

Gary Vaynerchuk demonstrates how to get advertisers by cold calling - petercooper
http://garyvaynerchuk.com/post/78967452/want-to-get-advertisers-on-your-blogvlog-go-and-get-it

======
alttab
First off - making that cold call during the video like that was awesome and
he did a good job convincing the guy that what he was doing was valuable.
People doing business easily talk about business. Its not like they have to
initially "like your face."

Going after companies that are already advertising is also an obvious win as
their marketing teams probably have a budget that they need to fill.

Overall, hands down, the one thing I would take away from this incredible clip
is the fact that pure, unadulterated tenacity is severely underrated.

And as someone else pointed out - time to get a new iMac Gary :) (But only
because we told you to!)

~~~
dabent
I would have thought he was known for selling coffee instead of wine. He's got
undeniable energy.

------
kadavy
He's right - sometimes you need to stop working on your product, etc. and just
_ask_ someone to buy from you. I've had decent success signing up advertisers
directly. Way better CPM than Webmaster Welfare (AdSense).

------
stevederico
Just read his book cover to cover, its only 130 pages, he has motivated me to
get off my ass and do something. It is really easy to fall into the typical
social conventions and not do something because "I don't feel like it". Check
out a great talk on creating for the long term at RAILSCONF:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QWHkcCP3tA&feature=playe...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QWHkcCP3tA&feature=player_embedded)

~~~
dirtyaura
Everybody, seriously, watch that video. Awesome. A lot of wisdom about
creating community (or "caring about people who care about the shit you do").

------
aymeric
I love that Gary made his point live :)

------
barrydahlberg
Man this guy has some energy, I'm not sure what he's selling but I want it.

~~~
mahmud
The guy is good but he needs to tone down his rabid fans and sockpuppets:

[http://www.amazon.com/review/R3BNS1SYRL9X80/ref=cm_cr_rdp_pe...](http://www.amazon.com/review/R3BNS1SYRL9X80/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm)

Some poor lady reviewed his book and gave it 2-stars, the review laid dormant
for months and one day, out of nowhere, 70 people gave it an "unhelpful" mark.
That defies all logic and statistics and hints at massive coordination. When
she edited her review to acknowledge the astroturfing, they came out in droves
and started calling her names. Gary himself was civil, but the guy has a knack
for getting all critics to talk to him on the phone so he can "fix" any
misunderstandings.

Read it for yourself. It left a bad taste in my mouth anyway.

------
OoTheNigerian
I have met Gary in person and he has a way of making you feel so good about
yourself.

He is also a very practical man.

Great guy!

------
marcamillion
Thanks Gary Vee...that was pretty epic. I don't necessarily subscribe to your
RSS, but I love finding these little nuggets of gold.

------
fookyong
The guy runs a $60 million a year empire and won't spring for a new iMac? come
on Gary, that thing is an antique now!

~~~
rbreve
Thats why he is rich

~~~
DuncanIdaho
This is probably one of most important lessons taught by my mother: "A person
making a million dollars a month but spending million and one dollar is not a
wealthy person".

This is why "unfair" wealth distribution is actually good (please note that
context for this statement is "developed world" not missmatch in wealth
between regions). Since poor people (or poor families) are obviously lousy at
managing their resources. Thus the acumulated wealth is actually protected by
hoarders - since everybody else would have just spent it anyway.

~~~
yardie
I've known poor families that are the absolute masters at resources
management. Your argument is invalid because we have the "hoarders" holding
most of the money and doing jack shit economically except putting it in
savings. And we have the poor who aren't even paid enough to buy the things
they need much less have the ability to save.

You want to see an extreme case of hoarding look no further than Japan. Where
the people were so good at saving they never bought a thing which only caused
the economy to stall further, ie., "the lost decade".

The accumulation of wealth is never a good thing and we have a long history of
booms and busts to prove it.

~~~
paulgb
> doing jack shit economically except putting it in savings

I'm not an economist so maybe I'm missing the bigger picture, but by putting
the money in a savings account, aren't they increasing the amount of capital
available and thus helping to lower interest rates? If nobody hoarded, there
would be nobody to borrow from.

~~~
socksy
To an extent, you're right. The Harrod-Domar model of development suggests
that the amount of growth of an economy depends on the savings ratio over the
capital output ratio.

The reason for that is a bit mathematical, so bear with me:

When Savings = Investment (assuming for simplicity, no foreign trade)

    
    
      S=I (1)
      now S=sY (2), 

where little s is the savings ratio, and big Y is GDP (output), and

    
    
      I=ΔK,

which is to say investment is the difference in capital stock (which is the
definition of investment).

    
    
      ΔK=k.ΔY

where little k is the capital output ratio (amount of output produced per
change in capital),

    
    
      so I=k.ΔY (3).

Substituting (2) & (3) into (1) gives you:

    
    
      sY=k.ΔY

rearranging gives you

    
    
      ΔY/Y = s/k

or in other words, the rate of growth of GDP depends on the propensity of an
economy to save, and then how much of that saving goes into output.

So in a sense, you're right, but there's more to it than that.

The problems occur when there's _too much_ hoarding going on. Think of these
two theoretical extremes:

1) _Everyone saves, no-one spends._ (Leaving aside starvation and human needs
for the moment)

\- Obviously, since no-one spends anything, no-one ever gets paid. No
transactions happen at all, and interest rates drop (no-one's borrowing
anything!) so people suffer, and experience poorer standards of living as a
result. There's a lot of money, but no-one's doing anything with it.

2) _No-one saves at all, and everyone spends what they earn relatively
quickly_

\- In comparison to 1), this would mean that you're likely to be being paid a
lot, and quicker. You immediately spend this money on goods, so your quality
of life (in theory) increases immediately. It doesn't matter that you don't
have the money any more, as the next person along that you spent your money on
also immediately spends their money. Money travels around fast (the speed of
which it does this is known as the velocity of money), and so you're soon
being paid more money again, which again improves your quality of life. No
saving takes place - but no-one minds as there's so much money going around
that bootstrapping a business suddenly becomes a lot easier.

Obviously, 2) is unfortunately rather impossible to achieve - due to various
factors such as confidence and the difficulty in getting everyone to spend
lots. One noted problem is that rich people spend more money than poor people
- but they spend a smaller proportion of their income. Imagine someone with
£100,000 pa (after tax). They spend say, 20% of their income at £20,000 a
year. Now imagine someone earning a paltry £10,000 pa (after tax). They're
likely to spend a higher proportion of their income, say 80% at £8000 a year.
10 of these poorer people will spend £80,000 a year. So the theory goes, it's
better to have more people all spending and increasing the velocity of money,
than a few very rich people all hoarding.

In the real world, savings matter, because you can't get everyone to spend
lots of money all the time. However, these savings accounts can't be high
enough to jeopardise spending. It's a bit of a tightrope.

------
jw84
I venture to say Gary Vee has a hood pass to most any place in this world.
Including my heart.

