I only have this frustration with others because I see the same thing in myself. I despise credit before it’s due because I hate my own tendency toward it. In the past I’ve sought positive feedback (read: ego stroking) for work that was not much more than a good idea. I’ve had plenty of good ideas. But good ideas aren’t worth congratulations or accolade on their own. Good ideas are only worth a damn once they’ve come to fruition.

In my experience, this entrepreneurial jumping-of-the-gun happens in the form of landing pages, tweets, and in some cases full fledged video announcements.

Up front credit poisons a new business because:

• it encourages creatives to pause to accept congratulations, rather than focus on the work,
• it can create tasks and events that distract from creating the thing, and
• credit makes one immediately public, and immediately responsible for delivering on what’s promised.

A Totally Unique and Original Example

Apple doesn’t preview their products, they only announce products when they are for sale. Only via rumor sites and leaks will you ever hear about anything Apple is working on. Why is this?

I don’t know the exact reasons, but I have to imagine they don’t want to be caught with their pants down. Think of it this way. It’s hard enough to deliver on the things you actually do, let alone the things you promise on. No matter what your business is, reputation matters. And leaving people wondering whether or not you are working on something is better than them finding out that what you have been working on will never see the light of day.

I would argue that not promising in advance also leaves a business more flexible. Without the pressure to deliver on public promises businesses can, to that extent at least, change their direction and offer something new, something better, or something completely different without any blowback.

Confession Time

I have more personal examples of this bad habit than I really want to show off. It’s why I can’t stand it so much in other startups.

I’ll tell you about one of my own.

I work a lot with WordPress, which is software for running websites. When I had the idea for writing a WordPress eBook in early 2008, I did something that any yahoo with a hosting account could do. I decided on a name, grabbed a domain, and threw up a pretty basic landing page. I probably spent 10 or more hours on that part of the project alone. Even now, the page doesn’t look terrible.

But I never wrote anything more than a few pages. I certainly never completed an eBook. And there the landing page has sit. Just sitting there. Taunting me.

A Restrained Path

My new approach is to stay quiet until I have something. Like, really something, not just a landing page. For instance, I won’t put up a landing page nowadays until I have a launch date solidified. It doesn’t have to be a public launch date (though it helps if it is), a private one will do — as long as you stick to it.

The safest bet is to not talk about something until it’s ready. That means it’s actually done.

There’s a downside to this approach. It will probably result in less “oohs” and fewer “aahs”. But that’s because we all complete and launch far fewer things than we have ideas for. Talk only when you have a product and can launch, and the ego stroking will be less frequent. But, when the project is complete and the praise comes in, it will be well deserved, and as such much sweeter.

Time. These competitions take time.

Every time I’ve entered a new business of mine into a competition, the business was something I was doing in addition to something else in life. At one point the other thing was college. Most recently the other thing is my day job, freelancing to pay the bills.

I’ve yet to be able to focus all of my attention on a new venture. This doesn’t mean no time is spent — it means long evening and weekend hours are spent. So the time I do have available to work should be spent on my business, and not on preparing for a competition.

To be fair, I believe the organizers behind business competitions have the best intentions. They are trying to provide initial capital for great business ideas. Unfortunately in the process, the winning business and (more importantly) the losing businesses have all, sort of, wasted their time.

I say sort of wasted their time because the hoops you have to jump through in business competitions aren’t 100% negative ones. But I’m not convinced they are entirely useful either. Often a startup is required to present a verbal and slide driven investor pitch, as well as provide a written business plan according to varying criteria. While investor pitches and business plans can be helpful, particularly if you’re going the investor route (not something I’m a fan of), there are better things to spend your time on in the initial stages of your business. Like your business.

Business competitions breed nasty intra-startup relations

Participating in these competitions compels you to not look kindly at your fellow entrepreneurs. After all, they are after the same prize money that you are. But in my experience, these fellow travelers are the most valuable people to get to know when building businesses. Instead of drawing these minds together in a mutually beneficial way, business competitions seem to set them against one another from the very start.

