Posts

163. Joe Matarese: Entrepreneurial Solutions To Medical Tyranny (Part 2, The Solution)

/0 Comments/in /by

The medical care industry is so restrictive of individual freedoms — those of both of doctors and patients — that we can legitimately classify it as tyrannical. As is always the case, the solution will come from entrepreneurship, the creative and innovative response of individuals, doctors and teams and firms and their new business models to the dissatisfactions of patients and users of today’s system.

Joe Matarese is one of those innovative individuals. In episode #162 of the Economics for Business podcast, he described the nature and cause of the problem. In episode #163, he surveys the entrepreneurial solutions, some of which are beginning to emerge and some of which still lie in the future.

Key Takeaways and Actionable Insights

As with all entrepreneurial solutions, the consumer is in the driving seat.

The consumer — in this case, the patient — are clear in what they want, and what they don’t always get: quality care, accessible and convenient, at an affordable price.

Their definition of quality includes the alignment of interests between medical professionals and patients. Accessibility and convenience result from timely response to patient needs as opposed to lines, waiting rooms and delays. Affordable prices will arise when pricing is open as opposed to hidden behind the veil of insurance, co-pays, and healthcare-as-a-benefit rather than as an economic good.

Direct Primary Care is the business model that aligns doctor and patient interests.

The new emerging model of membership-based primary care (see BigTreeMedical.com) is a doctor or a small team of doctors setting up an independent practice and recruiting a customer base of subscription-paying patients. In return for a monthly or annual subscription, the patient enjoys access, and one-on-one consultations on demand (usually via tele-medicine visits). The doctor is often networked into a pharmacy (or the practice obtain a pharmacy license) so the patients access to drugs is facilitated, and the prices of drugs to the patient can be lowered.

Most importantly, the patients are able to build a strong relationship with their primary care doctor. Health monitoring can be closer and more personalized, and early treatment — one of the most important variables in medical care efficacy — can be facilitated.

The direct primary care practice is networked into specialists and treatment centers so that the doctor and patient together can choose the treatment pathway that is best for the individual — tailored to individual circumstances and needs.

Personalized technology supplements the Direct Primary Care model, greatly enhancing the health outcome benefits for the patient.

The direct primary care model and one-on-one patient-physician relationship provide the ideal conditions for the deployment of modern personalized technologies. Condition-monitoring watches and wristbands and other wearable or portable consumer electronics can provide the doctor with monitoring data and send an alert for any change in condition or abnormal reading. The doctor or patient can call for an immediate diagnostic consultation.

A direct primary care practice can be networked into an imaging center and a testing center for supplemental data acquisition — many of the new devices are mobile and can come to the patient, rather than vice versa, or can provide more immediate and convenient accessibility.

Personalized networked tech provides a new infrastructure for patient-directed monitoring and analysis (whereas the Obamacare “standard of practice” protocol predetermines what tests and diagnostics a patient can access, locked behind a bureaucratic gateway).

An entrepreneurial ecosystem of services will emerge to support the Direct Primary Care model.

The opportunities for entrepreneurs in the new medical care ecosystem are, to use Joe Matarese’s word, endless. He cited, as an example, the Surgery Center Of Oklahoma (SurgeryCenterOK.com), which posts cash prices for surgeries online (no hidden fees), and can usually provide service within 24 hours. They take no insurance and patients pay cash. On a broader geographic scale, medical tourism destinations with open pricing give patients the opportunity to find best pricing and provide the latest equipment and top doctors.

There are cost sharing services such as Sedera (Sedera.com) that offer new ways for patients to pay for healthcare in a peer-to-peer sharing of large unexpected medical costs. Sedera’s Cash Pay Directory provides educational resources and shopping tools to “help members become savvy healthcare shoppers”.

There are negotiation vendors who help patients to get fair pricing on medical bills from the big hospital conglomerates. There are online pharmacy vendors, like Mark Cuban’s Cost Plus Drug Company (CostPlusDrugs.com), to help patients shop for the best drug values.

There are entrepreneurial services like Freedom Health Works (FreedomHealthWorks.com) to help Direct Primary Care doctors with billing systems, office tech and the business infrastructure for a modern practice.

In the entrepreneurial world of healthcare, entrepreneurs compete to provide the best and most affordable services ecosystem so that patients can enjoy the best healthcare.

Open pricing and cash payments are an important component of the new system.

A big problem, perhaps the biggest problem, with the current medical care system is that the price system is not able to work in the way that it works in free markets. As Joe put it in episode #161, medical care system is “price-less”. Because payments are made by a third-party payer and not by the individual consumer, pricing becomes opaque to the user and economic calculation is rendered impossible. The third-party payment veil has resulted in price escalation and price manipulation and multiple prices for the same procedure at the same facility depending on whether the payments are immediate or deferred and the degree of bureaucratic and regulatory involvement.

If patients were to pay cash for treatments, they could make better decisions about exchange value. Catastrophic insurance for unexpected and rare events would make the use of insurance more like its application in car insurance and fire insurance — a properly priced optional spreading of risk for unexpected future events.

Consumers and physicians will collaborate in the creation of a parallel system for medical care.

Joe Matarese believes the status quo medical care edifice is too rigid and entangled to reform. The solution lies in a parallel system. If consumers activate their demand for improvements in quality, accessibility, convenience and payments systems, entrepreneurs will respond with new market-based offerings. Customers will flock to them because of the benefits they perceive in contrast to the current system. Market feedback loops of satisfaction and dissatisfaction will rapidly fine-tune the new parallel system to a higher level of value and acceptance. Joe estimates that to will take only 5-10 years for the new system to take over.

