MY LATEST ACTIVITIES

Haven't Blogged here for a while, so I wanted to let you know what I've been up to. I have now had over 36,000 views of my over 855 Ezine Articles. It's pretty exciting! I've also done some Blogging on local issues on the Port Washington Patch.

Perhaps the most exciting two pieces of news both occurred within the past month:

1) Started a new corporation. The company is: PLAN2LEAD, LLC, and has a trademark pending. Take a look at the website at: www.plan2lead.net. The concept of PLAN2LEAD is to give the best consultations in the fields of leadership, training, management, negotiations, and event planning, as well as assist organizations in the important task of strategic planning. I will also be continuing my popular seminars on attitude adjustment, mental attitude, positive thinking, Getting a Yes, etc.

2) My novel, THE FAMILY BUSINESS was published last week on Kindle ebooks. You can download it on your Kindle, your computer, or just about any other tablet. Just use the free Kindle App. In search, just type in: Richard Brody The Family Business.

Keep following. Some exciting things coming up in the near future.

Postcards As Effective And Cost-Effective Marketing Method

With so many alternatives available, it is often asked which method of marketing is most effective. Because of escalating costs, many businesses and organizations have opted for predominantly electronic marketing (internet), but those using exclusively electronic market often complain that they are not getting the response they anticipated. While some corporations are successful using predominantly internet marketing, the most successful "Web" campaigns are those that use other media to direct the target audience online. Some of those media include television, radio, print media (newspapers and magazines), advertising (including banners) on other Web sites, and direct mail marketing.

Although internet marketing is quite effective in attracting certain target markets, the exclusive use of internet marketing often excludes a number of potential "targets." Certain products directed toward certain generations of individuals can be marketed primarily by electronic marketing (however, there is still the need to direct the target market to the site that one wants to market), but other products, and many services need more attention to "conventional" marketing.

Many organizations have dramatically reduced printing and mailing as their primary method of "outreach," predominantly because of the escalating costs of printing and postage. Some then substitute an almost exclusive electronic "outreach" method, and many are then disappointed to find, for example, that attendance at events and conferences, as well as membership dues and donations collections end up suffering, as a result. While the elaborate multi-colored, expensive paper, expensive to mail magazines and brochures produced years ago usually are difficult to justify, less expensive printing and mailing should often be considered.

However, any mailing should effectively "sell the sizzle", so that even a casual glance by a viewer would "catch the eye" and interest the recipient. Statistics indicate that conventional mailing in envelopes can be quite ineffective, because it is time consuming to produce and distribute, can be costly, and does not get enough "views." The reality with "envelope" mailing is that a large number of recipients never even open the envelope, considering it to be "junk," and never bothering to view the contents and message. On the other hand, postcards can be quite effective, because the message cannot be easily avoided by the viewer, and they are relatively inexpensive to produce and distribute.

An organization has two choices in terms of the type of postcard to send, regular-size or over-sized. While some argue that over-sized get more "views," studies have indicated that both sizes, if produced correctly, receive approximately the same response. The huge advantage of regular sized postcards is that they are significantly less expensive to mail.

The most effective postcards are those that are printed on both sides, with a "sell the sizzle," catchy phrase on the address side, and the words "See Other Side" printed cleverly. On the other side, a very brief, to the point message, emphasizing the main message, and providing a phone number, an e-mail contact address, and a website to go to for details. Depending on the type of mailing, typical response rates on organizational postcard mailings range from about one to eight percent. In addition, an effective ;postcard campaign can be produced for approximately $350 per thousand pieces (even less if not-for-profit bulk rates are taken advantage of), including printing and postage.

Organizations that really want to optimize their results should use creative postcard marketing, in conjunction with internet promotions. Postcards are both cost effective and productive, and will improve results of any organization's marketing!

Things Donors Should Consider

Many individuals are uncertain which non-profit to support because they don't know which will most effectively use the monies. There are a number of factors to consider, and donors are correct to be careful. Simply because a charity supports causes that the donor believes in, may not be a sufficient reason for a donor to financially support that charity. In some cases, it might be best for a donor to support a larger, better known not-for-profit, while there are other circumstances when it may make more sense to support a smaller, local charity.

