What Works | Small Business Podcast With Tara Mcmullin

This episode originally ran on May 25, 2022. It's been lightly remixed for today's release!“Rugged individualism” is the very language we speak in America. It shapes the way we approach work, family, and society. And rugged individualism has a direct impact on the decisions we make about our businesses and careers. In this short episode, I unpack where rugged individualism comes from and highlight a different way forward.Footnotes: Rugged Individualism Monologue by Terry Smith  "The Myth of Rugged Individualism” by Robert Reich “We’d Like To Thank You, Herbert Hoover” from Annie Individualism and Economic Order by Friedrich Hayek Hope in the Dark by Rebecca Solnit “The Philosophers: Loneliness & Totalitarianism” on Vox Conversations Every What Works episode is also published in essay form in my newsletter. Subscribe FREE or become a premium subscriber for bonus content for just $7/month. Go to: whatworks.fyi  ★ Support this podcast ★

So much of our modern discourse around productivity, empowerment, entrepreneurship, and personal growth includes messages about our bodies. These messages might not be explicit, but the messages are there—and our brains pick them up loud and clear.Similarly, we might not realize that we’re sharing messages that insert themselves into how others perceive their own bodies—but many of us are. It’s impossible to talk about self-discipline, accountability, or efficiency without those concepts leaving their marks on our flesh.This episode covers a tiny sliver of all the ways that the medium of self-help acts on our bodies. But my hope is that it will encourage you to think critically about the messages you receive about your body and the messages you share that might impact others’ bodies.You’ll hear from independent beauty culture journalist Jessica DeFino, body confidence influencer Tiffany Ima, and Flaunt Your Fire founder India Jackson.This episode contains frank talk about bodies, weight, beauty, dieting, and

This is an episode of "This is Not Advice," a bonus podcast I do for premium subscribers of What Works. Instead of just a teaser this week, I wanted to share the whole episode with you. If you'd like to receive future episodes, go to whatworks.fyi/subscribe and become a premium subscriber for just $7/month.For this edition of This is Not Advice, I wanted to piggyback on the conversation I had with Jay Acunzo about social media generally and Threads specifically. Part of the conversation that didn't make it into the main piece involved the ratio of how much creating versus consuming we do online. On this, Jay and I have very different philosophies. I don't think he's "doing it wrong," but I did want to tease out the factors that influence whether we [can] spend more time creating or consuming online—and how that impacts the work we do.It's an episode about craft, gender, genius, and moving beyond the creating versus consuming dichotomy.Click here to read the full piece and get links to everything I cited in th

This is an episode about Meta's new app, Threads. It's also about Substack and Substack's new-ish feature, Notes. But really, it's an episode about what we're looking for from the category we call "social media" and how we think about achieving those ends. And perhaps what it's really, really about is how we go looking for and creating meaning in the digital sphere.Jay Acunzo, a writer, podcaster, and public speaker who thinks a lot about online content, was one of the 100+ million people to give Threads a try over the last week. I was not. So I wanted to see how he was approaching the platform, why he joined in the first place, and maybe, just maybe, how he's thinking about making meaning online.Footnotes: Find out more about Jay Acunzo, his podcast, and his newsletter Substack Notes "Threads is a mecca of Millennial brain rot" by Kate Lindsay on Embedded "Meta unspools Threads" by Casey Newton on Platformer "To quit or not quit social media: opportunity cost can help you decide" on What Works John Austi

"It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism," say Frederic Jameson and Slavoj Žižek.Capitalist liberal democracy is construed as the "end of history"—the culmination of millennia of civilizational progress, the inevitable outcome of a long march toward justice and freedom. But is it? And if it's not the best system for our economic and political needs, what is the alternative?It's almost impossible to imagine. But, despite what Margaret Thatcher said, there is an alternative—many, in fact. We just haven't dreamed them up yet.This is the argument of Mark Fisher's Capitalist Realism, a great little book that wrestles with big questions and ends on a surprisingly hopeful note. In this episode, I'll share some reflections on our identities as consumers and the nature of capitalist realism. Then, you'll hear the latest episode of the Books Applied Podcast with Iggy Perillo. Iggy and I discussed the book for her podcast and I loved it so much that I wanted to share it with you, too!Footn