Additional Resources

“Entrepreneurial Solutions to Medical Tyranny” (PDF): Mises.org/E4B_163_PDF

Medicus Healthcare Solutions: MedicusHCS.com

162. Joe Matarese: Medical Tyranny and Its Entrepreneurial Solutions (Part 1, The Problem)

/0 Comments/in /by

Medical care in the US exemplifies how the perverse effects of accumulated, self-reinforcing economic errors can render a system dysfunctional for consumers. As CEO of Medicus Healthcare Solutions, Joe Matarese has seen the current system from the inside — working and interacting with thousands of hospitals and thousands of providers, primarily doctors, around the country, dealing with processes, bureaucracies, government reimbursement procedures, and the full gamut of the producer side of the medical care system. In Part 1 of a two-part podcast series, he gives us the informed insider’s view.

Key Takeaways and Actionable Insights

Many forces combine and interact to produce the medical care system we experience today.

Politics: As in almost all cases of market destruction, politicians are highly responsible. They have decided that the medical care of individual citizens is an appropriate field for their interventions, and they meddle in their usual ignorant and incompetent fashion. Dr. Scott Atlas of Stamford University was one who documented some of this glaring incompetence and its resultant creation of the crisis response to the COVID-19 pandemic in his book A Plague Upon Our House. The impact of political incompetence on individuals’ experience of medical care is not limited to COVID-19, but Atlas’ book provides one excellent example.

Regulation: Politicians don’t just meddle; they legislate and regulate. The Affordable Care Act of 2011 is a particularly significant milestone. It created a regulatory environment in which it became virtually impossible for independent physician groups to function. Smaller and rural hospitals could not survive the regulatory burdens imposed, and many closed or were acquired by larger hospital groups. The resultant consolidation and anti-decentralization led to centralized decision-making (particularly evident in the COVID-19 pandemic, but much more broadly impactful than just that event) to the effect that individual doctors are told how to practice and how to treat their patients. The one-on-one doctor-patient relationship that flexibly exercises the experience of the doctor on behalf of the individual needs of the patient and their particular condition Is no longer operative. Doctors now apply a centrally designed pre-determined “standard of care” (and are even told by the AMA what “woke” language to use when interacting with their patients).

Bureaucracy: With regulation comes bureaucracy. Central to the medical care system is the CMS bureaucracy — The Centers For Medicare And Medicaid Services. (You can visit the behemoth at cms.gov — it’s instructive to see the breadth and depth of its reach.) This is the home, for example, of the code lists that govern medical care billing and payment policies. Every doctor must code every patient interaction and every procedure, and the code triggers a specific billing amount. The care that doctors can give patients is governed by these codes and standard-of-care protocols rather than the heuristics an experienced doctor uses to treat individual patients in individual circumstances.

Perverse incentives: Out of the regulatory bureaucracy comes a cascade of perverse incentives. The billing code system leads to one of them: hospitals and doctors will lean towards treatments and billing codes that result in the best billing and revenue outcome for them, rather than what is best for the patient. Similarly, with the fee-for-service model of the Affordable Health Care Act, there’s always the incentive to provide the service or procedure that generates the best fee.

Financial Engineering: The worst financial engineering of the medical care system is the tying of health insurance to employment, and the general misuse, misunderstanding and mispricing of insurance that results. Insurance is appropriate for classes of events (like car accidents or house fires) which are known to have distributed incidence but unknown in terms of where and when they will take place. Individuals pay into an insurance pool that can be drawn on when an unlucky individual encounters an incident; we all hope we will never have to draw on it. In health care insurance, individuals pay for coverage which they know they will draw on. They expect insurance to pay for routine things they should really pay for out of individual income or savings. Medical insurance coverage is appropriate for rare or catastrophic events, but not for everyday health maintenance. In fact, insurance totally obscures the market for health care.

The combined result of all these forces is the elimination of economics from medical care.

No free market: Medical care is the epitome of interventionism. There are no unregulated voluntary exchanges between buyer and seller, in this case patient and doctor. Every interaction is regulated, bureaucratized, coded, and distorted by financial engineering. Most importantly, there is no free market pricing. Prices are the indispensable signaling and information exchange mechanisms of markets; when they are suppressed, markets can’t function. The medical care system is, as Joe Matarese puts it, price-less.

No entrepreneurship: The function that solves consumer problems in markets is entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurs identify customer dissatisfactions and devise and present solutions for consumers to choose from. Entrepreneurship can’t operate in regulated healthcare. It is suppressed. Joe pointed out that, in the few corners where an entrepreneurial breakout has occurred — he mentioned medical tourism, Lasik eye surgery, cosmetic surgery, and The Surgery Center Of Oklahoma (SurgeryCenterOK.com) — prices have been lowered, quality increased and value spread wider and wider in the market, reaching more and more consumers.

Repressed Innovation: A major output of freely priced entrepreneurial markets is innovation. Entrepreneurs bring improvement in the form of new services and offerings, improved processes, and the application of new scientific discoveries. The innovation process is highly repressed in US Health Care, as in, for example, the FDA’s long and arduous bureaucratic process for approving new drugs resulting in delays in their adoption costing millions of lives.

Replacing the free market is an edifice of massive, plodding, constraining entities.

