Your New Normal and the Futility of Stress

I had a very powerful business experience about 4 years ago that taught me a lesson that I didn’t fully understand until recently.

I was the sole owner of a company that received a Letter of Intent from a publicly traded company to be acquired for around $1 million, all before I was even 30 years old.  Sure sounds sexy, right?  Well, the catch was that we were not profitable at that time and of course the time between receiving a Letter of Intent and actually signing all the contracts, getting a check in the bank, and considering the acquisition a done deal can be anywhere from a few weeks to over a year.

So we waited.  Doing our best to not be too unprofitable and not incur too many legal expenses, but thrilled at the prospect of an acquisition that would instantly remove all the stress.  I remember every day trying to act to the outside world like things were fine, but inside I felt incredibly stressed.  Each day was a new opportunity to obsess just a little bit more about when the acquisition would finally close.

And then finally it did.  Except that it didn’t go through, it fell through.

And here’s the weirdest most crazy part about it all.  I was enormously relieved.

Huh?  After months of freaking out, how could I possibly feel relief?  I realized that even though I had a new set of problems to deal with — how to pay the legal expenses, what the new strategy should be, where to go from here, etc. — I was at least free of the uncertainty of whether “acqisition falls through” would be my new situation, my new normal, so to speak.

And that’s what this post is all about.

We human beings — particularly Americans — tend to stress.  A lot.  That stress is often related to having too much to do, not meeting all our goals, or otherwise somehow falling short of what’s expected of us.

What exactly is stress anyway?  Well, stress clearly relates to not achieving some kind of desired outcome.  We get stressed when we’re studying for a test because we’re worried we won’t do well enough.  We get stressed in business because we’re worried about the implications of something not happening the way we want.  We get stressed when things might not go our way.

The key components seem to be (1) the intense desire to achieve a particular outcome, and (2) fear that we will not achieve that outcome.

But here’s the crazy part.  Once you actually get a bad grade, or fail to achieve your business outcome, the whole feeling of stress goes away, doesn’t it?  Then we just deal with whatever new normal we’re now at.  We went from being in the world of “I might get a bad grade on this test and I’m freaking out” to the world of “I did get a bad grade on that test; now what do I do?”

But the second world is just so much more relaxing somehow.  And if we go back to the definition of stress — (1) an intense desire to achieve something coupled with (2) the fear you might not achieve it — it makes sense that stress goes away after we’ve reached the outcome one way or the other.  We no longer fear what’s already here, and we’ve now focused our intense desiring on something else.

So, in this light, doesn’t stress seem just kind of silly?  We get so worked up and in such a state over such intense fear that something might happen, and even when our very worst experience does actually happen, somehow we just find a way to deal with it and get on with life.

The more I’ve thought about it, the more stress seems like one of those “legacy” emotions that served us well when sabertooth tigers were hunting us but doesn’t adapt well for the modern world.  If a sabertooth tiger is stalking me, being afraid he might kill me makes me alert and gives me energy, but if a deadline is stalking me, it just makes me feel tired.

So I propose that you do away with stress.  And the key is just to accept that whatever new situation you find yourself in will very quickly become your new normal anyway.

If you achieve all your wildest business dreams — closing the big deal, getting a promotion, earning a raise, having a successful company exit — there will be an intense thrill for a little bit…and then it dies off into your new normal, and you will soon turn your attention to something else.

And likewise, if you suffer any number of horrible business fates — you lose the big deal, you lose your job, you publicly fail — there will be a sting for a little bit…and then it dies off into your new normal, and you will soon turn your attention to something else.

Our society tells us that it’s common practice to set goals and be stressed about achieving them, but in fact the better way to be is to accept that, whatever happens, you’ll just hit your new normal, which you will quickly adjust to anyway.

And that, in turn, means that there’s no big pot of gold at the end of whatever particular rainbow you’re aiming for right now.  Because once you get there, you’ll find another pot of gold that you want to go after.

The notion of “unlimited desire” in human beings is not a failing, though.  It’s wondrous and marvelous.  Within the confines of our finite bodies lies a phenomenon that is infinite.  No matter what we desire, once we get it, we will want the next thing.  And the cycle will endlessly repeat itself.

So to summarize, embrace the miracle of infinite desire that exists within you, recognize that whatever you are stressing about and aiming for — whether you achieve it or not — will be your new normal in the near future, and that because there’s no greener grass on any other pastures, learn to appreciate how satisfying the grass right under your feet is.

