Last Saturday Was a Special Day at Rancho Santana…

It was my last day at Rancho Santana after a three-week stay. And I participated in two events that made it extra special.

In the afternoon, I attended a sixth-grade graduation ceremony at a local grammar school.

I’d been asked by a former employee of the ranch to “chaperone” her daughter. I had no idea what the duties of a chaperone would consist of, but I felt honored by the invitation and accepted.

I met the girl and her mom at the school, and we joined a procession traveling from the schoolhouse to a church about a quarter-mile up the road. At the church, I listened to two energetic sermons by two local preachers and two horrendously off-key arias sung by a woman dressed for a discotheque. We then traipsed back to the school, where I sat for another hour, listening to other speeches before the certificates of completion were distributed and more speeches were made. It was as elaborate as any college graduation I’ve ever attended.

(In Nicaragua, for some reason, first-grade and sixth-grade graduations are a big deal. And they are taken seriously. The kids are spotless in their freshly washed and ironed uniforms. And the parents – particularly the mothers – are dressed up, too.)

Afterwards, I was invited back to their house for a family party. I demurred, because I had another important event to get to: a 25th anniversary party for Rancho Santana, which would be commencing in about half an hour.

This, too, was a fancy affair. The central courtyard between the pool and clubhouse was lit up brightly and festooned with decorations. The dress code was black, white, or silver, and nearly everyone in attendance complied. Most of the women wore dresses. Some wore gowns. Most of the men wore jackets. Some wore tuxedos. There must have been 200 people there, a third of whom I’d never seen before.

About two hours into the evening, it was time for speeches. I was the last to go. After noticing the crowd getting more and more fidgety as the previous speakers droned on, I abandoned my prepared remarks and simply told everyone that the secret to Rancho Santana’s success was our policy to sell property only to good-looking people. It was the shortest speech of the evening, and many people said it was the best.

Continue Reading

The Rule of One vs. Listicles: What’s the Deal?

One of the ideas I’ve written about over the years is something I called the “Rule of One.” It wasn’t an original idea. It was a compilation of similar ideas that I rolled into one package and recommended as a useful tool for all sorts of projects and challenges. And it was the subject of a question I received last week from JW:

“Ever since I discovered your Rule of One, I’ve been trying to use it with my writing and video content. While I find it easy to focus on one individual theme or topic, I always seem to run into the same problem: I rely on listicles or try to include several tips instead of focusing on one. As an example, my video titles always end up being something like ‘5 Ways to XYZ’ or ‘3 Big Mistakes with XYZ.’ I want to provide as much value as I can, but it feels like I’m violating your rule when I do it this way!

“Do you have any suggestions for me? Are listicles something I should avoid altogether, or do they serve a purpose?”

This is something I’ve been meaning to write a book about for some time. In case I never get to it, here’s the short version:

The Rule of One is not meant to be a straitjacket. It provides focus and clarity, from which you get a kind of forward motion that you can’t get any other way.

In my books about entrepreneurship, I recommended it as a way to maximize the odds of building a successful business. In my writings about personal development, I favored it as a way to make quick progress in learning a language or developing a skill. In any challenging endeavor, the Rule of One will help you get past the common hurdles that slow down and eventually stop people from accomplishing difficult goals.

JW’s question was about writing – applying the Rule of One to writing essays, blog posts, and the like. And where “listicles” fit in.

Here’s what I think:

Listicles are great for creating curiosity and motivation, and for helping your reader understand the breadth of a given topic (the number of things that could or should be considered). If, for example, you want to write a piece about retiring overseas, you might create a listicle about the 10 best seaside retirement locations or the 10 best mountain locations or the 10 least expensive places to live, etc.

What we’ve found in publishing thousands of essays and blog posts over the years is that listicles are good at attracting attention and holding it for the several minutes it takes to read through the listicle. We know this because we track reader response to marketing copy, and the “open” and “click-through” rates of listicles are very high.

Readers like listicles because they are generally quick and easy to read. And as a rule, they are easy to write. The research takes a bit of time. But composing the list is usually quick.

Easy to write. Easy to read. Listicles are light fare – comfort food for the curious mind.

So, if you want high consumption rates on your blog posts, listicles are a good way to go. They will get you eyeballs, and that is nothing to sneeze at. (I publish them occasionally myself, when I come across one that catches my eye – one that I think my readers will like.) But they won’t get you avid followers or fans.

That’s because listicles cannot do what a single focused essay can. They cannot do the heavy work of explaining anything that is complicated or profound. They cannot change your reader’s world view. They cannot change how your reader views himself.