The top of the monstrous pile can probably be assigned to Big Pharma. The massive amount of funds flowing through the pharmaceutical companies empowers their commandeering of the medical community. Government healthcare agencies such as CMS, FDA and VA take up their entwined cronyist positions related to Big Pharma and Big Hospitals. Big Insurance is the financial engineering for the edifice. The bureaucracy regulates them all, but from a position of having been captured through the lobbying process. The patient sits at the bottom of this stack, squeezed by its weight, restricted by its rules, and constrained from receiving individualized care even though doctors and nurses are capable of providing it.

The COVID-19 experience was an instance of the negative consequences of regulated, bureaucratic, perversely incentivized and politicized medical care.

The standard four pillars of a medical response to the COVID-19 pandemic would have been:

  1. mitigation
  2. early outpatient treatment
  3. hospital treatment
  4. vaccination

Instead, we were bureaucratically and politically accelerated towards a mass vaccine solution, satisfying the perverse incentives of Big Pharma.

Mitigation could have embraced healthy lifestyles, nutraceuticals, and some stratifying of risk by patient age. Instead, it was botched with ridiculous and useless mask mandates and pointless (and damaging) lockdowns.

Early outpatient treatment for those infected would have recognized the “golden window” of outpatient treatment in the first two or three days of the case to reduce the need for later hospitalization, as documented by Dr. Serafino Fazio and others in a published paper (see Mises.org/E4B_162_Paper), with drugs like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, but these were ridiculed, and their use repressed. By the time hospital treatment is needed, the condition has changed from one of inflammation and clotting to pneumonia and lung infection, with potentially worse outcomes. The use of remdesivir was centrally authorized, and this drug is much more expensive and risks worse side effects than the early treatment drugs.

The four pillars were abandoned for the centrally planned decision of mass vaccination.

There is a pathway out of medical tyranny.

Principles of Austrian economics can help us find the way out of the current situation. Some of the principles we might apply include:

Let free markets operate: The medical care edifice refutes and represses free markets and market pricing. The first step in a solution is to restore markets to medical care.

Customer sovereignty: Markets are built around the consumer as “the captain of the ship”, determining the purpose and direction of the voyage. Consumers would exercise their sovereignty in a one-on-one relationship with their primary care physician.

Decentralization: Decisions in markets are made close to the customer and not via centralized bureaucracies.

Network versus hierarchy: Austrian economics views markets as networks of specialized nodes connected by 2-way information flows and provider-consumer interactions. The medical care edifice is a hierarchy not network.

In Part 2 of “Entrepreneurial Solutions to Medical Tyranny,” Joe Materese will identify some specific ways that we can build a parallel system outside the edifice to bring back consumer sovereignty and free markets.

Additional Resource

“Entrepreneurial Solutions to Medical Tyranny” (PDF): Mises.org/E4B_162_PDF

Medicus Healthcare Solutions: MedicusHCS.com

160. Laura and Derek Cabrera: Systems Thinking For Business

/0 Comments/in /by

Entrepreneurs can realize their goal to think better, think Austrian by taking a systems thinking approach. We can ditch linearity and hierarchies in favor of distributed networks and webs of causality and create better knowledge – more aligned with the real world — and better mental models. Professors Laura and Derek Cabrera of Cabrera Research Lab and Cornell University — leading authorities on systems thinking — speak to Economic For Business on the application of systems thinking for entrepreneurs, and everyone.

Key Takeaways and Actionable Insights

There’s a crisis in thinking in the business world.

Laura and Derek Cabrera have conducted deep research in the field of business thinking, and they’ve identified both the problems and the solution. The problems include reductionism (we’re taught to think about parts of systems instead of the system as a whole); hierarchical organization of thinking (versus complex distributed networks); thinking in categories versus breaking down part-whole groupings; thinking in terms of liner cause-and-effect versus webs of causality; and the prevalence of bivalent logic (right/wrong, black/white) rather than the multi-valent logic of many right answers.

This way of thinking is not well-aligned with the realities around us. The solution is systems thinking — the thinking of complex adaptive systems.

Systems thinking aligns with how the real world works.

Our mantra at Economics for Business is Think Better, Think Austrian. Systems thinking is better thinking (and Austrian economics fully embraces complex adaptive thinking — what Mises called constant flux and Hayek called spontaneous order and Lachmann called the market as a process of combination and recombination).

Systems thinking defines complex adaptive systems in this way:

Autonomous agents follow simple rules based on what’s happening locally around them, the collective dynamics of which lead to the emergence of the complex dynamics we see.

This description is actually a mental model of a complex adaptive system. The products of systems thinking are mental models. None are perfect representations of reality, but they help us when they are better representations of reality.

Four simple rules of systems thinking produce better mental models.

By following 4 simple rules, over and over again, anyone can become a practiced and adept systems thinker. The rules are captured in the acronym DSRP.

D is for Distinctions. Systems thinkers make distinctions between different things and different ideas. We can make distinctions between different customers, different costs, different sales channels, different suppliers, different employees. We identify boundaries, what’s inside and what’s outside. We differentiate, compare, and contrast.

S is for organizing ideas into systems of parts and wholes. Everything is a system because it contains parts. Every e-mail contains words that contain letters made up of pixels. We construct meaning when we organize different ideas into part-whole configurations. We split things up or lump them together in systems of context. We group, we sort, we classify, we assemble.

R is for identifying relationships between and among ideas. We can’t understand much about anything without understanding the relationships between or among the ideas or components. Relationships include causal, correlation, feedback, inputs/outputs, influence, etc. Fundamentally, relationships are action and reaction. We live in an infinite network of interactions, including between our own thoughts, feelings, and motivations. We connect, interconnect, associate and join.

