratch. you know, um, I [11:04] could have used other people's [11:05] electricity chargers, but I'm going to [11:07] build the entire charging network across [11:08] the United States from scratch. [11:10] >> And this is someone who was thinking [11:11] long term. And what happens then is they [11:13] have the most durable moat 7 years from [11:16] now. And and that's so this is that [11:19] becomes the value of the business. And [11:20] actually, it was all a byproduct of just [11:22] thinking over a longer time horizon. [11:24] entrepreneurs and startup founders as [11:25] you know we like rush to like get the [11:27] exit raise as much money as we can [11:29] >> and it looks like you're you're in an [11:31] unstable building there. Yeah, [11:33] >> it looks like that [11:34] >> strong wind, right? [laughter] [11:36] >> I could blow that over. [11:37] >> Even during the exit process, if it's a [11:39] fast, you know, company, it's like [11:41] you're kind of like just please stay, [11:43] just everything stay fine. No one leave, [11:47] you know, like no big accounts go away. [11:49] Like you're just like holding your [11:51] breath for 6 months and being like, [11:52] [laughter] please just go through. And [11:54] then if it goes down to this for like a [11:56] week or two and they're like, hey, why [11:57] are the billables down? You're like, uh, [11:59] no, it's a it's it's a momentary ble. It [12:01] was expected. did was actually in our [12:02] did I not send you the updated forecast? [12:03] [laughter] Like it's a whole thing. Um [12:05] and I'll do it with the drawing because [12:06] it might be it might be a little bit [12:08] easier. But like if you were to build a [12:11] hundred story building, you'd have to [12:13] dig way deeper. You'd have to have a [12:15] much you'd have you build with different [12:16] materials going up. And so there's a [12:19] hundred decisions that get made that if [12:21] you're doing a hundred stories versus [12:23] one, [clears throat] you would you [12:24] choose differently. And so where it gets [12:26] really tough is that people will they [12:28] want to have it all. And so they say, I [12:30] want to have the speed of building a [12:31] one-story building, but then they get to [12:33] one story and say, well, actually, I [12:34] want to get I want to have a 10-story [12:36] building, but the foundation wasn't [12:38] right. And so this is where [12:39] entrepreneurs will they'll do this. [12:41] They'll they'll skyrocket here and then [12:43] they and then they plateau. [12:44] >> And [clears throat] then sometimes, [12:46] unfortunately, the correct step is that [12:48] you have to take two steps back, rebuild [12:49] the foundation, and then it goes up [12:51] again. M. [12:52] >> And so I think to your point, focus and [12:55] patience are the two enduring [12:58] competitive advantages because they're [12:59] so antihuman. [13:00] >> Yeah. So antihuman. So anti- Instagram. [13:03] I've got no announcement to make this [13:05] month because I'm doing boring like [13:08] hiring. [13:09] >> Like Basos like the the decision I still [13:12] think about this like the decision that [13:13] he made that he was going to say like [13:14] I'm going to have a logistics company be [13:17] my competitive moat. He's a like he [13:20] started as a bookstore online and to go [13:23] from there to like no we're going to own [13:25] the trucks and the warehouses and be [13:27] better at warehouse and delivery than [13:29] anyone else. [13:31] >> That's what we're going to do with our [13:32] online internet business. [13:34] >> Like just but like who can unseat Amazon [13:36] right now? Really tough. What's [13:38] interesting as well is that that [13:40] particular moment there where the [13:41] entrepreneur gets this they they come to [13:43] people like me and you in the street and [13:45] they say [13:46] >> they are I can't get past your [13:48] bottleneck. Yeah. [13:49] >> What is it that they should have done? [13:50] So many entrepreneurs come up to me, [13:51] they might hit, I don't know, 500k [13:52] revenue, a million revenue, and they [13:53] come up to me and they go, I don't know [13:54] what to do. How do I get to 10 million [13:56] from here? [13:57] >> Yeah. [13:57] >> And I think in part what you're saying [13:58] is they they should have made a decision [14:00] earlier on to build a slightly different [14:02] type of company from zero. I'll say what [14:05] the million-dollar business owner is [14:06] missing when they're trying to get to 10 [14:08] is what they would have done differently [14:09] is they would have stayed longer in the [14:11] product market fit phase or trying to [14:13] make sure that the customers who come in [14:15] keep wanting to spend money with them [14:17] which they either do periodically. So [14:19] like if you buy a soda that you like, [14:20] you keep buying it. It's not like you're [14:21] on a subscription but you just buy it [14:23] regularly. On the other hand, there's [14:25] subscription revenue which is truly [14:26] recurring uh like your Netflix [14:28] subscription, whatever. But they know [14:31] that when that customer comes in contact [14:33] with the business, they're going to stay [14:34] and that money is going to keep going, [14:35] which is what allows it to stack. And so [14:36] if we think at the most basic level, if [14:39] every time you get a customer, they [14:40] never left, then the business will do [14:41] nothing but grow. [14:42] >> It [clears throat] will either stay the [14:43] same or it will grow whenever you get a [14:44] new customer, it just keeps growing. And [14:46] the difficulty of the the the $1 million [14:48] entrepreneur is that getting to a [14:49] million dollars, you can do really [14:50] quickly or 10. And I know that the the [14:52] world is like, I can't believe that. I [14:53] promise you, you can do it if you just [14:54] learn enough skills. Um, but that can [14:56] happen really quickly because it just [14:57] doesn't take a lot of moving parts to [14:58] make it happen. Getting to a hundred or [15:00] getting to a billion dollars in revenue, [15:02] I haven't gotten to a billion yet, but I [15:03] I feel confident I know what we need to [15:04] do. The million-dollar entrepreneur is [15:06] trying to fit a billion dollars of new [15:08] sales in in one year. [15:09] >> Mhm. [clears throat] [15:10] >> And that's the problem is that at the at [15:11] the end of next year, because all the [15:13] customers they signed up to make their [15:14] million dollars are gone because they [15:17] aren't good enough, they have to go back [15:18] to the market market and sell and get [15:20] another million dollars of customers. So [15:21] they think, "Oh, if I if I want to get [15:22] to $2 million a year, I have to go sell [15:25] twice as many customers." Which is true, [15:26] but if we had to compare two companies, [15:28] let's say we have company A and company [15:29] B. All right, we got company A, company [15:31] B. They both are selling a hundred, you [15:34] know, new widgets a year. Okay, [15:37] let's say company B loses all of the [15:40] hundred, but they want to double because [15:42] it's an entrepreneur. He's like, I got [15:43] to grow. And so he sells 200 people year [15:45] two. Well, then let's say he's got $2 [15:47] million in revenue, and he's got $1 [15:48] million revenue here. And let's say year [15:50] three, uh, he sells 300 units, but he [15:52] lost all 200 again because he has no [15:54] stickiness. And so he makes $3 million. [15:56] Okay, cool. [snorts] Now, let's say this [15:59] company A sells 100 year one, they make [16:01] a million dollars. They keep all 100 [16:03] customers. Okay, but let's say that that [16:05] company keeps the same number of people [16:08] they're selling new. So 100 new [16:09] customers come in this year, but they [16:10] keep their old hundred. So now they also [16:13] have 200 customers and do $2 million. [16:15] And then year three, they keep their [16:17] same 100 and then the 100 from year two. [16:19] So now they have 300 total customers [16:20] because they got 100 new and they have [16:22] three million. So both of these [16:24] businesses on paper, [16:26] your entrepreneur friend comes to you [16:27] and says, "Hey, I've got a $3 million [16:29] business and I've got a $3 million [16:31] business. Which one do you invest in?" [16:32] >> Mhm. [clears throat] [16:33] Now you and I do this every day. And [16:35] we're like, "All day we [snorts] do this [16:36] one, not this one." Because next year [16:39] he's got to go and sell 600 new [16:41] customers. Now, where this gets, you can [16:43] start seeing this in the financials [16:44] because I can tell you that the cost of [16:46] getting 300 new customers costs [16:48] significantly more than the cost of [16:49] getting a 100 new customers and having [16:51] 200 customers that are existing and [16:52] still paying you. [16:53] >> And so, you're going to see that in the [16:55] bottom line getting compressed and this [16:56] is where, you know, growth at all costs [16:57] becomes a problem. [16:59] >> But for this entrepreneur, he spent the [17:02] time to figure out how to get all 100 [17:04] customers to stay. Now if he encounters [17:06] your distribution or my distribution and [17:08] then all of a sudden we say great now I [17:10] know that I can bring this thing 10,000 [17:12] new customers then this thing becomes a [17:14] billion dollar year business because we [17:16] solve the most important part first [17:18] which is that the revenue stays and so [17:20] when people build in a rush they don't [17:21] build a good enough thing and so as a [17:23] result you scale really quickly and this [17:24] is where knowing marketing and sales can [17:25] be dangerous because the better you are [17:27] at marketing and sales the faster you [17:28] can grow revenue but you get to a point [17:30] where you you have a certain velocity of [17:32] sales I can only sell 100 people or 200 [17:34] people or 500 a thousand people a month, [17:36] whatever it is. And at that point, you [17:37] either have to always be seeking more [17:39] distribution because you have a hole in [17:40] the back of your bus, but the moment the [17:42] sales stop, the business craters. And I [17:45] would say that that is more common than [17:46] the alternative, which is that you [17:48] actually have a sticky business. [17:49] >> The other thing people talk to me about [17:50] when they come up to me in the street, [17:51] when they hit that moment where they're [17:52] doing about a million in revenue, is [17:53] they say, you know, my customers love [17:55] me. They keep coming back, but I've ran [17:57] out of time. Basically, [17:58] >> yeah, this is an interesting one because [18:00] a lot of times if I have the same [18:01] response where someone says, hey, I'm [18:03] running out of time. The first question [18:04] I'll ask is, "What's your margin?" If [18:07] they have really thin margins, they [18:09] can't afford to get help. That's the [18:11] symptom, but not the root cause. The [18:13] root cause is either that their offer is [18:16] incorrect in that what they're offering, [18:18] the price and the terms of their [18:20] delivery are too low compared to each [18:22] other. You're offering too much for too [18:23] little, [clears throat] [18:24] >> or you don't have a marketing or sales [18:26] motion that allows that value to be [18:28] demonstrated to someone. So, they'd be [18:30] willing to pay a premium. [18:31] >> On pricing, then how do you think about [18:33] pricing? Is it a subjective thing or is [18:35] it an objective thing? I do I go look at [18:36] the market and see what everyone else is [18:37] charging and then decide that or is it [18:39] what I feel like I deserve? [laughter] [18:42] >> I think what we feel we deserve matters [18:43] the least in that in that [18:45] >> I think it's all about what the customer [18:46] is willing to pay. And so one of the [18:49] hardest parts for for newer [18:50] entrepreneurs is they sell out of their [18:51] own wallet. [18:52] >> What do you mean? [18:52] >> And so it's like if I have somebody [18:54] who's really good at fixing cars, [18:55] they're like, "Well, it's not that hard. [18:56] You just, you know, do a little screws [18:58] here." Like I would I wouldn't pay [18:59] anybody for that. Like I do it for free. [19:00] It's like, "Yeah, but I don't want to do [19:02] it, and I would pay you a lot to do it [19:04] cuz I don't want to fix my car." And so, [19:06] because it's been easy for you, you [19:08] think it's easy for everyone. And [19:09] because you think it's easy for [19:10] everyone, you're not willing to charge a [19:11] lot for it. [19:12] >> And so, they get into this vicious cycle [19:14] of undercharging and having not enough [19:16] margin. And then as a result, having to [19:18] do more of the work and then if they get [19:20] more work coming, they don't want to say [19:21] no. And so, then they basically fill up [19:22] their entire plate. that they have no [19:23] excess capacity but that they can't they [19:25] don't have the time to train anyone they [19:26] don't have the time to interview they [19:27] don't have the time or or the or the [19:29] cash right to to afford the next person [19:31] and so usually when someone's like I'm [19:33] overwhelmed if I say do you have a lot [19:36] of margin then either yeah you're [19:38] running 70% margin dude like hire some [19:40] help if they don't then it's two or [19:42] three steps earlier where the offer is [19:44] wrong the sales motion's wrong which [19:45] typically they're mispriced [19:47] >> do you get it all the time where people [19:48] say to you um you know Alex I tried to [19:50] hire someone and they up and so I [19:52] can't I can't trust trust anybody to do [19:53] it as well as I can and the clients love [19:55] me. [19:56] >> I think it's ego. [19:58] >> Yeah. [19:58] >> I think we want to be special and I [20:00] think we like to be needed and I think [20:02] that [20:04] it is not the business's job to solve [20:06] your emotional needs. [20:07] >> Mhm. [20:08] >> The business's job to serve the [20:09] customers. [20:10] >> Mhm. [20:10] >> And so we are not as unique as we think. [20:13] If you could go back in time, you could [20:14] teach yourself in a tenth of time [20:15] because you know all the mistakes that [20:16] you made and the right things that [20:17] actually ended up working. So it's like [20:18] great. instead of taking 10 times as [20:20] long you did to learn it the first time, [20:21] go back as though you were teaching it [20:23] the right way to somebody else. [20:25] >> And so you can collapse the time it [20:26] takes to teach someone how to do the [20:27] job. And most times what founders are [20:30] looking for is a unicorn, right? They're [20:32] like, "Okay, uh, I have two employees [20:36] and I do everything. And so I need to [20:37] hire someone who's just going to be like [20:39] me and just do everything else." It's [20:40] like, it's not going to work that way. [20:41] And so I use this little analogy that I [20:42] like, which is, so we have our our horn [20:44] of the unicorn. This is going to be so [20:45] bad. Here we go. So, we've got our [20:47] [laughter] [20:49] All right. Here we go. We'll give it a [20:51] little hoof. Maybe a little some tail. [20:53] Here we go. And here we go. And we need [20:55] to have some some sparkle, right? Cuz [20:57] it's a unicorn special. Okay. Let's go a [20:59] little donk there. But they're trying to [21:00] replace themselves with a unicorn. But [21:02] there are no unicorns. And we know this. [21:03] And so they go through interview and [21:04] interview and then they never find [21:05] anybody because they can't find a [21:06] unicorn. But if you're like, "How do I [21:08] find an animal that's got a horn?" Well, [21:11] you could go find a rhino. Okay, I've [21:12] got a rhino. They've got the horn. It's [21:14] like, okay, and then I need a horse. [21:16] Well, I can go find a horse and then I [21:18] got to find the sparkle. So, I'll get [21:19] some fireflies for the sparkle and then [21:21] I'll get a horse for the horse. And so, [21:23] just like that, instead of saying, "Oh, [21:24] I someone has to live my exact life and [21:27] have gone through the exa exact same [21:29] trial and tribulations to figure out all [21:30] the unique things that I know." It's [21:32] like, no, [21:33] >> they try to find in one person what they [21:34] can more easily find in three. [21:35] >> This is relationship advice as well, [21:37] isn't it? [laughter] [21:38] >> Right. Demanding your your partner uh be [21:40] all things to you, [21:42] >> your coach, your uh you know, your guru, [21:44] your therapist, your biggest [21:46] cheerleader. Yeah, it's exactly that. [21:48] It's it's just and I think in some ways [21:50] there's an ego element that I think is [21:51] very reinforcing which is that I'm so [21:53] special, no one can do what I can do. [21:54] And I think that's a very attractive lie [21:56] that we like to believe. [21:58] >> I guess there's also inherent in that um [22:01] insecurity and fear that you see in [22:04] these early entrepreneurs that if I hire [22:06] another person, I now have the [22:07] responsibility of paying them. Right now [22:10] it's me, it's safe. I can control this. [22:12] Um, but if I bring on other people, [22:13] they've got mortgages and families. So [22:15] now, now it's terrifying. So, a good way [22:17] to justify my fear to myself is by [22:19] saying, "Look, I tried. I can't trust [22:20] anybody. I couldn't find anybody good. [22:22] >> I guess it's just going to have to be [22:23] me, myself, and I." [22:24] >> And I think if that's what you want, [22:27] like, go for it. Yeah. I just like I I [22:29] think I think there's I think there's [22:30] going to be a lot more solreers, you [22:31] know, in the in the coming future. There [22:32] already are. I think it's it's a goal [22:34] question. What do you want? [22:36] >> What mistakes did you make when you [22:37] started hiring? [22:38] >> Oh, my bar wasn't high enough. [22:40] >> Okay. I think at the most basic level [22:42] like what is the job like if you remove [22:44] everything else what survives and I [22:46] think holding the standard survives [22:49] because if you're the one responsible [22:50] then you have to be the one who [22:51] determines what is good enough. [22:53] >> It's [clears throat] my view that in [22:55] every given department the person who's [22:57] highest up should have the highest [22:59] standard and if somebody ever gets to a [23:01] point where they have a higher standard [23:02] for ACU than I do they should run it not [23:04] me. [23:05] >> There should be a button just down below [23:07] here and if it says subscribed you're [23:09] already subscribed. If it says [23:10] subscriber, that means you're not yet. [23:13] And if you're not subscribed, please [23:14] could you do us a favor and hit that [23:15] button? It helps the show more than you [23:17] know. And according to the algorithm, [23:18] you're someone that watches our show, [23:20] but you haven't yet hit that button. [23:21] Thank you so much. Have you seen a [23:24] change in the types of questions that [23:25] you're being asked? Because because the [23:27] world has changed, people are more [23:28] interested in personal branding or [23:29] business or whatever else. Are people [23:31] asking you new questions? [23:33] >> No, actually, I don't think. Yeah. [23:34] >> What are the questions that you get [23:35] asked? I get asked a lot of like, "Hey, [23:38] I'm thinking about doing this this [23:40] thing. What do you think?" I'm thinking [23:41] about starting this kind of business. [23:42] I'm thinking about starting a podcast [23:43] agency. What do you think? It doesn't [23:45] matter what I think. [laughter] [23:48] I'm like, and so I'll just ask the next [23:50] question, which is like, well, what have [23:51] you done so far? [23:53] >> Why'd you ask that? [23:54] >> Well, because the answer nine times out [23:55] of 10 is, well, I mean, I haven't I was [23:57] just thinking about it. I'm like, okay, [23:59] well then nothing's happened. what's [24:01] going on there with those people that [24:03] come up to you and they say they're [24:04] thinking about something but they [24:05] haven't done anything about it. [24:06] >> I'm guessing that they want to talk to [24:07] me about business stuff and so this is [24:09] the only business related thing that [24:10] they can talk about and so that's [24:11] probably why they talk about it or they [24:12] bring it up. Um or they want to feel [24:14] like in some ways it's kind of like [24:15] procrastive procrastination or that I'm [24:17] going to somehow give them one answer [24:19] that's going to like finally get them [24:20] over the hump of starting. But most [24:23] people start because one starting feels [24:25] like this very amorphous thing when when [24:28] like [24:30] I was about to say like has there ever [24:31] been something that you don't know how [24:32] to do? [24:33] Well, whenever I approach something that [24:35] I don't know how to do, it always feels [24:37] amorphous. It's like this big thing and [24:38] I don't know where to start. Like how do [24:41] like how do I grab onto a piece of it? [24:43] And so having gone and attacked like [24:45] these amorphous things like start a [24:47] business which actually means nothing. [24:49] You have to break things down to much [24:50] smaller steps of action. That's why for [24:53] me the most basic thing to start a [24:54] business is like get an LLC, [24:57] [clears throat] [24:57] >> open a bank account, have the ability to [24:59] process money, and then ask a stranger [25:01] if you can do something for them in [25:02] exchange for money. As soon as you do [25:04] those four things, congratulations, [25:05] you're a business owner. You've already [25:07] beaten like 95% of people who and you've [25:10] also changed your title from [25:11] entrepreneur to entrepreneur. And I [25:14] think that is one of the most mo just [25:15] like um when when a customer buys from [25:17] you versus just consuming your free [25:19] stuff, their identity completely [25:20] changes. They're now a customer which [25:21] means they're far more likely to [25:22] purchase uh future things from you than [25:24] somebody who's not bought something. [25:25] That's why you know ascensions and [25:26] renewals are much easier than getting [25:27] somebody to buy the first time, right? [25:28] And so I think to the same degree for us [25:30] as entrepreneurs or people who aspire to [25:31] be an entrepreneur, it's like go make [25:32] the first dollar and then as soon as you [25:34] have that taste of like oh this isn't I [25:36] I actually grabbed the corner of this [25:38] thing. I I I understand. And I just got [25:39] to get them to give me money to do [25:41] something. [25:42] >> Or I can build something and then have [25:43] them buy it from me and then I have to [25:45] figure out how to build more of them, [25:46] right? If it's a thing. But like that's [25:48] it at the most basic level. And [25:49] everything else is just is is confusion. [25:51] If you could go back to the starting [25:53] blocks and whisper something in Alex's [25:55] ear when he was starting up advice that [25:58] would have made the journey easier, more [26:00] profitable, whatever. What is what are [26:02] the sort of layers of advice you would [26:03] have given him at this as starting [26:04] blocks? [sighs and gasps] [26:06] >> So I've actually thought about this a [26:08] lot. If I went back