VeraSage

Ted Waggoner

Ron,

I read it a month ago or so.  I take it that even the best of something has little meaning if we are not interested in it, or seeking it out.  Bell is obviously one of the greatest violinists in the world today, and I own several CDs. I enjoy it, but can see myself being otherwise absorbed. 

What does it mean to PKW, lawyers or accountants?  That we are not likely to sell services, no matter how good, without somehow getting the attention of those who we know need our services.  We have to put ourselves on the radar, when they are looking at the radar, but then we need to find a way to get them to look at the radar.

Your thoughts Ron?

Philip Arnfield

What does this mean? For me there are 3 lessons from this story.

The most obvious being that having earned $32 for his troubles Joshua Bell would have been much better off billing The Washington Post by the hour. (Just kidding Ron!)

The second thing this story demonstrates is that beauty, like value, is contextual.

The majority of people that chose not to indulge in a beautiful expereience were people focused on the busyness of their day.

The children listened to the music in a completely different context. They were prepared to engage with the beauty because their minds were not focused elsewhere.

The waiter and shoe shine lady also expereienced the magic in a different context to the commuters. They were in the relative calm of the routine of their day as opposed to chaos of getting there. Their minds were more willing to be touched by the magic.

And the third lesson I take from this story is that context can change.

John Picarello, the cultural hero, was a commuter just like the thousand other people that entered the mall. However, the context in which he heard Joshua Bell was very different to everyone else. The fact that he had studied to be a concert musician allowed him to to change his context from commuter to audience member as soon as he realised what he was listening to.

What is of interest is that Joshua Bell received one sixth of his earnings from one one thousand of his audience. That part of the audience that understood the value that was on offer.

And this reminds me that it is critical that we communicate to our customers the value we provide to them.

Consider the different outcome that would have resulted if the The Washington Post chose to change the context of the commuters experience by communicating the value on offer through this sign placed outside the entrance to the mall.

“Ïnside this mall is is one of the best musicians on Earth playing some of the best music ever written on a violin hand crafted by Antonio Stradivari in 1713!”

And now back to my tounge in cheek opening remarks.

This story perhaps also provides an insight into why so many professionals (including me) still choose to charge by the hour. Even though everything we read on this wonderful web site encourages us and provides a sound basis to do otherwise. And that is concern; a fear that we will transfer value without appropriate reward or recognition, as Joshua Bell did on January 12th.

Ed Kless, Senior Fellow, Verasage Institute

To put a Randian spin on this, I would ask, “Who is Bell playing for?” Not just in the subway, but in his concert appearences. He should be playing for himself in all cases. Who cares what anybody thinks! The mirror image of this story is this video, I am sure most of you saw it, but it still give me chills, every time I view it -->
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxOytYLlhiQ

We need to act in our own rational self-interest, not to do so is madness. If Joshua Bell preferred to wash cars for a living, he should give up the violin immediately. I recently gave a speech in Las Vegas on “Trashing the Timesheet.” I did so not because I cared if anyone listened, but because I have a desire to think and talk about this stuff.

Chad Bordeaux

I read the book Brain Rules recently.  For those that are not familiar with it, it was a book about how the human brain actually works and relates those principles to help you better succeed at work (or home or school). 

Anyway, I think the article relates to one of the Brain Rules in particular.  The basis of the rule is the fact that it is scientifically impossible to multitask effectively.  Most of these individuals are focused on one thing - getting to work as quickly as possible.  Most of them are so focused on this task, that the pay little attention to things going on around them.  How many times have each of us been so focused on driving to the office that when we get there, we do not remember anything about the drive over?

Ron Baker

Thank you everyone for your comments. I thought I’d share what some other VeraSage fellows said:

Michelle Golden:  Wow. I think one line sums it up:  life slowly starts to choke the poetry out of us.

Peter Byers and Yan Zhu:  Fascinating article indeed.  I went out and purchased a cd that had Bach’s ‘Chaconne’ on it. Amazing.

Yan and I consciously apply Lin YuTang’s ‘The Importance of Living’ and we both totally agree with W H Davies—“What is life if, full of care, we have no time to stand and stare”.

Tim Williams: he had the same reaction I did, basically a marketing angle about context and value.

I’ll respond more next…

Ron Baker

Ted: I agree with your comments. The fascinating thing about this is that everyone has a different take and there’s no one right answer. I guess it depends on how you see the world. Marketers give one answer, lawyers and CPAs another.

Here’s what I thought: it validates the subjective theory of value and invalidates the labor theory of value. Joshua Bell should have earned an equal amount no matter where he played the violin--after all, it took the same amount of “billable hours.”

Philip: Your three lessons are brilliant. And the answer to your concern, expressed in your last paragraph, is contained in your own lesson. You simply must communicate the value of what you do! I know you can do that, and the value you capture as a result will dwarf what you can make by the hour, or what Joshua can make playing in a busy subway station.

Ed: I love it, a Randian spin!

Chad: Great point, and in fact I picked this story out of a book I recently read entitled “Sway,” and they say the study is an example of “value attribution.” A mental shortcut that allows us to function.

The downside is it makes us impervious to new theories or ideas. I haven’t read Brain Rules, but it sounds like Sway is the same type of book. It’s a book about how some actions of us humans are irrational.

Thank you everyone for sharing your opinions, fascinating topic.