Some of the essential questions donors should ask before donating, include:

(1) What percentage of donations go towards actual programs or grants, and what percentage goes towards administration? There are great variances in the actual percentages that go towards each, and it is extremely important that organizations keep their overheads down. Donors must also clearly see that an organization has accomplished something constructive in its mission in the recent past, and on an ongoing basis, and has a well formulated plan as to how it intends to use future funds received.

(2) In addition to cash, what other donations does the organization accept? Does the organization accept items like cars and boats, and then liquidate them for cash? Does the organization take securities (stocks, bonds, etc), and what is the organization's policy regarding holding onto or selling the security? What is their investment reasoning? Does the organization contact manufacturers to supply relevant products in lieu, or in addition to cash donations?

(3) If the organization gives grants, what is the size of their corpus? What are the investments being used? Is the investment portfolio appropriate? What is the investment philosophy - - - preservation of capital; income; income with safety; growth; mixed? Who manages the portfolio and how often is it reviewed?

(4) Does the donor share a common ethic or goals or vision with the organization?

(5) Has the organization consistently filed timely Form 990's with the Internal Revenue Service, and the state, when necessary? Are the organizations financial statements and filings readily available for viewing by potential donors?

(6) Are the "books" reviewed, audited, etc.? How often? What is the report?

(7) Does the organization openly disclose its financials, including Profit and Loss Statements; Balance Sheets; and Investment Portfolio (including comparisons and actuals for a minimum of three years)?

(8) What is the organization's Grant Process, if it gives grants? Who determines who gets grants, and what is the application process? Is the Application Process publicized and open?

(9) Does the organization's operations, actions and activities appear transparent?

(10) Donors should contact several previous recipients and ask questions about their experience with the organization, etc?

(11) Donors should request permission to contact other previous donors, so they can check on their experience with the organization.

(12) Are there any apparent conflicts of interest between the Board members, Trustees, Officers, Staff Members, and projects/ programs the organization is involved in?

(13) Does the organization have any complaints filed against it?

Organizations should welcome donors that ask these questions, and actively assist the potential donor in feeling comfortable with the organization. Non- profits must realize that there is lots of competition for donations, and the non-profit that is most transparent and cooperative will make most donors the most comfortable.

Non-Profit Trustees Fiduciary Responsibilities

While each individual is entitled to make his own investment judgments regarding appropriate vehicles for his personal funds and accounts, not-for-profit trustees are entrusted with specific fiduciary responsibilities. These fiduciary responsibilities have been established to ensure the safety, stability and security of not-for-profit's funds. Unfortunately, these rules have been rather general rather than specific in most cases, and that has led to financial disaster for certain not-for-profits. In my many decades of consulting to not-for-profit organizations, I have found that most Trustees or Board members appear to be completely unfamiliar with how serious their fiduciary responsibilities are, and should be taken.

We have all heard and read about the impact of the monies managed by Bernie Madoff, on not-for-profits that invested in those vehicles. Putting aside the issue of the legality and legitimacy of Madoff's transactions, many believe that hedge funds in general, because of their sometimes speculative nature, and lack of certain controls that other investments possess, would be inappropriate vehicles under any circumstances for any not-for-profit. The logic behind these rules is that while an individuals who speculates with his own monies only impacts himself and his family, non-profits that speculate may put at risk monies that have been entrusted to it to serve specific causes or missions.

TheFreeDictionary.com defines the "prudent man rule" as "the requirement that a trustee, investment manager of pension funds, treasurer of a city or county, or any fiduciary (a trusted agent) must only invest funds entrusted to him/ her as would a person of prudence, i.e. with discretion, care and diligence. Thus solid "blue chip" securities, secured loans, federally guaranteed mortgages, treasury certificates and other conservative investments providing a reasonable return, are within the prudent man rule."

