Josh Steimle's Linkedin Analytics

I don’t know an entrepreneur who hasn’t failed. Sure, you might look at an entrepreneur who has a successful company and a billion dollars and say, “This guy isn’t a failure, no way!” but you would be mistaking "failing" with "being a failure." A failure is someone who sees their failings as who they are, rather than something they’ve done. Failing happens due to poor decisions, but just as often happens when someone makes the right decision. Failing is often a key to success. Failure, on the other hand, is entirely our choice. After every setback, I decide what I want to do. I’m not a failure until I give up and stop trying. Edison failed 10,000 times to create the lightbulb but he was never a failure. That said, sometimes we should give up. There no shame in giving up on a bad idea. I don’t become a failure when I stop trying to accomplish a specific task, but when I stop trying to succeed generally, or give up on life itself. Sometimes we allow failing to rob us of hope to the point where we won't even try to succeed, even if success is staring us in the face. That is when we truly become a failure. This is called learned helplessness. During the 60’s Dr. Martin E.P. Seligman was part of the team that discovered “learned helplessness” by exposing cockroaches to tortur…err, experiments…ok, allow the Dr. to explain himself, “We found that dogs, rats, mice, and even cockroaches that experienced mildly painful shock over which they had no control would eventually just accept it, with no attempt to escape.” They then created experiments (without the use of electrical shocks) for humans that showed the same results. People exposed to unpleasant stimuli in one session took action to avoid it, in another would eventually give up trying, and in the third session wouldn't try at all. But what was most interesting to me about Dr. Seligman’s research was that about a third of the participants, both animals and humans, did NOT learn helplessness. How did people resist helplessness? Dr. Seligman found that optimism was the key. “We discovered that people who don’t give up have a habit of interpreting setbacks as temporary, local, and changeable,” Dr. Seligman says. “That suggested how we might immunize people against learned helplessness, against depression and anxiety, and against giving up after failure: by teaching them to think like optimists.” Learned optimism leads to resiliency, or the ability to quickly bounce back from setbacks. Dr. Seligman found that resilient people not only recovered from negative experience, but their performance after negative experiences exceeded prior performance. If someone can take something bad, and not just recover, but say “You know what? Not only am I going to recover from this, but I’m going to be even more awesome than I was before!” then that’s pretty awesome. Be awesome. It's your choice.

It took me almost 25 years as an entrepreneur to learn that I thrive on chaos. I love startups. I love solving big, urgent problems. And if there isn't a big problem to solve, I'll probably create it. The last thing I want is to work full-time in a stable business. What can I do so that I don't ruin my life and the lives of everyone around me? I needed a two-step solution. Now I start businesses and once they're stable, I turn them over to a partner, someone who enjoys running a stable business. Do you create chaos or problems in your life? Have you figured out how to manage it?

"Wow, that's expensive! Why is it so expensive?" "Wow! That's actually very reasonable, I was expecting it to be more." I've had potential clients of Canvas PR say both these things in the past week. When someone says our service is expensive, I get it. I'm a small business owner. I'm trying to get as much as I can while spending as little as I can, just like everyone else. I respect that, and when someone says our PR services are too expensive I refer them over to Featured which is a great DIY solution to get PR. Meanwhile, I put my attention on the people who think we're affordable and want someone else to do all the work. When you just spent $200K for nine months of PR with a high-priced NYC firm and got one or two articles out of it, and you had to push hard to get those, then paying $5K for an article that has a 90-day, money-back guarantee sounds like a bargain. If you're running a service business, know your product, know what the market will bear, and know your competition. And especially, know your ideal client profile. It's probably not the people telling you you're too expensive.

Should you trust your gut? Douglas Adams, in his book Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency, said, "...someone who might have difficulty consciously trying to work out what 3 x 4 x 5 comes to would have no trouble in doing differential calculus and a whole host of related calculations so astoundingly fast that they can actually catch a flying ball. People who call this 'instinct' are merely giving the phenomenon a name, not explaining anything." The point being, sometimes our brains can do subconscious calculations that defy conscious logic. We may call the result "gut" but perhaps it's actually next-level number crunching. On the other hand, if you do two years of research on a business deal, getting as mathematical as possible, finally pull the trigger, and then it immediately blows up in your face, you might say, "I'm never doing a deal like that again..." and the next time you see a deal like that you might say, "That's a bad deal." You'll believe you're thinking logically, but are you, or is it your "gut," or your emotions speaking because of the negative experience you had? As Ricardo Valerdi teaches, sometimes you make the right decision and get a bad outcome. That doesn't mean you made a mistake, or a bad decision. So when do you trust your gut and when do you not trust it? Or how do you manage those gut feelings so they don't manage you?

