Why the Law of Subjectivity Works 🎭♊ EBH

How are you creating choice?

Building a brand starts complicated, and it gets worse when you think there’s only one specific way to do it. In this week’s episode of The Brand Plan, we break down two very (diametrically opposed) approaches to brand building: Bottom-up or top-down.

+++++

One other thing! Because you subscribe, I’m sending you something a little early. You’ll get it tomorrow. I hope you like it!

+++++

[read the first half of The Law of Subjectivity]

Why this works

Way back when, we didn’t know what a “reasonable” salary for a given job was. Were we being paid the market rate or where we being underpaid? 

That seems like a long time ago. Even if we ignore full pay transparency laws, theres just too much data out there to not know what a nurse in Utah generally makes, or what a sales manager in a regional HVAC distributor generally makes.

While all parties have their guard up when they negotiate salaries, no one is rationally expecting people to work way below the norm. In fact, seeing a role where the pay is well above the norm may sound alarm bells.

So when you know that most inbound sales managers in your geography make the same amount of money, they only thing left to determine choice was… well, everything else. Once you’re paid fairly, what do you want most? More professional development so you can make more money or have more impact down the road? Less oversight and supervision? More support from your team and company? A mission you believe in?

In a way, the internet and all its data has allowed us to focus more clearly and strongly on things beyond money.

Where this falls apart

On one hand, if you aren’t offering people a salary and benefits within a normalized range, offering them a mission may not do much good. Subjective value only has value when base objective needs are met first.

And there is and will probably always be an audience of people who’s primary (and secondary) focus is to maximize their objective value. The highest possible salary, the best title, the most perks, etc.

Those people tend to congregate in companies and industries where they can make that happen. Sometimes it is classically well-paid industries like trading and hedge funds, and sometimes it chases trends (enrollment data in comp sci courses spikes pretty hard once it becomes clear that there will be loads of very high-paying jobs in software development once Facebook and Google make real splashes).

You might lament the fact that you can’t pay people as much as “those companies” but the truth is, you probably didn’t want to hire the folks who are primarily motivated by money. Even if you did hire them, they would have left for a nickel more somewhere else.

Examples

There are some pretty smart and capable people who work in your university library. And in non-profits. And as teachers in a public school system. 

They aren’t confused, wondering why they aren’t paid what blockchain special was making in 2019. They know the role they picked. They know that it wouldn’t take too too much to change roles and companies to make a lot more money, sometimes in roles or companies with less stress.

And if the objective value of money was their core motivation, they would.

But they don’t. Maybe they want to give back. Or support others. Or be in an organization that rewards long-term thinking. 

They are driven by a return on investment that isn’t financial in nature. They have a different set of metrics by which to measure their choices. 

And isn’t the opportunity to make our own choices what drives personal satisfaction?

+++++

Wow! I’ve never had such a reaction to a class before!

My “build a strategy from scratch” course has had more signups than all my other webinars combined! $25 to learn a career-supporting skill. Check it out!

***This Newsletter Contains No ChatGPT***

-James Ellis [LinkedIn] [Website]

###