in time and I saw an [26:10] older version of myself, if he appeared [26:12] in this room right now, let's say 20 [26:13] years from now, is looking at me, [26:16] my hope is that he would say nothing [26:18] because it would mean that it worked. [26:21] Now, if I if I was going back and let's [26:22] say that I I I hadn't taken the step and [26:25] I hadn't been able to to make the jump, [26:26] what I say in that instance um [26:30] is you have to decide whether you care [26:31] more about your future than what other [26:32] people think about your future. [26:35] Someone's version of you has to die. [26:38] It's either your desired version of you [26:40] or someone else's desired version of [26:42] you. And the thing is you're going to be [26:43] with you a lot longer than they are. I [26:46] think everything in the very beginning [26:47] of entrepreneurship comes down to one [26:48] thing which is fear and justified. It's [26:51] it makes sense to be afraid. Like [26:52] there's a lot of risk. There's a ton of [26:54] unknown. There's so much stuff that you [26:55] don't know. But the only thing I can [26:57] also say is that it also puts you in the [26:59] exact same position as every other [27:00] person who started entrepreneurship. [27:01] They didn't know. And the only way to [27:03] know is to start. and to have faith that [27:08] you will not know the way up the [27:09] mountain, but as you walk up the [27:11] mountain, the fog starts to clear. And [27:14] the fog will always be there, but you'll [27:15] always be able to see the couple steps [27:16] in front of you. And so, your [27:18] responsibility is to only take the steps [27:19] that you can see in front of you. That [27:20] is it. And then once you take those [27:22] steps, the next steps will become clear. [27:24] And I think that's where there's an [27:26] obsession with knowing the entirety. And [27:28] and it's because we want certainty. We [27:31] want to know that if we do all of these [27:32] things, it's going to work. And you [27:33] don't. You want certainty from a world [27:35] that will give you none. And if you were [27:37] uncomfortable with that, [27:38] entrepreneurship might not be for real. [27:40] >> Yeah. [27:40] >> But I I even say that and I almost I [27:42] almost I almost regret saying that [27:44] because I was so riskaverse when I [27:46] started like people see the content now [27:48] or they see you now and you're so [27:50] confident and and great on podcast and [27:52] like but I'm sure the first podcast you [27:53] did, you like look at it and you just [27:55] absolutely cringe, right? I had a video [27:57] that I put out that was like the first [27:58] content that I made that I was like [28:00] reacting to my own first content and [28:01] it's horrendous. It's horrible. But the [28:03] thing is is that you have to be willing [28:05] to be cringe. [28:06] >> You must embrace cringes. You will not [28:08] be cool. It will not look good. You will [28:10] suck and everyone will know you suck and [28:12] you will know you suck. [28:14] >> But again, it's do I care more about [28:16] their version of me or my version of me? [28:18] And am I willing to be a work in [28:20] progress or am I unwilling to do it [28:22] because I want to keep my current [28:23] station in life? But the thing is is [28:25] that you're at a local maximum and [28:27] there's a desire in you probably if I'm [28:29] talking to my younger self to be at a [28:31] higher maximum than I am right now. feel [28:32] like I'm capable of doing more, but I'm [28:35] so afraid of risking this tiny little [28:36] bit that I've built for myself. But the [28:39] the the reality is that the only [28:41] guarantee that you have of all the paths [28:43] in front of you is that you stay on the [28:45] current path, you will not get what you [28:46] want. [28:46] >> Mhm. [28:47] >> So there is a chance that you get what [28:49] you want if you move, but there is zero [28:51] chance if you stay. And I think those [28:53] were some of the thought processes that [28:55] actually got me to take action was [28:56] knowing that I for sure guaranteed 100% [28:59] would be dissatisfied with my life if I [29:00] had not taken the shot. and then playing [29:02] out plan B with excruciating detail. And [29:05] I think that's also one of the big ones [29:06] for fear is that like fear only exists [29:08] in the vague, never in the specific. [29:10] Also, so does confusion, right? So the [29:14] fear is I'm going to do this thing and [29:16] I'm going to fail. Fail's not specific. [29:19] And I'm and then everyone's going to [29:20] hate me and then eventually I'm going to [29:22] get ostracized and die. Like we [29:24] catastrophize everything because we're [29:25] evolutionary beings, right? We're we're [29:26] we're mammals. But if you really think [29:28] what does failure like what does failure [29:30] even mean? I I I ask someone to buy and [29:33] they say no. Is that failure? What if I [29:35] ask another person? What if I ask a 100 [29:36] people? Okay. Well, what if I ask 100 [29:38] people, all 100 people say no? Am I [29:40] allowed to change what I'm what I'm [29:41] offering? Yes. Okay. So, you get another [29:44] 100 people and maybe one of them says [29:45] yes. Okay. But even in that period of [29:47] time where you had the hundred people [29:48] who all said no to you and let's say you [29:50] quit your job and so you have no income. [29:52] Okay. What are what are the options [29:54] available to you? Can you talk can you [29:56] go and sleep on a friend's couch? Can [29:57] you go back home with your tail between [29:59] your legs? Well, it's only till between [30:00] your legs if you stop trying. If you go [30:02] home and say, "Mom and dad, I want to [30:03] save up some capital so that I can I can [30:05] extend my runway so that I can go after [30:07] this big goal. Mom and dad might be [30:09] cool. It might be friends. It might be [30:10] or maybe 10 friends going together." And [30:11] and because I split a bedroom, [30:13] >> so I had a house with six people in it. [30:16] Um and I split one of the bedrooms with [30:18] another guy. I paid 400 bucks a month [30:19] and I had a mattress on the floor and I [30:21] was never there. But it was just like I [30:22] tried to keep my living expenses as low [30:24] as possible. And I think one of the big [30:25] ones especially is that um people are [30:27] unwilling to sacrifice their short-term [30:29] lifestyle and appearances in order to [30:32] achieve their long-term goal. And so [30:33] they're handcuffed to their lifestyle. [30:35] >> And [clears throat] so you'd be [30:36] astonished at how little you can [30:37] actually live on if you try to live on [30:39] little. [30:39] >> This goes to back to the long-term [30:40] thinking argument as well, which is like [30:42] if you think about your status in 10 [30:44] years versus today. [30:45] >> Yes. And I'm I'm willing to take this [30:47] dip. [30:49] One of the things you said was really [30:50] interesting and I it dawned on me that [30:51] most people might not realize this about [30:53] people like you, which is that you said [30:55] there's uncertainty all the way up. Now, [30:57] I imagine imagine an 18-year-old [30:59] entrepreneur listening to Alex Mosi. [31:00] They're going to be thinking, "Oh, he's [31:01] got everything figured out all the way [31:02] up." And he's no longer living with [31:04] uncertainty, fear, confusion, ambiguity. [31:06] He's no longer having to think hard [31:07] about how to solve a problem because [31:08] he's got all the answers. But actually, [31:10] as you described it, in my head, I I [31:12] imagined all of these this sequence of [31:15] almost neverending doors that all just [31:18] have a cryptic message on on them. And [31:21] you imagine you go through one door and [31:22] there's 10 more and they all [laughter] [31:23] have you go through one, okay, this was [31:25] the right one. And then there's 10 new [31:27] ones that all have a vague language on [31:29] them. And you've got to pick which one [31:31] to go through next. You go through, [31:32] okay, you bounced off that one. [31:33] you took an L. Lost some money. You go [31:35] through another one. Okay, this was the [31:36] right one. And then there's 20. [31:38] [laughter] actually your optionality is [31:39] increasing with the more success you [31:41] have. So there's more doors and more [31:42] decisions to make, more uncertainty, [31:44] which most people don't realize. But [31:45] actually, as you were saying, I was [31:46] thinking, "Fuck, this is exactly what [31:47] I'm going through now." Like I I was up [31:48] till the early hours of the morning with [31:50] one of my colleagues yesterday night and [31:52] we're just figuring out which door to [31:54] walk through. So this is really [31:56] interesting because the earlier you are [31:58] in your journey, the more specific the [31:59] advice is because if you do not have a [32:02] business, the first step is the same for [32:04] everyone which is you must start an [32:06] entity and then you have to have a bank [32:08] account so that you can exchange money [32:09] and you have to have a a way or manner [32:11] of collecting that cash. Now of course [32:12] you could have cash business but I would [32:14] say most people use credit cards now. So [32:15] you have a processor, a bank account and [32:17] an entity. [32:18] >> It doesn't matter what business you [32:19] start that is the first step. Now, as [32:21] the business grows, you have more [32:23] resources. The the nature of the [32:25] business is different. And so, the [32:26] number of doors that are ahead of you [32:27] are actually multiplied by a huge [32:29] factor. [32:30] >> And so, right now, it's actually never [32:31] easier to know what to do than when you [32:33] start. And so, it has nothing to do with [32:35] you not knowing. Of course, you know, I [32:36] just we just said it. [32:38] >> It's everything to figure out why you're [32:40] not doing it. and more specifically [32:43] whose voice you're listening to that is [32:46] not yours that you are afraid of [32:48] disappointing or afraid of their [32:50] judgment. And if you can identify that [32:52] voice cuz and you actually put a name on [32:54] it, it's not like, oh, what are people [32:55] going to think? It's not people. It's [32:56] probably like two people. And if you [32:58] name, you're like, oh, it's just James [32:59] and Betty. [33:00] >> Yeah. [33:01] >> So, this is really real. So, one, when I [33:03] was about to sell Gym Lodge, I really I [33:05] it was actually a very hard decision for [33:06] me. Super hard. Um, and when I exited, [33:10] one of the reasons I almost didn't exit [33:12] was because there was somebody that I [33:13] knew in my circle, not even like a super [33:15] close friend, that I realized when I got [33:17] really clear on whose voice I cared [33:20] about, I thought that they didn't think [33:21] that $46 million was enough money, that [33:24] they wouldn't think it was legit. [33:25] [laughter] I'm dead serious. [33:29] >> Funny to hear. [laughter] [33:30] >> He's not going to think he's not going [33:31] to think I'm legit. It was only when I [33:33] was like, am I going to not do this and [33:36] let him control me? Cuz that's what it [33:38] is. They control you. [33:39] >> And I think when you say it in those [33:40] terms, it feels like much heavier, like [33:42] I'm letting my mom or my uncle or my [33:44] brother or the the coworker John control [33:47] me [33:47] >> because I that's how much I care about [33:49] this guy's approval. I care I have to [33:51] care about my approval more. [33:53] >> I want to say say this in more detail [33:54] because I think it's it's important. The [33:56] person that you see in front of you is [33:57] not the person who who took the leap to [34:00] start the business. I belabored that [34:02] decision [34:04] for 6 months. I had almost like a [34:07] pre-anned answer and people were like, [34:08] "Oh, so what do you do with your [34:08] career?" Oh, you know, I'm consultant [34:10] like to do a business school and then [34:10] someday start my own business. It was [34:11] like I I could say it in my sleep, but [34:14] the someday start my own business. When [34:15] I tried to think a little bit more first [34:17] principles, I was like, "Okay, well, in [34:19] what way is this business school going [34:20] to help me start a business?" And when I [34:22] looked at the starting salaries of [34:23] business school, it was like $120,000 a [34:25] year after you went to a good business [34:27] school. And I thought to myself, well, [34:28] it cost me $60,000 a year and I can't [34:30] make money during that period. So I'm [34:31] going to lose$120 for sure and at the [34:33] time I was making $50 $60,000 a year. [34:35] And so I was like, so it's $240,000 is [34:38] my call it my opportunity cost in two [34:40] years. Do I think that I can take the [34:42] money that I had saved up and in two [34:44] years get to $10,000 a month? I was [34:46] like, I think I can do it. And so that [34:48] was part of the reason that I ended up [34:50] not going to business school and it was [34:51] because of a question on the business [34:52] school test was how will a Booth MBA [34:54] help a short and long-term goals? And I [34:56] just sat there for three days trying to [34:57] answer it and I realized I was like I [34:58] don't know if it will help my long term. [34:59] >> Interesting. [35:00] >> So I mean it's good that they have those [35:01] questions because they actually forced [35:02] me to answer it. Now back to the the six [35:05] months I read I I was probably reading [35:09] no joke a book every two days cuz I the [35:11] job that I had had high seasons and low [35:13] seasons. And during low seasons I [35:14] basically just read books and they were [35:15] almost all self-help books. And I got to [35:18] this point after reading however many of [35:19] them that I looked back at my life and [35:20] realized it was exactly the same. And I [35:22] thought, "Oh, if I don't do anything, my [35:25] life's not going to change." And so I [35:27] had this idea that if I just keep [35:29] reading these books, somehow my life was [35:31] just going to change. And that was like [35:33] one of the realizations that I had. I [35:35] had a friend who was also in a white [35:37] collar, you know, job like I was. And [35:38] every night we'd probably get on the [35:40] phone for 2 to three hours and talk [35:42] about how we were going to start a [35:43] business. And I had this I had this this [35:45] IKEA carpet that I bought that was a a [35:46] cowhide carpet. And the spot where I'd [35:49] walk back and forth was like worn out on [35:51] the cowh high because of how much I [35:52] would just pace in my small uh flat just [35:55] going back and forth just talking about [35:57] the ideas that I had to start a [35:59] business. Every time I wanted to start [36:01] it, I would tell my dad I want to start [36:02] the business and he he would be like, [36:04] "Let's let's not be unreasonable here." [36:06] He's like, "You've got a good job." He's [36:07] like, "You're following the plan. You [36:08] did Vanderbilt in three years. You had [36:10] good grades. You got you were going to [36:11] do two years here. Then you go to one of [36:13] the top IV, you know, NBA schools. Like [36:15] it's you're good. Don't like this is [36:17] part of it. This is part of it. Right? [36:19] >> I acted with such cowardice that I had [36:22] to I had to drive halfway across the [36:25] country before I could call my dad to [36:27] tell him that I that I had quit my job [36:29] and that I was going to start a business [36:32] because I knew that if I had done it [36:34] while he was there, he would talk me out [36:35] of it because he had already talked me [36:37] out of it a bunch of times. [36:38] >> Why was he doing that? I I learned a [36:39] little bit about his background over the [36:41] last couple of days. I've got some [36:42] photos. I mean, [36:43] >> ah that's right. Dear G. [36:45] >> And I think there's context in his own [36:47] story which [36:48] >> completes the picture. [36:50] >> So whatever people see of my success I [36:52] think in a lot of ways what my dad [36:54] accomplished the more I think about it [36:56] is bigger. My dad fled during the [36:58] Iranian uh revolution right and then he [37:01] went to go to uh France to become a [37:04] doctor but he didn't speak French. And [37:07] so he had to go try to go into medical [37:10] school and take Orgo in a language that [37:12] he didn't understand. And so he failed [37:14] two years in a row. His brother was [37:15] like, "Go to Belgium, start fresh, go to [37:17] a new place." And so he ended up uh [37:19] getting all the way through medical [37:20] school. And then he met my mother in [37:22] medical school and then they came back [37:23] to the US. Now his medical degree didn't [37:26] transfer to the US. And so he had to get [37:28] a US fellowship in order a residency or [37:30] whatever. But no one would take a Middle [37:32] Eastern guy who had a super thick accent [37:34] who was fresh out of medical school and [37:35] there was all these US-based people [37:36] here. And so for two years he ran X-ray [37:38] slides. He finally gets a residency and [37:40] then he decides when he comes back to [37:42] Baltimore, which is where my where where [37:43] I'm from, that he's going to instead of [37:46] join the practice that my mother had [37:48] with her father. He was going to go out [37:50] on his own, which is pretty ballsy, [37:52] right? He didn't have foreigner, didn't [37:54] have anything. And so he asked to find [37:56] out how much a construction cost for [37:58] building your own surgery center. And it [37:59] was like $250,000 then, so it was a lot [38:01] of money. He didn't have that. And so he [38:04] looked at all the legal requirements for [38:05] what what it entails to be a serger [38:07] center. And then he went to Home Depot [38:09] and built a surgery center that met all [38:11] the specs and got it inspected so that [38:12] he could have his own surgery center in [38:14] his practice. Then right as his practice [38:16] was starting to work, my parents got [38:18] divorced. They changed the the locks on [38:20] the door cuz he had like a separate [38:21] thing. His patients show up and they [38:23] didn't know where to go. It was an ugly [38:25] divorce. And so then he's he's starting [38:28] his own and this is when he was talking [38:29] to me then. So fast forward now. He's [38:32] like, "I've been in practice for, you [38:33] know, 20, 30 years, whatever." He's [38:35] like, "Those years, I didn't even think [38:38] about him." I think I was like, "I feel [38:39] like I'm not moving fast enough. I feel [38:40] like I need to need to do these things." [38:42] And he's like, "Dude, a year, two years [38:45] now." He's like, "It's nothing." He's [38:46] like, "When your mind, you're not even [38:47] going to think you're not even remember [38:48] it." [38:49] >> The the honest truth of the matter is [38:51] that I [38:53] really desperately wanted to prove that [38:55] I could do it on my own. [38:56] >> Who did you want to prove that to? [38:58] >> I don't know. Everyone. Me, him, the [39:00] world. I remember being terrified about [39:02] the idea of winning the lottery. Sounds [39:06] really weird. [laughter] When I was in [39:07] college, I bought a Super Bowl ticket [39:09] because it was like a billion dollars or [39:10] something. I was like, "Let's do it for [39:11] fun, whatever." And I and I remember [39:12] having this this moment right before the [39:14] the number was going to get called of [39:15] sheer terror of what if I win because I [39:18] was like, I will never be able to prove [39:20] that I I have the medal, that I can do [39:22] it. And so, and of course people would [39:25] say that now if someone wants to give me [39:26] a billion dollars, I'm happy to use it. [39:27] Because to be fair though, because I [39:28] already have this I already have the [39:30] status and the track record that I that [39:31] I built this. [39:32] >> And this also the reason that like when [39:34] I started my my business like I didn't [39:36] take a loan like I used my own money [39:38] that I had saved because I I wanted to [39:41] be mine and I knew I would know. And I [39:44] think yeah, my dad had absolutely [39:45] perfect intentions. He gave me what I [39:46] believe to be for vast majority of [39:48] people probably pretty good advice. Mhm. [39:50] >> It just wasn't the advice that I needed [39:53] for the goals that I had. [39:54] >> There's an interesting thing because [39:56] people like me and you make business [39:57] content and we talk about [39:58] entrepreneurship a lot. [39:59] >> Um I I often wonder if we're leading [40:01] some people astray in the context of [40:03] some people actually should take that [40:04] advice. Some people shouldn't become [40:06] entrepreneurs. Um and how does one know [40:08] if entrepreneurship in its broad [40:10] definition is for them or not or like [40:12] working in a company having you know [40:14] having a great job is for them? It's [40:16] funny. We were I was doing this show [40:18] once and I said to the producer who was [40:20] just off camera. I said, "Um, do you [40:23] think I'm happy?" So, this is this is [40:25] someone who gets to see who's has seen [40:26] me for six or seven years behind the [40:28] scenes every day since we're on my [40:29] kitchen table. Has been there with me [40:31] every corner of the world, the the best [40:32] and the worst of times. I went, "Do you [40:34] think I'm happy?" He went, "Yes." He [40:36] said it quickly. And then he and then I [40:38] said, "Would you want my life?" And he [40:40] he couldn't have said no more violently. [40:42] So much so that it was almost defensive. [40:44] [laughter] He was like, "You're having" [40:45] And then I do you want would you like my [40:46] life? He goes, "No." And he was like, [40:49] and and he was like laughing. He would [40:51] not want my life, but at the same time [40:53] thinks and believes having seen me [40:55] behind the scenes for 7 years that I'm [40:56] happy. And in there, I think you have [40:58] something which is the the sort of [40:59] subjectivity of of of journey like is [41:03] this your journey? How does one know [41:05] listening to this now if they should be [41:06] an entrepreneur or not? [41:08] >> So, I'll give a couple frames because [41:09] decision-m is what probably both do with [41:11] a lot of our time. So, one is what's the [41:13] goal? what do I want to have happen? [41:14] >> Everyone says the same things here. They [41:16] say, you know, I want freedom to make my [41:17] decisions. I want, you know, financial [41:18] freedom. [41:19] >> Then we have to be specific. And so, [41:20] just like fear only exists in the [41:22] specific, goals have to exist in the [41:24] specific in order for them to be real [41:26] and for you to make accurate decisions. [41:28] >> Mhm. [41:29] >> And this is why I'm so obsessive about [41:30] language and like observables and things [41:32] like that. So, what is one is what do I [41:34] what do I actually want to have happen? [41:35] And then number two, what does that [41:37] change about my actual daily life? on [41:40] this first point. Funnily enough, I said [41:42] to you freedom [41:43] >> and then I immediately realized that the [41:45] least free person in the [laughter] [41:48] >> dude this gets okay this is great. So I [41:50] think about this it's the freedom to [41:52] choose [41:53] >> but I think people stop