My dirty little secret — at least as far as business is concerned — is that I’ve never had a business plan.

Not for my copywriting, book writing, corporate training, or Internet marketing business.

There. I’ve confessed. May God have mercy on my soul….

Most how-to books on small business prattle endlessly about the importance of writing a business plan.

Most marketing consultants I talk with tell me they charge clients thousands of bucks to write “marketing plans” for them.

At the end of the day, a lot of their clients have formal, well written, impressive business plans — with lots of graphs in the appendix designed using PowerPoint — in slick GBC style binders.

Only problem is, they have no new leads … no new customers … no new sales … and no new business.

I think the whole idea of “write a business plan” is, frankly, overrated.

Your time and money would be better spent actually selling … rather than blathering in a plan document on ways you THINK you should sell.

Do you find yourself nodding in agreement with me that the whole “hire me to write your business/marketing plan” is, in many respects, a con game? Perhaps the last refuge of the “those who can do, those who can’t write about it” school of marketing poseurs?

Or are you seeing red, and thinking that, at long last, you know why Bly is such a miserable failure: because he is a fool who doesn’t believe in, or write, business plans.

Gail Tomas, a 65-year-old opera singer, saved her life through advertising.

According to an article in The Week (4/13/07, p. 16), Ms. Tomas ran a “kidney needed” notice on an organ donor Web site.

Paul Wagner, a 40-year-old businessman, responded — giving Gail one of his kidneys and saving her life.

Now, Dr. Douglas Hanto, a transplant surgeon, thinks advertising for a donor online should be made illegal.

His argument: people who get organs through online advertising are jumping the line on the national organ donor list.

The article notes that of the 70,000 people needing a kidney transplant in the United States, half will die waiting, because organs are in short supply.

Do you think advertising for a kidney … or a heart … or a child to adopt … or any other important essential should be banned?

Or if you needed these things, would you conduct an aggressive marketing campaign to secure what you require — either for you or a loved one?

Why are some people so much more successful than others?

After thinking about this on and off for almost 3 decades, I’ve reached the conclusion that 4 factors are responsible for success:

1. Hard work — “work smarter, not harder,” is largely B.S. Yes, you have to work smart. But most of the really successful people I know have a puritan work ethic, despite the claims of some of them to the contrary.

2. Persistence — the only way to ensure permanent failure is to give up. Successful people never give up.

3. “Smarts” — successful people are either highly intelligent or have some aptitude that helps them in achieving their goals.

4. Luck — some people are just luckier than others. They are fortunate to be born with an aptitude (#3 above) that makes money in today’s society. Or they benefit from timing: market factors align favorably with their ventures and goals.

I am debating adding a fifth factor to my list above: ambition.

Financial talk show host Bill Bresnan began a lecture once by asking the audience: “Why are you not rich? Because you don’t want to be rich.”

People who achieve success — fame, wealth, building a company, launching a product, inventing — do so because doing so is important to them.

The difference between a humble successful person and an egotistical one?

The humble achiever acknowledges the role #4 played in his success, and the egotistical one does not.

Do you think my 4 (5) factors above adequately explain why some people are so much more successful than others?

Or am I missing an important factor required to achieve success?

In the March 2007 issue of Training & Development magazine, the bio of one of the contributors reads as follows (full name not used to protect the innocent):

“CZ provides results-focused learning solutions aimed at providing employees with the essential skills that enable them to optimize their performance and achieve measurable business results.”

I don’t like the jargon (“learning solutions”) even though I have been doing training part-time for decades.

Also don’t like the fancy words (“optimize”) or lack of specifics (“essential skills” … WHAT skills?).

After reading CZ’s bio, I still have no idea what she really does.

I also conclude that she does not communicate very well — not a good sign for someone in the training industry — and that perhaps she is a bit of a stuffed shirt.

Do you agree that CZ’s bio is stiff and unfriendly?

Or do you think she is really speaking the reader’s langauge and getting them excited about her offering?

What specific edits can you suggest to CZ so she can rewrite the bio to make it stronger?

Just 10 seconds ago, I got a call from a telemarketer identifying himself as “Allen” from “the Garden of Memories.”

He was calling to tell me they are building new mausoleums and gauge my interest in a purchase.

Although I would not be put off by a cold call from a life insurance salesperson, I was by a cold call from a graveyard.

Not sure why: both are based on my eventual death. And both are services that people buy.

Yet I found Allen creepy.

Are certain offers and products OK in space advertising or direct mail, but taboo to you, as a consumer, in telemarketing?

Or do you hate all telemarketing calls equally?

I suggested to Allen that a newspaper ad would be a better way to drum up business, and even gave him the headline:

“DEAD?”

He was not amused.

Google makes no secret of its contempt for copyright and intellectual property ownership — believing, as so many Netters do, that “information should be free.”

To which I say, “Bull*(#$%*!!!”

In February, Viacom asked Google-owned YouTube to remove more than 100,000 unauthorized video clips of copyrighted TV shows from its site.

When YouTube did not comply, Viacom filed suite against YouTube and Google for copyright infringement, seeking over $1 billon in damages … in a case that DM News (3/19/07, p. 1) says “may determine the future of content distribution over the Internet.”

Some argue that the exposure of the video clips on YouTube is good for Viacom, promoting their shows to a wider audience — and so Viacom should be happy that YouTube is giving them all this free exposure.

But they miss the point, and the point is this: the decision of whether to let someone reproduce or distribute copyrighted material lies solely with copyright holder.

To take someone else’s copyrighted music, video, article, or story — and distribute it online or elsewhere without their consent — is stealing, pure and simple.

Internet types love to talk about the importance of “permission-based marketing.”

How about “permission-based Internet publishing”?

That makes sense.

Right?

For some time now, Outback has been running a radio campaign, “Let’s Go Outback Tonight.”

It’s a jingle followed by voice-over narration about the food.

The narrator invites the listener to come to outback where “the chicken is moist and tender” and “the steak is thick and juicy.”

Now, I’ve never done any food writing.

But is it just me, or is describing a steak as “thick and juicy” as about as pedestrian and cliche as you can get?

Let’s say you were writing this radio spot. Can you think of a more enticing way to describe your steaks than “thick and juicy”?

Or your chicken than “moist and tender”?

Or do you think those descriptions are perfectly valid — and strong enough to get you to want to eat at Outback tonight?

When you set your product prices or service fees, do you consider only what price is going to make you the most money?

Or does the idea of whether the price is fair and reasonable — and whether people can afford it — play a role in your pricing.

Reason I ask: an article in The Week (4/6/07, p. 13) reports that Halliburton billed the federal government $27.4 million for a shipment of natural gas from Kuwait that cost the company $82,000.

According to the article, Halliburton claimed the extra charges were justified by the danger of transporting gas over Iraq’s sniper-infested, booby-trapped roads.

Do you think Halliburton is:

A. Being fairly compensated for the risk involved?
A. Price-gouging?
B. Ripping off the American government and people which, given its White House connects with Dick Cheney, should be investigated with an eye toward prosecution?

And the bigger picture question: can pricing for a product or service be so high it becomes at best unseemly or at worst downright immoral?

If so, at what point does that occur?