The Right Balance Between Business and Compassion

One of the things I’ve been thinking about lately is the balance between business and compassion.

Every company on the planet is actively trying to execute some kind of plan.  Fledgling startups might have a plan to “just explore until we figure things out” while established companies have clear financial and operational objectives to achieve.

When the plan is being met, everyone is happy.  If things are on track, why change anything?  But of course, no company achieves 100% of its plan in every area all the time, and when things go awry, a decision has to be made about how to get things back on track.

It is in this moment that the question of compassion enters the picture.  If you’re the one responsible for achieving the results that aren’t happening, how do you deal with the situation?

One thing I’ve observed is that extremes on either side are clearly bad.

One extreme is zero compassion.  An example that comes to mind is the Homestead Strike of 1892.  The super short background is that Andrew Carnegie’s “Carnegie Steel Company” was becoming increasingly profitable while working conditions were getting increasingly worse.  These tensions came to a head as workers demanded higher wages and better working conditions.  Strikes were staged and continually threatened.  Not wanting to do the dirty work of dealing with the workers, Carnegie hired a man named Henry Frick to “take care of the situation.”

At the Homestead strike, Frick negotiated very aggressively (which was probably the right thing to do in such a situation), and ultimately decided to bring in armed mercenaries (the Pinkerton Agents) who were authorized to fire upon the workers if necessary.

There is some controversy as to who started firing on who first (workers or agents), but to me the general point is that if your solution to solve a business problem involves sending in armed mercenaries, the compassion scale has gone to zero.  Clearly a bad way to conduct business and to co-exist with fellow human beings.

But let’s take the opposite extreme: total sympathy for the people you feel are not getting the job done.  I had one experience where I was working with someone who truly meant well and had only the best of intentions.  He was responsible for managing a small team and achieving results, but he managed them poorly.

The main issue was that each person’s personal challenges were the chief thing considered.  If someone was tired, or feeling frustrated, these feelings were given the most focus.  Getting the job done was something that would “eventually” get done, but wasn’t the focus of day-to-day work.

Ultimately, the situation was untenable for the sole reason that the company was not in the business of supporting people’s emotions, but of accomplishing its mission.  The job was not getting done, and “more compassion” would have been absolutely the wrong response.

There are other other shades of gray in between.  What happens when you need to fire someone?  How do you communicate to your team that something is not working in a way that acknowledges the people responsible but without being crass or making personal attacks?

For myself, I’ve concluded that ultimately the most compassionate thing is to manage the welfare of the company since every company stakeholder (investors, customers, people who work there) all depend on the success of the company.

But when it’s time to make a change, to do so in the most compassionate and respectful way possible.

 

Cutting Out the Noise

I keep noticing a recurring theme in my hobbies and in business: cut out the noise and focus only on the essential.

It seems so simple, but the fascinating thing about life is that the things and people we encounter so rarely do cut through the noise.  Instead it seems like most endeavors of consequence are messy, complicated and hard, and it’s not always clear why.

When you approach almost everything with the mentality of “how do I cut out the noise?” life becomes a very magical experience where a little effort in the right place can yield big results.

I think can think of at least 3 areas of my own life where cutting out the noise yielded big results.

First up is playing the piano.  I took traditional piano lessons for about 8 years and spent literally thousands of hours learning, practicing, and occasionally performing.  But for all my hard work, if I heard a cool song on the radio, the idea of playing it on the piano without every note written out was hopeless.  I could play these amazing, technically difficult, beautifully written classical pieces, but I couldn’t play the simplest pop song.  What the hell?

So I bought a bunch of books like “how to play the piano despite years of lessons”, Jamey Aebersold jazz lessons, the Jazz Piano book, DVDs on playing by ear, learn to play Gospel Piano, and a few others I can’t remember.  I learned a little from each of those courses, but the one course that really shined through was the cheesily-marketed “learn to play by ear in under 20 hours” course.

This course dispensed with all but maybe 5% of music theory, disregarded scales, and ignored just about everything else from “traditional” piano teaching methods and focused instead on a few key principles: to figure out a song, start with a few notes, then figure out the chords but you know it’s only going to be 1 of 4 chords for this reason, use a few different variations with your left hand, and a few other nuances and that was it.