at freedom. [41:55] There's this almost fetishization of [41:57] independence and keeping your options [42:00] open and m and options maxing right for [42:02] your life. But all of the best parts of [42:05] life come on the other side of [42:06] exercising an option and and walking [42:09] through a door. But in so doing, leaving [42:11] the other doors that you could have [42:12] walked through behind. And so the secret [42:15] to getting a life you want is making a [42:17] commitment. But you will not get all [42:19] lives you want. [42:21] And so at some point you have to sit at [42:23] the precipice and you have to make a [42:25] trade. And you have to say, I want this [42:26] more than something else. That means I [42:29] know I'm not going to get this and I [42:30] choose to say that I want this more. [42:33] And I think this is where people just [42:34] sit at the crossroads. And that is what [42:36] takes the majority of time. Not just [42:38] getting into business, but also when [42:39] you're in business, people will sit at [42:41] the crossroads of like, what type of [42:42] company do I want to build? What type of [42:43] product? And what type what what type of [42:46] business do I want? And we sit there and [42:48] I when I see people get stuck, it's [42:50] almost always unmade decisions because [42:52] unmade decisions can last forever. [42:54] >> Whereas if you're in if you're in a [42:56] trial loop of feedback, feedback, [42:57] feedback, like you'll figure it out, [42:59] like you'll move. But if you're in an [43:01] unmade decision, it could sit there [43:02] forever. And that's that's like the [43:05] freedom to choose. We have to choose. [43:08] Are you seeing this sort of new [43:10] generation that have grown up with all [43:12] the tools to start their own business [43:14] that we're in this personal brand era [43:16] where everybody can make content and [43:18] build a brand and then do like panel [43:19] talks for a living or sell like ads on [43:21] LinkedIn? Um, [43:23] >> what what is going on here? this sort of [43:25] younger generation under 30 now [43:29] keeping their options open wanting [43:30] freedom. If you compare that to say [43:32] maybe my dad who you know one job did [43:36] that career for 20 30 years of his love [43:38] 40 years of his life it's a very [43:40] different world we're living in. There [43:41] are more people starting businesses than [43:43] ever before. I know since co there's [43:45] there's at least in the US the stats [43:47] that I looked at recently it's like [43:48] there's been more new businesses per [43:50] quarter. It's been growing really [43:51] aggressively at least in the US and so [43:53] more people are starting businesses. And [43:55] so I think that lowering the cost of [43:57] entry has gotten more people across the [43:58] line. I think having more access to [44:00] information has gotten more people [44:01] across the line. But why aren't why [44:03] isn't everyone going across the line? I [44:05] think there's a couple things. One is to [44:08] your point earlier, I don't think it is [44:09] for everyone. And so I think the issue [44:12] there is one of motivation. They have [44:14] too many carrots, so good things keeping [44:18] them in their current position and not [44:20] enough sticks or bad things getting them [44:22] out of their current position. And I [44:24] think um I think it's a it's a Tony [44:26] quote, Tony Robbins quote, which is uh [44:28] the pain of staying the same has to be [44:29] greater than the pain of change. [44:31] >> And I [clears throat] think that [44:33] when that happens and it could be the [44:35] pleasure of change could be has to be [44:37] greater than the pleasure of staying the [44:38] same. E equal opposite, but I think most [44:40] people are in that slice, there's pain [44:43] and so you will change the moment it is [44:46] more painful to stay the same. I've [44:48] spent the last decade building and [44:49] investing in companies and so often the [44:51] conversation around marketing budgets [44:52] follows the exact same pattern. The [44:54] budget gets approved but then the [44:56] results don't come back and most of the [44:57] time the creative pitch and the offer is [45:00] fine. The problem lies with the [45:02] audience. Ads reach people who will [45:04] never buy or refer nor do they have the [45:07] power to sign off anything at all. And [45:09] this is why so much budget gets wasted. [45:11] LinkedIn Ads, who are sponsor of this [45:13] podcast, lets you reach them [45:14] specifically by job title, seniority, [45:17] company size, industry, the skills that [45:20] they have, and much more. You're no [45:22] longer hoping your ad reaches the right [45:23] person. Instead, you're defining exactly [45:26] who sees it. And LinkedIn ads drives the [45:28] highest B2B return on ad spend across [45:30] all major ad networks. Give them a try [45:33] at linkedin.com/diary. [45:36] And if you spend $250 on your first [45:38] campaign, you'll get a $250 credit for [45:41] your next one just by going to [45:43] linkedin.com/diary. [45:45] Keep this to yourself. Terms and [45:46] conditions apply. For the last couple [45:49] years, I've been working on something [45:50] that I realized every podcaster [45:51] listening to this, but actually probably [45:53] every creator listening to this might [45:55] just need. Podcasting is difficult for [45:56] many reasons. And one of them is that [45:58] these hosting platforms don't give you [45:59] much information. And also because [46:01] they're so fragmented, you kind of have [46:02] to go through every single platform, [46:04] uploading it to YouTube, and then taking [46:06] the same big old video file and [46:07] uploading it to Spotify's platform. It [46:09] takes huge amounts of time. And that [46:11] friction means most of us don't do it. [46:13] That is the problem we set out to solve. [46:15] And so we built something called [46:16] Flightcast, which you can find at [46:17] flightcast.com. And today, Flightcast is [46:20] also one of our show sponsors. And some [46:22] of the world's biggest podcasters are [46:23] now using our platform to run their [46:25] shows because it gives you an edge. It [46:28] saves you time. It gives you analytics [46:30] most people won't typically get. It [46:32] allows you to use AI to be more informed [46:34] on your show and it has growth tools [46:37] that other hosting platforms don't have. [46:39] So podcasters that are using Flightcast [46:40] have this unfair advantage. So go to [46:42] flightcast.com/doac. [46:45] Now do you think life rewards you [46:48] somewhat proportional to the hardness of [46:51] the problem that you solve? [46:53] >> So I think um a hard problem doesn't [46:56] necessarily guarantee that it is a [46:58] valuable problem. Mhm. [clears throat] [46:59] >> Like if you run a marathon very hard, it [47:00] doesn't necessarily make you more money. [47:02] So like there's lots of hard things that [47:03] are out there that will not turn into [47:05] monetization. [47:06] >> The second thing is I think it depends [47:08] on the size of your goals. [47:10] >> And so if you want to be a millionaire, [47:12] you do not need to solve a hard problem. [47:14] You just need to do a little bit better [47:16] than other businesses that are wildly [47:18] underserving their customers, which I [47:19] promise you there are plenty. You can [47:22] just have a pool cleaning business that [47:23] just cleans better than the other guy [47:24] and like shows up on time and all you [47:26] got to do is knock on doors and ask if [47:28] they want to switch because their [47:29] current company probably doesn't pay [47:31] attention to them. [47:31] >> One of the things that, you know, a lot [47:33] of founders, entrepreneurs are thinking [47:34] about at the moment is producing [47:35] content. [47:36] >> We're living in in in an interesting [47:38] time where a kid in Mumbai or a kid in [47:39] Manhattan can both produce content using [47:42] LLM, uh, AI. They can produce videos. [47:44] Theoretically, if you imagine any rate [47:46] of improvement, they're going to be able [47:47] to make videos, photos, churn out your [47:50] quotes. They could use your quotes, [47:51] change them a little bit, and have an [47:52] agent post them for them. Where is the [47:55] moat in content? Where you think about, [47:57] if you think about supply demand [47:58] dynamics, there's fixed demand. The [48:00] Financial Times did a report saying that [48:02] time spent on social media is starting [48:04] to dip a little bit since 2022. For [48:06] younger generations, for older [48:08] generations, it's still sort of like [48:09] going up or flat, but for Gen Z's, it's [48:11] like starting to come down a little bit. [48:13] So stagnant demand, tsunami slop coming [48:16] in of AI content. [48:18] >> Yeah. [48:18] >> Huge supply shock. Every unit of content [48:21] itself is going to become less valuable. [48:23] Therefore, um and the algorithms are [48:25] getting more violent or I should say are [48:27] becoming more um someone with 10 million [48:29] followers can get 2,000 likes. Back in [48:31] my day, 15 years ago, when I started on [48:33] social media, if you had a million [48:34] followers, you got a million a million [48:35] likes or a million views, should I say. [48:37] What's the game of content in such a [48:39] world? Everyone's everyone's making [48:40] content now. [48:41] >> To your point, what's the mode? Um, [48:43] reality is the moat. [48:45] >> Reality is the moat. [48:46] >> I'd say the number one biggest business [48:48] influencer I think on the planet is Elon [48:51] Musk [48:52] and he happens to own the biggest [48:54] business on the planet be the richest [48:56] man. Uh, Jeff Bezos, huge business [48:59] influencer because he has Amazon. Warren [49:02] Buffett probably the number one [49:04] investing influencer. Like people fly [49:06] around the world and when he when he [49:07] talks, everyone listens. [49:09] And so even if a teacher in De Moines [49:12] Iowa word for word quotes Warren Buffett [49:15] and let's do one better let's say makes [49:16] even better advice than Warren Buffett [49:18] does is still not going to get the same [49:20] views because they just forgot to build [49:21] Berkshire Hathaway and have a hundred [49:25] years of track record. And so what I'm [49:28] saying there is that when reality is the [49:30] mode it means that your brand is the [49:31] mode. It means your reputation is the [49:33] mode which can only happen in reality. [49:34] Now, that said, I do think it's going to [49:36] affect different types of content [49:37] differently. If you're in the world of [49:39] making fictional whatever stuff, then [49:41] yeah, I think it's going to hit I think [49:42] AI is going to hit you much harder. But [49:44] even then, there's still going to be the [49:45] the standard holder. Somebody has to [49:48] determine that this slop is too sloppy [49:50] [laughter] and that you still have to [49:52] work really hard to make the AI make [49:55] exactly what you want and have it at the [49:57] caliber that you want it to be at. [49:58] >> Have you made any changes to your [50:00] content because of everything that's [50:01] going on with algorithms and AI? Yeah, [50:05] I'm focused on only doing things that [50:06] only I can do. [clears throat] [50:08] >> Most people can't get hundreds of [50:11] business owners to fly out in person [50:12] every month that are all million-dollar [50:14] plus business owners to seek advice on [50:18] real business problems at 3 million, 5 [50:21] million, 10 million a year, 500k a year. [50:24] Most people don't have that. And so I [50:26] can demonstrate expertise in a live and [50:28] interactive fashion, in a way that other [50:29] people can't do. I think that live is [50:33] something that I mean AI maybe in the [50:35] future we'll have some AI avatars that [50:36] can go live but at least in the short to [50:39] medium term I think live is good. I [50:41] think IRL as in like it's actually real [50:44] people talking which is we talked about [50:45] the scaler fail show that we just [50:47] launched. It's real entrepreneurs and [50:49] there's stakes [laughter] involved. I [50:51] think that is something that is not [50:53] going to be replaced. But if we think [50:55] about content on this continuum all [50:58] right let's make this continuum risk. [51:02] When I say risk it's the risk that a [51:03] consumer has in consuming the content [51:06] and executing on it. And so if we [51:08] differentiate entertainment and [51:09] education is entertainment the point of [51:11] the content is to be consumed. It's the [51:12] only objective of entertainment. The [51:14] point of education is to change [51:15] behavior. [51:16] >> Right? So that's our that's our split. [51:18] Now entertainers will get hit harder [51:21] than educators will. [51:23] The entertainers that have stakes [51:25] involved will be able to maintain that [51:27] mode by still focusing on IRL real [51:29] stakes real stories. Now in the [51:31] education world of risk, let's put [51:34] something that's really low stakes. [51:36] There we go. So, we've got beauty on [51:38] this side. If I have an AI influencer [51:41] >> who does a makeup tutorial, I don't [51:43] think the risk is super high that if, [51:45] you know, if the tutorial is good that a [51:47] girl's like going to not use the tip [51:50] that they made in the thing. I think [51:51] that's pretty likely. [51:53] If you go maybe a little bit riskier, [51:56] let's say I have some personal finance [51:57] stuff. Well, what's the cred? So, the [51:59] credibility in beauty is beauty. [52:03] the credibility in personal finance is [52:05] do you have personal finances? Right? [52:07] So, who's the number one uh influencer [52:08] in personal finance? My opinion, I think [52:10] it's Dave Ramsey. He also happens to be [52:12] I don't think he he calls himself this, [52:13] but I think he's a billionaire. And he's [52:15] got a massive I think he's public $300 [52:17] million a year of revenue that he's [52:19] done. And I think there's some other [52:21] newer newer age people. Uh I think [52:23] Vivian 2 is is she's a personal finance [52:26] person. I think um Erica Coberg touches [52:28] in this. She's the legal legal gal. Um, [52:32] anyways, all this to say, all of them [52:34] have more credibility. Like, if you just [52:36] start giving out tips on how to save [52:38] money, there's no credibility. Reality, [52:40] there's no reality. You have nothing to [52:42] back it up. [52:42] >> Mhm. [52:43] >> Now, we keep moving further. Let's say [52:45] business where if you make a wrong call, [52:47] you could lose your business. Here, you [52:49] lose some money. Here, you lose a bad [52:51] day of makeup. So, the risk goes up. the [52:54] riskier or the higher the consequences [52:56] of being wrong, the more people are [52:58] going to, I think, double down on [53:01] credibility of source. [53:03] >> What's interesting is I also heard as [53:04] you were describing flying these 100 [53:07] business owners out to Vegas is I heard [53:11] scarce, hard and scarce. And I still [53:13] thought a lot about these two words as [53:15] sort of the pillars of my own content [53:16] strategy, which is [53:18] >> with an LLM, yeah, a kid in Mumbai could [53:20] churn out a video. Um, but the reason [53:23] why we have, you know, somewhat of a [53:25] moat here still is because it is hard to [53:28] shoot on nine cameras. It is hard to [53:31] bring Alex Hermosi here. It is hard to [53:34] get Alex Hozi to say yes to doing this. [53:36] [laughter] It is hard to get Michelle [53:37] Obama or JD Vance to say yes to doing [53:38] this. So, there's it's hard from a [53:40] production perspective, but also from [53:41] like to accomplish this is hard. And [53:44] then what you described, I heard a lot [53:46] of the like I heard hard and scarce. who [53:48] can bring a hundred entrepreneurs to [53:50] Vegas who are all successful in their [53:51] own right and and have them ask you [53:53] questions. So that's great content for [53:55] us to watch. It's like really impossible [53:57] to to [53:57] >> very hard. If I had only had a $46 [54:00] million exit, I don't know if I would [54:01] attract the number of entrepreneurs that [54:03] that we do now. But now that we do 250 [54:06] plus schools, a billion dollar plus [54:08] company, it's like I have credibility [54:10] that the the the YouTube the content [54:14] right is not like I we we I still do [54:17] business. [54:18] >> You know what I mean? We have chains of [54:19] brick and mortar that that we're [54:20] involved in. I just don't talk about it [54:21] because it doesn't it's not relevant for [54:22] most people. [54:23] >> Let's look at the opposite then as well [54:24] just to show people what the opposite of [54:26] hard and scarce or of this approach is. [54:28] What types of content should we all kind [54:30] of stay away from now? So I think [54:33] commoditize tips and tricks um when you [54:36] have no again like proof is in the [54:38] pudding reality is the moat. It's [54:40] basically the opposite of that. So if [54:41] you are posing if you are pretending if [54:43] you have no proof um that you are good [54:45] at this thing and again this is on the [54:46] education side then there's a big I call [54:49] the big uh wispy. Why should I listen to [54:51] you? Right? Why should I listen to you? [54:54] And if you can't answer that question [54:56] for say a prospect, you know, [54:57] prospective customer within the first [54:59] like couple seconds, [55:00] >> they'll just listen to somebody else [55:02] because the reason that credibility [55:03] matters so much is that it's actually [55:05] lower effort to consume information from [55:07] somebody who's an authority. And so if [55:09] I'm if I'm listening to somebody who [55:10] doesn't have proof and I'm listening to [55:11] investing advice, I have to really think [55:13] like, is this true? Does this make [55:14] sense? If I'm listening to Warren [55:16] Buffett, I don't have to think that. I'm [55:17] like, I'm sure he's right. Now when [55:19] someone's like, how do I get into this? [55:20] You do what no one else can do. Well, if [55:22] you are getting in, then document like [55:24] document the proof of effort. So, you [55:27] can do pro you can have proof of outcome [55:29] just like what we do, right? What you [55:31] do. [55:32] >> But then there's when you're starting, [55:33] there's proof of effort. Jimmy's first [55:34] viral video is him counting to like a [55:36] million. It's proof of effort. When you [55:39] have nothing else, you have time. You [55:40] have work. If you want to make if you [55:42] want to say, "Hey, I want to I want to [55:43] get into into sales stuff." It's like [55:45] record your entire day of you selling. [55:48] And then when you overcome something [55:49] that's really good, that's real life [55:51] with real stakes, clip the moment, [55:53] right? And show yourself. It's like, I [55:55] took 22 calls today. Let me tell you the [55:57] best moment. I did a I did a 12-h hour [55:59] day. In 3 minutes, I'll give you the [56:01] best moments. It's like people want to [56:03] deal. [56:04] >> And so I think about that as a [56:05] compression of time. And the reason that [56:06] people listen to the people who are [56:08] further ahead who've done all these [56:09] things is because we can compress time. [56:11] Mhm. [56:11] >> You say, "Hey, you could try and figure [56:13] this out on your own, but if I can [56:14] compress 14 years of business advice [56:17] into 37 minutes, that's a good deal." Do [56:20] >> you know what it reminded me of? Seven [56:21] or eight years ago when I used to have, [56:23] you know, big clients, Uber, Coca-Cola, [56:24] whatever around the world. Um, we used [56:26] to do a lot of like social competition, [56:27] social media competitions, and I used to [56:29] have this mental framework for the [56:30] perfect competition. And I I I remember [56:32] the day that I when I first heard of you [56:34] and you were coming on my show, and I [56:35] was looking through some of your [56:36] writings, and you almost had an [56:38] identical framework. [56:39] >> Yeah. So the the core so each of the [56:41] books has one core concept and then it [56:44] breaks down how to use it etc. But the [56:46] value equation comes down to what's the [56:49] outcome [56:51] and some outcomes are worth more than [56:52] others. If I can help you cut your hair [56:54] versus I can get you to be in perfect [56:55] shape. Perfect shape is worth more. If I [56:57] can get you be a billionaire versus [56:59] perfect shape, billionaire is worth [57:00] more. Right. So we have outcome and then [57:03] we have perceived likelihood of [57:04] achievement. [57:06] >> Perceived likelihood of achievement. [57:07] Okay. So this is the Okay. Interesting. [57:09] Yeah, [57:09] >> it's the inverse of risk. [57:10] >> Yeah. [57:11] >> How likely do I think it is? [57:14] And then we have on the downside of [57:15] this, we have um time delay. [57:18] [clears throat] [57:19] How long is it going to take me to get [57:21] the thing? And then we have effort. [57:26] >> Is this sacrifice? [57:28] >> Is this effort and sacrifice? [57:29] >> No, different. [57:30] >> Yeah. So effort is all the things that [57:32] you have to begin to do as a result of a [57:35] decision that you don't want to do. [57:37] sacrifice all the good things that you [57:38] have to stop doing as a result of a [57:40] decision. So, if I get into fitness, I [57:42] have to stop eating the stuff I like and [57:44] I have to start eating stuff I don't [57:46] like. I have to start waking up earlier, [57:47] I can't sleep in as much. Uh, I have to [57:49] be sore where I wasn't before. [57:52] >> Um, and so that's my effort and [57:53] sacrifice piece. The time delay is, [57:55] okay, if I can get in shape in 3 minutes [57:56] versus getting in shape in 3 months or 3 [57:58] years, [57:59] >> okay, [58:00] >> the outcome is am I getting in shape or [58:02] am I being a billionaire? And then how [58:03] likely is this to happen? Mhm. [58:05] >> Because on some level, like if I buy a [58:06] PDF of a fitness program for $19 or I [58:08] pay $3,000 for a personal trainer to [58:11] train me in person three times a week, [58:13] my perceived likelihood of achievement [58:14] of buying the PDF versus personal [58:15] trainer is much higher. [58:16] >> Mhm. [58:17] >> Now, the effort and sacrifice is [58:19] actually going to be relatively fixed. [58:20] But this is the part that goes up. Now, [58:22] the time delay if done right should also [58:24] be fixed there. But this is what [58:25] explains the difference in value on a [58:28] product level. But the value equation [58:29] works for everything. Just like just [58:30] like consuming content. Yeah. [58:32] >> What's my outcome? I think I'm going to [58:33] learn some about investing. How [58:34] likely is it that I think he can provide [58:36] value or if I consume this? Pretty high. [58:38] What's my time commitment of consuming [58:40] this? If I'm going to watch a 4-hour [58:41] video, fewer people do it than a [58:42] three-minute video, [58:43] >> right? And then um you don't really [58:45] actually have to do any work when you're [58:46] just purely consuming content. But if I [58:48] wanted to take action as a result, then [58:50] that's that's another part of it. [58:51] >> But it's still going to cost me 20 [58:52] minutes, which is a sacrifice. I could [58:53] be watching Netflix. [58:54] >> That's true. I think if we're using [58:56] consumption