Welcome to the 5th edition of This is Not Advice, a non-advice column for premium subscribers of What Works. If you’re already a premium subscriber, thank you! If you’re not, I still think you’re great—and you can read a solid chunk of this column for free. Or, subscribe to get access to full-length columns and podcast episodes.Or, read this excerpt here.Next week, I’m teaching a workshop on how to pitch yourself to appear on podcasts for YellowHouse.Media. I’ll show you how to find shows to pitch, how to think like a producer, and how to prepare for your interview. Click here to learn more & register. ★ Support this podcast ★

"Failure" got a glow-up sometime in the last 20 years. Instead of something to be feared, gurus tell us to embrace failure. That failure is a waypoint on the path to success. But this shift in our relationship with failure has only further inscribed the winner-loser binary that causes so much of our anxiety about the future.What if "failure" wasn't part of the "success" formula? What if we looked beyond conventional notions of failure and success to question whether those ideas even matter at all? Whether they serve us at all?Today on the podcast, Kate Tyson (Strathmann) is queering failure. She's questioning what it means to build a business or a project without the normative notions of success and failure. And how calling those norms into question allows us to imagine new and different ways to do business—or any kind of venture."Queer Failure" is an excerpt from [Im]Possible Business by Kate Tyson.Footnotes: [Im]Possible Business by Kate Tyson Follow Kate's writing on Substack The Queer Art of Failure by

Buckle up—today's episode was inspired by something that got me really worked up this week: "I think home-baking is one of the stupidest things anyone can engage in," says Rick Easton of Jersey City's Bread and Salt. This episode is about shoulds and supposed-tos, baking at home, and the ways we devalue certain kinds of labor. Whether or not home-baking is your thing, you'll recognize the way value is narrowly defined by culture and, I think, gain new language for the worthiness of work that doesn't fit the capitalist mode.Footnotes: "Leave the Baking to the Professionals" by Hannah Goldfield, New Yorker Bread, and How to Eat It by Rick Easton and Melissa McCart "On Bread" via From the Desk of Alicia Kennedy "What could 'food is political' mean?" via From the Desk of Alicia Kennedy King Arthur Baking: Old-Fashioned Oatmeal Loaf Breadhead by Greg Wade History of Low-Carb Diets on Wikipedia "I love bread!" Weight Watchers commercial "Home Cooking can be a Feminist Act" by Nigella Lawson "Men More Likely

"Outsiders" shoulder a disproportionate burden when it comes to fitting in. Can we demand more from the "insiders?"This is a preview of the 4th installment of This is Not Advice, a not-advice column for paid subscribers of What Works. If you’re not a paid, enjoy the first half of this essay (audio or written) or upgrade your subscription to access the whole thing. For just $7 per month, you get access to bonus content and help me make this show!For a written version of this episode, go to: www.whatworks.fyi ★ Support this podcast ★

What gets labeled as "authentic" is often quite predictable. It's a market-compatible expression of what was once something unique or personal. Authenticity is a vibe—and a valuable one at that."Predictably unique" is how David A. Banks defines authenticity in his book, The City Authentic. Authenticity, or what's "predictably unique," describes how culture, place, and style are packaged to become recognizable—and, therefore, consumable—to a general audience.And while Banks's interest is in the politics of urban planning, his analysis spoke to a question I've pondered for almost as long as I've been a Very Online Person: Why does authenticity often feel so fake?How can a form of expression feel legitimately authentic one day and discernibly contrived or derivative the next? Is it the expression or my perception of it that changes? Why does "authentic" become an aesthetic, a legible set of features that denotes the "real?" And why does formulaic authenticity convey such social capital (or at least promise to)?I