Earlier tonight, I was playing off a chords-only version of Hallelujah by Jeff Buckley, my wife heard me play it, asked me to teach her, and so I shared the play by ear method with her.  She also had taken about 10 years of lessons and got a lot out of it but was left helpless against pop songs without the music, too.

The amazing thing was that in about 15 minutes, I was able to teach her enough information about the method that within another 30 minutes, she was playing that song plus 2 others by ear pretty well!  With a minimum of effort, she got a huge amount of improvement and is excited to practice now because she sees exactly what to improve to play even better.

I claim to be no piano teaching genius, and admittedly my wife has years of lessons to draw on, but the key point here is that based on all the methods I studied many years ago, I knew which one cut through the noise for me, and sure enough it did the same for her.

The second example is learning to speak foreign languages.  Like every other American high school student I took at least 2 years of foreign language study (4 years of Spanish in my case).  Four years and thousands of hours of study — again! — this time left me helpless against a native Spanish speaker.  It’s one thing to be helpless against a native Japanse speaker when you’ve never learned Japanese, but to study something for 4 years and be completely and utterly ineffective by every measure is without a doubt an education failure.

But I love learning foreign languages and so I hunted around for some third-party courses.  Everyone now knows Rosetta Stone, of course, because it’s extremely well-marketed.  Everyone’s heard of Pimsleur for some reason.  I tried those and others and found just more of the same — subtle variations on rote memorization.

But then I discovered a course that was marketed as the “language teacher of the stars” and which claimed to get you conversational in as little as 10 hours.  Like the “learn to play by ear” course it seemed incredible, literally not believable.  But I figured it was worth a shot.

So I tried out the French course.  At the time, I happend to be dating a girl who was fluent in French so I also had someone to practice with.  Amazingly, within 10 hours, I was able to conduct complete conversations in French.  I didn’t know everything obviously, but I knew the 70% of what mattered and so was able to communicate.

In fact, the course even makes the point that the English language has over 200,000 words but if you count all the words in a single edition of the New York Times, you find I believe less than 2,000 unique words.  So, you can literally cut through the noise in this situation by focusing on the 2% of words in any language that are used regularly.

Anyway, the course was absolutely amazing and cost all of $80.  If you’re interested, check out my foreign language hero, Michel Thomas, for more info.  Sadly, Michel Thomas passed away in 2007, but his courses are still available.  A very cool documentary on him is also available on Youtube.

Again, we see the power of cutting through the noise.  Four years and thousands of hours of Spanish left me helpless in the face of a simple conversation, but 10 hours of focused work enabled me to be almost fully conversational in French.  Wow.

My third and final example is business.  One thing I have learned about starting and growing a company is that you don’t don’t always know what you should focus on.  In such situations, you make an informed guess, check with colleagues and your instincts, and then make a decision.

But there are just huge amounts of uncertainty in business.  In fact, it seems that whenever there’s high uncertainty between going from Point A to Point B, you take a lot of wrong turns until you ultimately stumble on the path that gives you the clarity of being able to cut through the noise.

In business, cutting through the noise means understanding what feature of the software will make a big impact on sales and customer satisfaction but maybe requires little investment of time and energy, or what marketing approach to take, or where to sell your product, or how to position it, or any other one of a million things.

The reality is that if you knew the optimal route to build, market, and sell a product from day 1 you could do it in a third of the time it takes to bring a new product to market.  But the reality is that you will make countless wrong turns along the way, course-correct, and get back on the right track.  Only in hindsight do you develop perfect clarity about how to move ahead on things.

So there it is:

  • Most endeavors of consequence involve high degrees of uncertainty in going from Point A to Point B
  • Uncertainty = lack of clarity = lots of noise to cut through
  • Cutting through the noise is hard and non-obvious, but once you’re able to do it, the results are spectacular

The Power of Frames

I recently read Pitch Anything by Mr. Oren Klaff and one of the coolest concepts in the book was the idea of “frames.”

A frame is basically the set of beliefs, contexts, and assumptions that implicitly sit behind everything you communicate.  The author argues that when two people meet, their frames eventually “clash” and that only one frame can win out.  This concept was also discussed in The Game by Neil Strauss, but it was presented there in the context of attracting girls, not clients.

Anyway, after I finished reading Pitch Anything, I have been blessed with a special insight into how I and others think, and to the social dynamics underlying most business transactions.

