Expanding Our Reach

Resilient Life Public Resilient Life
,
21

Chris, Adam, your proposal to create a bigger platform seems a perfectly natural outflow from your brand message of sharing and collaboration in the face of great change.  I see at least 3 benefits: helping greater numbers of people to become resilient is a worthy cause in itself; the more people who are resilient and community minded increase the odds of positive outcomes collectively; and finally, to the extent there is still opportunity to influence the course of macro events, the more people who understand and are willing to speak up, the better.
It struck me that there may be an option to preserve the intimacy of the core community while gaining wider reach by creating a subsidiary of PP.   The trade-off would be more effort and a risk of brand dilution. 

 

22

…At least when you want recognition be it good or bad. My 2 cents: I think you have established your reputations as being solid, fact oriented and reliable. It will be very difficult to change that unless your peers turn on you.  I supposed that could happen if you get too popular (and professional envy takes over).  Still your peer group seems like a pretty upright bunch. If the message gets distorted it will hurt the recipients of the misinformation more than PP I think. Perhaps you can clarify it as needed at that point.
Based on my own very limited experience with media endeavors, you have little control once you wrap and the agenda of your collaborators will become first priority once you give them control.  It is still good to get the exposure in my opinion. 

Best wishes and looking forward to seeing what happens

Denise

23

I say roll. Sounds like you guys have thought this through and have considered the pros and cons. You know the reality better than anyone and need to make the call in the end.

24

Adam and Chris,
I want to first of all say that I appreciate you consulting with us. That tells me that you have recognized and respected that your business success is equal to the sum of its parts. That you include us as one of those parts is pretty amazing to me, given how prevalent greed and me me me is in this world. But then again, that is why I am a member here - integrity actually means something on this site. And for me, integrity is the name of the game - either you have it, or you don't. One cannot have a bit of integrity.

My first instinct is to do what you tell us - trust yourself. But then the devil's advocate in me pops up to throw a few curve balls at my thinking. So to go back to the first paragraph, do the people/companies/outfits you are thinking of getting into bed with have integrity? Will they still respect you in the morning (could not resist wink) But more than anything, will you still respect yourselves in the morning?

One question comes to mind, which is what is your ultimate motive? Is it to reach as many people as possible with this so very important message, therefore being a more altruistic goal; or is it to grow the business - which you are completely and totally entitled to do as entrepreneurs - and therefore a personal financial goal. I ask this only in light of Adams self admitted rant a while back about deep pockets helping much less worthy internet ventures get ahead, enriching the owners while good and decent sites like this struggle to make the big times. Make no mistake I am a capitalist at heart - the right kind of capitalist tho', not this greedy, corrupt model we are witnessing. I would not begrudge you any success you have, for in my eyes, you have earned it.

I am thinking of two popular sayings: "the early bird gets the worm" and "slow and steady wins the race". Is it possible to A) do this venture so that you are the early bird, but B) maintain enough control to keep the race under control and at a steady pace? If you can succeed in doing that, then I think you should go for it.

Either way, you have my support. If you go ahead with it something tells me that the many long time and dedicated members will lend support as and when needed. With luck, ever more diversity and insights from a larger membership base will tip us into the exponential growth territory for getting out the increasingly critical message of the 3E's. On that note, I would say take the plunge. If you don't, who will?

Jan

 

25

I have seen people who I admired who were offered broader media coverage walk into a hatchet job.  Basically being set up as fall guys to discredit the ideas and concepts that they represented.  I am sure that you have done your homework, but as the mainstream media message is seriously challanged, it will start to bite back hard.  I have seen it many times.  Go for it, but be ready for anything.

26

Chris and Adam:
Of all the things I like about this site, the most important for me is the restrained and balanced approach that it embraces.  All voices are heard and facts and logic are given great weight.

I fear that if we present the problems we face as if we were dealing with the "four horsemen of the apolypse" near term, a lot of thoughtful folks will be turned away. (That said, I do believe our current situation is very perilous.)

Another risky direction would be one which appears to be motivated by the desire to make money from approaching misery rather than one which is an expression of a deep concern for future generations. Financial matters should stress current wealth preservation and the well being of our grandchildren.

 

Good Luck

27

The point of the exercise has always been to expose people to the facts effectively.  If you find a way to get that done, then you are making progress.  If our little community here is disrupted, we will live.  The madmen and ideologues will still have to play by the rules here.  
Chris, this whole enchilada is yours and you have done a smashing job so far. . .we appreciate your scholarship and management expertise. . .get the message out there because the world is running out of time.  We don't have time to worry about "us".