of media as the thing, the [58:58] effort and the time delay basically, are [59:00] we talking time delay to outcome? I'm [59:02] going to be rich. Um or am I? Yeah, the [59:04] time is always going to be a component. [59:06] What's interesting is that having looked [59:07] at a zillion different offers over my [59:09] life and thinking about value. Um the [59:12] one that I think is most slept on [59:15] is this one. [59:16] >> How quickly they can accomplish X [59:18] outcome. [59:18] >> If you want to get into a business and [59:20] just completely disrupt it, do look at [59:21] what everyone else is doing and do it [59:22] half the time. You can do that in just [59:24] about any business because there will [59:25] always be someone who's willing to pay a [59:26] premium for that. [59:27] >> Goes back to what um Jeff Bezos said [59:29] about betting on things that won't [59:30] change. [59:32] >> Yeah. that that like that his whole [59:33] mantra around that has been one of my [59:35] like I would say one of my true pillars [59:36] of like how do I plan for the future. [59:38] >> Give people context on that for those [59:39] that haven't never heard Jeff talk about [59:40] that and what that means. [59:41] >> So he I think I saw it as an interview [59:44] that he did and they said so given X Y [59:46] and Z what do you think about the [59:47] future? And he said you know I don't [59:49] really think that much about what's [59:50] going to change. He said I spent a lot [59:52] more time trying to think what's not [59:53] going to change and then we bet really [59:55] heavily on those things. We believe that [59:57] customers will prefer cheaper prices 10 [59:59] years from now just as much as they do [60:01] now. We believe that customers will [60:03] prefer more selection to less selection [60:05] 10 years from now as much as they do [60:06] now. We believe that if customers can [60:08] get something in two hours, they will [60:09] value that more than if it takes them [60:10] two days. We believe in that. We can bet [60:12] in that. And so he just thinks about [60:14] these elements. And if we're thinking [60:15] about the like the value equation, how [60:18] easy did they make buying? It's one [60:20] click. How fast does it come? It's [60:21] almost immediate. You have a history of [60:23] buying from them. So, and this is also [60:25] where the reviews come in. How likely is [60:27] it? Well, if it's a fivestar with 5,000 [60:29] reviews, it's pretty high. If it's got a [60:30] one and a half and it's got two reviews, [60:32] I'm probably not going to buy it [60:33] [laughter] even if it's the same product [60:35] just because of our perception of it, [60:36] >> right? And then the outcome is what I'm [60:38] willing to do for the price, right? And [60:39] I think about this time delay component [60:40] because of one thing that kind of loops [60:42] over the whole conversation at this [60:43] point is that [60:44] >> people will abstract the value of a [60:47] positive future outcome to zero if it is [60:50] long enough in the future. [60:51] >> True. Even if it's guaranteed, [60:53] >> you can guarantee that you will be rich [60:55] if you invest, you know, $100 a week or [60:58] $200 a week, whatever into into an index [61:01] fund, right? Pretty much. And if you do [61:04] that for 30, 40 years, you you will be [61:06] fine. [61:08] >> Because it's 30 or 40 years and because [61:10] the latte is today, the discount [61:12] basically takes it to zero. There's two [61:15] lessons that I think that are really, [61:16] really hard to learn. And I think um [61:18] Williamson talks about this with like [61:19] unlearnable or unteachable lessons, [61:21] things like that. Lessons that are [61:22] difficult to observe unless you go [61:24] through them. One of my one of the guys [61:26] who worked for me, he said, "You know, I [61:27] consumed your content for, you know, [61:28] years." He said, "But seeing you at the [61:32] office at 4:00 a.m. every day when you [61:34] don't need to do this at all." The [61:37] consistency of it, he's like, "I I don't [61:39] see that in the content. I mean, I I see [61:41] the output of that." And one of the [61:43] things with consistency is that you need [61:45] to be consistent in order to witness [61:46] consistency. [61:48] Like you can't even you can't even [61:50] observe cons like even if I did a time [61:52] lapse that takes 10 seconds of me doing [61:54] you still don't perceive it. So there's [61:56] there's the consistency piece and I [61:58] think the other one with with regards to [61:59] the long-term component [62:01] >> is patience. [62:03] >> Yeah. Also to be to fair focus because [62:05] um Shiron my partner says this. He says [62:08] um people only see the choices you made [62:09] not the options you had. [62:12] And so you can't really witness focus. [62:15] You just see winning. [62:17] >> And so to the same degree with patience [62:20] again, you only see the win. Like if you [62:22] look at a marathon, people are there at [62:23] the beginning, they're there at the end. [62:24] No one's here in the middle. [62:25] >> Yeah. [62:26] >> Cuz it's the only fun part. The content [62:28] of a marathon would be the the intro and [62:29] the exit. Like you'd literally make it [62:30] into a clip that's 30 seconds. It'd be [62:32] like, yay. And then maybe a couple mile [62:34] markers and it's like, wait, we [62:35] compressed this. What a what a bargain. [62:36] Great great return on time. You can't [62:38] really witness patience unless you've [62:40] literally followed it from the beginning [62:41] which of course you'll have your OG [62:42] people who are with you the beginning of [62:44] Driver CEO and they've they've seen the [62:46] patience start to play out but it's one [62:48] of the things that like one of the the [62:49] the ultimate gifts that I would hope and [62:51] the equal opposite of this is Steve Win [62:53] I think talked about how his the best [62:55] thing in the world is that someone comes [62:56] their first time to one of his casinos [62:58] bets big and wins. It's the best thing [63:00] ever. The worst thing that can happen is [63:02] that the first time they come they lose [63:03] their money cuz then they never gamble [63:04] again. And so it's like they he wants [63:06] that big reinforcing event up front [63:08] because then you can become a gambling [63:09] addict, right? And so to the same [63:11] degree, my my hope for like my kid in [63:14] the future or or anyone who's trying to [63:16] start out is that they have something [63:19] that happens in their life where they're [63:21] rewarded for delaying the outcome and [63:24] having a big jackpot as a result of the [63:26] consistent effort where they they [63:27] delayed the reward. M [63:30] >> because as soon as you do learn that [63:31] lesson, you see how big the big can be [63:34] when you wait. [63:36] >> Yeah, it goes back to what we were [63:38] saying about long like long termism as a [63:41] strategy. But also, yeah, like I only [63:44] needed to look at that graph, the [63:45] compounding returns graph once, actually [63:47] looking at my own audience growth and [63:49] seeing that I did a thousand posts on [63:50] Instagram and reached 1,000 followers. [63:52] And then in my last three, when I had [63:55] 7,000 followers, I gained 300,000 [63:57] followers in three posts because [63:58] carousels had dropped in Instagram was [64:00] rewarding everybody for carousels back [64:02] then. And me seeing that graph and then [64:04] going, "Oh, it's slow then it's fast in [64:06] success." And then starting the diia and [64:08] for 3 years nobody listening. [64:10] And then all of a sudden it was like it [64:11] was just crazy. It just went a [64:12] vertical line up and go, "Oh, it's the [64:14] same Instagram graph I saw all those [64:15] years ago." So actually, you know, it's [64:18] slow then it's fast. But most people if [64:20] you've never experienced slow, you [64:21] think, "Oh, I'm inadequate. I up. [64:24] I'm dumb." [64:25] >> But you now you have that religion. [64:27] >> Yeah. There are mistakes of picking the [64:29] wrong path, but I think there are more [64:30] mistakes of abandoning the right path. [64:33] >> How would you how do you know though? [64:34] >> So there's a handful of I think [64:36] entrepreneur questions that are [64:37] eternally unanswerable. Mh. [64:39] >> Which is when do you push and when do [64:40] you pivot? [64:41] >> Like how much risk do I take on? [64:43] >> Mhm. [64:43] >> Like should should I consume or invest? [64:46] Well, you don't know when you die. [64:48] >> True. [64:49] >> Right. And so with the push and pivot [64:50] one, the best answer that I have to this [64:52] because I I get this one a lot like, [64:54] "Hey, it's really hard. Should I should [64:55] I pivot the business, change it, or [64:56] should I try and like push through?" My [64:58] actual answer is if you had a [65:00] fundamental assumption that you based [65:01] the business on that has been proven [65:03] untrue from your business activities, I [65:05] think it makes sense to pivot. If none [65:08] of your original thesis are incorrect, [65:10] it's just not happening as fast as you [65:12] want or as easily as you want, then you [65:14] push. [65:15] >> What's interesting is like the nature of [65:16] being a founder as well on that is going [65:19] earlier than the world. Like when you [65:21] think about outside success, like [65:22] everyone understands space now and [65:23] they're like, "Oh, we can do reusable [65:25] rockets now. We get it." [65:26] >> But being being the first guy [65:28] >> or the first woman um I think is really [65:30] the essence of a founder. They go [65:32] earlier than than the world's current [65:34] available evidence. And thus there needs [65:36] to be some kind of framework that you [65:38] have. One of my frameworks which I've [65:40] never articulated before and I don't [65:42] even know if this is going to sound [65:43] correct but it's just always guided me [65:45] is um do I believe that I'm offering [65:49] even a tiny group of people scarce [65:52] value? So when I started the direo I was [65:55] making Facebook videos with people like [65:57] Ja. We we could get tens of millions of [65:58] views on Facebook watch back then. No [66:00] one was mentioning it. So, I remember [66:02] this made this video about relationships [66:03] that did 33 million views. Bad guy, no [66:05] one would mention it. No one like no [66:06] one. And then I started this podcast [66:08] called The Dire in my bedroom. I got [66:10] went to Apple, bought this microphone [66:11] for $100, plugged it into Garage Band, [66:13] tried to edit it myself, uploaded it, [66:15] and like my two best friends, the look [66:17] on their faces in the office, Ash and [66:19] Oliver. When they listened to it, they [66:22] had never reacted to me like that ever [66:24] before for the Facebook videos I've [66:25] made. And then when I didn't upload the [66:27] next week, Oliver Yonv came to me and [66:29] said, "When's the episode coming out?" [66:31] For me, that that was it. [66:34] >> Yeah. [66:34] >> For me, I was like, I've done something [66:36] here that's delivered scarce value to [66:37] the world. So much so that one of my [66:38] best friends who's very honest with me [66:39] is asking me when the next one is. And [66:41] so now I follow that. So when I'm [66:42] thinking about the bets we make on the [66:44] future, I'm obsessed about finding [66:45] things that are delivering scarce value [66:47] even if they're unscalable. [66:48] >> I think you bring up a really good point [66:49] about the unscalable part because so two [66:52] two parts of this. But one is [66:55] people will not do things. I see I see [66:57] beginning entrepreneurs say they're [66:58] like, "Well, that's not scalable." And [66:59] I'm like, "You're broke. [67:01] >> Yeah, [67:01] >> you're broke. It's okay. You can you [67:03] cannot be scal. You can just make money. [67:04] That's okay." But it also assumes that [67:07] your future self with more skills and [67:09] more resources won't have the ability to [67:11] figure out how to scale it. [67:12] >> Yeah. [67:13] >> And most things are like we're building [67:15] cities in the middle of the [67:16] ocean. [67:18] If you're starting a business, and this [67:20] is where you have to not sell out of [67:21] your own wallet, is and that's the the [67:23] nature of the offers book is start with [67:25] the most absurdly valuable thing you [67:27] possibly can. So, whatever price you [67:28] want to charge, add one or two zeros to [67:30] it. Okay? And it's like, that's crazy. I [67:32] agree. Crazy. What would you have to do [67:35] in order for that to be worth it? And [67:37] then you list out all the things you I [67:39] mean, well, if I was going to get [67:39] somebody in shape, I' i'd probably go to [67:41] their house. I would I would help them [67:42] grocery shop. I would I would drive them [67:43] to the gym and back from the gym to make [67:45] sure that they actually did it. for 100 [67:46] grand, is it worth it? And they're like, [67:49] well, it's not scalable. [laughter] [67:51] >> It's like, well, you only need five. [67:53] >> And I [clears throat] think when you're [67:54] starting out, there's huge value in [67:56] having unscalable services because one, [67:59] you'll get better customers because [68:00] you're going to be charging much more [68:01] for something that's a little bit more [68:02] premium. And the value of talking to [68:05] people richer than you will do more for [68:07] you than what you are doing for them. [68:09] >> Mh. So like they will shift your [68:11] worldview which is why like a lot of [68:12] people like caddies who talk to all [68:13] these millionaires when they're when [68:14] they're playing golf it's like they [68:16] learn so much from the people like how [68:17] do you make your money like they learn [68:19] so much worldview of oh I shouldn't be [68:21] thinking this way I should be thinking [68:22] like this. So one is you get that. The [68:24] second is that you are able to practice [68:28] the unscalable thing. [68:29] >> Yeah. [68:30] >> And then you can figure out how do I how [68:32] do I take the scarce value okay this is [68:35] not scalable. Fine. We can let's just [68:37] say it's not scalable. Okay. Are there [68:39] elements of this that are scalable that [68:41] I now know because I've done it rather [68:43] than because I thought about it because [68:45] your thought experiments and I'd say for [68:47] myself too are pretty terrible. Like our [68:49] ability to predict the future is pretty [68:50] god awful. And so we think we know what [68:52] it's going to be like and we usually [68:54] have no idea. [laughter] And so and so [68:57] it's like go do it. You'll collect way [68:59] richer data that no one else has done [69:00] because it was unscalable. And then you [69:02] can actually create something that's [69:03] more scalable, that is unique because [69:05] you actually went through it. And from a [69:07] this is getting a little bit more [69:08] businessy, but from a branding [69:10] perspective, saying, "Hey, I have a [69:12] handful of clients that pay me $2,000 a [69:14] month to do this premium thing." For [69:16] those of you who can't afford that, I [69:18] now have this thing. You've already [69:20] anchored high. They see you as the [69:22] person on the hill because you deal with [69:23] these unscalable, my private clients. [69:26] And then you can have like you look at [69:27] the Tesla model of start with the [69:29] Roadster and then you have the Model S [69:31] and then you work your way down to the [69:32] masses. And so I'm a big believer in [69:35] price as high as you can. Make the very [69:38] premium thing first. Let that be high [69:40] cash flow, high margin, low scalability [69:42] so that you can then have the money to [69:44] start working your way down [69:46] >> to more people. Well, if I was to [69:48] forensically analyze your business [69:51] >> now, and then I brought in Alex who [69:53] started that business on day one and I [69:55] go, look at how unscalable all this [69:57] stuff is that he's accomplished. I [69:59] actually would make the case from what [70:00] you were just saying that actually the [70:01] essence of value creation in business is [70:04] solving problems that didn't look [70:05] scalable. [70:06] >> I was just thinking about even the diio [70:08] process here from the minute you leave [70:10] like so right now the team in there that [70:11] are doing the testing, they're actually [70:12] making you a book as as we speak. They [70:14] take they took photos of us while we [70:15] were sat here. And when this interview [70:17] ends, they're going to walk in and hand [70:18] me the book. I'm going to sign it and [70:19] pass it to you. That book is going to [70:20] contain quotes from fans that loved our [70:22] last conversation. They're currently [70:23] printing them off on Polaroids. They're [70:24] writing it. When this conversation is [70:26] done, we're going to test your name 300 [70:28] times using ads to see how to introduce [70:29] you. I know Alex is going to win cuz [70:31] you're a big you're a big name now. But [70:33] you think about when we started the [70:34] podcast. Imagine me there with on Garage [70:36] Band [laughter] with $100. [70:38] >> That's not scalable. [70:39] >> It's not scalable. I use this this this [70:42] frame a lot which is that you are trying [70:44] to solve tomorrow's problems with [70:46] today's resources [70:48] >> and it's a fallacy. It's ridiculous. You [70:50] don't have the money. You don't have the [70:51] skill. You don't have the connections. [70:52] You don't have the resources. You don't [70:52] have the experience and the track [70:54] record. But future you will. But the [70:56] hard part is future is a stranger. [70:58] >> Mhm. [70:59] >> And so I think we make a lot of this [71:00] content to try and approximate as [71:02] closely as possible to just pull the [71:04] first step for someone to take to say [71:06] believe like you will figure it out. [71:08] Like as long as you do not quit, you'll [71:10] win. [71:12] Like you just have to not stop. That's [71:13] basically it. You just have to not stop. [71:14] As long as you get feedback and you take [71:16] the feedback and you improve and you do [71:17] that a long enough time horizon, you [71:19] win. [71:19] >> Let's be So just to be clear that you're [71:20] not saying pursue a bad idea all the way [71:23] and just never be stubborn about the [71:25] pursuit of a bad idea. You're saying [71:27] iterate your way. [71:28] >> Yeah. We have to get feedback. [71:29] >> Yeah. I mean, if you want to have a [71:31] doggy skateboard and you pitch a hundred [71:34] dog owners on the doggy skateboard and [71:36] then none of them want it and you're [71:37] like, "Well, I really believe in this [71:38] doggy skateboard idea." And then you [71:40] bring them the doggy skateboard and then [71:42] they really still don't want it. You [71:44] probably shouldn't sell doggy [71:44] skateboards. [71:45] >> So, you should quit the doggy skateboard [71:47] business. [71:47] >> Yes, but you shouldn't quit business. [71:48] >> Okay. The other [71:49] >> I think it's local versus global. [71:51] >> Even [clears throat] if you just reframe [71:52] failure in that way, it makes it way [71:53] more palatable. Like you figuring it out [71:56] is a lot of failures. I mean, how many [71:58] failed episodes, failed headlines, [71:59] packaging, you forgot to turn the mic on [72:02] and did the whole I'm sure [72:03] >> someone came and stole the hard [72:05] drive with the audio on it. It's like [72:06] [laughter] [72:07] >> there's there's going to be hundred of [72:08] those. But as long as it doesn't become [72:10] a global failure of I'm no longer doing [72:12] this, then you're good. [72:15] >> One of the smartest things a business [72:16] can do is build like a bigger company [72:19] without actually hiring like one. But [72:22] the problem we all face is that most [72:23] companies don't have every skill in [72:25] house. So when I look at the businesses [72:26] seeing real success today, the [72:28] consistent pattern with all of them is [72:30] how quickly they move. They bring in [72:32] specialists with skills in emerging [72:33] areas to keep themselves ahead. Even in [72:35] our company, we spent the last year [72:37] pulling in talent across areas like AI [72:39] native strategy, no code builds, and [72:42] product workflows. And we find this [72:43] talent through our longtime partner [72:44] Fiverr Pro. Their premium service only [72:47] shows you vetted talent. So you've [72:49] always got the safeguard that anyone you [72:51] pull in to help you with a complex [72:53] project has the skills that you're after [72:55] and will deliver to the same high [72:57] standards as your internal team. And [72:59] most importantly, they'll keep up with [73:00] the pace. It's a simple strategy, but it [73:02] lets us stay agile without compromising [73:04] on quality. So if you need these kind of [73:05] skills in your business, head to [73:06] pro.fr.com to find pioneering talent to [73:09] fill your business's gaps. That's [73:11] pro.fr.com. [73:14] One of the great fascinations I have and [73:15] almost one of the unteachables is self I [73:17] think it's self-awareness. [73:18] >> Yeah. I say judgment. Yeah. [73:20] >> Judgment again. Yeah. Because I have you [73:23] ever had someone come up to you and say [73:25] something grandio. They want to go to [73:26] the moon. Let's say hypothetical and you [73:28] look at them and you go you're not a [73:29] spaceman. Do you know what I mean? [73:32] [laughter] And how do you how do you [73:33] what how do you then give them that [73:34] advice which is like raise one [73:36] self-awareness. Know what you're good at [73:37] and what you're bad at. I think what [73:39] people are trying to get at is a an [73:42] understanding or more accurate [73:43] understanding of base reality. [73:45] >> And the people who are achieving the [73:47] things that you want to achieve and you [73:48] haven't been able to fundamentally if [73:50] you're doing stuff and what you want to [73:52] have happen is not happening your model [73:54] of the world is either incorrect or the [73:56] variables you have are incorrect. [73:57] >> How did you cultivate a more accurate [73:59] vision of reality? [74:01] >> So I'm practice I'm a big believer in [74:04] behaviorism. [74:04] >> What's that? operant conditioning which [74:07] is basically how you train machines how [74:09] they figured out how to train AI which [74:10] is reinforcement training is the exact [74:12] same way you train humans [74:13] >> okay [74:13] >> and so when you see yourself as the [74:15] subject that is being trained then we [74:19] can make better predictions of will [74:21] people buy will people take this offer [74:24] let's say I've got a grandpa and he [74:27] doesn't want to take his medicine and [74:29] the medicine the doctor said was going [74:31] to extend his life by 10 years okay the [74:34] nurse is at home with me and she's going [74:36] to try and give grandpa the the pill. [74:39] And he says, "It tastes like I [74:41] don't want to have it." He just brushes [74:42] her away. She comes back, she throws her [74:45] hands up and she's like, "You lead a [74:47] horse to water, you can't make it [74:48] drink." Right? [74:50] >> The operationalist or the behaviorist [74:51] would say, "No, you've made many other [74:54] options the more likely option than [74:55] taking the pill." And so what we need to [74:57] do is make the pill the nicest and [74:59] easiest option available to him. And so [75:02] the first thing you would do is you'd [75:03] crush the pill up. And then I would say, [75:05] "Okay, let's put it in some lemonade. [75:06] Put it in the in the fridge, make it ice [75:08] cold. [75:09] >> All right, I'm going to bring out some [75:10] peanuts that are salty, and I'm going to [75:11] put it in front of the grandpa, [75:13] >> right? And then I'm going to come out [75:15] with a, you know, a chess board or a [75:17] back gammon board, and I'm going to sit [75:18] in front of him, and set it all up and [75:19] say, "Hey, I know you said you wanted to [75:21] play back, and I've said no the last [75:22] three weeks. [75:24] Here's the lemonade. Do you want to [75:26] play? If you finish the lemonade, we can [75:27] play." How likely is it that grandpa now [75:31] drinks the lemonade? [75:32] >> Super high. But at the end of the day, [75:34] we just we didn't persuade. We arranged [75:38] the conditions to maximize the [75:40] likelihood of the outcome that we [75:41] wanted. What people miss is that the the [75:44] amount of attack vectors that people who [75:47] succeed approach a problem with is [75:50] orders of magnitude greater than someone [75:52] who is starting out. Is they're like, I [75:54] talked to three people and that was it. [75:56] And they said they didn't want it. And I [75:57] I tell this this story because it was it [75:59] was one of those big moments for me, [76:00] which is I I had a mentor. He said, "You [76:03] should put some flyers out." That's how [76:04] he advertised. He had a big chain of 22 [76:06] locations. And I was like, "All right, [76:07] I'll put some flyers out." I put 300 [76:09] out. Um, and then nothing happened. Uh, [76:12] well, one person called and they said, [76:13] "I digged his car." And then I was like, [76:16] "Thank God." He didn't I didn't have any [76:17] money. Um, so he called me up or I [76:19] called him like a week or two later and [76:21] he was like, "Oh, how'd the, you know, [76:22] how' the flowers go?" And I was like, I [76:23] was ready. I was, "I'm gonna show you." [76:25] Yeah. I'm gonna show you. Dude, nothing [76:27] happened, man. And he didn't even like I [76:29] was like I was waiting for him to try [76:30] and fight me. like, "Well, what was your [76:32] test size?" I was like, "Hm." [76:36] I was like, "I put out 300 flyers." And [76:40] he was like, "Yeah, it's tough to know [76:41] if anything works at 300." He's like, [76:43] "We usually put out 5,000 um per test [76:46] batch until we know it works." He said, [76:47] "Then we do 3,000 a day after that." And [76:50] so he was doing 150,000 flyers a month [76:53] and I put out 300. [76:56] And so as much as people don't think [76:58] that like it's like work harder, it's [77:01] the the volume of activity and output [77:04] that people who are a hundred steps [77:06] ahead of you really is often times 100 [77:09] times more. Now it seems unfathomable [77:10] because you're looking at the top of the [77:11] hill and like how do I get there? But [77:13] you start by making one [77:14] >> and then you learn through how painful [77:16] the inefficiency is. Like when you're [77:18] editing that you're doing the split test [77:19] for the headlines 300 of them at a time. [77:21] >> You learn because you're like this is so [77:23] painful. It works but my god is it [77:24] painful. that that is what motivates you [77:27] because you want the payoff but you [77:28] don't want the pain to figure out ways [77:30] to make it more efficient. And then when [77:31] it becomes efficient, you did the scarce [77:33] work that no one else wants to do [77:34] because no one even knows it works as [77:35] well as it does. [77:36] >> And then all of a sudden you have that [77:39] um you have a scarce competitive [77:41] advantage over everyone else. [77:43] >> At the very top of that, I heard this [77:44] idea of like doing and listening at the [77:46] same time. And this sounds very simple. [77:48] You're talking about reinforcement [77:49] learning being the way that you tune [77:50] yourself to reality. But you've even [77:52] said yourself once upon a time you were [77:54] doing a lot of listening books. [77:55] >> You were reading and there wasn't much [77:57] doing. Some people just do the doing and [77:58] no listening. [77:59] >> Yeah. [78:00] >> And and so they don't tune. But this [78:01] sort of like doing and then sort of [78:03] reinforcement learning based on the [78:05] outcomes is how one cultivates their [78:08] self-awareness. That's actually the most [78:09] accurate definition I've ever heard of [78:10] like that's actually how you get more in [78:11] tune with the world is through painful [78:14] sometimes feedback [78:15] >> data. [78:16] >> And then the other thing I heard was you [78:17] talking just about like just believing [78:19] in human incentives. [78:20] >> Yes. And and this like it it sounds like [78:22] a [laughter] it took me 10 years to just [78:26] s settle on the simple idea that humans [78:29] don't really behave outside of their [78:30] incentives unless they're psychopaths [78:32] and that's like why they go to jail [78:34] because they acted outside of social [78:35] incentives. They like killed someone or [78:37] something. Actually, when you think [78:38] about team building or customers, the [78:40] first question should be why aren't [78:41] they? It's like what are the what what [78:43] are the incentives in which they are [78:44] making their decision? And you talked [78:46] about that example there of giving [78:47] someone the gamin board and some [78:49] >> you're changing his incentives. Yeah, we [78:51] just need to move the levers around. And [78:53] so it's like if you're not selling well [78:54] to get to a business situation. It's [78:56] like you haven't made buying from you [78:58] the most convenient, nicest option. [78:59] >> It's such an important way to think like [79:01] you offer someone a job and they say, [79:02] "No, I don't want the job." [79:04] >> You can think lots of things, but [79:05] actually if you just reason it down to [79:07] the the first principal incentives, what [79:10] what was and you could it could be a [79:11] seesaw like kind of like your value [79:12] trade here. [79:14] >> What did I offer them? Um what did it [79:16] cost them? [79:17] >> Yeah. [79:18] >> And was that net positive? So I have [79:20] this. So I write all my persuasion like [79:22] this. This is this is how we do it. So [79:24] we say uh plus plus minus uh minus plus [79:30] minus minus. All right. This is the [79:32] easiest way to write copy. The easiest [79:34] way to think about marketing. If you do [79:36] the thing, you get more good stuff. [79:40] >> If you uh don't do the thing, you get [79:43] more [snorts] bad stuff. Mhm. [79:46] >> If you do the thing I want or so you [79:48] don't do the thing, you get less good [79:50] stuff. And if you do what I want, you [79:52] get less bad stuff. And so this and this [79:57] are our persuasion elements that we say [79:58] to do the thing. But we also have to [80:00] like call playing the don't, which is [80:02] like, hey, also we have these situations [80:05] of let's say that you don't sign up for [80:06] my fitness program. Well, that means [80:09] that you're not going to have these [80:10] times with your kids in the future, [80:12] right? more good less good stuff, right? [80:15] You're going to have more health issues, [80:16] more bad stuff. [80:18] >> And the people who you care about, who [80:20] you want approval from, aren't going to [80:22] give you that approval that you so [80:23] desperately yearn for. And so we just [80:25] pingpong between these persuasive [80:28] elements, but all they are is saying [80:30] more good, less bad if you do the stuff [80:33] I want. [80:33] >> And as a as someone who employs hundreds [80:35] of people now, this is kind of how I [80:36] think about behavioral change in a group [80:38] big group of people. You can you can [80:39] stand in front of the team and say, [80:40] "Hey, everybody adopt AI by the way, [80:41] please. Please adopt AI. But their [80:44] incentive structure is to do their job. [80:47] >> Mhm. [80:48] >> And have you read the innovators [80:49] dilemma? It's one of my favorite books [80:50] of all time on the subject of [80:51] >> No, but I'm familiar with it. [80:52] >> Talks to the same thing as well, which [80:53] is just humans just act inside their [80:55] incentive structure. Want to change [80:56] humans, change their incentive [80:57] structure. A lot of people who are [80:59] delusional when they start out think [81:02] that they're going to change people. [81:04] >> And I think one of my favorite market I [81:06] think Gary Halpert said this is a [81:07] copywriter. Um he said we don't want to [81:11] create demand. He said we want to [81:13] channel it. [81:14] >> It was just it just is such an [81:15] interesting nuance. He's like that [81:16] demand like the demand needs to be [81:18] there. We just need to just carve a [81:20] little bit of that river and point it [81:21] towards us. [81:22] >> And I think when you're thinking about [81:24] for you with the show, the attention is [81:26] there. The attention is being spent [81:28] every second of every day from every [81:29] human. [81:30] >> And so we're not going to create [81:31] attention. [81:32] >> We're going to channel it. and we're [81:35] going to make our option the nicest most [81:36] most convenient option compared to [81:38] alternatives. And then it's really just [81:40] getting into the very gritty details of [81:42] who I need to make this for. Then you [81:43] get into avatars and subsegments and [81:45] markets because what makes it attractive [81:47] to one person might not make it [81:48] attractive to another. And that is why [81:49] probably one of the highest leverage [81:51] decisions that you make with the [81:51] business is who do I serve? [81:55] >> Do you have to be intentional about that [81:56] when you're starting a business or [81:57] offering any product to anyone, whether [81:59] it's content, do you have to at the [82:00] start decide who it's for? [82:02] >> Yes and no. which is a terrible answer, [82:04] but to start, you just need to get [82:05] anybody to give you money. You have then [82:07] met the requisites for being an [82:09] entrepreneur. You've accepted money from [82:10] a stranger. Congratulations, you have a [82:11] business. Most businesses that I [82:13] encounter, especially in services, [82:15] because it's 80% of at least in the US, [82:17] 78% of all businesses are service based. [82:19] Typically, it starts with accepting all [82:20] money from everyone cuz you're like, [82:22] "Oh, I do podcast agency stuff." Oh, you [82:24] have a Oh, you want to start a Yeah, I [82:26] could help you, too. Like, because they [82:28] have a pulse and a credit card, and one [82:29] of those was the requirement for being a [82:30] customer, right? [laughter] [82:33] And so you you take what you can get, [82:35] right? But you quickly realize that it [82:37] becomes very difficult to scale that. [82:39] And that's okay because you had to do [82:40] what you need to do to survive and get [82:42] started. And that's fine. But usually [82:44] between 1 and 3 million, you have to [82:46] make a decision where you say, "Hey, in [82:48] order for me to scale this now that I [82:49] have the resources and the experience [82:50] and the skill, I can say these customers [82:53] are easier to deal with and pay us more [82:55] than these customers." Mhm. [82:56] >> And if I didn't have to serve 10 [82:58] different types of customers and I only [83:00] had to serve one type of customer, it [83:01] would make the operations on the back [83:03] way easier because I could start [83:04] templatizing and start systematizing [83:05] what our delivery is. And on the front [83:08] end, if we're advertising people, [83:09] instead of saying we do advert your [83:10] podcast agency for everyone, we say we [83:12] help doctors generate patients using [83:15] podcasts. [83:16] >> It's like, oh, all of a sudden the [83:18] correct customer knows that this is for [83:20] them, right? Okay. And so now we're [83:22] attracting the right people and then [83:23] those people are the ones that we [83:25] already figured out through trial and [83:26] error and feedback are worth the most. [83:28] And then we have a more scalable product [83:30] because we don't have to make 10 things [83:31] for 10 people. We make one thing for 10 [83:33] people. [83:34] >> Right? Cut once, sell twice, right? Sell [83:36] twice. That's the idea. Not cut once, [83:38] sell once. [83:39] >> I almost hate this question, but I'm [83:40] going to ask it anyway. Um, are there [83:42] any obvious businesses that have emerged [83:46] in your point of view because of what's [83:47] going on in the world that a young [83:49] person that wants to cut their teeth [83:50] should probably be aiming at? 15 years [83:52] ago for me, it was starting an agency. I [83:54] think that opportunity is a little bit [83:55] saturated now, if dare I say. [83:58] >> I think that the nature of agencies has [84:00] changed. I think you like if you want to [84:01] do like a Reddit reputation management [84:04] now, that's kind of a more emerging [84:05] offer because Reddit's become a bigger [84:07] and bigger platform and people look [84:08] there. Like I think the the old school [84:10] meta ad agency might be harder to crack [84:12] into than some of the more newer [84:14] opportunities that exist and clipping [84:15] agencies things like like those things [84:17] are still opportunities right now I [84:18] think. So if we have beginner [84:20] opportunities and then we have what I [84:22] think are great opportunities that are [84:23] let's just say non just AI because [84:24] there's the obvious answer of like start [84:26] an AI thing and automate for small [84:27] businesses and yes you should absolutely [84:29] do that and there's lots of money to be [84:30] made there. Great. Okay. [84:32] >> Outside of that what's not going to [84:33] change? What can you bet on? I'm gonna [84:35] bet that humans are going to want to [84:38] still want to look beautiful in the [84:40] future as they do now. I think people [84:43] are going to want to stay young looking [84:45] and so I think the longevity med spa [84:49] look a certain way peptide all of that [84:51] world is going to crush and is already [84:53] crushing right now. there's a huge [84:55] supply demand issue. Believe it or not, [84:56] I think uh wealth um advisers I can [85:00] because I see so many businesses and the [85:01] ones I pay attention to are the people [85:02] who are making more money than I think [85:04] their skill level [85:05] >> um would canote right would would would [85:08] make sense for like on the flip side I [85:10] say like if I see somebody who's who's [85:11] doing $20 million a year as a restaurant [85:13] I'm like bro you could probably do 200 [85:15] million a year in a different business. [85:17] Um, I had a conversation with a gym [85:19] owner that was doing $10 million a year [85:21] and it was a service-based gym, not uh a [85:23] facility elasticious gym, which is [85:24] different. Like a crunch fitness is just [85:26] like use the equipment, whatever. But a [85:28] true service based gym, which is either [85:29] personal training or semi-private [85:30] training, really hard business to scale, [85:32] easy to start, hard to scale. And he was [85:34] like, "What do I think?" You know, what [85:34] do you think the the opportunity is for [85:36] me? I was like, "Honestly, dude, you [85:36] could take your exact skill set because [85:38] you've got 100 employees and you're [85:40] trying to deliver an amazing experience, [85:42] but with low skilled labor, you have to [85:44] maintain culture. There's all of this [85:46] stuff that you have to It's like if you [85:47] took that same skill set and just [85:48] applied it to a superior vehicle, you'd [85:51] make more. Now, you might not want that [85:53] and you might be happy with your [85:54] existing business, which keep on just [85:55] know that it's a harder it's a harder [85:57] business. So, all that to say, I think [86:00] wealth is a big bucket. Um, wealth [86:02] related services are still crushing. [86:05] Insurance risk is still going to exist [86:07] in the future. [86:08] >> Mhm. [86:08] >> So, there's going to need to be [86:09] insurance. People are going to to to [86:11] fractionalize risk, which is what [86:12] insurance functionally does. The [86:14] longevity looking nice is one and then [86:17] anything that's not cool has like a [86:19] discount applied to it is always [86:20] something that's very interesting to [86:22] look at. It's kind of like trash. Like [86:24] no one wants to be like a so what do you [86:25] do? It's like I I'm in trash you like it [86:27] just it doesn't have the same gravitas [86:29] as I'm a doctor except that guy could be [86:30] a billionaire, [laughter] [86:32] right? And so if I look at like oh I I [86:35] do you know I do waste management for [86:36] old people like you know human fecal [86:39] matter. It's like there someone's got to [86:40] you know like someone's got to figure [86:41] something out, right? And so those are [86:43] the types of businesses where it's like [86:44] look where no one wants to look. Look at [86:46] look for things that people would not [86:47] want to say at parties. There's usually [86:49] big opportunities there if there's [86:51] obviously money where I said owe people [86:53] because right now it's so wealth is so [86:55] concentrated on the I did my favorite [86:57] video of the year. I I did this [86:59] breakdown and because it was my favorite [87:01] video I think it got like 300,000 views. [87:03] But like [laughter] [87:04] but what I did was really interesting is [87:06] that I took wealth in the United States [87:08] and I had a had it represent $100. 100% [87:10] of wealth is $100. If you looked at it, [87:12] right, and you had a circle for all, you [87:16] know, 100 people at different [87:17] percentiles, right, there's like $2 in [87:21] the bottom 50th percentile. [87:23] >> The bottom 50% of people has roughly [87:24] $200 [87:25] >> of the hundred in wealth. [87:26] >> Wow. [87:27] >> It's crazy. And then you've got your [87:28] next 40 and I think that was like $27, [87:33] something like that. Then you have your [87:35] next 9% which has like $36. [87:39] And then the top 1% has 31. [87:43] Hopefully the math maths, but it's [87:44] somewhere somewhere in the neighborhood. [87:45] And so when you look at that division [87:48] and then you're like, who should I [87:49] serve? [87:51] Many people who are starting out are [87:53] here and the only people they see are [87:57] here. And so their view of the world is [88:00] not accurate. [88:02] And this is why they stay broke because [88:05] they try to sell to other people who [88:06] have no money and then assume that no [88:08] one has money. [88:11] >> The [snorts] interesting thing I noticed [88:12] and I think anybody that's ran a service [88:14] business will be able to relate. [88:16] >> Yeah. [88:16] >> Is when I started out I was selling to [88:19] startup founders who had an app idea [88:21] whose marketing budget was approximately [88:23] $10,000 and I was asking for $10,000 [88:25] >> per year. [laughter] [88:28] >> And they were watching me. They were [88:30] counting every download they got on [88:31] their apps. And slowly we managed to [88:33] move up. And the remarkable thing is, [88:35] this is a crazy thing to say, but it was [88:37] easier from a client management or a [88:39] client account management perspective to [88:41] deal with Coca-Cola than it was Dave [88:43] with his dating app idea. Coca-Cola, who [88:46] would give you potentially six figures [88:48] in budgets, um would would be a little [88:50] bit more casual than Dave with his [88:53] dating app idea where he'd put his [88:54] mortgage on the line. [laughter] But [88:56] it's not it's not easy to move up [88:58] because to get that meeting with [88:59] Coca-Cola to be able to present to them, [89:01] you got to earn it somehow. [89:03] >> So, it's all well good saying it, but [89:04] the reality of getting up there is they [89:06] they think more about credibility, track [89:08] record. They'll they'll work with people [89:10] who are highly credible and who who they [89:12] can see a reality behind. [89:14] >> And so, it's not there's nothing wrong [89:16] with starting to sell the friends and [89:17] family. But the the goal, again, that's [89:19] if your goal is to make more money with [89:20] the business should be to move up [89:22] market. And if you look, so this is kind [89:24] of interesting, something I've noticed. [89:28] >> If you look at the price of a service, [89:30] and this is specifically for service [89:31] businesses, [89:33] >> the price of the service almost has a [89:35] one to one correlation with how advanced [89:37] the business and business owner are [89:40] >> just as a forcing function because in [89:43] order to go up in price, like a service [89:46] business done well means you did a good [89:48] job. You have more demand than you have [89:49] supply. And so what do you do when [89:51] supply and demand crisscross? You go up [89:53] in price. And so you continue this loop. [89:55] And as long as you continue to deliver [89:57] more value than you're charging for, you [89:59] continue to have more demand. And you [90:00] just keep lading up. And this is why [90:02] price is such a strong signal for value. [90:04] Which why when you're starting out, it's [90:06] hard to hear us say, "Hey, add a zero to [90:08] your price tag. Add two zeros to your [90:09] price tag." Because if someone comes to [90:11] me and says, "Hey, I want to do all of [90:12] your social media management for $2,000 [90:14] a month." I'm like, "Dude, you can't [90:15] even handle me." [90:16] >> Like you could like even if I said yes, [90:18] you can't. it. The math doesn't math. [90:20] There's no way you can do it. And so if [90:22] someone comes to me like the minimum I'm [90:24] probably going to be willing to spend is [90:25] I don't know 15,000 a month for a [90:27] vendor. Like the minimum I could really [90:28] possibly and it' be probably a smaller [90:30] shop and I know the founder is probably [90:32] still integally involved. I'm fine with [90:33] that cuz I'm okay with some founders [90:34] like being good and basically me seeing [90:36] them as a fractional employee that I'm [90:37] paying less and that works fine. All [90:38] that to say like you want to have your [90:41] price go up. One because you serve [90:42] better customers, two because you have [90:43] better margins. Three because there'll [90:45] be less headache and four because it's a [90:46] signal of how good you are at what you [90:47] do. And the best businesses and business [90:49] owners will know, oh, this is for me. [90:52] You signal to them that you like you [90:54] want to go out market, but you have low [90:56] market prices. There's um there's [90:57] something called the Van Wesson door [90:58] pricing analysis. You might have heard [90:59] of it. It's from the 1970s. I do this [91:01] most times when I launch a new offering. [91:02] And so there's four questions you ask. [91:04] Number one, at what price would this be [91:05] so expensive that you wouldn't even [91:07] consider it? [91:07] >> Mhm. [91:08] >> Number two, at what price would this be [91:10] so cheap that it would be impossible [91:12] that it would be able to be valuable? It [91:13] it'd be too cheap. At what price would [91:15] it be right at the edge? you'd have to [91:17] really consider it, but you'd end up [91:18] buying it. And then at what price would [91:20] it be a bargain, a good deal? And so [91:22] when you actually take a scatter plot to [91:24] this, and now I have to I used to have [91:25] to do these manually. Now you can [91:27] literally just take the data and put it [91:28] right into AI and say, "Hey, run a van [91:29] western drug analysis on this, which is [91:30] amazing." So you can get it in six [91:32] minutes. Um, and so you get these [91:34] there's four points on the graph [91:37] if you have the scattered dots. And so [91:39] you have the point of marginal cheapness [91:42] which is basically beyond this point the [91:44] majority more people will think it's too [91:46] cheap to be believable. [91:47] >> Okay. And above this price it's too [91:50] expensive to be considerable. [91:52] And so what you can find is you can do [91:54] area under the curve to see at what [91:56] price would I make the most money if I [91:58] had a higher friction sales process. [92:00] >> Mhm. [clears throat] [92:00] >> And if I wanted people to simply [92:02] purchase it. So if I wanted to have an [92:03] automated sales process where my range [92:05] is. And so there's a range in there [92:07] where it says, "Okay, right here is the [92:08] point where you'll make the most number [92:10] of sales." Now, you'd have to factor in [92:11] margin, like gross margins of the [92:12] product. But you can guess like this is [92:14] how when you want to launch a shampoo, [92:17] this is how they do it. And so we can [92:20] price it precisely. [92:22] >> Is it a bell curve or is it [92:24] >> Oh, yeah. [92:25] >> So is it like a [92:26] >> Yeah, but sometimes it's so [92:28] interestingly sometimes you have double [92:29] gaussians that'll happen [92:31] >> because it's different customers. So [92:33] when so when I run these, I ask those [92:35] four questions, but I also ask for the [92:37] customer stats. So then I can slice it [92:39] by saying, what do the rich customers [92:41] think? What's the pricing curve for [92:42] them? What's the pricing curve for poor [92:44] customers? What's the pricing curve for [92:45] home services? What's the pricing curve [92:46] for? And so then you can get really [92:48] really accurate with initial pricing. [92:51] Of all the ideas that you've put out [92:53] into the world, what are the the sort of [92:54] headline ideas or questions that you [92:57] found to be most compelling to people? [93:00] Almost all the core concepts in this [93:01] book come down to figuring out who you [93:04] want to sell, what you want to sell [93:06] them, and how to get them to buy. [93:12] And most of my content focuses more on [93:14] acquisitions since the vast majority of [93:16] small businesses, say 1 to 50 million, [93:19] >> not always, um, but I'd say 70% of [93:22] businesses, this is rough estimates, [93:23] that come through our doors are demand [93:25] constraint. They could use more [93:26] customers than they than they have. 30% [93:29] are supply constrained. The phone's [93:31] ringing, but they just don't have enough [93:32] account reps. They don't have enough [93:34] technicians, whatever it is. And so, [93:36] what's really interesting about this all [93:38] of these books when taken in aggregate [93:40] is that [93:42] every problem is a marketing problem. [93:45] And I'll and I'll sell you on this idea. [93:47] So, if we were to think about a business [93:49] as okay, we've got lead genen, right, as [93:52] activity number one. We've got nurture [93:56] as number two. We've got sales, [93:59] uh, we've got, uh, onboarding, and then [94:02] we've got retention, [94:04] ascension, right? Getting them to keep [94:06] paying and getting them to buy more [94:09] Now, this is the demand side for [94:11] customers, right? Everyone hopefully [94:12] everyone's kind of aligned with that. [94:14] Now, if you're supply constrained, [94:16] >> which means [94:17] >> which means that you uh have more [94:19] customers than you can handle, more [94:20] people are interested in your stuff. [94:21] Let's say you're the solarreneur and [94:22] you're like, "How do I like there's only [94:24] one of me, what do I do?" like you're [94:26] supply constrainted. If you had [94:27] unlimited view, you you could make more [94:29] money, right? So, what's the equivalent [94:32] version of this? On the supply side, you [94:34] have application generation and then you [94:36] have application nurture. [94:39] >> What does that mean, application [94:40] nurture? [94:41] >> Basically, we're working these leads. [94:43] Yeah, we have these applicants. We need [94:44] to get them scheduled. We need to get [94:45] them booked. We need to make sure that [94:47] they're not getting lost in the process, [94:48] you know, like how how quickly can we [94:49] line these interviews up, all that, [94:50] right? We have the interviews [94:52] themselves, which is the sale, right? [94:56] And then we have onboarding like you do [94:58] for a new employee. And then you have [95:00] retention. And then the ascension is [95:03] they're grow they're going up, right? [95:04] Are are they are they are they moving [95:05] up? Which means that you just treat [95:07] humans the way you treat humans in a [95:09] pipeline in a business. And so if you [95:12] have a demand problem, but you know how [95:15] to get employees, then do the stuff that [95:18] you get to get employees to get more [95:20] customers. If you know how to get [95:22] customers, but you don't know how to get [95:24] employees, use the exact same process, [95:26] which means [95:28] who's writing the copy for your your ads [95:31] and your promotions and your outreach [95:32] temps. Well, somebody probably should [95:34] take a look at if you haven't looked at [95:35] this, by the way, and you're a slightly [95:37] bigger business owner, you will be [95:38] horrified by the outbound messages that [95:40] are getting sent on your behalf to [95:41] people. You'll be horrified by the job [95:43] postings that your company is putting. [95:45] You're like, "No one would respond to [95:46] this. How would you think this would [95:48] work?" [95:48] >> Very funny. From a nurture perspective, [95:50] the leads aren't getting worked. No [95:52] one's following up. We're not giving [95:54] them any materials to sell them on our [95:57] just like you would with a prospect. [95:58] Like, why don't we have case studies? [96:00] Why don't we have a video sales letter [96:02] that tells tells the whole business? So, [96:04] every person who comes to [96:05] acquisition.com watches a VSSL for me [96:06] and it's a 13-minute thing of just like [96:09] here's how the business works and it's [96:11] this is our real estate arm. This is [96:12] like and it shows everything and like [96:13] I'm giving proof and this is John and [96:15] John's an employee and John loves it [96:16] here, you know, whatever. And so then in [96:18] the interview itself, it's like, do you [96:20] have a script? Well, you have a sales [96:21] script. Why would you not have an [96:22] interview script? [96:23] >> Mhm. [clears throat] [96:24] >> Pre-anned questions. Do we roleplay [96:25] this? Well, we roleplay this. Isn't this [96:28] just as important, if not more [96:29] important? Is there more leverage on [96:30] getting one 10 out of 10 talent person [96:32] than just one customer? Yeah. On the [96:35] onboarding, are we just do we have any [96:36] process? Do we have 30 6090 of what [96:38] what's going to happen over the next 30 [96:40] 60 90 days and what is required for them [96:42] and what information they need to [96:44] consume so they can become proficient? [96:46] And then once they are onboarded, [96:48] what's their what's their career path [96:50] look like? How do they like one of my [96:52] favorite questions is when I have [96:53] somebody I really like, um I say, "What [96:55] would it take for you to work here [96:56] forever? [96:57] What would it take? Just tell me what it [96:59] would take." I can say, "No, just tell [97:01] me what it would take." And then I can [97:02] start moving the pieces around to figure [97:04] out how I can get this person to stay [97:05] forever. But the same thing happens if I [97:08] have a a customer that I like a lot [97:09] like, "What would it take for us to be [97:10] your your sole provider forever?" Mhm. [97:12] >> Especially this because I know you have [97:13] more enterprise experience sometimes [97:14] saying, "Hey, let me be the sole [97:16] provider. Let's get let's go exclusive. [97:18] >> Let's lock in a three-year contract and [97:20] I'll give you these other things for [97:21] free if we lock it in." [97:22] >> And I'll never work with [97:23] >> Yeah. these three competitors. Yeah. And [97:25] so almost all problems in business can [97:28] be solved by more people finding out [97:29] about your stuff either to work for you [97:31] or to buy from you, [97:33] [clears throat] [97:34] >> which also means that you probably have [97:36] ongoing marketing to your customers. You [97:39] think there shouldn't be ongoing [97:40] marketing to your team and employees. Do [97:42] we want our customers to give us [97:43] referrals? Yeah. Do we want our [97:44] employees to give us referrals? Do we [97:46] have a incentive for people to bring [97:48] referrals? There's a great story. A [97:50] friend of a friend had a had a $10 [97:53] millionish dollar a year business. He [97:54] talked to somebody in the exact same [97:55] space as him uh who was way further [97:57] ahead. And he uh he was in business that [98:00] had like agents uh that work from like [98:02] kind of like a brokerage. And the mentor [98:04] told him, "So, what's the incentive that [98:05] you have for your agents to bring more [98:07] agents?" He's like, "Oh, I you know, I [98:09] pay him 500 bucks if they bring a new [98:10] agent on." He was like, "Okay, what do [98:12] you make on a productive agent per year [98:14] in gross profit?" He was 250,000 a year. [98:17] Productive agent, gross profit. He's [98:20] like, "So, you're only willing to spend [98:22] $500 to make 250,000?" [98:26] He's like, "What would you spend for [98:27] 250,000?" He was like, "I mean, I don't [98:29] know, 50 grand." He's like, "Yeah, so [98:31] why don't you make your incentive 25 to [98:34] start?" So he took his incentive from [98:36] $500 for referral to 25,000 [98:39] and he took his company from 10 million [98:41] to 400 million. [98:42] >> Yeah, it's crazy. [laughter] I think [98:44] about this a lot. Even with like [98:45] recruiting, like people like, "Oh, head [98:47] hunters cost a lot of money." I'm like, [98:48] "Fucking hell." For really exceptional [98:50] talent, it's almost it's always a deal. [98:53] It's always a great deal. Going back in [98:55] time, if I were to give the the like [98:57] what has changed about uh me then versus [98:59] me now is that my standards for talent [99:02] are significantly higher and my [99:04] tolerance for letting someone be [99:05] mediocre and stay are lower. I think [99:09] probably all the entrepreneurs I've ever [99:11] interviewed would say that exact thing. [99:12] I remember one particular entrepreneur [99:14] who's built 100 billion dollar business [99:16] publicly listed. He said, "At 20, I [99:18] thought hiring mattered. At 30, I [99:19] thought it was kind of important. At 40, [99:21] I've realized it's the single most [99:22] important thing." and this is a guy [99:24] that's built hundred billion dollar [99:25] publicly traded company and I was like [99:27] but it's funny because that's what all [99:29] of them say. [99:29] >> Yeah. But I this is a broader [99:31] relationship advice lesson which is just [99:33] the best and worst decisions you'll make [99:34] in your life are people and I mean I [99:35] look at I look at some of these things [99:37] here and I go I mean it's true for you. [99:40] >> Yeah, I know right. [99:42] >> This is a photo of your lovely wife. [99:43] >> Nugget Zone. [99:44] >> You think about the variance of your [99:46] outcome if you had chosen someone else. [99:48] >> I do think about that. I do think about [99:49] that. It's [99:53] probably the single best financial [99:55] decision that I ever made was marrying [99:57] Ila [99:59] because [100:01] and this is this is no shade to any any [100:03] any relationship that exists of mine or [100:06] anyone's you know people optimize for [100:08] different things and I'm not saying I [100:09] optimize for finances. I'm saying, but [100:10] within that lens, [100:14] she was just down and she believed in me [100:19] a lot of times more than I believed in [100:21] myself. And I think I think that's all [100:25] anyone really wants or at least for me [100:27] that I that I wanted was and the thing [100:30] is is that hasn't stopped as the stakes [100:32] have gotten higher. I remember there was [100:34] this business that I was that I was [100:36] working with and I was going to meet [100:37] with the whole team and I was like this [100:38] is like a really tough problem that [100:40] they're asking me to help with and I was [100:42] like and she just like cut me off and [100:44] she's like good thing you're the best at [100:45] it and that you're going to give them [100:46] more help than anyone else could and [100:48] it's just like whether that's true or [100:51] not it was exactly what I needed to hear [100:53] in that moment. And so I I also say this [100:56] to people who are starting out is just [100:57] like I I do not have perfect [101:01] um self-security. You know what I mean? [101:03] Like I wouldn't say it's imposter [101:05] syndrome cuz that's not true. But like I [101:07] have doubts of like I don't know if I'm [101:08] going to be able to solve this. I mean I [101:10] hope I am and I keep working on it but [101:11] like I don't know [101:13] >> and as the the problems become more [101:15] complex and have higher stakes, it's [101:17] like this is harder and will cost more [101:19] if I fail. Um the pressure feels the [101:22] same. I would say the only difference is [101:23] that we have more resources to to to [101:26] handle them. Mhm. [101:27] >> And so in a lot of ways, when you're [101:29] starting out, it's kind of like fighting [101:32] a bear with your bare hands, but when [101:34] you're further down, it's like trying to [101:37] slay a dragon, but at least you have an [101:38] army. [101:39] >> Mhm. [101:39] >> And [clears throat] so the foe is [101:41] bigger, but your resources are bigger, [101:43] too. And in some ways, it's almost [101:45] easier later than it is when you start. [101:48] But you only earn the right to face [101:50] those foes by going through the earlier [101:53] stages when you didn't have the [101:55] resources because you learn the grit, [101:56] you learn the scrappiness. And I think [101:58] that like it's a it's a right of passage [102:01] and Ila was willing to go allin and I [102:04] would say that like if anything kind of [102:06] like a jockey bet u for VCs like you bet [102:09] on the horse not the jock or sorry the [102:10] jockey not the horse. when she saw me, I [102:13] had, you know, a handful of gyms and it [102:15] wasn't like I'm Alex Herozi the, you [102:17] know, whatever I am now. I was just a [102:19] gym owner and I was 26 and I worked [102:21] really hard and she was like, I don't [102:24] know where we're going to go, but I know [102:26] Alex is going to work tirelessly to get [102:28] there and she just always believed. And [102:31] I think that if like I think the person [102:32] that you were married is either going to [102:34] increase the likelihood that you hit [102:35] your goals or decrease and you just need [102:38] to decide whether that's important to [102:41] you [102:42] >> if you were single. [102:43] >> Yeah. [102:43] >> Do you think you would be as successful [102:46] as you are now? [102:47] >> I wouldn't be as successful because [102:50] number one, there have been plenty of [102:51] moments cuz I don't struggle with [102:53] anxiety. I struggle with apathy. Um not [102:56] caring. Why do I even bother doing this? [102:58] We already have enough money. Who cares? [103:00] Ila in a lot of ways has bigger dreams [103:03] than I do. Um I have [clears throat] [103:05] always had big goals for finances, but [103:07] at a certain point um and I think I hit [103:09] this kind of like last year for me, [103:10] which is weird because I always like [103:12] people always like when is enough [103:13] enough? And it's kind of like working [103:16] out. Um I got to a point where I was [103:17] like almost 250 and lean and I was like [103:21] this is more than enough. I I'm going to [103:22] come back down. [laughter] And so I've [103:24] had bigger goals than most people for my [103:26] fitness or muscles or whatever. Um, I've [103:28] had bigger goals than most people for [103:30] money, but I also was like at that point [103:32] when I hit it, I was like, I think this [103:34] is enough for me. And Leila was like, it [103:36] was never about the money for me. It [103:38] never was. And I think that's why our [103:40] dynamic worked really well. But she's [103:42] always cared about the team um, more [103:45] than anything. And she's like, I her [103:47] dream when she and I met was to build a [103:49] place that people love to come to work. [103:52] And if you do that and it also has a [103:54] good business model behind it, marketing [103:56] and sales and pricing and all this other [103:57] stuff, it's like you end up making a lot [103:58] of money. [103:59] >> But I would have probably taken my foot [104:01] off the gas earlier if it hadn't been [104:04] for Ila. I think I would have struggled [104:06] more operationally. Uh because Ila is [104:09] Ila will never get the credit that she [104:11] deserves. Um but Ila is Ila is the is [104:14] the pure is a pure operator. like [104:16] unbelievable leader that talent that I [104:19] probably wouldn't have been able to [104:20] either get or keep stay because of her. [104:23] Like I think that if there was like a a [104:25] divorce in the business, I think the [104:27] vast majority of people would [laughter] [104:30] >> I'm serious. Like I I know I like [104:32] self-awareness. I people know what I'm [104:34] good at [104:35] >> and I know people are loyal to Ila [104:40] >> because she's just there for people. Um, [104:43] and so for those reasons, I don't think [104:44] I would have I don't think I would have [104:45] kept my foot on the gas. Um, I don't [104:47] think I would have been able to operate [104:48] nearly as complex of a business as we [104:50] currently have. And on the inevitable [104:51] like troughs of my motivation, she was [104:54] the one who kind of carried me. [104:57] >> A lot of people be listening now and [104:59] they might be listening with their [105:00] partner, maybe they're listening alone, [105:02] and they're thinking, you know, my [105:03] partner isn't all that supportive of me. [105:06] And dare I say, some people will be [105:07] listening now and think their partner is [105:09] actually against [105:10] >> Yeah. their ambition. [105:14] What do you say to those people? [105:16] Figure out what you want. Like, we have [105:19] to make trades. How do you Do you know [105:21] what? It's tricky because [105:25] some of those people might say, "Right, [105:26] it. I'm going to dump her or him." [105:28] >> And then they pursue the business for 2, [105:30] three years. They become successful and [105:32] they're lonely as hell [105:33] >> and they look back and go, "Do you know [105:35] what? That was actually my insecurity [105:37] and my shame that drove me to do this. [105:39] But I've I've now I've got the mansion [105:41] and I'm here alone. I should have she [105:42] was a good girl. He was a good guy. [105:46] >> I speak only from the pers perspective [105:48] of how do you align the conditions to [105:51] maximize the the business outcome. [105:53] That's where I come from in terms of how [105:55] I'm speaking about this in terms of [105:57] maximizing subjective well-being and [105:59] your happiness. Um those factors are [106:02] completely different. And so I think [106:04] Arthur Brooks has this just this amazing [106:06] visual example that I love, which is [106:08] imagine two scenarios. One of them is [106:10] that you drive your brand new Ferrari to [106:12] a three-star Michelin restaurant. Um, [106:15] and you have the corner corner booth [106:17] eating the best food in the world [106:18] looking out of view alone or piling into [106:22] your beat up, you know, Camry, uh, going [106:24] to a Denny's with your five best [106:26] friends. Which one is the one you think [106:29] you're going to enjoy more? It's [106:32] obvious. It's obvious it's the second [106:34] one, but we live our life like the [106:36] first. And so I think if again it comes [106:40] down to what you want. If you're like [106:41] this girl, guy, whatever like satisfies [106:44] so many things, like you will not find [106:47] the perfect person cuz you're not [106:49] perfect. And so it's just what on the [106:52] stats of this person am I willing to [106:54] make trades on? Am I willing to have [106:56] somebody who's maybe not the most [106:58] supportive of my career, but maybe [106:59] they're supportive of my subjective [107:00] wellbeing? Maybe they're supportive of [107:02] my of my extracurriculars, maybe they're [107:04] supportive of my spiritual journey, [107:05] whatever. They might just be supportive [107:06] in different ways. And so again, it's [107:08] what do you want? And I think people I [107:10] had a my my first boss um or last boss [107:14] rather said this thing to me and it's [107:15] really stuck with me. She said, [107:18] uh [107:20] figuring out what you want is 99% of the [107:22] work. She said the easy part is getting [107:24] it. And I thought about that a lot [107:26] because I was like, no, the hard part is [107:27] getting it. And it's like, no, it's like [107:28] it's how many layers deep did you figure [107:30] out what you really want? And I think [107:32] that's because when you when you really [107:33] know what you want, then it's then you [107:36] just align the world to go get it. [107:39] >> It's very hard to know what you want. [107:41] >> Yeah. [107:41] >> Because there's all these near-term [107:43] temptations. There's this external [107:45] noise. There's Instagram telling you [107:46] that you want this. [107:47] >> Yeah. No, you need this. Yeah. So being [107:50] able to drown out all of that noise and [107:51] get to some kind of signal and also to [107:54] your point about sacrificing everything [107:56] you could have had, [107:58] you know, 2 3 4 5 we want the upsides of [108:02] all paths without the cost of each. And [108:04] so it I just [108:06] >> this is the why I still believe that [108:08] decision-m which is this the least sexy [108:10] topic of all time but still the most [108:12] important decision-m is the highest [108:14] leverage thing that you can do in life [108:15] making good decisions. [108:16] >> And is there I mean we've talked about [108:18] frameworks. Is there any framework for [108:20] making a better decision as it relates [108:21] to what we're talking about here? [108:23] >> I think it's answering the first part [108:25] which is what do I want to have happen? [108:26] >> What do I want to have happen? Yeah, [108:29] that's um even that that's you know I'm [108:32] probably speaking from experience here [108:33] because when I was what 20 years old was [108:36] it 20 or 19 I Mark no friend of mine [108:39] mentor of mine gave me this diary and I [108:41] remember the first page I wrote in it [108:42] what I wanted and what I wrote [108:44] >> was before the age of 25 Range Rover [108:46] Sport to be my first car million dollar [108:48] six-pack girlfriend I'll throw up [108:50] there's picture of it on the screen and [108:51] I actually took a photo of it in my [108:52] Range Rover at 24 years old as like a um [108:56] but did was that actually what I should [108:57] have written [108:59] Well, I think it's probably what you [109:00] wanted [109:01] >> and then you updated your wants because [109:03] you got it [109:04] >> and then you found out that you wanted [109:05] different things. [109:06] >> Sure. [109:07] >> Fortunately there my time horizon was [109:08] quite small so I could figure out in [109:09] three or four years without any without [109:11] any like damage that that was not the [109:13] right thing to write down. But some [109:14] people orientate their lives to like I [109:16] need to become a let's say billionaire [109:19] >> and the sacrifice to use one of your [109:21] words along the way is family, friends, [109:24] mental health, health. And then you get [109:26] there and you gosh, [109:30] I can't turn back time. I can't rebuild [109:31] relationships. I can't call my mom now. [109:33] She doesn't answer or she's gone. [109:35] >> So that's kind of why I always pause on [109:36] this question of what do you want? Cuz I [109:37] think we're actually like, as you say, [109:38] like terrible at knowing. And I don't [109:40] know a better way of knowing [109:42] >> than getting in than deciding whether [109:43] you want it or not. [109:46] >> I think um one of the one of the [109:47] interesting things with wanting is that [109:49] we only want what we don't have. [109:51] >> Mhm. [109:52] >> You know, [clears throat] uh people who [109:53] don't have kids want to have kids. [109:54] People who have kids remember the times [109:56] they didn't have kids. People who were [109:57] single want to get married. People who [109:59] are married, you know, reminisce about [110:00] the times they get single. But I see [110:02] that as inherently human, which is that [110:03] we only remember good and not bad. And [110:08] that's a beh So that's a behavior thing. [110:10] That's not a So like the reason that [110:11] when you get drunk and then you're hung [110:13] over the next day and you say, "I'm [110:14] never going to drink again." And then [110:14] seven days later you drink again is [110:15] because punishment fades. Reward sticks. [110:18] Which is why you go back to the old [110:19] girlfriend and you still long for them. [110:21] Even though when you get back, you're [110:22] like, "Oh my god, I heard she was crazy. [110:24] What [laughter] was I thinking?" Right? [110:26] But it's because we only remember the [110:27] good, which is good to know and I think [110:29] evolutionary because it's like you [110:30] remember you got berries there, but you [110:31] don't remember the sacrifice. Like all [110:32] to the same degree from like pregnancy, [110:34] horrible experience for many women. Not [110:36] all, but many women. and it's a horrible [110:38] experience. [110:39] >> But then you get this reward at the end [110:41] which is this baby and then that just [110:43] like fades away and then you're like you [110:45] know what I want another baby. [110:47] [laughter] [110:47] >> Speaking of babies, Alex. [110:48] >> Yeah, [110:48] >> there you go. You gave me a jump off [110:50] point. [110:51] >> Leila's pregnant. [110:52] >> Yeah. [110:52] >> How how long till the baby arrives? [110:54] >> Four months. [110:55] >> Four months. [110:56] >> Yeah. Exciting. [110:58] >> What are all the feelings? I can see [110:59] some [laughter] a mixture of feelings on [111:01] your face. [111:02] >> Um I'm stoked, you know. Uh I'm stoked. [111:06] Uh, I'd say I have elements of [111:10] fear mostly that I I want to do a good [111:13] job, you know, being a father. Um, [111:18] >> I can see, Alex, that you're scared. [111:20] >> I can tell because I know you're I've [111:22] sat here probably for 10 hours over the [111:24] last I don't know how many years. [111:26] I'll tell you what the issue that I've [111:27] been struggling the most with which is [111:30] how do I define a good parent [111:33] >> and how do I define a good child or a [111:36] successful child which then just gets [111:38] into sort of a meaning of life question [111:40] which is why I think it's so difficult [111:42] but like I'll take the parent one for [111:43] example if if we define a good parent as [111:48] a successful outcome for a child one in [111:51] what domains [111:52] >> right is it a billionaire who's lonely [111:54] and sad is that had a successful [111:55] outcome. I don't know. Um, but let's [111:58] just assume the world's version of [111:59] success, and I won't enumerate it. [112:02] How many people who have all that [112:04] success had bad childhoods? [112:07] >> Mhm. [112:07] >> Do we now call their parents good [112:09] parents? [112:10] >> Can I can I posit something? And I've [112:12] not I've not had kids either, but what [112:14] would happen if you removed both [112:15] questions? [112:16] >> Oh, just like I'll just take it as it [112:18] is. Well, I I'll say it's very I it [112:20] would I I almost want to say it's [112:22] impossible for me [laughter] because of [112:24] control. you like to be able to control [112:25] your outcome. [112:25] >> I want to know what I'm doing. I want to [112:27] know where like I want I ask what do I [112:29] want to have happen so that I can align [112:31] all of my life to try and make that [112:33] happen. And so if it's like and even [112:36] even the question of like what is a [112:37] successful child is is it a child who's [112:40] happy? [112:41] >> Mhm. [112:41] >> Many people would say I just want my kid [112:43] to be happy and that's fine. [112:44] [clears throat] [112:45] >> Is it my child is the maximum makes the [112:48] maximum impact on society? different [112:50] upbringing [clears throat] [112:52] >> and like the trades that we make at the [112:54] beginning, I probably won't be able to [112:56] have a kid who has both or at least the [112:58] degree to which I can steer. [112:59] >> So, I have um three other siblings. I'm [113:02] the youngest of four. [113:02] >> Yeah. [113:03] >> And one could theoretically say my [113:05] parents were were a constant. The [113:06] environment to some degree was a [113:08] constant. There were slight changes. [113:09] >> Us four. [113:10] >> You've got this me the youngest, this [113:12] crazy like entrepreneur, didn't go to [113:14] university, blah blah blah. Got Jason, [113:16] super genius at school, rewrote the [113:18] textbooks to make them smart, smarter, [113:19] works in this business, now my business, [113:21] mathly, rewrote the like on the front of [113:23] the newspapers. Kevin, smarter than all [113:25] of us, savant level genius. Could said [113:27] to me when he was younger that he could [113:28] learn any language in four four weeks [113:30] fluently if you gave number one in the [113:31] world in Runescape at one point. People [113:33] would watch him online play super genius [113:36] um decided he doesn't want to go into [113:38] world of work. And then my sister who [113:40] you know I think she qualified as a [113:42] lawyer um and she's worked in [113:45] hospitality and stuff. All of us [113:47] extremely different. My parents were a [113:49] constant environment was a con constant. [113:51] I say all this to say that maybe just [113:53] like running experiments as we do in [113:54] business. [laughter] Maybe like the job [113:55] and you know Jeff Bezos talks a lot [113:57] about this is to like stay out of the [113:58] business of the output [114:00] >> and focus purely on the input because [114:01] you you know some of the questions you [114:02] were saying there were like what do I [114:03] want them to accomplish? Are they happy? [114:05] These are all outputs. [114:06] >> No for sure. Um, you can't. The other [114:07] thing that I notice when I interview [114:09] executives, I always ask them, "Tell me [114:10] about your kids." [114:10] >> And they tell me about the kids. And I [114:11] go, "Are any of them the same?" I always [114:13] ask the same question and they go, "No." [114:15] >> We've got this one who won't stop [114:16] bouncing off the walls. This one that's [114:18] an empath and is like super shy. [114:20] >> Did you do anything different? No. [114:22] [laughter] [114:23] So, like, you know, I think you you'll [114:25] almost probably be guaranteed to miss [114:27] expectations and be let down if you get [114:29] involved in the output. [114:30] >> Yeah. So, obviously there's nature [114:32] nurture, there's kids who are going to [114:33] have genetic predispositions for [114:34] different things. So let's say that's [114:36] half and then the other half is the [114:37] nurture or environment. Now that is [114:40] still something that I'm not going to be [114:41] able to control 100% anyways because you [114:42] guys did have different environments. [114:44] You grew up in different grades talking [114:45] to different people, having different [114:46] teachers, went to different [114:47] universities, like the older siblings. [114:49] >> Yeah. There's Yeah. All of those are are [114:50] variables. And so in some way it's a bit [114:52] of chaos of you can't you can't control. [114:56] But if we if we eliminate all control [114:58] then what's the point? And so I I still [115:01] come I come back to the like well I'm [115:02] going to try and control the [115:03] controllables. [115:04] >> Yeah. inputs [115:04] >> and right but if I have if I'm so it's [115:08] like I need to know where I'm going the [115:11] output in order to direct my car but [115:14] what I'm focusing on a dayto-day is I [115:16] need to shift gears I need to drive the [115:19] car I need to fill it up with gas me [115:21] focusing output is not going to get us [115:22] there any faster but I have to know [115:23] where I'm going and so this is again [115:25] what I'm struggling with now to be fair [115:26] I cannot figure it out and the kids can [115:27] come either way [laughter] [115:29] he's not going to wait for me to to [115:31] figure this out and I'm sure maybe [115:32] someday he'll look at this podcast and [115:33] be like my god, dad. Jesus. Um, [115:35] >> you know what's interesting? The car [115:37] analogy I think might not be apt because [115:39] I I I know I was trying to find another [115:41] analogy and the one that I stumbled upon [115:42] was a a plant growing a plant in your [115:45] house. [115:46] >> You put the seed in the in the the soil [115:48] and you might think I really want this [115:49] to be six foot and I really want 100 [115:51] leaves, but you [laughter] [115:54] all you can do is water it and give it [115:56] sunlight [115:57] >> and it's going to be what it's going to [115:58] be. [115:59] >> Yeah. I mean, you can please be six [116:00] foot, please be a football player or [116:02] whatever, but you can control the input, [116:04] which is the water and the the sunlight. [116:06] >> It's funny because like my my immediate [116:08] situation goes back to the grandpa [116:09] story, which is like, well, I could put [116:11] it in front of the I could put it in [116:12] front of the sun or I could put it in a [116:13] shitty [laughter] room. I could like I [116:15] could determine how much I'm going to [116:16] water it, what kind of soil it's going [116:18] to get. Um, like there are other [116:20] variables that like and so again, I [116:21] would be like, do I want to grow the [116:22] tallest plant? Do I want to grow the [116:24] plant that has the most fruit? Well, I [116:25] would either prune the plant or so that [116:26] it would grow taller. Like these are all [116:28] things. Now, can I change whether it's [116:30] going to be a peach tree or an apple [116:31] tree? No. That's going to be based on [116:32] the seed that I plant and that I [116:33] [clears throat] don't have any control [116:34] over. [116:34] >> But there are some things that I can [116:36] control and of those things that I [116:39] control, I would like to know what I'm [116:41] optimizing towards [laughter] [116:43] >> and I'm sure that this will just be a [116:45] wonderful lesson in humility for myself [116:47] and it'll [laughter] be great and people [116:48] laugh in the comments for sure. Um, but [116:50] yeah, I like [clears throat] I to ask me [116:54] like what we were talking about earlier. [116:56] I would say like one of the the foremost [116:58] things that I love the most about Ila is [116:59] that Ila has never tried to change me. [117:02] She's like that's Alex. Like you can [117:05] want him to be a peach tree or an apple [117:06] tree, but like he's going to be Alex. [117:08] He's going to dress that way. He's going [117:09] to and if tomorrow he feels like shaving [117:11] his face and having a fumchu, he's going [117:12] to do that. Like I'm going to try and [117:14] optimize to the degree that I can to [117:16] equip the, you know, my son and [117:18] hopefully future kids um with as many [117:21] skills as possible to get what they want [117:23] out of life. And I think that's that's [117:25] what I would say that I that's where [117:26] where I have settled on is I'm going to [117:29] use all the resources I have to give [117:32] them as many skills as I can to handle [117:34] life. And if I can do that, then if they [117:37] want to go to London or they want to go [117:39] to LA, at least they'll have the skills [117:42] to get there. Um, that's as far as I've [117:45] gotten. [117:46] >> I can't wait to see. I saw this quote [117:48] that you you tweeted. [117:49] >> Oh. [117:50] >> And there's two quotes you tweeted that [117:51] I was very curious about. The first one [117:54] which took caught me off guard. I think [117:55] I actually texted you when I saw this [117:56] was this one. Do you want to read this [117:57] one out? [117:58] >> Yeah. [117:58] >> So, this was February 2025. At your [118:01] funeral, friends and family will argue [118:02] over who gets your belongings. People [118:04] will talk about the food and the venue. [118:06] Your life will be summarized in two to [118:07] three paragraphs. Conversations will [118:09] shift from your life to their lives. [118:10] Your friends will drive away thinking [118:12] about what's next on their to-do list. [118:13] Some people won't be able to make it [118:14] because something came up. And most of [118:16] the people you know today won't even be [118:18] there. You're going to die. People move [118:20] on in weeks, not years. do what you [118:22] want. [118:25] >> Why is that so important to hear? [118:28] >> I think about death [118:31] probably multiple times a day. Um, and I [118:34] think that that's actually been [118:36] positively correlated with subjective [118:38] wellbeing. I mean, older people are [118:40] incredibly aware of the fact that [118:42] they're going to die. And I think that's [118:44] what allows them like I look at so [118:46] there's a I'm sure you've seen this, but [118:47] there's this graph that shows how people [118:49] rate their subjective well-being over [118:50] their lives. And it's a smile graph, [118:52] which I think is ultimately hilarious. [118:54] But kids are really happy and then they [118:56] just become they get more and more [118:58] responsibility. And then your peak [118:59] unhappiness is like 45 to like 55 [119:03] somewhere in there. It's like it's the [119:05] crunch. You're taking care of kids. [119:07] You're taking care of parents. You have [119:08] a career. And to be fair, in some ways [119:10] it's good because you're at your peak [119:11] earnings. So you're making your most [119:14] people are making their most money in [119:15] this window and but they also need to do [119:17] it. But there's they're very stressed, [119:19] right? they're stressed really thin and [119:21] then as they kind of get into 60 65 70 [119:24] and when I think about each of these two [119:26] extremes on the child side and the [119:28] elderly side and elders are often a lot [119:30] like kids if we think about what like [119:32] they they rely on other people. They're [119:35] mostly just like they play games like [119:38] [laughter] in each of these situations [119:39] they have very little responsibility and [119:41] they don't care about what other people [119:42] think. If you have if you see a toddler [119:44] go out with like a tutu and cowboy [119:45] cowboy boots is because like they don't [119:46] care what other people think. And when [119:48] you're at the end of your life, you're [119:49] like, I'm going to die, dude. And one of [119:51] the things that I've been very obsessed [119:52] with is is borderline but probably [119:54] accurate is I'm trying to think, how am [119:57] I going to see the world when I'm 80? [119:59] And how how fast can I can I get to [120:01] there now? Cuz I care more now about [120:04] what other people think than I will when [120:05] I'm 80. And I just want to pull as much [120:07] of that forward as I can because when I [120:08] see those 80-year-olds, I'm like, that [120:10] guy does not give a And I'm like, [120:12] I really want that. And so I I write a [120:16] lot about death because it's I like [120:17] these tweets are notes to self. They [120:20] like they are not it is not a it is not [120:22] from a pulpit that I say those. These [120:23] are um as a self-help to to Alex when I [120:26] write these things because it's like I [120:27] probably when I was writing that in Feb, [120:29] oh yeah, February 25. So February 25, [120:32] the first quarter of 25 was the hardest [120:37] quarter that I've had personally in [120:39] eight years. You tweeted this at the [120:41] same time. [120:42] >> Yeah. I haven't felt this miserable in [120:44] years. Shit's just hard sometimes. You [120:46] have tough seasons, bad losses, and what [120:48] makes it harder is you don't know when [120:49] it'll end. But know it will end. So for [120:52] anyone going through it right now, you [120:53] do the only thing you can do. Keep [120:55] fighting. [120:58] >> I text you when you tweeted that because [121:00] I had never heard you talk like that [121:02] publicly before. [121:03] >> Yeah. [121:04] >> Yeah. I mean, it was it was a really [121:05] tough quarter for me. I mean, mind you, [121:07] I don't have kids, so that variable [121:09] wasn't there. But every other variable [121:11] that probably could have gone quote [121:14] wrong was actually, ironically, outside [121:16] of business. Business was fine. Uh, but [121:18] it was just everything else. [121:20] >> Um, and [121:22] >> what do you mean by that? [121:23] >> So, I say we were making plenty of [121:25] money. Yeah. Um, but I had I think I had [121:28] nine lawsuits that were open at that at [121:29] that. It was a lot. It was nine nine [121:31] open lawsuits. Um, and they all like it [121:34] was like and they were all different [121:36] like uh ex employee investment that two [121:39] or two two or three were investments [121:41] that we had made that like one of them [121:42] got caught and stuff and then was like [121:44] are we going to get pulled? It was just [121:45] all this just stuff. Um just a lot. Um, [121:49] and and then Ila uh had a like I think I [121:53] told you she um she had a really [121:55] horrible she like tore her colon and so [121:57] that's been it's like it's like an [121:58] 18-month recovery and so she was in the [122:00] thick of like going through the pain of [122:01] that before about to get the surgery and [122:04] so it was just like everything sucked [122:07] and Bill Aman had this really great [122:09] interview where there's a snippet that I [122:11] ended up seeing which was he was he had [122:13] just lost like a billion dollars. he was [122:16] getting divorced and there was like one [122:18] other thing. I think there was lawsuits [122:19] because of the billion dollars, [122:20] whatever. And and he said when you're [122:23] going through that that those rough [122:24] patches, he said he focused on the only [122:26] thing he could do when he's like you [122:27] can't you're not going to solve this in [122:28] a day. Like it you can't finish it. And [122:30] I think that's what that's what's so [122:31] painful about it is you have this open [122:32] loop that whenever it whenever something [122:35] reminds you of it, it's like you get [122:36] into this loop again of like rumination [122:38] and just like a what if it goes wrong [122:39] and catastrophizing. And he's like, "You [122:42] just have to take one bite at a time and [122:46] then every, you know, month or two [122:47] months, you can look back and be like, I [122:49] made some progress." And he's like, he [122:50] just focused on making progress and [122:52] chipping away at the problem. And I [122:54] think that was more or less the approach [122:56] I had, which is kind of like the the two [122:58] feet in front of you, like what are the [122:59] things that I can actually do right now? [123:01] I will do those. And sometimes, and I [123:03] remember in that season, a lot of what I [123:04] was thinking about was so I wrote, so [123:06] when my mother passed uh this year, I [123:08] wrote an article for myself. Yeah. Um, I [123:11] wrote an article for myself about mental [123:13] toughness and it was because I wanted [123:14] to, of course, it's not like be mentally [123:16] tough when your mother dies. That's not [123:18] the point. It was like, how am I [123:20] supposed to show up right now? That was [123:21] kind of like the the thought process I [123:23] had. And so I basically here this so I [123:27] saw it like this, which is [123:31] bad thing happens, right? [123:34] There's these [123:38] vectors of what happens as a result. So [123:42] you have how long or how many bad things [123:45] have to happen before you change your [123:47] behavior. So let's imagine this line is [123:48] how we're acting. How many bad things [123:51] have to happen in order for us to change [123:52] how we act? Are we shorter with our [123:53] spouse? Do we not pay attention at work? [123:56] Like what how many bad things if [123:57] somebody the perfect perfectly mentally [124:00] tough person would be able to have an [124:01] unlimited amount of things happen to [124:03] them and then their behavior would [124:04] remain the same [124:07] from purely from that perspective. The [124:09] next issue is okay well let's say that [124:10] you're not a perfectly mentally tough [124:11] person and something crosses your [124:13] tolerance threshold and then your [124:15] behavior changes and so we have this [124:18] next measurement. So we have how long [124:20] and how much can you handle? We have how [124:22] deep do you go when you fall? How how [124:25] badly do you change your behavior? Do [124:26] you just are you short with your staff [124:28] or do you get into heroin? [124:29] >> No, like how bad how badly do you fall? [124:31] And then the next piece is [124:35] how long does it take you to recover, [124:38] return back to original function? And [124:40] then the part that I added to this is [124:42] and then when I return back to original [124:43] function, am I better than I was before? [124:46] Do I am I the same as I was before or am [124:49] I permanently worse? [124:50] >> In what dimension? resilience or [124:53] happiness. [124:54] >> So I I basically have term one, term [124:56] two, term three and then this was I term [124:59] this as adaptability which is how how do [125:04] you respond