Take sales, for example.  When I first started out doing sales, my mentality was always about understanding what the client was saying as precisely as possible and, to the greatest extent possible, providing him with exactly what he requested.  But it turns out that’s not the best way to do business.  Often times, I’ve found, people respect when you challenge them because they see it as an opportunity for growth.  I realized one day that with myself, when someone challenges me head-on, I find them really interesting and then start engaging about why they disagree.

So, basically, I stopped unconditionally accepting the frame of my client, and started to present my own frame.  I don’t have to “win” the frame discussion, but at least today I get to mentally decide what I want to do and recognize what’s happening.

Another example is when I was out raising money for Omedix.  In that context, the frames concept was ESSENTIAL.

I don’t know why, but somehow when you’re asking for money from someone the default view is skepticism.  The objective is not to reinforce your already esteemed reputation, but to challenge the notion that you in fact have no idea what you’re doing and are stupidly pursuing a worthless idea.

And there it is again, the frame game.  Either I agree to accept the investor’s frame — that I’m actually quite clueless and would be a terrible investment — or they eventually come around to accepting mine — that I’m special and they’ll be very happy a few years from now that they invested.

I remember one investor in particular — for whom, incidentally, I have great respect and have learned a lot! — told me that he thinks our market is too crowded and too mature, and there’s just no opportunity left.  That was an assumption with more assumptions and beliefs underlying it that had to be challenged before we could do business together.  In that case, I was able to respond in writing, and so I took the time to deeply think through all the reasons I disagreed.  Ultimately, I’m happy to say that story had a happy ending.

I think the final context in which the frames concept shows up in business is when I’m meeting with other CEO’s.  I remember about 3 years ago I went to the Health 2.0 conference and met a CEO of a health content company.  They were a growing company, profitable, and making revenues in the millions at the time.  My company was — at least in my mind — very small by comparison.

I was curious about his business model since it was all based on advertising and I’d been reading recently that advertising as a primary business model was starting to die (a trend I think which never really bore out), but anyway, I decided to approach him and ask him his thoughts.

Me: “So I understand you guys are basically an advertising model, and your job is really to attract more traffic to your site to have more impressions for advertisers.  I’m curious if you see yourself sticking with that business model long-term?”

Other Dude: “Are you kidding?  Of course we are.  Thanks for your question.”

And with that, he turned away and started conversation with someone else.  And what did I do?  I hung my head down and walked away, too.  In that situation, I let his frame of “I am a savvy businessman, highly successful, and don’t need to explain myself to anyone who dares to insult my company” dominate my frame of “I’m curious about other company’s business models.”  It’s a silly, trivial example, but at the time, I just didn’t have the confidence to stand up and push back.

Today, when someone throws that kind of attitude my way, I interpret that in terms of frames, and start making mental calculations about whether I choose to accept his frame or challenge it.  It’s a wonderfully empowering concept.

Anyway, my summary points on all this are:

  • The concept of frames is very cool.
  • They come up in business all the time.
  • It’s okay to disagree with people and assert yourself and your frame.
  • Sometimes people even respect you more for it.

The Fundamental Entrepreneurship Challenge

Thrashing n. To expend a disproportionately high amount of energy relative to the quality of output you receive

When I was younger and looked at successful companies, I simply could not for the life of me understand how they ever went from NOTHING to what they were today. The modern equivalent would be like asking “How did Jamba Juice launch hundreds of stores across the country? How did that start?” It made sense to me that if you raised a massive amount of money and then immediately bought all the capital equipment and hired all the people you needed then you’d at least be capable of serving all the customers, and that the massive revenue from the customers would balance out your massive expenses…but how did it all come to be from NOTHING? It seemed like magic to me.

And from this line of thought I embarked on what I believe is the fundamental fallacy of entrepreneurial thinking: asking the question “what does a company need to do to succeed?”

What’s wrong with that rather innocent question? Well, it’s missing a critical component that ultimately matters more than anything else.

Time.

If I were speaking to my self from 10 years ago today I would make a very important point of clarifying that the real question is not how can you grow a company to be successful. The real question is, how can you learn to be successful in the shortest possible time?

A college professor once told me: “Given enough time, every single one of you could completely master the subject I’m about to teach.  But the problem is you don’t have enough time and neither do I.  So you’re going to have to figure it out in one semester while you take all your other classes, too.”  What a perfect example of the same phenomenon.  When you go to school, the question isn’t “what can I do, no matter the cost, to get the highest possible grade in this one class”, the question is “how can I get the best grades in all my classes this semester while still having lots of time for fun?”.