P is for looking at things from different perspectives. When we make a distinction or identify parts and wholes or identify a relationship, we are always doing so from one particular perspective, made up of the point from which we are viewing and the thing or things in view. Being aware of the perspectives we take is paramount to understanding ourselves and the world around us. If we change the way we look at things, the things we look at change. We frame, we interpret, we empathize, and we negotiate from a perspective.

Systems thinking is not a set of steps but a set of rules, and from the interplay of these rules emerges the dynamics of systemic thought.

There are four types of action for systems thinkers applying the DSRP rules.

1) See Information and structure.

To construct meaning and mental models, we take in information and structure it. It’s important to recognize the difference between the information and how we structure it. A good way to do this is visualization: use whiteboards or sticky notes or software to map out systems and parts (e.g., boxes within boxes on a chart) and relationships (lines between the boxes). This physical manifestation of a system can help create new knowledge and point to solutions.

Laura and Derek told the story of a large conglomerate business that, by visualizing its divisions and functions and the information flows between them, was able to identify redundancies, see where communications and information was lacking or blocked off, and design a new and improved structure.

2) Use common patterns in the structure of mental models.

Laura and Derek use the term cognitive jigs: forms of information structuring that can be used again and again. A list is one type of cognitive jig. It can be used to order priorities or structure wholes into parts. Similes and metaphors are jigs. There’s another called a relationship distinction system (RDS) that can help solve silo problems in organizational design by identifying required relationships and the people responsible for them, and the resources required to operate the relationship. Excel spreadsheets and tables are jigs. Look for useful cognitive jigs and use them over and over again. They increase the efficiency and speed of thought.

3) Make structural predictions.

Austrians are wary of predictions because we know the future is uncertain. Here, we are not talking about predicting the future, but predicting the possibility of new knowledge existing after restructuring information. For example, a new relationship opportunity could emerge if we change our perspective. A new understanding could emerge if we break something that we were treating as a whole into its parts. We can identify gaps in our current thinking and make a bet that there’s something positive in changing that thinking. We can create new knowledge.

4) Embrace the logic of and/both.

We are taught bivalent logic: there’s right and wrong, there’s black and white, there’s X and Y. There’s an alternative: multivalent logic. There can be more than one right answer. There can be a continuum rather than fixed points.

One example of multivalent logic applies in the analysis of what customers want. They have a variety of preferences, ordered in different ways at different times and in different contexts. They are continuously learning what to want, and always making trade-offs. Bivalent logic won’t help entrepreneurs understand customers’ choices or decision-making processes.

Another example of bivalent versus multivalent logic is cause and effect compared to a web of causality. We tend to think of cause and effect as neighbors on a timeline. The cue ball of cause strikes the colored ball of effect and moves it in a designated direction. But it’s more realistic to think of the events of our lives or our business having multiple causal factors. There are so many mediating factors and external and internal variables that lead us to be more systematic in our thinking about them. Purposely look for webs of causality rather than shoehorn observed phenomena into a linear causal model that doesn’t match the reality of the world.

Systems thinking includes the recognition of individual subjective purpose and intent.

The perspective of methodological individualism leads Austrians to worry about whether systems thinking is well-aligned with Austrian thinking. I asked Laura and Derek this question. The response: “I would say that’s precisely what systems thinking entails — the notion that each individual agent is following simple interaction rules with other agents, and that those interaction rules are leading to the system and its emergent properties.

An example of an interaction rule from Austrian economics: humans act in order to improve their circumstances. Another is that they use their own subjective value system to determine what is an improvement. The action axiom, subjective value, opportunity cost in choosing between alternatives, profit and loss and the context of constant change are the simple rules of Austrian economics.

Practice, practice, practice.

Systems thinking is something everyone should be able to do. It can be practiced. Our brains are already building mental models about the world. It’s already in us and so it pays to be aware of it. 

It’s like any exercise: more reps make us stronger. Look at anything through the DSRP lens when you are feeding your dogs or driving down the highway observing billboard advertisements. Make the neuronal pathways of DSRP second nature.

This can occur at the level of individual learning or of organizational learning. In episode #152 (Mises.org/E4B_152), we discussed the organizational model of VMCL — an organization using learning to acquire the capacity to do its mission every day to achieve its vision.

Additional Resources

“How to Become A Systems Thinker” (PDF): Mises.org/E4B_160_PDF1

“Practical Systems Thinking Actions and Behaviors” (PDF): Mises.org/E4B_160_PDF2

Systems Thinking Made Simple: New Hope for Solving Wicked Problems by Derek and Laura Cabrera: Mises.org/E4B_160_Book

Cabrera Research Lab: CabreraResearch.org

159. Rory Sutherland: An Austrian School of Marketing

/0 Comments/in /by

Rory Sutherland, Vice-Chairman Ogilvy UK, is a peerless marketing authority, revered throughout the business world. He published a blogpost with the title Wanted — an Austrian School of Marketing. In praxeology, subjective value theory, customer sovereignty, and ordinal value stacks, he identified the building blocks of a marketing approach for our digital age. We talk about it in Economics For Business #159.

Key Takeaways and Actionable Insights

Mainstream economics has the wrong narrative about capitalism and, consequently, a misconception about marketing.

Mainstream economics fetishizes efficiency, and regards marketing as a cost and an add-on business activity rather than fundamental and essential. There are multiple erroneous assumptions about consumer behavior such as adhering consistently to transitive preferences, perfect trust, and knowing to the penny how much utility will be derived from every transaction. Utility is defined in a circular fashion (consumers act to maximize utility / how do economists know what utility is / it’s the value that consumers try to maximize).