I was quoted in this blog post from PR Advice. Also check out tips in it from Daniel Lynch, Matías Rodsevich, Max Shak, Nikita Sherbina. Thanks Featured for the assist!

How do you manage to be grateful no matter what's going on, bad or good? (not a rhetorical question)

How do PR experts get PR for their clients? And how can you do what they do to get PR for yourself or your business? I answered these questions for a PR article request just now (the writer was asking about how to segment PR for multiple audiences, but the answer I gave applies to anyone doing any kind of PR). Here's what I said: Our clients (at Canvas PR) often have two objectives. First, they want to get more customers or clients. Second, they're often after investment funding. The PR strategy for getting more clients can differ substantially from the strategy for impressing investors. Regardless, we follow the same methodology to Target each audience: 1. Know what you want. I see plenty of PR clients who have a vague notion that PR is good, but they're not sure exactly what they want from it. Or they have vague metrics, like "more business," or "growth." Get specific. 2. Know your audience. Who can give you what you want? 3. Identify the places your audience hangs out, or the outlets (websites, magazines, channels, podcasts, apps, etc.) where they consume content. 4. Find the content creators, the hosts, writers, or journalists at those outlets who produce the content that your audience consumes AND which fits the type of content you want to be part of. 5. Target those content creators one at a time, with a customized, concise, easy-to-respond-to pitch. The pitch should include a detail that shows the content creator that you are sending in this email to them and them only. It should be short, one to two sentences. The recipient should be able to respond with a yes or a no. Bonus: when I'm developing relationships for my PR clients, and I'm doing outreach, I often ask just one simple question to the writers I'm pitching, "What are you working on? Maybe I can help." I find that I get more responses from sending this kind of email than from sending a direct pitch. And sometimes I get amazing answers where they tell me about 10 different stories they're working on, and often I can find a client who fits in one of those stories. Got follow-up questions about PR? Ask below.

I was recently on this SEO podcast with Chris Raulf talking about digital PR. check it out!

Will AI-generated images kill stock photography? The image below was generated by ChatGPT. It took me about 10 minutes to create this image. I had to go through about five revisions. On the other hand, I have literally spent several hours looking for a single image on stock photography websites, and still never found exactly what I wanted. I've done this many, many times. There are no legal limitations to me using it anywhere, anytime, for any use whether personal or commercial (there is a slight risk that an image generated by AI might resemble someone or something from real life and infringe on their rights, since AI is trained on real world data, but let's leave that aside for the moment). By contrast, if I use a photo from a stock photo website, there are limitations as to when, where, and how I can use it. To use it anywhere, anytime, in any way, requires purchasing additional licenses that can get quite expensive, even into the thousands of dollars. My ChatGPT subscription costs me $20 a month. Just a few months ago, none of the common AI engines could produce a photo-realistic image like this, quickly and easily. Now they can all do it (they even get the hands and fingers correct, now). Stock images, if anything, have gotten worse over the 25 years I've used them. You'd think it'd be the opposite since they would have more photos today than they did years ago, but it seems like all the photos I look at are full of people who look vaguely Russian, are making strange expressions, are wearing clothing that doesn't fit what I need, and are in front of backgrounds that aren't right for the intended use. and why does every single stock photo that includes a desk have to have a cup of coffee on it?! It's like there's a law. Creating images using AI isn't perfect. Sometimes the face looks not quite right. Sometimes AI does something in the background that I don't want. Sometimes, no matter how many times I ask it to, it will not put more space between his elbows and the bottom edge of the image. Then I have to do revisions to get it right, or decide it's close enough. But I'm still getting better images, faster, at a much lower cost, without having to deal with usage rights. There is literally no comparison. It's not even close. I can't imagine going back to paying for stock photography. Is it just me?

My dad once told me doctors make the worst investors because they're so smart—and they know it. Dave Ramsey recently said the same thing on his show but added lawyers. In his book, Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency, author Douglas has a character, one inspector Gilks, tell Dirk Gently, "You’re a clever man...but you make the same mistake a lot of clever people do of thinking everyone else is stupid." In Plato's Apology, he writes about Socrates being called the wisest man in Athens. Socrates argues that if he is wise, it’s only because he recognizes his own ignorance, while others think they know things they actually don't. Why are we so quick to assume that if we're smart about one thing, we must be smart about everything? More importantly, how does one overcome it?