I would say for myself that I have experienced more personal and business growth in the last 12 months than in the prior 3 years combined.  One of the fundamental differences?  I’ve started imposing more constraints on myself than just “learning how to be successful.”  I think about how I spend my time on each of my days.  If I feel like I’m thrashing a little bit (see definition at the beginning of the article), then I know something’s wrong and I invest some time to assess what’s going on.

I think one of the main differences for myself is that in the past year I’ve been fortunate enough to find some amazing mentors.  These are people whose accomplishments I am blown away by, who I have a great personal relationship with, and who are willing to give me input on ambiguous issues that come up.  After enough conversations, you basically start to pick up the same patterns of learning and the lessons that they accumulated over a lifetime.  Mentorship, I’ve come to realize, is literally the primary mechanism through which society evolves itself.

I mean, think about it.  If you didn’t know how to write but you knew how to speak, how ridiculously hard would it be to invent this concept of an alphabet, which combines different “letters” together to form “words” which are expressed in “sentences” which are organized in “paragraphs” and annotated by “punctuation.”  Writing is such a basic thing and yet figuring out writing from scratch would take probably a millennium.  But learning writing?  Well, a few years in school.

That’s how it feels since I’ve been fortunate enough to find mentors.  The “learning on my own” process is shortcut by about 99%.

When I think about how much thrashing I’ve done at different periods in my business career, it just makes me sad.  As Mark Cuban says, you can make as many mistakes as you want in business as long as you don’t make a really big one.  So, yeah, I avoided a really big mistake, but I think about how much time I spent on some things that one great conversation with the right person could have saved me from.  I mean, really, think about it.  The idea that a single 1-hour conversation could save you months of work?

And that’s really what it comes down to in the end.  The enemy of entrepreneurial success is not failure.  The real enemy of entrepreneurial success is thrashing.  What would you rather be?  Moderately successful at age 30 where you have another 70 years to apply the lessons you have learned, spend money, earn money, love, live life, grow, etc.  Or ultra-successful at age 80 where you’ve spent the bulk of your life learning how to actually figure out how to be ultra-successful.

Life, of course, rarely presents such black & white choices and the greater point here is really about how given enough time, sure, just about anyone could learn to be as successful as they wanted, but that time is precious, and scarce, and should be spent thoughtfully and purposefully.  A day spent making awesome progress on something you care about is infinitely more satisfying than a day spent thrashing.

 

The Technical Founder: Strengths and Weaknesses

“We are hugely in favor of the technical founder. We will generally focus on companies started by strong technologists who know exactly what they want to build and how they are going to build it.”
- Marc Andreessen

I’ve always prided myself on being a “technical founder.” Basically, it means that if I were hired as a dedicated software engineer I could make a pretty meaningful contribution to a software product, but that my primary role is to guide the growth of the company as CEO. I used to think that being a technical founder was an absolute advantage over non-technical founders since not only could I do the business thing, but I could really understand at a deep technical level how viable something is, and I also know what’s possible, which enables me to come up with product ideas and visions that non-technical founders might not be able to.

But life has this funny thing where our biggest strength can also be our biggest weakness. The trick is being honest with yourself about what they are.

On the positive side, being technical is wonderfully empowering. When I talk with our development team, we review details down to the database diagrams and how that will ultimately affect the product vision. I know with confidence at a deep technical level how powerful our software is and how that power can be leveraged in the future. I can formulate ideas for products based on knowledge of our database schemas, recognize problems that have high value to a client and are technically less challenging, or have an appreciation for those problems — like online registration, for example — that are actually quite complex and require considerable thinking.

I realize I love technology so much that these conversations are pure joy for me.

On the negative side, though, loving technology so much means you think in terms of technology. During engineering or product development meetings that works great. But when it comes time to put on the CEO hat, a mindshift is required. Because in CEO mode, those technical details are not empowering. In fact, they’re the opposite, they just get in the way.

Earlier today I had the opportunity to speak with an accomplished healthcare IT entrepreneur who could probably reasonably consider himself technical as well (MIT graduate). As I reflected on our conversation, I realized that there were moments in our conversation where he asked me questions that had a business — not technical — spirit behind them, yet I answered as if I were an engineering consultant, not a CEO.

The problem? My technical mind interprets his question first and foremost on a literal level and launches into a literal response! And sure enough that’s exactly my comfort zone! Comprehensive, technical responses.

