When is a "Business" not a Business?
When is a "business" not a business?
Good question.
In our industry, many tend to look down on those who make money by teaching others to make money, rather than by building a business that makes money in niche marketing, or by having their own info-products.
There's a common line of thinking that these people are unworthy to do so.
Why?
It's like saying that a person with a law degree shouldn't teach law, because he/she's not a court lawyer!
Perhaps, the most emblematic example is that of high earning niche marketers that have made millions by promoting targeted niche products. They have built a business around this model, making money in the process.
This "proof" gives them the credentials to teach others how to make money.
But what about those who have legitimately made money as a business... by teaching others to make money?
Look, knowledge is power. Knowledge is priceless. Just because one hasn't dominated the "Teeth Whitening" niche, milking it for millions, does not mean that person cannot teach others how to make money.
Some people are better suited to be teachers, than tactical doers, anyway. And if the knowledge they possess is key in allowing someone to achieve financial success, by virtue of imparting it... is that not a fair trade off, being paid for it?
"You want to make money. I know how. I've never done it myself in your niche. But I know all the dynamics behind building the business successfully."
Is the above statement not fair and feasible??
If you are making a business out of teaching others how to make money by sharing your valuable knowledge, then you ARE a businessman operating a legitimate business.
You are networking, studying, learning, applying, promoting, refining, and doing all the things a "legitimate" business owner does, in building a business. You grow it. You expand it. You make it a business, and not a one trick pony.
No one should look down on that.
It's like saying, again, that a person with a law degree should never teach (or consult another attorney on) the Penal Procedure Code, because he doesn't show up in court to defend clients.
But he has the knowledge to do so.
How about consultants? Their specialised skills and insights are analytical and practical, based on their knowledge of business practices. How many of them, however, actually own a Microsoft themselves?
They don't!
Then why does Microsoft employ business consultants, freelancers, et al., when as a multi-billion dollar behemoth, they are far from a roadside firm who (theoretically) needs the input?
Because it is viable, feasible, productive, and sensible to do so. Consultants' insights further Microsoft's business.
Bottom line: as far as I'm concerned, if you know how to do it, and you treat the imparting of your knowledge as a valuable business, by implementing the business skills required to transform it into a profitable model, then it's perfectly legit to say that your "making money by teaching others" is a viable business... because you ARE making money.
And that is proof enough that one should listen to you.
-Josh
Recent Comments
3
You're very welcome! If it helps put things into perspective, then it's definitely worth considering.
See more comments
The lawyer example is not a good one. If you research the stats re lawyers you will discover that the overwhelming # of grads from law schools do not litigate cases. Delve further and you will find that the overwhelming number of practicing lawyers have not even seen the inside of a courtroom much less handled a jury trial. Having primarily been a litigation lawyer I would say that my law teachers taught procedure and concepts but were sadly lacking in litigation skills, merchandising, client contact skills, etc. and in general application of those concepts to real life. Also having seen other lawyers most are skilled negotiators, plea bargainers, deal makers etc., but I think its less than 10% that have actually ever tried a case in front of a jury.