Don't trust your LinkedIn posts to AI just yet. I asked ChatGPT to "give me a list of the most controversial topics I could post about on LinkedIn, without touching politics, being needlessly offensive, or outright insulting anyone." I don't think the results are terrible, but they don't feel authentically human, either. Here's what I got back: 🚨 Workplace Culture & Behavior “Company culture” is mostly a marketing gimmick. It’s used to justify low pay and keep people loyal for perks like pizza and ping pong. Not every team member deserves a seat at the table. Inclusion doesn’t mean every voice needs to be in the strategy room. The “no jerks” rule often filters out top performers. It’s frequently used to remove high-accountability people who challenge the status quo. Work-life balance is not a right—it’s a privilege earned through results. Too many people want flexibility without proving dependability. Empathy is overrated in leadership. Clarity and competence often outperform emotional tuning. 📈 Careers & Hiring Hiring for “culture fit” is often just disguised conformity. It’s a polite way to say, “They didn’t think like we do.” Most job titles are meaningless. “Growth Hacker,” “Innovation Sherpa,” “Culture Wizard”—what are we actually hiring? You’re not underpaid—you’re overestimated. Harsh truth: markets pay for value, not effort or potential. Promotions are rarely about merit. They're about timing, likability, and perceived safety. Your degree isn’t impressive anymore. In today’s world, tangible results beat classroom credentials every time. 🧠 Productivity & Performance “Burnout” is often just poor prioritization. Not always—but blaming burnout is easier than owning our distractions. Most meetings should be emails—but most emails should be deleted. The issue isn’t meetings. It’s an overload of low-value communication. Remote work does reduce accountability. Autonomy is great—until it turns into avoidance. People who talk about being busy usually aren’t. Top performers measure outcomes, not hours worked. You don’t need a morning routine. You need to take action. Journaling, cold plunges, and smoothies don’t beat focus and follow-through. 🚀 Entrepreneurship & Leadership Not everyone is a leader—and that’s a good thing. We've made “leadership” a participation trophy. Not everyone wants or needs to lead. Most entrepreneurs are just unemployed with a logo. There’s a difference between building a business and avoiding a boss. Coaching is turning into a pyramid scheme. Too many coaches are just coaching other coaches, without building anything real. You don’t need passion to succeed. You need execution, discipline, and timing. Passion is optional. I don't know. I mean, these aren't 🤮 or anything, but...they kind of are? I feel like this is a great illustration of how there are things humans can do that AI can't. But maybe I'll feel differently a year from now?

Something Nick Huber (give him a follow) posted the other day resonated with me as a founder...he basically said, "As a founder, your #1 job is sales." Prior to reading that, I would have said my top job (at my marketing agency MWI) is keeping my team happy so they can do good work and keep clients happy. I still think that's accurate, but if there are no sales then how happy will the team be? Cause they're not going to get paid without sales. They're not getting raises without sales. They're not getting access to the latest and greatest equipment and software without sales. They're not getting bonuses or profit sharing without sales. You could say that if you don't put sales first then you aren't putting your team first. Thoughts?