But the funny thing is when I’m surrounded by businesspeople who only want to speak in high-level terms and I absorb their high-level mindsets for a small amount of time, I find I quickly adapt to the high-level thinking. Questions asked with a business spirit are answered in a business spirit, even if they have a technical element to them.

And this is the domain of the CEO. You step outside of the trees and speak only in terms of forests. You use the background technical information as minimally as possible, calling on it only when the situation makes a special request for it. You transfrom from being precise and comprehensive — a critical trait when designing software — to being loose and general.

Sometime this year it finally dawned on me why the CEO has to speak and think in these terms: because no one else cares about your details. They only listen to what your “proposition” is and then make a decision about whether you appear legit or not. The details simply aren’t important.

And sure enough we see this phenomenon in other spheres of life, too. I was SHOCKED to discover that one of the worst ways to sell software is to show it. Instead, the more you talk about it and the less you show it, the more inclined people are to buy it. Why? Because most people don’t care about details.

To summarize the conclusions in this post:

  • Being a technical founder is awesome
  • But watch out for situations where it gets in the way

Lead Like the Great Conductors

This is a beautiful exposition (and metaphor) on the role of a leader. I’ve often wondered if it’s better to set forth clear guidelines so that everyone knows exactly what to do, or better to provide people a framework within which to “tell their own story” (to use the words of Mr. Talgam in the video below).

Ultimately, I’ve found that different people respond to different styles. But if there is a “default style,” I believe the conductor who empowers the musicians to perform the music in their own style while providing subtle yet meaningful guidance on context, feeling, and intent produces the most beautiful music.

Zappos Offers New Hires $3,000 to Quit After 4 Weeks

This article was posted two years ago, but it’s still a pretty cool concept.  Basically, Zappos (the online shoe site that Amazon recently bought) will train new hires for 4 weeks, and then offers them $3,000 to quit.  Check it out for yourself:

http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/sep2008/sb20080916_288698.htm

I feel these kinds of counterintuitive moves have a deeper wisdom in them.  Conventional wisdom says “why would ever induce someone who we just spent 4 weeks training to quit?”  A more zen approach says “we only want to work with people who really want to work with us, and we believe if they take ‘the offer’ we all saved ourselves the heartache of what would have been inevitable.”

The offer above isn’t perfect and does have its drawbacks, but it’s certainly a concept worth pondering.

Eliminating Distractions

When man’s primary job was to find a way to eat each day, distractions were probably not a big deal.  Primitive man had no facebook, no twitter, no IM, no cell phone.  He just had a rumbling in his stomach and the grim realization that either he found some food or he and possibly his family wouldn’t make it past winter.

Well, evolution has given us many wonderful things, but as my man Thoreau once said “You never gain something but that you lose something.”  In other words, when humanity discovered the car, we gained all kinds of wonderful things like being able to travel long distances, but we also lost the joy of just walking to get where we needed to.

And so it is with the Internet.  We gain incredible knowledge, access, communication, and most amazing of all rapid sharing of information and ideas.  But now we’ve lost the simplicity that prior generations had.  Distractions are literally assaulting you all day long.

The purpose of this post is just to admit the problem and link to a new book by Leo Babauta (whom I’ve previously read and enjoyed) on the subject of simplicity in a world full of distractions.  The book is simply called “Focus” and you download a PDF that is completely free (and amazingly uncopyrighted).

Enjoy!

The Starbucks Paradox

I would say in the past month I had been going to Starbucks an average of 4 times per week.  One visit of $4.25 is easy enough to swallow, but when I started running the numbers, I was surprised to learn that $4.25 x 4 days per week x 52 weeks per year = are you telling me I spend almost $900/year sipping a latte?

I long ago realized that the value proposition of Starbucks is much more than just coffee.  Howard Schultz’s original vision was not to “make premium coffee and earn a profit,” but to transport the community-ness of espresso cafes he saw in Italy to the USA, where he felt our society had only grown more isolated over time.

Abstract as it may be, I think the stores do ultimately deliver on that concept.  I don’t go to Starbucks solely because I like the taste of my drink.  I go with a colleague, we know the baristas, we see people we know, it’s close by, it takes about 15 minutes…and so on.  Basically, it’s just kind of a nice way to take a break!

Nevertheless, I needed to cut down the frequency.  So here’s the strange part.

Continue reading