Pancakes pt 2

The pancakes are already as good as they are. The recipe has been developed and tested and is now ready to be sold to the audience.

So whether they are priced at $.89 or at $8…the actual pancakes are what they are at this point.  The price now has more to do with marketing: what we’re thinking about as we consider ordering them and possibly eat them.

As is with your show. The recipe for your show is what it is at this moment in time.

So if you have a good or even great show, why would you charge $1? That doesn’t help anyone. There aren’t many people looking around for a great show where $2 is too much but $1 is just right.

And it doesn’t make you any money. It doesn’t help you experience your value. It doesn’t help me (the audience) mentally commit to the night.

If you have a recipe for a great show or great pancakes, you need to charge us for it.  

It helps everyone.

 

p.s. For those asking…It’s Burger King with the $.89 pancakes.  I don’t even believe their claim on burgers.



Don’t miss a post. Sign up for free.

I’m always interested in your perspective, whether affirming or dissenting. Continue the conversation anytime: gabethebassplayer@gmail.com

$.89 Pancakes

A fast food restaurant not far from my house is advertising $.89 pancakes on their marquee.

But I’m not looking for $.89 pancakes, I’m looking for a great pancake experience, regardless of price.  

(and as a side note, at this point in life I’m willing to shell out for pancakes)

In a similar sense…

I know making your show $2 or $3 or $5 for people to get in sounds like a good marketing idea to fill up the venue (and I’ve tried it before)…but it turns out most people don’t want a $2 show as much as they want a great show, a great night.

If you can provide people with a great night you can charge whatever you want…it’s no longer about getting a deal, you’re no longer trading on price.

It’s no longer about $.89 pancakes, it’s about a magnificent, indulgent pancake victory…no matter the cost.

p.s. What if the next goal wasn’t to go from $.89 pancakes to $.79 pancakes, but to go from $.89 pancakes to $25 pancakes?


Don’t miss a post. Sign up for free.

I’m always interested in your perspective, whether affirming or dissenting. Continue the conversation anytime: gabethebassplayer@gmail.com

3 Beatle Singers. 2 Beatle Mics.

The Beatles had three lead singers but only two vocal mics on stage. 

It wasn’t because they couldn’t afford a third mic. 

And It wasn’t because the road manager always forgot to ask the production crew to set up a third mic.

It was because for them two mics told a clearer, truer story than three mics

They didn’t NEED to share mics, but they did.  Why?

With only two mics we got to see them be in very close proximity to each other, play off each other, smile, and have different visual combinations: Paul w. George and John solo, John w. George and Paul solo, Paul solo and John solo, etc, etc. 

The audience in the 60’s (and all of us today) wanted to see them as a band, a gang, that they were very close with one another while each having his own personality. And with the close physical proximity it highlighted in great detail the similarities and differences of each of them.

That visual is incredibly powerful for how we perceive people.

And that was a big part of their magnetism. That they had this chemistry that we could SEE…and they made sure we didn’t miss it.

You don’t need anyone’s permission to take this idea and apply it to how you tell your story on stage. You could even start right now.

p.s. Notice…They didn’t share amps…the audience wouldn’t have been able to experience that sharing. It would have gone un-noticed…and the sound would have been even worse :)

p.p.s. It’s also interesting that the front center of the stage was rarely filled. THAT’s maybe the most impressive part…as front center of the stage is thought of as the most powerful place…an idea that I agree with moooooooost of the time.

p.p.p.s. I haven’t forgotten about Ringo. I’m actually quite a Ringo fan. And he had a vocal mic, but only when needed for a special lead vocal…which, we can all agree, was the right call.



Don’t miss a post. Sign up for free.

I’m always interested in your perspective, whether affirming or dissenting. Continue the conversation anytime: gabethebassplayer@gmail.com

Spending Time On Your Website

I’ve seen the research and I’m sure you have too…

We spend most of our time on websites that confirm, and contribute to, our biases, beliefs and priorities.

So, it begs the question…

What biases, beliefs and priorities is YOUR site confirming and contributing to?

Some people are spending consistent time on your website(s).

So get this: The questions ALREADY has an answer for you.

Do you know it?

Don’t miss a post. Sign up for free.

I’m always interested in your perspective, whether affirming or dissenting. Continue the conversation anytime: gabethebassplayer@gmail.com

If You’re Going To Check

If you’re going to check your Instagram likes every few hours you have to accept the fact that you will sometimes win and sometimes lose. And getting really good at checking doesn’t make any difference…as if that’s a thing one could get good at.

(Creating social media content and checking social media content are two different exercises)

You don’t have to check, measure, compare, envy, rank…but if you’re going to, you also sign up for BOTH losing and winning each hour you check.  

And one win is never enough…and another loss, well that’s the fuel you use to keep checking…isn’t it?

Don’t miss a post. Sign up for free.

I’m always interested in your perspective, whether affirming or dissenting. Continue the conversation anytime: gabethebassplayer@gmail.com

Hide And Seek

It turns out being really good at the hiding part of hide and seek isn’t very fun…even though the whole point of the hiding part is to hide where you can’t be found.

But not being found really sucks. It’s lonely, and eventually the seekers give up and forget about you.

I was really good at hiding. I wanted to be. That was the whole point right?

Now looking back, we can see that the point of hide and seek was never actually about being good at hiding or seeking…the point was to have fun. That was the whole reason anyone suggested the game in the first place.

It’s more fun to be found than to not be found.

And it’s more fun to have fun than be the best at hiding.

Once we know the point of hide and seek is to have fun, we make sure to have fun, even if it means being found.

Clarity of the REAL point is a sure step to achieving the real point.

(And often times the ‘point’ isn’t in the name, but the experience)

Don’t miss a post. Sign up for free.

I’m always interested in your perspective, whether affirming or dissenting. Continue the conversation anytime: gabethebassplayer@gmail.com