Let's talk ADHD and entrepreneurs. I just finished Walter Isaacson's book on Steve Jobs. Jobs 100% had ADHD. Elon 100% has ADHD. Also Richard Branson, Paul Orfalea, David Neeleman, Mark Suster, Peter Shankman, Alex Partridge, Penn Holderness, Bill Gates, Charles Schwab, Ingvar Kamprad, Alan Meckler, Diane Swonk, Jamie Oliver, Cameron Herold, Stephanie Scheller, Kayla Itsines, and Steph Claire Smith have all talked about living with ADHD. A 2018 study published in Small Business Economics found that entrepreneurs are significantly more likely to have ADHD symptoms compared to the general population. A 2020 systematic review in Personality and Individual Differences concluded that ADHD is “significantly associated with entrepreneurial intention and behavior,” especially the hyperactive/impulsive subtype. So if you have ADHD, you're going to be a successful entrepreneur, right? And if you don't have ADHD, you have a disadvantage as an entrepreneur, right? Wrong and wrong. As they say, correlation is not causation. ADHD may push individuals towards entrepreneurship for various reasons and of course some of those individuals will become successful and those are the ones we hear about. We don't hear all the stories about unsuccessful entrepreneurs with ADHD. And we can't ignore all the successful entrepreneurs who don't have ADHD, who more than likely outnumber those who do have it. I was diagnosed with ADHD as a kid, but my parents didn't tell me until I was 33. By then, I had already started several businesses and knew my brain was different than most people, but I didn't know what it was. What I knew was that something in my brain was both giving me advantages and causing problems. When I found out I had ADHD, and had always had it, my life made more sense to me. I've studied ADHD for the past 17 years, read research, read books, watched videos, and used myself as a guinea pig. I've tried brain exercises, physical exercise, diet, meditation, mindfulness, and "trying really hard to focus." Everything had positive results, but not necessarily for my ADHD symptoms. About a month and a half ago I tried medication for the first time (Lisdexamfetamine). For the first few weeks, I didn't notice much of anything other than that I didn't get as tired during the day. Then I got better at noticing the results. My doctor and I are still tweaking how much I'm taking to zero in on the right amount for me, but I can say that I'm definitely seeing positive outcomes. It's not so much that I feel different, it's more that I'm doing different things. Less procrastination, less avoidance, less hesitation. If I had to sum it up, I'd say I'm just getting more stuff done, and the right stuff. Is it a game changer? Yeah, at this point I would say it is, for me. If you're an entrepreneur and you've got ADHD, I can't say medication is right for you (there can be side effects), or that you should even try it, but it may be worth at least looking into.

LinkedIn was better when people didn't post about politics here. Agree or disagree?

This is a new image from the James Webb space telescope (my father worked on the Hubble for 10 years so I'm kind of into this stuff). This image contains 1,700 galaxy "groups." Galaxy groups "typically contain anywhere from three to a few dozen galaxies, or in larger galaxy clusters, which can include hundreds or even thousands of galaxies bound together by gravity." Potentially millions of galaxies are shown in this image. The "average" galaxy like the Milky Way has between 100 billion and 400 billion stars. Large ones have several trillion. The average galaxy is estimated to contain 4 to 10 billion Earth-like planets. So in that tiny photo, we're looking at potentially 1,700 x 1,000 x 10,000,000,000 or 17 quadrillion habitable planets. While the exact angular size of the image isn't specified in the available sources, deep-field images like this typically cover a very small portion of the sky. For context, the Hubble Ultra Deep Field covers an area of about 11 square arcminutes, which is roughly 1/13,000,000 of the entire sky. Given JWST's advanced capabilities, it's plausible that this image covers a similar or slightly larger area. Therefore, this image represents a minuscule fraction of the night sky. Do the math and we're looking at perhaps 221 septillion habitable planets in the known universe. That's about 2,000 times all the grains of sand on the entire Earth. And this could be a low estimate. If just a fraction of those habitable planets are inhabited by intelligent life, we're talking about a LOT of people. And yet you still matter. Nowhere in that entire universe is there another being that is you. No one can take your place when it comes to the relationships you've formed or will form. You may not change the universe for everyone, but you can change the universe for someone, and perhaps many someones.

Want to grow your marketing agency? 1. Reach out to all your friends. 2. Invite each one to a 1-1 lunch or, if you can't meet up in person, a video call. 3. Catch up. No pitching. No selling. If your agency happens to come up in the natural course of conversation, talk about it as though there is zero chance the friend you're talking to can benefit your agency in any way. I guarantee that with zero intent on your part to sell anything or promote yourself, about 50% of these conversations are going to lead to something. And 100% of them will be enjoyable.

I want your harshest (but fair) feedback on a new business we're launching as a subsidiary of MWI. (website in comments) Name: Built (or BUILT) Service: Custom WordPress development Primary differentiator: Built gives your team your team direct access to US-based senior-level talent without the overhead of a full-time hire. ICP: Businesses that have an internal dev team and need temporary assistance or that have ongoing needs but don't want to hire full time. Value quality and speed more than cost but aren't looking to burn money, either. ICP budget: $50,000 to $500,000 (for total engagement, which may be multi-year) If you need a new website for your home-based business, Built probably isn't the right fit. If your business has two in-house WordPress developers, you need a third, but you don't want to hire one full-time because you're not sure if you've got 6 months of work or two years, and it may go up and down each month, and this is mission-critical and you can't afford the time to work with someone who doesn't "get it," then Built is the right fit. Most people reading this will probably say, "Built isn't the right fit for me," and that's fine, Built isn't the right fit for most people. But any feedback about how you think Built fits the ICP would be helpful. Link in first comment.