The influence of mainstream economics on business is to favor a focus on what Rory terms “instrumental objective means of business growth”, such as lower prices, and wider distribution. Business becomes obsessed with quantification, and, because value is not quantifiable, looks for other outcomes that can be quantified and used to justify investments. This approach misses the key point: that the marketing tournament is played out not in the objective arena, but in the subjectivity of the consumer’s mind.

Ludwig von Mises developed the science of understanding human behavior, and provided a unique economic underpinning for marketing.

Mises introduced the new method of praxeology, making Austrian economics an entirely different science than mathematics-based economics. It’s the science of human behavior, of action, and can be combined with psychology and evolutionary biology in the development of a superior mental template for understanding business.

For marketers, the most telling understanding from praxeology is the consumer’s drive to relieve uneasiness. Mises phrases it: “The incentive that impels a man to act is always some uneasiness.” Note the terms “impels” and “always”. These are powerful insights for marketers. But more is required for action: “the expectation that purposeful behavior has the power to remove ….the felt uneasiness”. This is the task of marketing: to create such an expectation.

The relief of unease is the consumer’s primary drive, and therefore the proper focus of marketing.

There is no need, as Rory phrases it, for marketers to “ladle on the positives” in their communications. Removal of unease works differently. It creates the expectation that uneasiness can be removed by actions the consumer takes.

Reputation, for example, is a reassurance to customers that they won’t be disappointed, and that promises made can, with some confidence, be expected to be kept.

A strong brand is a special form of such reputational reassurance.

Investment in a costly advertising campaign with high production quality can remove unease about the credibility of a seller — someone willing to invest in advertising must be confident that there will be widespread acceptance of what they’re offering, giving the buyer a corresponding confidence of not only quality but also social endorsement.

Guarantees, samples, and easy return policies are examples of widely used and effective unease-reducing marketing initiatives.

In fact, anything that reduces the work that customers need to do to enjoy the product or service (such as, for example, home delivery) can relieve unease and increase the value experience. Economists might call this reduced opportunity cost or transaction cost. Whatever the terminology, the unease-reduction approach is the most powerful marketing method.

One example Rory cited was that of zoom. While the technology has been well-established for some time, zoom was bedeviled by the problem of social unease in the early phases of its establishment. Is an electronic meeting as effective as an in-person meeting? Will a client think less of a service provider who doesn’t fly to see them, irrespective of the quality of the remote, technology-enhanced communication?

The analysis of unease — especially the socially-contextual unease inherent in a service like zoom — is a really important element in the understanding of value generation through marketing. Austrian school marketers can develop a special understanding by asking more questions about how best to reduce unease rather than how to increase desirability. Rory used the example of range anxiety for potential buyers of electric vehicles. Their anxiety about possibly running out of power before finding a charging station might be irrational based on their physical environment and infrastructure, but the anxiety nevertheless governs purchase and usage and demands relief.

Marketing is built on an Austrian understanding of customers and their subjective heuristics of value perception.

Customers’ perception of the potential for the relief of unease is subjective and emotional. The appreciation of goods and services is not merely a product of their objective characteristics. Value for consumers can be created through psychology, not just through production. Value is a consumer experience, an emotional response driven by a subjective sense of what matters to them, embedded in context, story and meaning.

Changing consumer behavior is not a function of the objective reality of product and price. Marketers who focus just on these elements are “playing with a limited deck”, in Rory’s words. The presentation of a good or service to customers is fundamental to the value proposition. It’s not an add-on or an optional extra for business. Marketing can change customer’s minds through reframing, through changing the social context, or through any one of many, many more ways to change how they look at things.

Consumers evaluate through heuristics rather than rational calculations of economic benefits and costs. The marketing power of brand or reputation is a customer heuristic: a firm that has invested in its reputation through quality and service, reliability, and consistency in keeping its marketing promises, as well as cultivating its online ratings, will be rewarded in the marketplace. Customer disappointment — resulting from a failure to consistently keep promises — will be punished. Reputation and disappointment, of course, are subjectively perceived.

Austrian marketers thrive on the feedback loops.

As Rory puts it, some people like plain white bread and some will pay $10 for a sourdough olive focaccia loaf. Marketers explore all the possibilities in a market — they embrace the messiness of customer preferences and the whimsy of their choices. Perfect competition deprives customers of these whimsical choices; it commodifies what’s offered by suppliers.

If markets were designed by suppliers there’d be less variance but also less resilience (fewer options). Markets are designed by consumers and value is created in customer-initiated experiences, facilitated by suppliers who listen and respond well. Consumers get what they want via feedback loops, sending signals back to the marketer about what they want and don’t want, and what they’ll buy and won’t buy.

Brands especially welcome market feedback so that they can align more and more tightly with consumer preferences, and customize the branded experience to an ever-greater extent, reinforcing the brand-consumer bond. It is the consumer feedback loop that drives innovation. Marketing is the listening and alignment function. It’s essential to the workings of capitalism. It is the tool for synthesis of value through the imaginative redefinition of what people value, based on their signals.

It is the Austrian perspective that deals so well with the unpredictability of marketing successes.

Another limitation of conventional economics and quantification-obsessed businesses is the search for one right answer. Such restricted models of reality are dangerous. What capitalism and marketing are good at is coming up with multiple answers — increasing the potential solution space for problems, and increasing the number of ways to relieve unease.

