www.notionexpress.com

• We sometimes get advice to do what we’re good at doing
• In many cases, what we’re good at is not necessarily the best option
• If what you love is not what you’re good at, that is good… because
• Innovation is driven by learning from A and applying it to B.
• So if A is what you’re good at and B is what you love, take from A and apply it to B.  In many cases, you would have pushed the envelope on B.
• The people who change the world are not necessarily good at what they do, but they are lateral thinkers
• For the repetitive boring tasks, hire those who are good at what they do.

• People’s consumption of music (and art) is slightly different to other products

• The internet has made it easy to measure demand and test a new product before taking it to the market

• Measuring demand mechanically is still difficult with music

• Music marketing works by creating demand.

• Music doesn’t like to be systematically categorized like other products.

• Having a niche band is not a matter of doing keyword brainstorming and seeing what people are looking for.
• People don’t type things like “punk music” in Google.  Well they do, but it doesn’t mean they are trying to discover new punk music bands that they had never heard of.
• Music is marketed through credibility, hype, interruption.  That is why we will always have hits.

• Assembla.com is such a good software development application
• They created an attractive, agile environment for software developer
• It’s free
• They will then monetize by using the environment they created by offering premier solutions / consulting
• Amazon could do the same thing by becoming the worlds best publisher, using all the data on their customers’ tastes

Just been reading Four Hour Work Week by Tim Ferris. It is a very good book. But most importantly, it confirmed a hypothetical theory of which I always thought: Positioning information and giving names to existing things = success, fame and pushing the world forward.

Tim’s book is exciting. But most of the principles covered in the book are new. Many “gurus” have covered these principles over the past 8 years. Tim cleverly spun it in a way that appeals to a different audience and added his own touch (gained from his experiences). He wrote it in a different language.

Here are some of the principles covered in 4HWW, and where I had seen them, before reading the book:

• 80/20 rule - Ken Evoy taught me this
• The power of deadlines - Ken Evoy taught me this
• Elimination - Seth Godin taught me this
• Action. “Do it now”. Being results orientated. Peter Jones and Tony Robbins taught me this
• Asking for the dream; seeing the outcome.  Tony Robbins and David Allen taught me these
• Cash Flow. Guy Kawasaki taught me that

Giving names to, and branding, previously undefined things is such a powerful tool. Seth Godin does it all the time, and people love it. I once heard David Allen say that if he had given “Getting Things Done” a more grabbing / controversial name, he would have boosted the sales.

The Four Hour Work Week appeals to a younger crowd, young professionals, high earners (people who are not necessarily looking for second sources of income). The book was published and distributed to outlets visible to the mainstream. The principles in the book have been available for years, but was targeted at a different demographic.

Does this mean buying the book is not worth it, if you already know the stuff? It is worth it. When you read information spun in a way that hasn’t been done before, it may have a grater effect on you. And it may make you actually take action.

Besides it does have lessons form Tim’s experience in it, as well as new resources.

I heard Tony Robbins say something like : “Some Times I would hear the same thing more than once, but when I hear it again I actually use it”.

Move the information from A to B, make sure you spin it in a way that appeals to B… ta da, you have a great product. And it is not cheating: You are actually contributing and improving people’s knowledge by doing so.