When I have competed, no matter how awesome my competitors’ ideas have been, I find a way to dislike and distance myself from them. After all, I want to win the money. And I want them to lose. So I’m focused on exactly the wrong thing: the negative, instead of what I can learn from them and how we might help each other out.

I could only be speaking for myself here. Maybe I’m a big jerk. But then again, I think we’re all a lot more alike than we want to admit sometimes. If I’ve had these thoughts I’m wiling to bet my fellow competitors have too.

A better way to promote new businesses

The solution I would suggest, in place of business competitions, is to invest what is usually dealt out as prize money in consistent entrepreneurial meetups in the same town.

I see a few direct benefits to spending the time, energy, and money on meetups instead of competitions:

• Rather than being rewarded before achieving success in their business, meetups can encourage and challenge entrepenuers to have patience and reap the rewards only after market-tested success.
• Rather than spending time and effort showcasing the business, time is spent networking and testing ideas among likeminded people.
• Meetups promote local entrepreneurial communities with no forced competition. This lack of competition will encourage caring about other’s successes.

In Fort Wayne I’ve come across two great examples of this taking place. One is the NIIC-hosted BizWiz program, specifically for high school and college entrepreneurs. Jumpstart260 is the other, where entrepreneurs and business owners meet regularly downtown.

If you are starting or might be starting a business int he area, make time for one of these events. You may just find the lack of competition a bit freeing.

This discussion of Christ-centeredness is pretty silly, for a couple of reasons.

First of all, the origin and nature of this campaign is far from “Christ-centered”. This idea has been floating around for a while, with certain influential people at Huntington being interested in pushing it through to be realized. Since finding out that the CCCU is going to formally promote this Christ-centered theme next year, Huntington has jumped the gun and is doing it now. Some would say this is being done in order to appear to be an example, to be set ahead of other Christian colleges in the CCCU. Of course, seeking recognition for being “Christ-centered” sort of fails right away, doesn’t it?

But let’s assume that the origin of this campaign isn’t enough to discount it, particularly due to some degree of speculation involved in the above paragraph. Okay, I can accept that. But, so far, this idea of “Christ-centeredness” has been foggy at best. If one were to sit in on a faculty meeting, one might see many different understandings of this concept, as well as a frustration that it is being pursued without much forethought and before a solid idea of what it means can be conceived and agreed upon.

But even if the origin of this program is more than it appears, and even if the concept is lacking any consensus on Campus, maybe it is still worthwhile. After all, couldn’t something created with less than admirable intentions and managed improperly still do good things?

Hopeless Ambiguity

At this point, I fail to see what extra meaning can be gained from the concept of “Christ-centeredness” in light of the word we already have: Christian. I’m drawn to asking why we feel we need another word, another descriptor, and even what meaning we feel has been lost from the original word that makes us look for another. The cynical side of me says that, in Christ-centeredness, we are creating only another category with which to separate Christians from one another. That side says that we shouldn’t attempt to make ourselves seem even more Christian than Christian by creating yet another level with an ultimately ambiguous meaning. That cynical side of me can be pretty loud.

But perhaps the cynical side of me should shut up. Maybe Christ-centeredness holds some kernel of meaning which makes it worthy of being the year’s “focus”. Perhaps there is some significance in a Christian college proclaiming itself to have Christ at the center.

I can’t think of anything significant about it.

In Closing, For the Moment

I would argue that this program is an example, one of many aimless, vacuous programs and efforts that have taken place at Huntington during my time here and are indicative of even larger problems I’m probably not qualified to talk about. I would also argue that while good things may come of these efforts and subsequent events at Huntington, they will happen in spite of, not because of, the program itself.

Personally, I expect little when it comes to new ideas and directives at Huntington. Maybe I am only jaded (Sanders, chapels, and ridiculous billboards—Personalized to U, seriously?) and should be more optimistic, but they aren’t giving me much to work with. Christ-centered? Okay, I’ll use your words. But for me, Christ-centeredness involves academic excellence: you know, that silly thing we strive for in between chapels and weekend getaways. Rather than explore this thing called Christianity (we’ll use my word now) in what will probably be (speculation) a relatively fruitless effort and long winded day, I would love to have the time in the classes which are the reason I pay Huntington all the money in the first place.