Rector

28

The 'Chris Martenson' name is also a brand.  Your name is used for interviews on various financial news shows and is part and parcel of the Crash Course.  I might suggest segregating that brand andusing that as your initial feed site for a new large group and then encourage transfer over to Peak Prosperity for those who find it attractive. Others may want a different platform for discussion based around another mode of communication for instance.   Variety is the spice of life.  The Crash Course is info for all to digest.  Peak Prosperity is one response to that information. James E.

29

We're all here because we're looking for information that will help us get the message out.  Every one of us has run into road blocks in personal conversation because the message is not condusive to soundbites and not being discussed on CNN/FOX.  The Crash Course is robust and easily digestable and I firmly believe that if you can get it out there you'll eventually reach that "millionth monkey".  I'm happy to hear this and excited for where it leads.  Your existing community will just have to step it up so the new kids learn the rules.

30

I agree with most of the comments already posted especially JTWalsh and WestCoastJan (WCJ) so will keep this short.  Chris you know you have so much "cred" with your current audience that even if this new venue distorted the message, we would already know it was them and not you.  I personally think you HAVE to branch out…the message is too important and you are too good of a spokesperson for delivering this message that chances have to be taken to reach a broader audience.  I also agree with WCJ that you absolutely deserve to make a financial living and we want you to be successful financially in this endeavor…one of the concerns I have had about PP is whether it can generate enough revenue to grow the staff and provide the rewards commensurate with the value you are delivering.  Good luck in the new venture, we look forward to you reaching a broader audience and getting an increasing diversity of opinions…the truth will still win out.

31

Thanks for including us before the leap.  We appreciate that.  And we can hang on as the shock waves of a new culture come through pp.
I support you in getting this idea out to as big an audience as can possibly hear it.  And making money in ways that benefit the greater good of all.

32

OK, since you asked…The word needs to be spread, so a thoughtful and "due-diligenced" partnership seems inevitable and hopefully workable.  A couple thoughts though- what is the partner's expectation and interest in the CC?  And, "pearls before swine" comes to mind (remember those comments from readers of the Press Democrat article, Adam?).  But this isn't an issue of growth-for-growth's-sake.  It's a worthy and necessary expansion of what's going on here at PP.  I have full faith and confidence in you two to make this work for all of us and the not-yet enlightened.  Good luck, we're with you regardless of outcome, I'd wager.  Aloha, Steve.
 

33

Chris and Adam, you have my support in taking whatever course you think is best, and that appears to be the near unanimous concensus of everyone who has commented.  We know you would never “sell out” by compromising your message or principles to appeal to a broader audience.  If you continue to say the same things as you have, as clearly and articulately and well researched as you have, I don’t see how speaking to more people will change the content or impact of your message.  You may encounter more detractors along the way, and they will undoubtedly include those who have agendas that are unpleasant or at odds with your mission and goals for this site.  Unfortunately, I don’t see how that can be avoided if you begin speaking to a larger audience.  However, you will also educate many new people along the way who will be receptive, and that is what you must eventually do if these ideas are to cross into mainstream discourse.

34

I really appreciate and trust the integrity of the Peak Prosperity site because of the accuracy of the content, and the transparency shown through full-disclosure of business relationships. On the slim chance that their was a conflict between the editors rights and the big partner's / sponsors' (?) preferences, with what level of transparency would / could it be dealt with? It it plausable that contractual obligations would impede transparency on certain choices made behind the scenes (podcast guest selection, etc) or even about the occurance of such a conflict? What would members expectations be for such a scenario? 

35

The whole reason you and Chris and all of us share our views on this site is because we are trying to develop a Plan B for our future.
It would be really good to know that you and Chris have a Plan B in place in the unlikely event of a collapsing partnership :-/

xx

36

Chris & Adam,
Who better to try and spread the word than you?  While I have been somewhat of a background participant here, I have seen and learned that you both have stayed the course with your message, surrounded yourselves with quality people to help spread that message, and have provided a plethora of information and 'guidance' to help those who wish to help themselves (and are aware enough to know they need to).

 And like many, seeing the glazed look in the eyes of friends and family when I start talking about how 'things' really are, I think if an opportunity arises for you to spread your message, it is greatly needed at this point.  Before we know it, it will be too late!  

My only caveat - just make sure the expansion doesn't end up like the show doomsday preppers!  At first start, it looked like it might be a good show to offer the masses some ideas on how to be prepared, and then it was presented as people obsessed with preparing for some type of apocalypse.  And of course, no one takes it seriously.  That said, you all have proven resourceful in your efforts thus far, I imagine that will continue.  