If you're posting about politics on LinkedIn and everyone in your comments agrees with you, you may be under the impression that everyone on LinkedIn agrees with you and supports you posting political content, or most people on LinkedIn agree with you, or many people on LinkedIn agree with and support you. And maybe you're right. Or it may be that 99% of the people who see your post disagree, or feel that politics should stay on Facebook or X and wish that nobody posted about politics on LinkedIn, and are turned off by people who post about politics on LinkedIn. But maybe they stay quiet so you only see the 1% that agree and you're getting a skewed impression of reality.

I'm firmly of the mind that in general, the people who get paid the most are those who ask for it. I know people without college degrees earning $300K a year in non-management jobs. I know experienced MBAs earning $50K. The difference isn't skills, ability, or luck. The higher-paid people ask for more and don't settle for anything less. Jordan Peterson famously said, "There’s a personality trait known as agreeableness. Agreeable people are compassionate and polite. And agreeable people get paid less than disagreeable people for the same job. Women are more agreeable than men.” He then spoke about how he had done assertiveness training with women who then saw their pay rise. What does assertiveness in pay negotiations look like? At the risk of shooting myself in the foot as an employer, here's how people have done it with me: I offer someone a salary of $80K. They respond, "Could we do $90K?" Here's what then happens in my brain: "Gee, if I say no, then either they're going to turn down the offer, or they're going to be unhappy taking it. I want them to be excited to work here, not slightly bummed. And I already decided this is the person I want to hire, so I don't want to lose them. And $10K/year is less than $1K/mo, so it's not really that big of a deal..." I might still push back or make an offer like, "Tell you what, if you come on for $80K, I'll work with you on a plan to get you to $90K within six months." But then again, I might just give in and say, "Sure, let's do it!" The other thing I see is that people are afraid to make a big jump in salary. They see a job that will pay $150K and they think, "I've never made over $70K, I need to work my way up to that." Why?! Can you do the $150K job if you're hired? Then go after it! With confidence! Even if you don't think you can do it, can you learn how to do it within a few months of getting the job? Then go for it with confidence. And then ask for $10K more when they offer you the job. You may be hearing it's hard to find a job right now. It's all in your mind. There are always jobs. There are always lots of jobs. During the Great Depression 75% of people still had jobs and started successful businesses. Don't see the job out there that you want? Create it. I'm not just talking about starting a business. Go find a company you want to work for, and if they don't have the job you want, go pitch them on creating it and hiring you to do it. "I see you don't have someone doing XYZ, and if you did, you'd see ABC benefits and I can do this for you for $X." They might have already thought of hiring someone to do what you're proposing but they haven't got around to posting a job listing. Reach out to everyone you know. Tell them what you want to do. Ask if they know someone you should talk to. Talk to hiring managers. Talk to executives. Talk to 500 people. Never settle. Earn more. Share this with someone who's looking to make a career change.

Confession time: Until three months ago, I didn't take AI seriously. I knew it had disruptive potential, but I underestimated how far it had advanced in the two years since its mainstream introduction and how valuable it could be for me personally. When Corey Blake asked me how I was utilizing AI three months ago, I admitted I couldn't quite grasp its utility for me. Initially, when ChatGPT was released to the public, I experimented with it for content creation, but the results were disappointing. Similarly, my attempt with DALL-E for image creation was time-consuming and unsatisfactory. After Corey shared his extensive use of AI in both work and personal life, I felt compelled to give it another chance. Now, three months later, I find myself immersed in AI usage daily, significantly enhancing my productivity. Recently, a project that previously would have taken me 30 hours was completed in just 3-4 hours, thanks to AI assistance. One significant change is using ChatGPT for image creation instead of traditional stock photography, resulting in cost savings, quicker outputs, and more tailored results. By incorporating various AI tools like Claude for refining writing projects and Gemini for tasks in Google Docs and email, I've expanded my AI utilization, even exploring tools specific to my fiction novel project. AI's impact extends beyond personal projects; after AI flagged red flags in a bank loan application, I avoided a potential financial pitfall. The efficiency and cost-effectiveness AI brings to my endeavors will save me tens of thousands of dollars and weeks, if not months, of time in the coming year. If you, like me, have been overlooking or underutilizing AI, it's time to reconsider. Embracing AI tools in your professional endeavors is crucial to staying competitive in today's rapidly evolving landscape. While experience remains invaluable, combining it with AI capabilities is the winning formula for success.