On June 8, Skye Pillsbury opened the latest edition of her newsletter, The Squeeze, with the header RIP Gimlet. She continued:I’m heartbroken over the news that Spotify has laid off another 200 podcast employees, though I’m not shocked.— Skye Pillsbury, The SqueezeI devoured Alex Blumberg's Startup when it first came out, which was about a year before I started podcasting. Then, I inhaled Reply All when it launched, and despite its later troubles, was genuinely moved by its final episode. I lapped up Blumberg's earnest interviews with entrepreneurs on Without Fail. I even had the privilege of interviewing Blumberg during a course I taught at CreativeLive.I followed Gimlet's acquisition by Spotify with interest (and a healthy dose of skepticism). The bumpy ride that they've had since then was utterly predictable. Though, like Pillsbury, I find the news that Gimlet is no more—at least in any recognizable sense—quite upsetting.This short dispatch is about podcasting and the podcast industry—but really, it's abou

I’m about to write the most journalistic thing I’ve ever written: I received a tip.I wish I could say it was an “anonymous tip” because that sounds even more journalistic. But it wasn’t anonymous, though I won’t say who it was. Anyhow, my source told me about a small business owner—someone who sells online courses and does quite well—paying an outrageous sum for a fairly standard service.This, of course, was not an isolated incident. I didn't really need a tip. I know all about this kind of thing. Wildly inflated prices grace all manner of products and services within the creator economy, coaching industry, and "online business" space in general.‘What’s going on?’ my source wanted to know. ‘How do people get caught paying so far above market rate? And why do people charge prices so out of whack with the market?’ I totally paraphrased all that. Here's what my source really asked about: "the gaslighting inflationary online pricing bubble."In this episode, I endeavor to get to the bottom of the Gaslighting Infla

Welcome to the 3rd edition of This is Not Advice, my advice column that’s not an advice column for paid subscribers of What Works. This week, I am tackling a question that came up during last week’s workshop on media ecosystems (link to replay below!) and that my husband Sean asked me just this morning. It also came up a number of times during a workshop on audio essays that I taught earlier this year.So I’m going to assume this is something that a lot of folks struggle with—myself included on a regular basis.Here’s the gist:I’ve accumulated lots of thoughts that I want to turn into a cohesive project—maybe a book, a podcast series, an online course, even a single essay. How do I even begin working on something like that?This episode is an excerpt from my full column! To upgrade your subscription and read or listen to the full episode, click here! ★ Support this podcast ★

Today's episode is all about trust and responsibility—and how those qualities impact the cost of doing business and the work that's required for any company to be successful. And specifically, it's about something I'm calling the Trust-Profit Paradox. Simply put, you can't build trust and optimize for profit at the same time. After losing my ish listening to The Verge's Nilay Patel stump Airbnb's Brian Chesky with a question about AI-generated images on the Decoder podcast, I started to think about the responsibility that companies like Airbnb have (or, rather, avoid). From there, my research took me to some truly unexpected places—like into mainstream management theory. Footnotes: "The Pope Francis Puffer Photo Was Real In Our Hearts" by Eileen Cartter on GQ "'I can't make products just for 41-year-old tech founders': Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky is taking it back to basics" on Decoder with Nilay Patel (audio & transcript available) "The Delusion of Profit" by Peter Drucker in Wall Street Journal "Cost of C

What are we really talking about when we talk about our hopes and fears about AI?It's us. We're the problem.Actually, we're not the problem—we're more like the solution. But that's less mimetic.Sure, this is yet another pod hitting your feed with a take on AI. I'll assure you, though: this episode isn't really AI. There's no fear-mongering or cute suggestions for prompts. It's a bit of a meditation on the very human parts of our relationship with technology. And it's probably one of the most hopeful pieces I've put together in a few years!  ***Anyhow, today's episode is the second edition of This is Not Advice, a "not advice" column for paying subscribers of What Works. This is the final public edition, so if you'd like to keep getting a dose of "not advice" from me every other week, plus submit your own topics and questions, and support independent analysis of the future of work, business, and leadership, go taramcmullin.substack.com/subscribe and chip in just $7/month.I'm also hosting a workshop on May 31 f