The answer to any customer demand is never one thing, it’s multiple options for different value-uncertain customers to choose from. Sometimes there are what Rory calls “opposite things” (Red Bull and Coca-Cola) or sometimes multiple different things (a wide range of single serve beverages for a wide range of consumers in a wide range of situations).

Rory is an expert on unpredictable marketing successes. In his book Alchemy, he describes the “magic” of marketing and some of its unpredictable outcomes. One of the notable ones was the success of Red bull, a beverage brand that, according to research among its own consumers, “tastes kind of disgusting”. The testing agency had never seen a worse reaction to any new product. Why is there such unpredictability? As Rory puts it:

Models of human behavior devised and promoted by (mainstream) economists and other conventionally rational people are wholly inadequate at predicting human behavior.

Red Bull “hacks the human unconscious”. It has potent associations with risk taking behavior, with myths about the power of caffeine and taurine, with perceived signaling effects, and with several more psychological placebos. These have nothing to do with product and price, and make the success of Red Bull unpredictable.

Another way to say this is to call Red Bull’s success an emergent property. The future is unpredictable, but so is the past (we can’t really explain Red Bull’s success), even though we attempt to post-rationalize. It’s just one of several possible outcomes and we don’t truly know the story and how it happened.

Austrians’ embrace of emergent outcomes in free markets with freedom of choice makes marketers perfectly comfortable with unpredicted outcomes.

Much of business success is luck, instantiated by entrepreneurship and enabled by marketing.

As a consequence of this unpredictability, extraordinary business success is a function of luck and timing. Business outcomes are largely probabilistic rather than deterministic. Sadly, 80% of the effort in business is applied to pretending that it is deterministic — in the form of planning and strategy activities for example.

The time and place of “take off” for new innovations and marketing campaigns is entirely unpredictable. There are two influences that can bring a little more certainty. One is the role of the entrepreneur, who is likely to be more single-mindedly focused and more persistent in betting on a single innovation than a larger corporation that has a portfolio and a risk-averse bureaucracy.

The second is marketing, which has the capability to change customer psychology and change their frame of reference, transforming a bleeding edge concept into something inevitable and compelling. Early-stage adopters are often seen as somewhat crazy (i.e., there is limited socially contextual acceptance for the innovation), and marketing can accelerate the adoption curve by reducing or eliminating the value uncertainty of more customers more quickly.

Importantly for marketers, Austrian economics takes a process view of markets, in which people and their preferences and their individual and social behavior are constantly changing. This “constant flux”, as Mises worded it, gives energy to marketing as a stimulus for innovation, improvement, and promises of better alternatives.

Additional Resources

“The Austrian School Of Marketing” (PDF): Mises.org/E4B_159_PDF

Rory Sutherland’s blog post: “Wanted — an Austrian School Of Marketing”: Mises.org/E4B_159_Blog

Alchemy: The Dark Art and Curious Science of Creating Magic in Brands, Business, and Life: Mises.org/E4B_159_Book

Rory Sutherland on YouTube: “Praxeology: Time To Rediscover A Lost Science” (There’s a special frame at 8:10): Mises.org/E4B_159_Video

158. Mark Romera’s Globally Orchestrated Entrepreneurial Design Journey

/0 Comments/in /by

Entrepreneurship-as-design is brought to life in a wonderful conversation with Mark Romera, who conceived, designed and brought to market a values-driven vision of kids having fun playing in their backyards, via an impeccably crafted brand named Spimbey.

Key Takeaways and Actionable Insights.

Entrepreneurs can identify innovation opportunities even in the most established fundamental routines of everyday family life.

What’s more basic than kids playing with physical toys in the family back yard, running round, having fun, connecting with others? It’s fundamental to family life in the neighborhood. Yet, kids don’t get that experience so much these days. How to bring it back? That’s an entrepreneurial question that Mark Romera answered with Spimbey, a brand new playset product he designed and launched though his company, Spimba.

First, choose your customer.

Mark chose Mom. Kids are users, but Mom’s the customer. She’s part of a family with target-age kids and some backyard space. She wants her kids to have fun, play safely outside, play with others, and develop themselves physically and mentally. She worries about how much time kids spend on their digital screens, and how that affects their development.

How does an entrepreneur develop the requisite deep knowledge about Mom? Talk to her; engage her in conversation. Go where the play takes place — the back yard.

Distill a complex need into a simple solution.

Already, there’s a lot of complexity. Mom, kids, families, playthings and the materials they’re made with. This brings in safety considerations and regulations, as well as design and manufacturing needs and marketing and distribution needs. The best way to get started is work backwards from the simple solution — the concept of a finished playset, easily assembled by Mom or Dad in a suburban backyard. It needs to be simple for Mom to understand and picture in her mind, and all her questions (like safety and ease of assembly and sustainability) must have simple answers.

From this simple vision, entrepreneurs work backwards in a disassembly process to identify everything they’ll need and the network design to bring it all together.

Design and assemble a flexibly networked internal and external team.

Mark was a sole founder. First, he assembled his team in answer to the questions, who can help me with this journey? He also had flexibility for when and where he needed team members. For the “internal” team (not necessarily employees but performing functional management roles) he looked for process development, product development, brand development and web development. He made careful decisions about types of people, level of experience and the ability to take responsibility in an agile process. Most important was brand alignment — a premium, high quality, high integrity brand presentation requires team members of an appropriate caliber who understand reputation building and high consumer trust.

