In reality, by being who you genuinely are you can earn living, if you're lucky, but to earn wealth you need to press and push and cheat.
Look, at the differences between CL and Java, Redis and MongoDB, Postgres and MySQL to name the few very popular examples. "Commercially successful" products invest heavily in creating, creating a misleading hype and other manipulations.
Being who you means to become a marginal, a hobbyist, with, perhaps, much above average abilities, in the best case.
But to make money you must pressure and bullshit people, because it is only by cheating you could get above-average returns. It is much easier and cheaper than to make something which is above average.
Look at that Java, ERP, or artificially inflated open source crap? This is how to sell. SAP has the best sales people it could hire. But once you're convinced to buy - you are locked for life.
It is all about tricks like SEO or MVPs, faked reviews or whatever, when you put words and hype ahead of the real things. And, of course, there are people, who are ready to do tricks instead of doing real things.
I'm not trying to say that it is illegal - trying to exploit fools is a legal practice, the problem is that it become a dominant one.
Writing a pleasant stories for fools instead of real product specifications and reference documentation is so common, that nobody even reads it anymore.)
Yes, to build wealth you need to press and push--no one is going to give you anything for free and pre-buyers remorse can be a bitch. But cheat? I don't know about that--it depends on your definition.
If cheating is maintaining borderline outrageous profit margins, then yes, it helps to do that. But if cheating is something more along the lines of getting 50% up front for a project you underbid, then holding that money hostage while you proceed to milk the project with change orders every step of the way--then yes, that's cheating (and probably illegal-ish). Plenty of people operate this way but I think it's a pretty bad way to do business--both from an economic standpoint and a how-did-you-get-to-be-such-a-terrible-person? standpoint. And then of course there's the run-of-the-mill cheating that is enterprise software marketing departments, but if that's your worst sin in life, I think you're probably doing ok.
And while there are plenty of cases of crooks making out like bandits, there are just as many about pretty honest people making out like bandits as well. Compare Mike Milken and Warren Buffet for example. Or from tech, the guy that started color vs pg. As far as what I've read about both of them, they seem like rather different personality types, but both of them seem to be doing ok financially.
So yes, nothing is cut and dry, and anyone that says you can't make a lot of money via semi-legal stealing is dead wrong, but I really don't think this is the only--or even the most expedient--way to get rich. Speaking personally, I prefer sitting around coming up with ways to build value for customers instead of coming up with more clever ways of fucking them.
It's impossible to agree with such hard-line statements like this. Extraordinary wealth is possible to create through honest work, intelligence, and luck. I'm sure you don't believe Google, Tesla, SpaceX, and IBM all cheated their way into their positions.
There is a lot of truth to some of your points though. Scanning through the Fortune 500, more than half of these companies do seem to "press and push and cheat".
Wow. Someone's projecting, it sounds like.
Let's flip it around: to give out good advice, you need offer it based on actual experience and not just suppositions. (not necessarily true either, but it sure seems like it would strengthen your argument)
This seems very much like a No True Scotsman fallacy.
There are great salespeople the world over selling products they don't believe in — after all, great products tend to sell themselves — but you can bet your bottom dollar they'd be doing an even better job if they did believe in the product.
Self-delusion is a powerful force, but smart people need more than that to achieve any kind of lasting result.
All solid advice and adding more to the 'believe in your product' concept, the reasoning for this is incredibly simplistic. If you are attempting to sell something you don't believe adds any value or benefit, it will be instantly obvious in your pitch unless you happen to be a fantastic liar and that's what led to the stereotype of the used-car salesman.
Minor nitpick: Mamet was never attempting to present Roma as a fantastic salesman. He knows the audience can see the deceitfulness. He's actually showing a 'behind-the-scenes' view of how liars have gained the edge in the sales world.
Here's Mamet on the themes in the play: http://www.upstartfilmcollective.com/portfolios/jcharnick/ma...
The play concerns how business corrupts, how the hierarchical business system tends to corrupt. It becomes legitimate for those in power in the business world to act unethically. The effect on the little guy is that he turns to crime. And petty crime goes punished; major crimes go unpunished. If someone wants to destroy Manhattan for personal gain, they call him a great man. Look at Delorean. He completely raped everybody in Northern Ireland with that scheme ... a lot of business in this country is founded on the idea that if you don't exploit the possible opportunity, not only are you being silly, but in many cases you're being negligent, even legally negligent.
He seems to be of the opinion that it's a corrupt system, and that people in the system are inevitably corrupted: http://www.hanknuwer.com/writing/hankanddavid.html
This play is very much about work and about how one is altered by one's job. ... I felt he was doing his job--doing the job of a sales manager. The job of a sales manager is not to empathize. Irrespective of whether or not it's a "good" job or whether he likes his job is not the point; his job is to inspire, frighten, tempt, cajole, and do any other thing he can do to increase sales. When things fall apart he indulges in the very human propensity to play catch-up ball; because people have been abusing him throughout the play.
I like Mamet's work, but, in general, I try to avoid listening when authors and artists talk about politics, because they're usually not better informed than the average freshman in a poli-sci or econ class, and that colors my view of their work. I was pleasantly surprised to find that Mamet's view is nuanced. He specifically says "a lot of business", and I can't disagree there, though we would probably disagree on the precise meaning of "a lot".
I suspect a lot of that is a generational gap. When I look around and I see swombat-style salesmen competing with Mamet-style salesmen, I see Mamet-style businesses getting wiped out. CarMax is cleaning up by getting rid of high pressure sales tactics. It's so bad that around here, multiple car dealerships that used to employ armies of annoying sales people (which I know from firsthand experience) have taken out billboards saying they'll match CarMax's prices and that their sales people no longer work on commission. Barnes & Noble and Borders wiped out traditional booksellers by providing a better experience, and they're getting wiped out by amazon providing an even more convenient experience. I could go on for pages with examples off the top of my head, but I have to really think to come up with examples where a business with a 'traditional' sales model of conning people into something they don't want is eating the lunch of a business that's really trying to give people what they want.
If I wrote a story about a politician who committed suicide, would you say "You must not know a lot of politicians, to have this view of what a good politician is, because suicide is definitely not what makes a great politician"?
From some of the other comments, it sounds like I misinterpreted Mamet's intent - he apparently wasn't looking to generalise to all salespeople - but still, it seems to me the comment is fair based on this particular piece of evidence.
...and keep his job. You can hardly watch that film without feeling soaked in the desperation of the characters.
>but still, it seems to me the comment is fair based on this particular piece of evidence.
How? The story is about a particular subset of the sales world, which is where you work for an employer who gives you an undesirable product to sell and then puts you under immense pressure to close. These situations do exist, and the people who succeed in them are the ones who are willing to act unethically. The only way that Mamet could have realistically included an ethical salesperson as a character would have been to depict them getting fired.
How do you reckon that the characters depicted in an author's work are likely to comprise the entirety of that author's experience?
I'm saying that by and large, great salespeople are not shady and unethical, though.
Successful salespeople don't pressure or bullshit the
prospect into a sale. They are persistent, but they are
always focused on achieving a deal where it will benefit
all parties.
If anyone has suggestions for a better title, let's have them...
+1 for giving sales people some overdue respect. I too feel that there are few that just ruin the bunch, much like HR.