Earlier this week, the CEO of Amazon announced (see here) that any business can now use Amazon Supply Chain Services, a freight, distribution, fulfillment, and parcel shipping network, without needing to sell on Amazon. Translation: Amazon is selling the logistics infrastructure it built up to support its massive retail operation to other businesses. This wasn’t news to me. Honestly, it was really more branding. I think these services existed already, but they were offered separately. They’re now all housed under a single roof, Amazon Supply Chain Services.

After reading the announcement, I dug into their parcel shipping service, Amazon Shipping. This is their version of last-mile delivery, and it’s competing with UPS Ground and FedEx Ground. An Amazon driver will pick up packages from a business and deliver them to the designated recipient, who didn’t necessarily purchase anything on Amazon’s website. It’s truly a stand-alone small-parcel delivery service. I found two tables: base rates (see here) and discounted rates if you ship 150 packages a day (see here).

Having spent millions shipping with UPS and FedEx Ground in my company, I’m familiar with ground rates and how they impact the available strategies a brand can leverage to distribute products to customers. For example, for many brands, the cost to ship a low-priced item to a customer’s doorstep (say, $15 for a $20 item) makes a direct-to-consumer distribution strategy impossible. Instead, they rely on big retailers like Walmart and Target who have tons of stores and steady customer traffic. A brand can ship hundreds of units to each big box retail store, reducing its per-unit shipping cost to something like a few cents instead of $15. The caveat is that they have to sell the items to Walmart and Target at significantly lower than MSRP (usually 50%) so the big stores can make a profit. Brands give up margin and owning the relationship with the customer (among other things) in exchange for larger orders from a handful of huge retailers. I’m oversimplifying, but you get the gist.

When I looked at the rate table for Amazon Shipping, I saw something new. A brand has to ship only 150 packages a day (a modest number) to earn a substantial discount. Shipping a one-pound package within 150 miles goes from costing $12 to costing $6.50. That’s a massive discount. And if a brand is shipping more than 300 packages a day, Amazon will negotiate a custom lower rate.

This is a big deal because it changes how some (not all) brands can think about their distribution strategy: they can now consider direct-to-consumer. Especially brands that sell small, light items that have lower retail price points. Amazon Shipping makes it possible for those brands to profitably ship directly to consumers. More operational complexity comes with this, for sure. But for some brands, it might be worth it, especially if they want to own the relationship with the end buyers of their products.

Amazon Services isn’t new; it’s been around for about two years. But its latest pricing structure and discounted rate transparency are game-changers, and I think it could impact how brands develop their strategy for selling and getting their products in the hands of customers.

I’m following up on yesterday’s post (see here). A credible person I respect read that post and proposed an alternative solution to the problem I described. Instead of deciding between one 60-minute presentation (in a 2-hour meeting) or two 60-minute presentations (in a 3-hour meeting), they suggested making the presentation for urgent problems 30 minutes and the scheduled presentation 60 minutes, extending the total meeting time to 2.5 hours, which may not feel like as drastic a change. I like this and will share it with the entrepreneurs to see what they think.

The other takeaway is that as moderator, I have lots of follow-up to do and action items to take care of before the next meeting. Founders need assistance, preparation for the next meeting, etc. Meetings are held monthly, so in theory I could wait until closer to the next meeting to start working on action items. However, I find it more helpful to attack them immediately after a meeting while everyone’s memory is fresh and the momentum with the entrepreneurs is strong. For example, immediately after the meeting adjourned, I scheduled meetings with the entrepreneurs who said they wanted help, and next week I’ll help them work through roadblocks. I also immediately reflected on people’s feedback and created the agenda for the next meeting, incorporating the feedback and learnings while they were fresh in my mind. I feel better prepared for the next meeting and have a plan to keep founders engaged by helping them before the next meeting.

I’m very pleased with the first meeting, but I’m not satisfied. I want to improve it so the value founders get from participating trumps anything else they’re a part of and makes them excitedly look forward to every meeting.

As I shared last week (see here), for the past few weeks I’ve been working with Atlanta entrepreneurs to set up an accountability group. The group meets once a month for a few hours. My expectation for the group is high engagement and open sharing so they’ll learn from one another and solve their problems faster. I want them to get value similar to what entrepreneurs get from EO and YPO forums.