The "Prudent Man Rule" has been the standard since around 1830, when there was a dispute settled by the Massachusetts courts. There have been many adaptations since then, because of the different and increased number of types of vehicles available to invest in today. One of the updates has been, for example, to include the concept of "diversification" into the definition, so an organization is not over- exposed to one particular investment. Thus, if we apply that towards the Madoff investments, even if the trustees felt that the investments might have some appropriateness as one of their investments, the many non- profits who were ruined or nearly ruined financially by holding this investment were obviously not being prudent by having a very large percentage in these investments. Trustees must not be blamed when an unforeseen circumstance causes otherwise suitable investments to financially implode, but the trustees must be held to the intent of the "prudent man rule" when making investment decisions.

Trustees must re-examine investments on a recurring basis, and assure that any changing circumstances has not changed the suitability status of a particular investment. They must insist that the portfolios be diversified as to type of investment (common stocks, preferred stocks, treasury bonds, corporate bonds, etc., as appropriate), industries invested in (no over-concentration on what investment area, e.g. technology, health, pharmaceuticals, etc.), and that the portfolio is suitably diverse. Many organizations have begun to utilize some facsimile of what is known as the "20/5 Rule." This means that, for example, that no more than twenty percent of the portfolio be invested in any one industry, and that no more than five percent be invested in any single investment.

Trustees have the fiduciary responsible to assure compliance with the "prudent man rule." This is important, not solely for legal reasons, but also for moral, ethical, and safety reasons as well.

Beware Of Leaders Using Revisionist History

Many leaders "remember" the past in a manner that puts them in the "best" light. While a few simply misstate the facts, the majority convince themselves that they took a position that they truly did not. In my three decades to working with not-for-profit organizations, I have discovered that the large majority of leaders want to avoid blame for something that did not work out, either because of an action taken, or one that probably should have been taken that they avoided. It has amazed me how many of these leaders recall "history" in a manner somewhat different from reality. However, in all fairness, much of this is probably because of these leaders original perceptions of the situation.

Whenever one leads an organization, there will always be certain things that do not work out either as hoped for, or as anticipated. To a large degree, these leaders made their original decisions based on their own perceptions, biases, prejudices, and prejudgments. One of the most consistent errors made by volunteer leaders is that they do not effectively listen, nor are they properly trained and thus adept at the decision making process. Most leaders cannot visualize that there are always ramifications of every action or inaction. Leaders must be trained to "play the devil's advocate," and analyze as many possible scenarios as possible. Yet, because most organizations are sorely lacking when it comes to both their leadership training efforts, as well as their leadership candidate vetting, more issues than should occur, happen, and many leaders are ill- equipped, or flexible enough, to adapt to changes. In the past three decades, I have trained many individuals about leadership and leadership training that also pertinent to this behavior.

Instead of admitting that all humans need training, and every individual has certain strengths and weaknesses, many leaders develop a defense mechanism, to basically "cover their behinds" if the chosen action (or inaction) backfires, or simply doesn't end up as desired and intended. The challenge organizations face is that generally the individual chosen for a leadership position excels in his own field, and is often used to being the "go-to" person in that setting. Many of these individuals begin to believe that because they are so intelligent, talented, and respected in their full-time endeavors, that their expertise will also transfer to organizational leadership. However, those of us who have observed organizations and organizational dynamics for a considerable period of time, realize that often, organizational leadership, requires a different skill-set. Finding an individual with good personal and background traits, experience, and expertise, who will also be willing to be trained professionally in organizational leadership, is often a challenging and somewhat awkward task. That is probably one of the main reasons that most organizations avoid true leadership training, rather putting together their own unproven training, as if "reinventing the wheel" is the way to go. Undoubtedly, the most effective training programs are the ones that utilize tried and proven techniques and methods. This type of behavior should be properly addressed by organization's implementing professionally designed leadership training programs.

Revisionist history may make the individual feel better, and appear better initially. However, it does not change the realities or the facts, nor address the needed actions that must be taken when something does not work out as intended.