Next, he focused on assembling the external support team: design, safety experts, materials experts, testing labs and safety certifiers aligned with the appropriate regulatory regimes, manufacturing partners, external sales and customer service experts, logistics, freight and delivery partners. The entire value network must be linked, and scheduled for the right inputs at the right time, all working backwards in the calendar from the critical date, which is the high season for retail sales of playsets. Co-ordination of value network nodes and information flows with process inputs, sequences and handoffs is a complex exercise which must be programmed before any work commences.

The design process is a combination of creativity, rigor, networking and collaborative integration.

As we’ve learned, much of entrepreneurship is a design process, to get from a concept that’s generated internally to a completed product or project that can meet the rigorous demands of the external world, including Mom and the safety regulators, and the guardians of the distribution channels.

The design concept must take a form that everyone involved in the design process can see and understand in an appropriate way, without contradictions or misunderstandings. Then the appropriate design parameters must be assigned: safety, durability, ease of assembly and ease of use, manufacturability, regulatory compliance, freight and packaging constraints. Many of these design inputs must be outsourced — to computer design shops, materials specialists, manufacturers who can impose their own restrictions, warehousers and freight carriers who have specific requirements.

There is a lot of iteration, adjustment, change management and process orchestration to be managed as the design concept advances towards the market and becomes more and more solid, complete and comprehensively detailed. Mark emphasizes meticulous planning, and a calm demeanor with clear communications to keep the network aligned and on the same page.

Branding is a critical element.

The product is physical, but the benefits are psychological. This includes the sense of fun and easiness for the kids, and the feeling of satisfaction and safety for parents. These psychic benefits must be captured in the brand presentation, both online and in physical elements like design and color and packaging. For Mark, his brand is his philosophy, captured in communication, presentation, design, production and delivery.

Mark Romera’s personal entrepreneurial journey passed through various business roles and experiences before branching into entrepreneurship.

Mark worked in growth marketing, business intelligence, new business development and as an independent consultant solving strategic problems for business clients. As his responsibilities increased, he often felt like an entrepreneur inside the corporation. In growth marketing, he learned the power of testing supported by data. Test everything, without waiting for too much discussion about the pros and cons of an idea or concept. If it works, scale it up, if it doesn’t, try to understand why based on the data you’ve collected. Testing and experimentation produce data, and data reduces uncertainty. The data cycle requires speed for success, and not conventional structures or decision-making processes that slow things down.

Entrepreneurship brings unique psychic rewards.

With his growth hacking and exploit-and-expand experience, Mark felt ready and eager to step into entrepreneurship. He told us he wanted something more, because something was missing. He wanted the freedom to develop his own ideas from scratch and to create something new and cool. The psychic reward from entrepreneurship is special. It combines the challenge of immediate implementation and a successful sales season with the long term vision of building a global brand, extending a product line, and gaining acceptance in markets worldwide.

The entrepreneurial journey for Mark is immediately highly rewarding with the long term prospect of increasing achievement and success.

Additional Resources

Mark Romera’s “Entrepreneurial Journey as a Design Process” (PDF): Download Now

See the completion of the journey: Spimbey.com

Seven Business Secrets Of Austrian Economics.

/0 Comments/in /by

There’s a brand of economics that goes by the name, in academic circles, of Austrian economics. If I was the brand manager, I would re-brand it, in much the same way that Chrysler (now part of Stellantis) rebranded their truck line from Dodge To RAM. The RAM name is far more communicative of important core attributes like sturdy engineering, power, reliability, and assertiveness than is Dodge. RAM sales have been robust, and so, while we wouldn’t claim to know cause and effect, we might assume that the brand name did not hurt and may have helped.

Austrian economics got its name way back in economic history when the rival, incumbent brand of German economics got annoyed at the disruptive thinking of some young economists from the University of Vienna, and dismissed their ideas as merely “Austrian”. To the Germans, Austrian meant a smaller, subsidiary, irrelevant group that had no place on the world stage.

The disruptive body of thought stuck, however, and made great strides, because it’s more useful to real people than conventional academic economics. It provides better mental models to work with. For producers, Austrian economics is the economics of entrepreneurship and value generation. For consumers, Austrian economics is the economics of individual satisfaction.

From the point of view of entrepreneurial business, of any size from single practitioner to start-up to mid-size to mega-size, here are seven secrets of Austrian economics that can be usefully applied for the achievement of business success.

Understanding Subjective Value

The purpose of business is to generate value. Austrian economics enables businesses to understand value in a new way, and, consequently to generate more of it. Curt Carlson, the authority on value creation, weaves wonderful value stories. in one of them, he imagines the iPack, a wheeled robotic suitcase that will follow you through the airport without effort on your part, via its electronic tether to your iPhone. He goes further, to imagine the iPack understanding your calendar well enough to ship itself to Singapore to your hotel to await your arrival. 

Where is the value? It’s not the physical case, and it’s not even its functionality, beneficial though it will undoubtedly be. The value is the feeling that’s created in the mind of the customer, both in the form of anticipation of relief of a travel hassle (“What a great value that will be! I’ll gladly pay for it”) and in the after-evaluation of the experience (“That was the most convenient trip ever!). Curt writes:

It is the space in the minds of potential customers. It is important to them because they have an imagination and an expectation for continuous betterment. The white space for iPack is future travel, which customers can imagine (going to Singapore through Hong Kong – what a hassle) and they have expectations for betterment (wouldn’t it be great if somehow I didn’t have to carry my bag).

Understanding value as a feeling, as the expectation of delight and the evaluation of that delight, unleashes the value generation process. 