We had our first meeting this week, which I moderated. It was a success, but I learned several valuable lessons. Meeting length is the first. We aimed for two hours, which included one sixty-minute presentation. The presentation was selected based on which entrepreneur had the most urgent problem to solve. This worked, and the presentation was great. But the feedback from the group was that allowing only the entrepreneur with the most urgent problem to present likely isn’t sustainable. Entrepreneurs said they didn’t like the idea of having to pick from urgent house fires at every meeting. Some want to know they’ll have a guaranteed opportunity to present, even if they don’t have a burning problem. And last, some entrepreneurs want more time to think about and prepare a presentation and to know with certainty that their presentation will happen.

The challenge is that the meeting agendas are currently built around a two-hour meeting length: one hour of discussing the most important updates from each entrepreneur, with the idea of finding one worth presenting to the group, and a one-hour presentation.

To address the group’s concerns, we will likely need to add a second presentation slot. One would be the most burning problem selected on the spot from the updates. The other would be a scheduled presentation. We’ll either have to add another hour to the meeting, making it three hours long, or cut the presentation time in half. Each option has pros and cons.

I’m not sure what change, if any, we’ll make. The group will make the final decision via a democratic process. But it stood out to me that several entrepreneurs pointed out the challenges of having a single presentation slot for each meeting.

Regardless, the first meeting went well, and I’m looking forward to continually improving the meeting format to maximize the value to the entrepreneurs.

A few weeks ago, I shared that I’d listened to a podcast presenter talk about how sound neural entrainment can reduce distractibility and help you get into your flow state. He mentioned Brain.fm, and I signed up for a free trial.

It’s been two weeks, and I really like the product. It’s hard to explain, but when I turn on the service, I definitely feel more in the zone and more productive. I focus faster than usual and knock out my to-do list like a champ.

I’ve noticed a few things, though. The first is that I need to remember to turn on the service! I don’t consistently remember, but when I do, I’m glad. I need to work toward making turning it on part of my normal work habits. The other thing I’ve noticed is that I get the most impact when I use earphones. When I let it play over the speakers on my computer, it doesn’t have the same effect. I think the earphones block out all other background noise so the rhythm of the music is all I hear.

Overall, I’m a fan so far. I’ll keep testing it for the rest of the month.

Today I had a good conversation with a friend who’s an entrepreneur, and he said something that stuck with me. We were talking about his new venture, and I mentioned plans he could make for the future when his company is successful. He shared that he doesn’t want to think like that. He wants to stay hungry and consider only what he needs to do here and now. He believes that in the early stages, thinking too far ahead increases your chances of failure and demonstrates a lack of humility. Once he becomes successful, then he can expand his plans.

This is an interesting take, and after thinking about what he said, I agree. It’s what I did when I started my company. I was hungry and focused on surviving. All my energy went toward staying alive and moving the company forward. Only after I knew we wouldn’t die did I start thinking more about what decisions I should take to scale to company further.

My takeaway from my chat with my friend is that there’s a time and place to plan far into the future. And it’s not when the future is highly uncertain.

As I shared yesterday, for the past few weeks, I’ve been working with entrepreneurs to set up an accountability group. Once a month for a few hours. The expectation is high commitment and open sharing so they can learn from one another and solve their individual problems faster. Think EO or YPO forums.

One of the things we’re working on is setting up an accountability structure. Each person chooses two or three things (a mix of business and personal) they want to be held accountable for. At each month’s meeting, they’ll report on each item and explain why it is or isn’t moving in the desired direction. The idea is that no one wants to tell their peers they didn’t do what they said they were going to do.

One thing I’ve noticed from talking with several founders is that many of them think in terms of goals. I want to increase revenue by X percent by the end of the year, or I want to weigh X pounds by the end of the year. But we can’t really track that every month. And achieving a goal isn’t 100% within the entrepreneur’s control: they can do everything right and still not realize the desired outcome.

What I’ve settled on is that each person defines the goals or outcomes they want for the year (e.g., I want to weigh 150 pounds) and then identifies the actions they can do every month to move toward them (e.g., 16 cardio sessions a month). They can easily quantify and report to the other group members how many cardio sessions they did in a given month. If they didn’t meet their metric of 16, they have to explain why, and what they’ll do to get things back on track for the next 30 days.

Defining the desired outcome and pinpointing the actions they should be held accountable for feels like the right approach to accountability. Can’t wait to see this in action.

For the past few weeks, I’ve been working with entrepreneurs to set up an accountability group. Once a month for a few hours. The expectation is high commitment and open sharing so they can learn from one another and solve their individual problems faster. Think EO or YPO forums.

