Thread by @minethatdata

This kind of thing happens in retail all the time (i.e. you are the 5th-8th best team out of 30, here's why a writer thinks you are awful: theringer.com/2021/6/21/2254…)

It's easy for a pundit to point out flaws.

Notice that pundits seldom do the hard work (especially in retail)?

In retail (and in e-commerce) the "doing" is really hard.

A pundit might tell you that you just have to be "remarkable" ... that's all ... that's all you have to do.

Have you ever tried to be "remarkable"? The answer is yes. You try doing it every day. It's hard to be consistently "remarkable", isn't it?

If you could be consistent at it. you'd have eight figures in your checking account.

I watched a pickleball tournament on Saturday.

The 2nd place team had a guy who said "I did well because I didn't try to be special, I just tried to be consistent and reliable. And it worked."

Now, the outsider ... the pundit ... wants you to be remarkable ... wants you to take risks ... and wants to criticize when the risks (or even the lack of taking risks) fails. That's how the pundit gets paid.

How do you get paid?

I have a highly successful client, e-commerce client.

This client doesn't take risks as much as the CEO makes bets.

He'll place 1,000 new merchandise / new item bets, knowing that just 25 will become successful.

But in the aggregate his brand is successful because of the bets.

His brand is successful ... not remarkable ... but successful.

Sometimes we get things confused ... we try to be remarkable when we should try to be successful.

You take a different approach when trying to be successful.

And the pundits ... they're frequently trying to be remarkable. Imagine if they tried to be successful?