Customer Sovereignty

In the value generation process, the customer is the boss. What the customer says, goes. If a business is unable to conjure the anticipation of delight, new products and services will not be adopted; they’ll never get off the ground. If the business does conjure the anticipation of delight but does not deliver, resulting in disappointment, the customer will not only walk away, they might even destroy the business’s reputation with negative word of mouth. The customer truly decides what is produced, and what succeeds in the marketplace. They decide on prices by establishing their willingness to pay – there’s no point in setting a price that’s higher than this level.

The full acceptance of customer sovereignty changes completely the traditional way of thinking about business. It is typical to think of business as production, as a sequence of steps from conceptualizing a future value, through designing a way of delivering that value, to realize it through exchange in the marketplace. It’s a forward-facing sequence of producer-driven action. 

But the opposite mindset is the right one. The true nature of business is working backwards from the customer experience, which is where value originates. If there were no customer experience, there’d be no value.

Entrepreneurship

Who creates value and how do they do it? Obviously, customers are key to value, because they are the ones who experience it. They need a partner because they can’t conjure up value by themselves. They need a producer. That’s the role of the entrepreneur. The entrepreneur – or the entrepreneurial process when it takes place in companies and corporations – performs the function of sensing what consumers and customers want, doing the hard work of designing and producing it, and presenting it to the customer as an option for them, a new choice, a better alternative. There’s uncertainty on both sides. The customer doesn’t know what to want (they couldn’t have designed an iPhone before Apple made one, they just knew they wanted a better phone experience). And the entrepreneur doesn’t know for certain that what they design will align perfectly with what the customer wants. This coming together in eventual alignment is the beauty of entrepreneurship and also its risk.

Entrepreneurship requires a very special empathy between producer and customer, and when this empathy results in what economists call exchange – willing buyer, willing seller, both happy – there is progress, and the world is a better place.

The entrepreneur doesn’t exist in conventional economic textbooks or theory. Entrepreneurship is at the very heart of Austrian economics. Austrians see that entrepreneurship creates betterment, economic growth, happiness, and satisfaction.

Action

Entrepreneurship is difficult, sheathed in multiple challenges. It has typically been portrayed as high-risk. Entrepreneurship might result in failure. Look at all the projects that are started and don’t succeed.

An entire tradition in business schools has been developed to purport to eliminate these risks. Business school professors sell their courses and lectures and books and presentations to present and future business managers on the promise of control and prediction. You can control the future with good planning and strategy, according to the professors, and predict the future outcomes.

Austrian entrepreneurship takes an opposite approach. The future is unpredictable, so the task is to find out what it will be, not to control and predict it. The axiom of entrepreneurship is action. Act, don’t strategize, and don’t plan. Action takes the form of experiments and explorations: try this, what about that? The entrepreneur reads the feedback data from the experiments (did the customer react positively or not?) and adapts to it, making changes and adjustments, or abandoning that experiment and trying another. This is the culture of the start-up as well as that of the agile management method. Fast, tight feedback loops replace the strategic planning process and the 100-page business plan.

Imagination / expectation

Conventional economics favors numbers and mathematical models. At the core of Austrian economics are imagination and expectation. Customers imagine a future that’s better in some way than today, but they’re not sure how it will come about. All they can communicate is their expectations. Entrepreneurs sense this, and imagine the kinds of new solutions and new services, and new products they can offer to meet consumer expectations.

Imagination is a robustly powerful business tool. Entrepreneurs can imagine new services that don’t exist, new processes that have never been used, new lines of code that might unlock some new functionality, and new organizations and structures that might unleash creativity. Their expectation is that, if they act, they’ll learn something positive and identify a future benefit.

Imagination is human, creative, and expansive. It’s about possibilities. Conventional economics tend to focus on scarcity, but entrepreneurial economics is much more focused on abundant possibilities.

Co-generation / value learning

Who produces value and who consumes it? That’s the kind of bi-valent logic that leads to restrictive thinking. Value generation is a collaboration. Customers need to be creative enough to imagine a better future, and to seek improvements in the status quo. Entrepreneurs need to be alert enough to understand customers’ yearnings and creative enough to think of new ideas that can potentially fulfill them.

There is a learning process for both customers and entrepreneurs. Customers are learning what to want, and entrepreneurs are learning what to offer them. They both learn by experience. The customer tries something new, experiences the usage of it, then stands back and evaluates that experience. That’s where value arises: in the customer’s evaluation. The entrepreneur observes and monitors that evaluation, seeking feedback from which to learn. Co-generation of value and shared value learning are the characteristics of Austrian economics at the level of the individual and the firm.

The Flow

An important underpinning to Austrian economic thought is to view markets and value and customer relationships as flows. The world, the economy, life, and business are in constant flux. There are so many actions and interactions that they can never be understood or captured in snapshots, such as today’s price or today’s market share, or today’s sales, or this month’s GDP figures. Snapshot thinking is static. Austrian entrepreneurs see the market and their business and the mind of the customer as flows. Always changing, never still. Perhaps a trend or a pattern can be detected, but these tend to be imagined by looking backwards then projecting the past into the future and this is dangerous. The flow is not predictable or projectable. The best entrepreneurs embrace the flow, keep the pace of their experiments high, make continuous adjustments and adaptations and revel in the unrestricted wonders of adaptation to complexity.

These are just seven of the ways in which Austrian economics is applied in creative and innovative businesses. More and more entrepreneurs – both inside and outside corporations – are adopting the principles of Austrian economics.