Stop Fighting The Same Battles Over Again

Many individuals continue to bring up old events and occurrences, to defend present points of view, and actions. Not only is that unproductive, but it is also unhealthy and unwise. Individuals who take this course of action constantly rehash old "stuff," and seem to be constantly "re-fighting old battles." These individuals should learn and understand that one's perception of events is generally not the same as someone else's, and that circumstances, situations, and people change and adapt constantly. Often the event occurred because of a differing point of view or perspective, and that one's opinion of another might also change over time.

Especially with people under twenty-five, old memories of someone or something else could have been greatly impacted by exceptional circumstances that either party experienced at that point in time. Often, one individual "matures" sooner than another, or one's tolerance of a particular behavior might change over time. It is also possible that one or both individuals might have changed over the course of time. If that were not the fact, we would all have many of the same friends throughout our lives, yet most of us do not.

The high percentage of divorces is another evidence of how circumstances and perspectives change over time. People grow apart, points of views change, and many individuals are far less than tolerant about changes

It is important that people learn the importance of "letting it go." It is not constructive to permit things, events, or people continue to impact and bother you. Rather than taking satisfaction from 'holding a grudge," and begrudging others imperfections, and what you perceive as improprieties, or what many of today's generation refer to as a "Dis," it is far more constructive to "move on." One need not once again become friends with the other individual, but continuous anger is often an unhealthy situation. It is far better to merely accept that most people have imperfections, and one will rarely like everything someone else says, or does, so just "let it go." The concept of a "Dis," which is short for disrespect or disrespectful behavior or action, is often far more perception related than actual.

My best advice is simply strive to be the best individual you can be, and to concern yourself less with other's behavior, which are beyond your control. This is often a difficult thing to do, but is almost always healthier for you, and for getting anything accomplished, than "harping" on the past. There is no magic formula for regaining peace and calm from a stressful situation, but "moving on" is generally the best course of action.

Too many people worry about being friends or being liked. It is my belief that the only one that you truly have any control over, in the long run and the big picture, is you. Try it, and you will notice that it is a workable, more relaxing and productive course of action.

Men Will Probably Understand Women

It is probably an understatement to say that most men and most women approach much of life from different perspectives. There are far many more differences between the sexes than simply the obvious biological factors. Anyone who observes female and male behavior will notice that there are major differences in the manner of social interaction, conversations, emotions, needs, and overall demeanor, as well as how each gender generally approaches getting things done. While, of course, there are exceptions to these guidelines, this article examines the common differences.

One of my closest friends, who has been married for close to thirty five years, insists that he will never be able to understand female logic, and that the longer he is married, and the older he gets, he has become increasingly convinced that the expression, "female logic" might actually be an oxymoron. I am equally certain that many women feel the same way about men.

In general, women need to have conversations far more than men. When couples go out to eat together, the women are generally non-stop conversation, barely stopping to take the breath. The men, on the other hand, generally make one or two often snide comments or remarks, or merely look at each other in a "knowing" manner. When women need to use the "powder room," they almost invariably travel in pairs. One rarely sees that kind of social interaction between men, requiring to "use the facilities."

I have often heard women say to men, "You don't understand," and, in most cases, they are right. More women think or react emotionally than men do. Most women enjoy social interactions with other women, such as book clubs, etc., while most men interact with other men via athletics, drinking, or gambling.

Have you ever observed the average length of time most women spend on the telephone, compared to most men? Have you noticed how women generally ask far different questions, and often have far different concerns, than most men? Why is it that most women appear far more "family oriented" than most men?

It is often difficult for a male to be able to understand something from a female perspective, just as I'm sure it is also difficult for females to see the male perspective. Whether it is hormonal differences,different social upbringing, some other factor or factors, or some combination, it is quite rare than men and women approach matters from the same perspective. There are often differences between the sexes in terms of concentration, ability to multi-task, emotional detachment, emotions, intelligence in certain concentrated areas (in facts, studies have often shown that males are stronger in some areas, and females in others), creativity, interests, social interaction, personality, etc. I believe the probability is that since men have never truly understood women, nor women men, that this scenario will probably continue.