If you want a deeper relationship with your readers, you must dig deep. You must take them somewhere they’ve never been. And that is what we writers must do if we expect our readers to want to read more of what we want to say.

Note: My comments about listicles to not apply to lists. It’s perfectly okay to include lists in an essay that is singularly focused. It’s okay, for example, in an essay whose purpose is to argue that inflation is going up or down, to include 10 reasons why.

But as I said, listicles can’t do the hard work of writing. Because the hard work of writing is thinking. Not just lateral, superficial thinking (the kind you do when you compose a listicle), but vertical thinking. Digging into your subject.

If you want to get serious about any topic, you must give your reader an idea that is in some way different and in some way deeper than the ideas he already has. And the only way you can do that is by spending hours reading, researching, and thinking about the ideas you are coming up with before you open your laptop and put your fingers on the keyboard.

Listicles are horizontal. Wide but shallow. Rule of One essays are horizontal. Narrow but deep.

If your goal is to attract attention, listicles are a good way to go. But if your goal is to change a mind and develop a loyal reader, you must go deep.

Continue Reading

Building a Story Brand 

By Donald Miller

240 pages

Published Oct. 10, 2017

Donald Miller has a blog called “Story Brand” about advertising. He also has an advertising business. His USP (Unique Selling Proposition) is his expertise in creating simple, believable stories about… well, about USPs.

It’s a topic I’m familiar with. And a thesis I embrace. So, I was expecting to like the book. And I did. Miller is a good writer. By that, I mean he is a good thinker who can articulate his ideas clearly and concisely.

In Building a Story Brand, you’ll get plenty of good, individual ideas that will be eyeopeners for novices and reminders for pros. But you will also get Miller’s blueprint for how to write the perfect story brand. One that is simple, believable, and emotionally persuasive.

I recommend it for copywriters, marketers, CEOs, and anyone who wants to create stronger advertising for a business, a non-profit, or an organization of any kind.

Continue Reading

The COVID Response. What We Got Wrong.

Part III: The Pandemic of the Unvaccinated 

Remember the “pandemic of the unvaccinated”?

That was the phrase Biden used on Sept. 9 of last year in a speech at the White House. He said: “This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated. And it’s caused by the fact that… 80 million Americans have failed to get the shot.”

It was a phrase he got from CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, who, two months earlier, said: “We are seeing outbreaks of cases in parts of the country that have low vaccination coverage because unvaccinated people are at risk. Communities that are fully vaccinated are generally faring well.” She also claimed that 97% of the hospitalized COVID patients were unvaccinated.

That became the rallying charge for the administration and the major media. The implication was clear. Vaccination skeptics were not just endangering their own lives but endangering the lives of everyone they came in contact with.

And that had a logic to it. When the vaccines were rolled out, we were told that they would be highly effective in protecting us from contracting the virus. And if we couldn’t contract it, we couldn’t spread it. So, we all had a moral obligation to be vaccinated. Right? Case closed.

But that 97% figure never felt right to me. For one thing, if the vaccines worked as promised, shouldn’t it be 100%? And even allowing for 3% “due to error,” that number seemed too low to me. I knew several people that had been vaccinated and were infected and heard about several more.

Could it have been misinformation? Disinformation? Unresearched speculation? But if so, why? We will probably never have a convincing answer to that question. But one thing we do know is that the vaccines failed to protect vaccinated individuals from contracting COVID, and it did not prevent them from spreading it. If you got your information from the mainstream media back then, this would have been a complete shock to you. But, in fact, this was known by anyone that was actually “following the science.”

“We can no longer say this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated,” Kaiser Family Foundation Vice President Cynthia Cox, who conducted an analysis of the numbers, told The Washington Post a few weeks ago. The analysis showed that people who had been vaccinated or boosted made up 58% of COVID deaths in August. And the rate has been on the rise. 23% of deaths were among vaccinated people in September 2021, and the vaccinated made up 42% of deaths in January and February of this year.

So, what’s next?

The latest info begs the question: If the vaccines are not effective in protecting us from catching COVID and protecting us from spreading it, are they any good at all?

And the answer to that, the new argument goes, is that vaccines won’t prevent you from getting the virus – but if you get it, the symptoms will be much less severe.

Is that true? I hope so. But I did a preliminary look at the data supporting this claim, and I have some questions. I’ll get to that in a future issue.

Continue Reading

Every college kid understands that America is systemically racist, and that White people have privilege – especially White Men. The problem arrives when you ask them for an example…

Continue Reading