after a bad thing happens? [125:06] Do you get better the same or worse? [125:08] >> You have tolerance [125:11] I think this is fortitude um which is [125:13] how much bad stuff can you handle before [125:16] it hits you. You have resilience here, [125:20] which is how long does it take you to [125:21] return to baseline? And then you have [125:23] tolerance, which is how how low do you [125:26] go? [125:28] And so through mapping these four [125:30] vectors of behavior, I was able to look [125:33] at myself during this harder season. And [125:35] this was such a mind because think [125:37] about this. I do a $106 million launch. [125:40] My mom got to see it, which is really [125:41] cool. She dies four weeks later. I [125:44] realized the goal, we talk about [125:46] long-term, right? $100 million, $100 [125:47] million, $100 million. The goal of the [125:49] books was to have $100 million at the [125:51] end. The offers book was an offer so [125:52] good people sell stupid. I gave it away [125:54] for free, made it 99 cents, gave a [125:55] course with it. No one had done that. [125:57] Um, and it was an offer so good leads. I [125:59] did a huge gigantic launch, but I didn't [126:01] monetize because I just wanted to show [126:03] what having crazy advertising for [126:05] something would do. And I used all the [126:06] stuff in the book to advertise the book. [126:08] >> This book's about monetization. And so, [126:10] I had an amazing offer and crazy [126:12] advertising and a money model behind it, [126:14] which is why I made $100 million on a [126:15] weekend. [126:15] >> Mhm. So, this is a multi-year project. [126:18] And so, I I get to have this this moment [126:19] of like all these things come to [126:21] fruition. And then my mother dies 3 [126:23] weeks. It was the 19th, right? So, yeah. [126:25] Literally a month later. And so, a freak [126:28] accident. [126:28] >> Yeah. And so, I'm I'm just like, what [126:32] how am I supposed to like what am I how [126:33] do I think through this? And so, I wrote [126:35] this for myself to think, okay, how am I [126:37] supposed to show up? And also one of the [126:40] things that I found really interesting [126:41] was that people will judge how much you [126:43] love someone by how much you choose to [126:45] suffer. [126:47] And why does how much I suffer have [126:48] anything to do with how much I love [126:49] someone? And I don't think that the [126:52] person, if you did lose somebody, I'm [126:53] sorry. Um I don't think the person that [126:55] you lost probably wants you to suffer. [126:58] And so we have this this idea that we [127:01] need to suffer to prove our love, which [127:03] I was like, "Well, that's an assumption [127:05] I'm coming in with. Do I reject that?" I [127:06] was like, "Yeah, I think I reject that. [127:08] And so bad thing happens that crossed my [127:12] threshold. How low am I going to go? I [127:14] was probably not like the most thrilled [127:16] about life during that period. But I [127:17] thought, well, what can I do? What are [127:18] my controllables? Well, I'm still going [127:20] to record content. I'm still I'm still [127:23] going to help businesses cuz I feel good [127:24] when I help businesses. Why would I stop [127:26] doing that? Well, I'm still going to [127:27] work out cuz I feel good when I work [127:28] out. Why do I Why would I stop doing [127:30] that? [127:30] >> Did you have motivation though? Were you [127:32] motivated in the sort of cliche sense of [127:34] the word? Did you feel like it? I would [127:35] say yes, but not for the reason that [127:37] people think. I was motivated for two [127:39] reasons. One, because I don't think she [127:40] would want me to stop. And number two, [127:43] because those things made me feel better [127:46] and I felt bad [127:48] and so I wanted to feel better. [127:50] >> I tried to change as little about my [127:51] life as possible and that is what got me [127:54] through that. And now some people say, [127:56] "Oh, you need to take time to mourn." [127:58] It's like, why does the way I mourn have [127:59] to look the way you mourn? And why do [128:01] why is is there a right or wrong way to [128:03] mourn? She must have been so proud of [128:05] you. [128:06] >> She was. She was. [128:07] >> We talk a lot about your dad, but we've [128:09] never really spoken much about your mom. [128:10] >> No, I don't. [128:16] She's a sweet lady. [128:22] >> Yeah, she always she always believed. [128:32] And so I think this last one right [128:34] adaptability which is [128:37] in what world can this make me better? [128:42] Like how can how can this loss make me [128:45] better? [128:46] And also, by the way, like this [128:54] trauma, bad thing happens, you're [128:56] permanently worse, right? And so it's [129:00] like, what would that look like? What [129:02] would me growing from this look like? [129:03] And I think part of that was proving [129:06] that [129:08] I can continue as my way of honoring her [129:12] and her memory. and I'm going to [129:17] continue to try and pursue the the path [129:20] that she knew I started pursuing when I [129:23] left home when I talked to her when I [129:26] when I left, you know. Um, [129:29] and so like what's changed between then [129:31] and now? I'm just closer to where I was [129:33] trying to go and I don't think she would [129:35] want me to abandon that path. And so I [129:38] just you keep fighting. [129:41] You had that conversation with Tony [129:42] Robbins which I found to be amazing. [129:43] It's fantastic conversation. I spoke to [129:45] him about it actually. Um I wondered if [129:47] it had changed you in any way. You [129:48] talked to him about happiness. You you'd [129:49] said that you know you'd said some [129:50] similar things to me that happiness had [129:52] never been a high priority for you. [129:53] >> Yeah. [129:54] >> Did that conversation change your [129:55] perspective at all on happiness? [130:00] [snorts] [130:01] >> I would I would love to say that it did. [130:03] Um because I think it would be like a [130:05] better sound bite. Yeah. Um, [130:10] not really. [130:11] >> So, where are you now on the subject of [130:13] happiness? Are you are you happy? [130:16] >> I have a tough time with that. Mostly [130:18] because I just I don't really even know [130:19] what it means. Um, because like there's [130:22] some people that you like, do I feel [130:24] joy? Of course. But you can feel joy at [130:25] a at a funeral. [130:26] >> Are you excited by your life? Are you [130:28] excited about life on a daily basis? [130:30] >> Yes, I'm I'm intensely interested in my [130:33] life. I'm very fascinated by the things [130:35] that I work on. Does it feel good to be [130:37] you? [130:39] >> Sometimes. I think I think [130:41] >> more days than not. [130:43] >> Probably. One of the things that Arthur [130:45] Brooks has been really helpful you you [130:46] know his stuff. Um and he talks [130:48] specifically to strive and I'm like stop [130:50] talking to me. [laughter] So strivvers [130:52] he defines as people who like you are [130:53] strivvers. They're they're high [130:54] achievers. And what's really interesting [130:56] is he describes what the childhood of a [130:59] strive is. He's like almost to a tea. [131:00] This is what it is. He's like, it's [131:02] typically an immigrant parent or [131:04] something like that where they're trying [131:06] to do a good job and they basically [131:08] withhold approval only when the kid does [131:11] a good thing. And then what happens is [131:13] the kid learns that love is earned and [131:15] then you learn that loop. You're [131:16] reinforced for that loop. And then you [131:17] do win more and you earn more love. And [131:19] then you get into the big wide world and [131:21] then you're like, how do I get more of [131:22] this drug, this love drug, which means I [131:24] need to earn as much as possible? I need [131:25] to earn as much as possible. So you just [131:27] get addicted to the loop of working. And [131:29] so I find this really fascinating. But [131:30] the other part of of of his work that [131:35] has been actually in some ways very like [131:36] grounding for me is about half of your [131:39] subjective wellbeing is genetic [131:41] >> half. And so and to be clear like I'm [131:45] I'm super blessed. I have a lot of good [131:46] things that have gone for me. My [131:47] mother's side of the family tree has a [131:49] lot of tough mental stuff. Uh very bad [131:52] stuff. But they're also really brilliant [131:56] in some ways. I think to myself like [131:58] maybe I'm just maxed out on my 50 and [132:00] I'm crushing it. But the thing is is [132:03] like I don't know because like we don't [132:05] you know if if you're if you're born 7 [132:07] feet tall everyone can see it. [132:08] >> But some people are born probably one [132:10] foot tall in terms of happiness and they [132:11] learn to play basketball really really [132:13] well at one foot and people are still [132:14] like oh he's only one foot tall. [132:16] >> So I don't I don't know how to judge how [132:17] well I'm doing. I would say that I have [132:19] been way worse than I am now. I [132:21] aggressively want to keep living. And to [132:23] me that's a that's a really strong [132:26] indicator for me. Um and to answer like [132:30] Albert Kamu is one of my favorite [132:31] philosophers. Um and he has this quote [132:33] that I I love which is what is the [132:36] meaning of your life? And his answer to [132:38] that is the reason you don't kill [132:40] yourself. And it's it sounds dark, but a [132:43] lot of very dark things can be flipped [132:44] into very light things, which is that [132:46] when you ask someone that question, [132:48] they'll typically answer like, well, I [132:49] mean, my my kids, my wife, the people [132:51] that rely on me, and it's like, right, [132:53] that's why you're alive. [132:56] And that thing can also change because [132:58] like if you asked me 10 years ago, I'd [132:59] have a different answer than I do this [133:00] this time, and maybe in 20 years it'll [133:02] be different. One of the remarkable [133:03] things I learned from doing this podcast [133:05] is a real appreciation for people's [133:08] predisposition as it relates to mental [133:09] health and the way that their mind is [133:11] with them. Like growing up, I thought [133:13] everyone's mind was like mine as you do. [133:15] >> And then for, you know, you stumble [133:16] across this thing called podcasting, you [133:18] start interviewing people and going, [133:19] "What's going on in your brain?" [133:20] [laughter] [133:21] >> And then they they play it to you and [133:22] you go that they can't possibly be [133:24] telling me the truth. It can't possibly [133:26] be the case that there's other people. [133:27] And I remember sitting here with um a [133:29] comedian who told me that inside his [133:31] brain there's a voice that literally [133:33] roots for his failure. That literally [133:35] tells him he's he's pathetic, he's going [133:36] to fail, he's terrible, this was [133:38] terrible, you've embarrassed yourself. [133:40] And I thought, gosh, isn't that crazy [133:41] that there is like a mental health [133:44] mindset privilege which most of us don't [133:46] even acknowledge the privilege of. And [133:49] when you speak, I it's fascinating to me [133:52] in the same in the same way that I might [133:54] assume that it's fascinating when you [133:55] hear someone answer the question, "Are [133:56] you happy?" and they just go, "Yes, of [133:58] course." [133:58] >> Yeah. Right. [laughter] [133:59] >> Like, is that really curious to you when [134:00] you hear people say, "Yes, I'm I'm [134:01] amazingly happy." [134:02] >> Yeah. [134:02] >> Is that curious to you? [134:04] >> Um, sort of. I think when when I hear [134:06] someone say that, like probably my [134:08] immediate gut response before I even [134:10] like think about my response um is well, [134:13] they probably haven't even defined what [134:14] happiness is and they just wanted to [134:15] give an easy answer. [laughter] [134:16] >> Interesting. Like that's like that's [134:17] what I immediately think. But like I [134:22] >> it's like [134:24] >> this is like the the absolute as as raw [134:26] truth as I could possibly give to anyone [134:28] which is that like I I am very proud of [134:31] the things that I've done up to this [134:32] point in my life. Like I I can look back [134:33] and be like I'm proud that I did that [134:35] and I and I feel that sense of [134:36] accomplishment and I and I what is the [134:38] emotion attached to proud? [134:40] >> I don't is is pride itself an an [134:42] emotion? [134:42] >> I don't know. [134:45] How does one experience pride as an [134:46] emotion? Is that like a feel [134:48] >> very full? I'm like very happy that I [134:50] did these things like the books that you [134:51] have in front of you. I'm incredibly [134:52] proud of. [134:53] >> If it was a facial expression, how would [134:54] pride look? [134:57] >> Yeah. [134:58] >> No, [134:59] >> no, not for me. I mean, I'm just it's [135:01] it's very soulful for me. Like, I'm I'm [135:02] very filled by this work and that's why [135:06] >> that's why I keep doing it. And I know [135:07] that when I die, I think the thing that [135:08] will actually the the only thing that I [135:11] think has a chance of living on past me, [135:12] past when people even know who I am is [135:14] these books. [135:15] >> My YouTube videos are going to [135:16] disappear. Like all that stuff will go [135:17] away, but I think I think these books [135:19] will survive. And I write them that way. [135:21] Like I write them kind of thinking that [135:23] like the people who read this will not [135:25] know who I am. [135:25] >> Should people come to you for happiness [135:27] advice? [135:28] >> No. Go go go find somebody who's really [135:30] happy. Um the here's actually here's [135:32] what's really tough though, right? is [135:34] that no one knows base what someone's [135:36] base level is and that's what's so [135:38] tough. [135:38] >> I think I asked that because one I think [135:40] a lot of people assume that this work [135:42] learning how to be financially free and [135:44] to build a business [135:46] >> is in service of this north star which [135:48] we all agree upon which is happiness. [135:50] >> Yeah. [135:50] >> So one would think okay what's the point [135:52] building a business and getting a $100 [135:53] million deal or whatever if it doesn't [135:56] then lead to the happiness payoff. And [135:58] if you're telling me that you're not the [136:00] person to come to for happiness advice, [136:02] I go, "Well, then what's what's this [136:04] then? Why do I need to do this if this [136:05] is not going to make me do you see what [136:07] I'm saying?" [136:07] >> Oh, I totally see what you're saying. [136:09] Which is why bother pursuing this to [136:10] begin with. [136:10] >> Yeah. If it's if you're not promising me [136:12] happiness as the north star. [136:13] >> Yeah. I won't do that. [136:15] >> Okay. [136:15] >> Many people will sell you happiness. I [136:17] will not be one of them. Um I try to [136:19] sell quantitative things. Like I know [136:21] that if more people find out about your [136:23] stuff, you will make more. If you have a [136:25] better way of monetizing and a faster [136:27] way to bring cash forward, your business [136:28] will grow more. If you have an offer [136:30] that's so good people stupid saying no, [136:31] they won't say no and they'll say yes. [136:32] >> But you make no promise or guarantee [136:34] where that would lead you in your life. [136:35] >> No, that's to me like that's beyond my [136:37] scope. [136:37] >> Fine. [136:38] >> Like I know. Yeah. And so I I enjoy the [136:41] topic of of the happiness stuff because [136:44] I I love amorphous topics. [laughter] [136:47] Um, but the the conclusion that I said I [136:51] started with when you asked about the [136:52] Tony thing was I at least my it is my [136:56] worldview which could be wrong that [136:58] human beings our internal feelings are [137:01] like the weather. [137:03] >> Mhm. There's sunny days and there's [137:05] rainy days and there's rainy seasons and [137:06] there's sunny seasons and we go through [137:09] them all. And even if things get better, [137:12] our baseline adjusts so that yet again [137:15] cuz like if we think about a year, I [137:17] actually give this example to my sales [137:18] team. So if we think about this as a [137:20] year and we have all the days of the [137:22] year, half the days are going to be [137:25] above average and half the days are [137:26] going to be below average. And every [137:29] month you're going to have a bottom 10% [137:32] day three times because you have 36 days [137:36] per year that are going to be bottom 10% [137:38] days for no reason purely because law of [137:41] large numbers and you're also going to [137:43] have three days per month which is [137:45] almost one a week. That's going be a top [137:46] 10% day of the whole year. Pretty [137:48] impressive. But it's one a week almost. [137:50] Right. And so I think about this [137:52] variability a lot because when I'm [137:54] having a quote bad day because I have [137:56] them I have I have them all the time. Um [137:59] and I just think this is probably just [138:01] the bottom 10% day. [138:02] >> And like and [clears throat] I think the [138:04] the one of the one of the lessons that [138:05] I've learned from an entrepreneurship [138:07] perspective translated into life is my [138:10] emotional discomfort is not an adequate [138:12] reason to change what I'm doing. [138:14] And so we will get these moments of [138:16] dissatisfaction or discomfort and be [138:18] like I'm life sucks. I need to change [138:20] something. And if you don't like your [138:22] life in general, change something. But [138:24] if you don't like your life today, maybe [138:27] don't break up with your wife. [138:28] >> Maybe give it a day. Right? And so I [138:31] think again, I come from the [138:32] entrepreneur perspective, which is that [138:34] people will have a bad day and then [138:35] basically take it out on their business [138:37] and then change a bunch of things and [138:39] then destroy what they're with this [138:40] fledgling business that's getting going [138:42] because they had an emotional need that [138:43] they could not tolerate. And so that's [138:46] why this graph [138:48] has been so valuable to me, which is is [138:50] my bottom 10% day a big enough thing for [138:52] me to change my behavior. If I determine [138:55] that I can have a bad day and still do [138:56] good work, that is a good day. Alex, we [139:00] have a closing tradition where the last [139:01] guest leaves a question for the next [139:03] guest not knowing who they're leaving it [139:04] for. Funny question. What would you do [139:05] if you believed that super intelligent [139:08] AI, better, faster, cheaper, etc. than [139:10] the best humans at everything was just a [139:13] few years away? Mhm. [139:16] What would you do? [139:28] On the business side, I would build as [139:30] much real world proof as I possibly [139:32] could and as much track record with as [139:34] track record with as many customers as I [139:37] could so that I could reinforce a brand [139:39] that would give me some differentiation [139:40] in that future marketplace. So you'd [139:42] focus on building a stronger brand [139:44] >> from a business perspective. [139:45] >> Why? [139:46] >> Because I think in a world where [139:47] everyone has access to a super [139:49] intelligence. Um what are the things [139:52] that are going to like will people still [139:54] care about reputations in the future? [139:56] Probably. And so I see that as something [139:58] that won't change. Distribution will [139:59] still cost money. Like those things I [140:02] think those things will be true. Might [140:04] be less, but it'll still cost. And [140:06] typically if again because there's [140:07] there's still marketplace dynamics. [140:10] Not to get into the the weeds on this, [140:11] but from an entrepreneurship [140:12] perspective, I would continue to build [140:14] trust and distribution. From a personal [140:16] perspective, I would think really hard [140:18] about [140:20] what it means to be human and [140:24] why I'm here to begin with. [140:27] >> You going to buy a farm one day? [140:29] >> I'm It's not out of the equation. Um I [140:32] mean, Leila's Ila's super gung-ho on [140:34] that. So, [140:35] >> on a ranch. [140:36] >> Yeah, we almost did. We almost bought [140:38] one actually the first time we sold. [140:40] >> Where do I direct? So, if people want to [140:42] learn more from you, you've got your [140:43] YouTube channel where you've just [140:43] started this brand new series which is [140:45] really interesting. I'll link that below [140:46] as well for people that um want to watch [140:48] it. It's kind of like a Dragon's Den [140:50] Shark Tanky format where you're bringing [140:53] entrepreneurs, they're competing for [140:54] $100,000 [140:56] um through this knockout series of [140:57] episodes. Very interesting. These four [141:00] books in front of me, there's another [141:01] one over there, but these four here that [141:02] from the hundred million dollar series [141:04] have all sold more than 5 million copies [141:08] since inception. You've actually broke [141:09] the world record for selling so many [141:11] copies of this book. This one. [141:14] >> Yeah. [141:14] >> Um in the short sort of a 24-hour period [141:16] or something creative like that. [141:17] >> 2.9 and 24. [141:20] >> Staggering. I'll link all of these books [141:21] below. They are essential reading for [141:23] anybody that's wants a cheat code. um [141:25] probably a decade worth of decade head [141:28] start into the world of business. Um [141:29] explained in a phenomenally accessible [141:32] way with literally your drawings. [141:34] >> Yeah. [141:34] >> Inside them. Um and the thing that I [141:36] think has made these books so successful [141:38] and become the bible for many [141:39] entrepreneurs, startup entrepreneurs, [141:40] but also entrepreneurs that are looking [141:41] to scale through different seasons of [141:43] business is is just it's so um [141:47] actionable. A lot of books are like [141:49] highly philosophical and there's lots of [141:51] jargon and stuff. These are like this is [141:53] what to do. this is what to do. And I I [141:56] think ultimately that's the most [141:57] valuable thing. So, thank you for [141:59] writing these incredible books. Is there [142:00] anything else that people should know [142:01] about that you're working on or thinking [142:02] about before we tune up tune out? [142:04] >> No, just grab the books. I'll link all [142:07] of them below. Alex, thank you as [142:08] always. Um I love talking to you, not [142:10] just for because it makes great content [142:11] cuz I can learn so much and I've written [142:13] so many notes down here from just [142:14] bouncing off you that I'm going to go [142:16] apply in my own business. So, thank you [142:17] as always. I really appreciate it. Thank [142:19] you very [142:20] YouTube have this new crazy algorithm [142:21] where they know exactly what video you [142:23] would like to watch next based on AI and [142:26] all of your viewing behavior. And the [142:28] algorithm says that this video is the [142:31] perfect video for you. It's different [142:32] for everybody looking right now. Check [142:34] this video out and I bet you you might [142:36] love it.