Good luck!

37

Thanks for the "heads up", but she's your ship, gentlemen, steer her as you may. 
I am curious to see what you've come up with.  Obviously you share the same frustration that the rest of us have as to trying to raise the alarm, only to be met with blank looks of bovine simplicity or smirks and the suggestion that we don't have enough tin foil in our hats.

Paul Revere knew that things might end very badly too.  Ride, gentlemen, ride!

John G

38

First, I'd have to say that a big reason the Crash Course is not a household topic is that most people don't want to consider it, even if they essentially agree with it.
My wife is an excellent example.  She is totally in agreement that we are in trouble, but doesn't want the topic discussed and doesn't want to do anything more than very basic preparation.  

Others who I've shared the message with treat me like a lunatic.  That's not going to change until people are ready.  Peak Prosperity is not alone in this.  The message has been around literally for decades.  In some cases, as with Peak Prosperity, it has been presented intelligently and in a manner hard to refute.  Yet, it still is largely ignored.

I believe a major event will have to take place to make people pay attention, possibly even larger than another stock market crash.  

The only thing missing is willingness on the part of the audience.  If they were ready, the message would get out.  I would tell two people, who would tell two people…

Having said that, I think it's important who Peak Prosperity affiliates with.  Peak Prosperitites reputation at this point is largely pure and the message largely unencumbered by a national bias one way or the other.  If Peak Prosperity directly affiliates with a larger media presence, then any bias that the public holds toward that organization rubs off to an extent on Peak Prosperity.   Part of this is any credibility bias.  If, for example, you affiliate with a media presence that has alienated 40% of the population, you stand to immediately loose that same portion of the population.

Again, you know all of this and have more information than we do.  Like others on this site, I trust your judgment.

Les

39

Something to consider before taking the plunge:
I know somone who was the editor of a small local newspaper. With his blessing the paper ran an article with an environmental message that shone a less than favourable light on the auto industry.  A few local car dealerships voiced their displeasure by threatening to pull their advertising business away from the paper if the article was not retracted. Sadly, the publisher sided with the dealerships (money talks, right…) and the editor resigned, being unwilling to go along with advertisors getting editorial veto.

So… given the powerful lobby of the advertising industry, and given that most websites are revenue dependent on advertising, is this type of thing a concern? The people you are going to partner with could be stellar at the outset, but if arms get twisted by advertisors will that cause them to change their tune? Something to think about.

Jan

40

 

I agree with you LesPhelps and I've had similar experiences:

First, I'd have to say that a big reason the Crash Course is not a household topic is that most people don't want to consider it, even if they essentially agree with it.

My wife is an excellent example.  She is totally in agreement that we are in trouble, but doesn't want the topic discussed and doesn't want to do anything more than very basic preparation.  

Others who I've shared the message with treat me like a lunatic.  That's not going to change until people are ready.  Peak Prosperity is not alone in this.  The message has been around literally for decades.  In some cases, as with Peak Prosperity, it has been presented intelligently and in a manner hard to refute.  Yet, it still is largely ignored.

I believe a major event will have to take place to make people pay attention, possibly even larger than another stock market crash.     

I've had the same experience.  I've started identifying more and more people who have inside themselves a deep vague sense of forboding for our future.  But it's too overwhelming or frightening for them to deal with, so they push it down deeper into their minds/hearts, and try to get back to every day life.  They don't want to think or talk about it, but they sense something VERY BAD is just around the next bend in the road.  They try not to think about it, but it keeps popping into their consciousness.

Maybe they don't need more facts or evidence, but maybe they need someone to help them emotionally deal with what they fear.  Many need more of an emotion-based intervention, not a fact-based intervention.  Most of us here have responded to the fact-based intervention (The Crash Course, for instance).  The personality  types of the majority of people need an emotion-based intervention.  Their style is not to deal with the facts until they have the emotional resources in place to do so.  Secondly, most people's initial attention is NOT captured by facts, but by emotions.  Many of us here deal with the facts first, then get our emotions involved.  (All of that does NOT mean that emotion-based approaches are devoid of facts, or that fact-based approaches disregard emotions.  It DOES mean people start at different places to deal with the same problem.)

Whatever happens next, I think we might benefit by appealing to the hearts as well as to the minds of our neighbors.  (BTW, within The Crash Course the section about exponential growth using Fenway Park filling up with water as an illustration is an appeal to emotion, and a powerful one.) 

What's the old proverb?  "When the student is ready, the teacher will appear."