Apology in advance
..... Feel free to ignore
Yeah! This ^^^^^^^^^^^^
Feel others have kinda already said it, but maybe I'll try as simple of an example as I can:
Brewer, you have a dollar that I would like to have (again, outside of fraud, coercion, theft, force, etc etc).
I can make some random widget, and then expect you to just walk right in and hand me that dollar. But it doesn't work that way. No, just blindly doing things doesn't help.
However, if I can identify a need of yours, then I might have some leverage.
If I can create something that is of a benefit to you, something that is of more value to you than the value of the dollar is to you, then I have a success in this transaction.
You get the benefit of the widget. I get the benefit of the dollar. Win-win. (As I think we both said).
BUt I couldn't do that, without some concern about your benefit. Sure the end result is me having that dollar, but I couldn't have done it without worrying about a benefit for you in the first place.
That is a
very simplistic representation of where I was going.
I do note that initially I was being a bit hyperbolic (and I did clearly say tounge-in-cheek) and I think that might have been mis-read. To be clear: I don't think any company makes widgets for charity. Well... except charities.
I do recognize that the end goal is not just a happy customer with NOTHING ELSE as a gain for a company. But for an exchange to work there has to be benefit for both sides and the burden is on a company to suss out a benefit (potential, perceived, or actual) for their customer.
It *seems* Brewer has a more draconian take on the same exchange. (Forgive me if I am putting word in Brewer's mouth.) I think we both agree that in the end, it is win-win. It seems Brewer has a much more negative attitude, as a businessman, to the companies as they don't "give two shits" (French is excused) about the customers, whereas I think to be successful a company has to give shits. (Well, not real ones... that's a TOTALLY different biz model.
) That's why the whole "glass half/full" or "two sides of coin" thang.
And honestly, as previously stated, it was never about Brewer's comments. It was more a stance against the zero-sum-game perception that seems to be so prevelant: The notion that nothing isn't gained without it being at another's expense. (again, not talking about fraud, coercion, theft, force, etc.)
But that's a whole 'nuther more complex discussion, and I wanted to keep the examples/discussion here as simple as can be.
PS:
The selling ice to eskimos comment--
Sure! If you can provide a benefit to them, then by all means! Maybe they are too busy hunting walrus (walrui?
) to be bothered to chip out the proper ice, and would gladly exchange some walrus meat for the effort I took to chop ice into perfect igloo shaped cubes. (And I won't have to hunt, and can focus on ice carving.)
Welcome to division of labour!
PPS:
Honorable mention for JCat