One thing I wasn’t sure about was the meeting type. I knew what I wanted to aim for, but I wasn’t sure I could pull it off. I was pretty sure I would get pushback about mandating in-person meetings and would have to settle for a hybrid approach (some people would attend in person, and some via Zoom). I was dead wrong. None of the CEOs want to do hybrid. They all want in-person. In fact, two went so far as to tell me that the quality of the meetings will be lower and participation won’t be as good if some people attend virtually. They shared that part of the reason the group appeals to them is in-person nature, because it will force everyone to be 100% focused and present during the meeting.

I suspect that these founders have high standards and want to be part of a group of peers who all have high expectations of one another around participation and accountability. Iron sharpens iron, and these founders want their blades sharpened by peers.

Can’t wait to get this group off the ground!

A friend recently shared with me that he’s considering attaching a nonprofit arm to his start-up. He laid out a host of strategic reasons why this makes sense and described the types of funds available from government, academic, and enterprise companies to support nonprofits that are focused on increasing entrepreneurship. As he spoke, I realized that I know nothing about nonprofits and haven’t considered the strategic benefits of a for-profit organization having a nonprofit arm.

I did a few high-level searches and learned that more for-profit organizations than I realized have strategically created nonprofit sibling organizations. I spoke with a buddy about this, and he pointed out that a prominent entrepreneurs we know recently seeded a nonprofit that will support the vision and mission of his latest for-profit project by raising money from corporate sponsors and getting government grants.

I have a massive knowledge gap in this area and need to learn more about the for-profit/nonprofit strategies others have used to support their mission.

I listened to a podcast about focus and productivity on YouTube today. One thing it talked about was a method of bringing distractibility down while helping to bring you into flow, or a state of increased focus. The presenter went on to talk about something called “neural entrainment,” which I’d never heard of. Apparently, it can occur when “something that’s rhythmic [harmonizes] with brain waves, which forces you into a state of more focus.” It could be triggered by movement, motion, or sound.

Sound neural entrainment caught my attention because it reminded me of conversations I’ve had with some of the most talented people I’ve worked with about their work style. Several of them listen to certain types of rhythmic music (no voices) when they’re doing focused work. This pattern jumped out to me every time I heard it because I don’t listen to music when I work.

After listening to this video, I now realize that those people may have been leveraging neural entrainment (whether they knew it or not). This made me want to try it. Luckily for me, the video mentioned Brain.fm, a company focused on playing music that’s personalized  (based on neuroscience) that helps you focus intensely. Think Pandora or Spotify, but meant to help you focus. I did some research, and it seems that Brain.fm works especially well for people with ADHD.

I’m always looking for ways to improve, and this neural-entrainment idea sparked my curiosity. So, I signed up for a 30-day trial of Brain FM. I can’t wait to see if the platform helps get me into a state of focus more easily and keeps me there. If you’re interested in listening to or watching the entire video, you can check it out here.

I had a chat with a friend who shared a story with me. An entrepreneur needed someone to build an MVP of the software she needed. She was connected with a developer who knew AI like the back of his hand. He agreed to build the app for $10,000. Over a weekend, he vibe coded her MVP in six or eight hours. The entrepreneur was happy to finally have a working MVP she could demo with customers and immediately started reaching out to potential customers.

One school of thought around this was that the developer charged the entrepreneur too much. Ten thousand dollars for something he did on the couch while he was doing other things might sound slightly predatory. Especially when you consider that he was paid $1,200 to $1,500 an hour. Some would say he was taking advantage of the entrepreneur.

I have an different perspective. What matters is the output and how quickly it can be created. What the developer got paid for was his skill and expertise, which allowed him to move faster than others. His expertise allowed him to charge based on the value of what he created, not the effort put into the creation process. As for this entrepreneur, I’d imagine she was happy to pay the $10,000 for two reasons. First, she got the app she’d been struggling to build lightning fast, in three or four days. Second, she knew she could sign up customers who want what her software offers and can generate way more than $10,000 in gross profit.

With AI moving so fast, many people don’t know what’s possible or how to use all the AI tools. Skill and expertise in knowing what tools exist, what they can do, and how to use them are highly valued now. But as more people learn these skills and tools, the value of that expertise will go down. Developers and others with this skill set won’t be able to charge as much to build products quickly by leveraging their AI expertise. The market will become more efficient as understanding of AI and its tools is more widely disseminated.