There's a sort of inside joke in the online business space of coaches, creators, and service providers. Or maybe, at this point, it's an "outside joke?"Q: What's the surest way to make more money as a creator or small business owner?A: Teach other people how to make money as a creator or small business owner.Hilarious, right? Anyhow, this isn't some weird quirk of extremely online people. It's something huge companies do, too. Douglas Rushkoff calls it "going meta." You can see it in the stock market, in automakers, and—yes—at Meta. In this quick Dispatch, I take a look at how "going meta" changes work, both for self-employed and traditionally employed folks. And, I consider how we might do things differently.Footnotes: Survival of the Richest, by Douglas Rushkoff Team Human, by Douglas Rushkoff "What a Meta For?" by Douglas Rushkoff on Medium Kyla Scanlon's tweet "How Ford Makes Money" on Investopedia ★ Support this podcast ★

“This cancerous economic principle means that executives and venture capitalists have abandoned the concept of value within a business. Through decades of corporate greed, production has become almost entirely separated from capital, meaning that executives (and higher-ups) are no longer able to understand the nature of the businesses they are growing.”— Ed Zitron, “Absentee Capitalism”This might sound weird—but most companies today aren’t in the business it appears they’re in. Netflix isn’t really in the content business. Facebook isn’t in the social media business. Etsy isn’t in the handmade marketplace business. Instead, companies are in the growth business. And this impacts all of us, tying how we work not to the production of valuable products and services but to the potential for capital growth. Even for independent workers and small businesses, the capital growth game sets the rules and obstacles for the game we play.Today’s episode is about gaming the system—how the game we play dictates the decisions

Today’s quick episode is a sample of something I’m creating for paid subscribers to What Works. I’m calling it my “This is Not Advice” column. Or, TINA for short. Not to be confused with TINA a la “there is no alternative”—if you know, you know.Paid subscribers not only receive this subscriber-directed content, but they also have the chance to, well, direct the content! When you’re a paid subscriber, you can write in with a question, topic, or observation that you’d like my take on—some added context here and some sideways observations there. If you like today’s episode and want to get more of it, go to read.explorewhatworks.com and become a paid subscriber for just $7/month! ***Today's Question:What else can I do to grow my [audience, platform, brand, list, etc.]?To me, this isn’t only a question for independent workers and small business owners—although it’s especially salient for that group. It’s also a question that points to a bigger trend in work in general. And that trend is the way all workers are now

What does a bad movie from 1992, loss aversion, Steinbeck, pizza, farm animals, and the founder of a software company have in common? Well, you’ll find them all in this episode.This episode will take you places. I don’t want to spoil it. So suffice it to say, this episode is all about questioning why we act the way we do when it comes to how we scale up (and scale down) our dreams. Footnotes: Learn more about Nathalie Lussier and AccessAlly Far and Away (1992 film) Oklahoma land rush of 1893 “A primer on the 30s” by John Steinbeck More about loss aversion 2002 pizza study Psychopolitics by Byung-Chul Han Check out Nathalie & Robin’s farm on YouTube What Works by Tara McMullin Support the research, journalism, and analysis that goes into What Works by becoming a paid subscriber for just $7 per month. You'll get access to bonus content and help me continue to do this work (instead of, ya know, selling you stuff).  ★ Support this podcast ★

I am on board when it comes to technological progress. I look forward to updating my devices (although I don’t do it as frequently as I used to). New apps and features excite me. I’m pretty quick to adapt to change. I am not a Luddite. Or so I thought. “The word Luddite still means an old-fashioned type who is anti-progress,” writes Jeanette Winterson in her book 12 Bytes. “But the Luddites of the early 19th century were not against progress; they were against exploitation.” Reading these lines was the first time what the Luddite movement actually stood for really sank in. Where I had once seen atavism and fear, I now saw labor politics I could get behind.When I picked up Gavin Mueller’s Breaking Things at Work: The Luddites Were Right About Why You Hate Your Job, I did so to learn more about the radical roots of Luddism and how the movement could inform my own thinking on the future of work. I also picked it up amidst the current fervor over AI and debates about whether the robots were finally coming for wri