Consider some of the events you receive chapel credit for. Now hold that thought for a moment.

On one level: yes, I did choose to come to Huntington. I could have gone nearly anywhere. I have to live with the consequences of my decision to opt for the rules, regulations and expectations of Huntington University. But at the same time – should I be silent? In the same way I am proud to be an American yet can criticize and try to improve this wonderful country, can I improve Huntington?

Better yet – can we improve Huntington?

There are chapel programs in so many Christian universities, and I’m not equipped to say how many have policies similar to Huntington’s. But there are some – at least a few – of these that don’t make attendance a requirement. By doing this the responsibility is truly put on the student. By doing this the school is put on the spot, to find speakers who will entice students into their auditoriums. By doing this (gasp!) students may exercise discernment.

Now back to my initial statements. I would argue that our chapel credits aren’t a measure of our spiritual maturity at all. Most students, I believe, would agree that those numbers don’t reflect our spirituality in any way. But I would go as far as to say that each chapel, good or bad, robs us of spiritual maturity. It reduces our spiritual freedom made alive in Christ to a duty. We begin to attach negative feelings with these experiences. Unfortunately our spiritual formation is, ironically, put in jeopardy.

By the way, I do sit in the back. And no, that doesn’t make me a bad Christian.

The Offer

The idea behind these contests is for whoever is running it to be able to pick and choose among (what they hope will be) many entries vying for the prize. The prize in many cases is something that will appeal to the particular crowd of designers – in the case of Smashing it was a 250 gig external hard drive. The reward also included recognition of the designer’s name on the footer of every page of Smashing’s site.

Those Who Like It

Young or inexperienced designers are usually going to be attracted to this sort of thing. It’s an opportunity for them because it requires no previous design experience or a portfolio of any sort; you are offered a level playing field against experienced designers. Of course the blade cuts both ways, and experienced designers don’t get the credit they should for being able to design quality work. But I’m getting ahead of myself.

I can definitely understand the appeal of throwing your proverbial hat into the ring of a design contest. Besides being a chance to exercise your creative juices, the contests are usually risk free. There are lots of entries and you won’t be scoffed at if you happen to be among those who aren’t chosen. The ego of an artist is a very delicate thing, especially in the design world, and one of the most timid places to be is at the beginning of your career as a designer with little experience and no portfolio. How can anyone not understand the appeal of a design contest – especially a fairly prolific one such as Smashing Magazine’s.

Those Who Don’t Like It

On the other end of the spectrum are the seasoned designers. I would group in anyone who has a solid experience in the design world and an understanding of how everything works. Such a group might bring up the AIGA position on spec work. I must admit that before seeing it mentioned in the comments at Smashing I wasn’t aware of it, but it is a very interesting read. Here’s some:

AIGA believes that doing speculative work seriously compromises the quality of work that clients are entitled to and also violates a tacit, long-standing ethical standard in the communication design profession worldwide. AIGA strongly discourages the practice of requesting that design work be produced and submitted on a speculative basis in order to be considered for acceptance on a project.

I find it very difficult to disagree with their stance. The AIGA is the professional assocation for design, and has been for over 90 years. This makes a lot of sense.

Think of another profession, any respected profession, where the work is asked for before payment is given. Imagine requesting that 10 contractors all go to work on your house and you will pay someone at the end – whoever’s work meets your approval. Or imagine asking for treatment from three doctors and only paying the one who’s diagnosis you liked? So you see how silly it is that designers should be asked to work without the promise of pay?

The Divide

Again, it’s a sticky situation. There are good reasons for both sides. I’ve been on both sides, and I know there are good reasons. But there does seem to be something important about new designers choosing a solid professional philosophy when walking into the field.

Designers: don’t let your professional integrity be challenged for the sake of a business or company’s shallow pockets. Respect your work enough to require payment for services. Believe me, your work is well sought after. There is work for you out there. At the same time, take calculated risks. Not everything will pay well, if at all. Some opportunities are just that – opportunities. Some are too good to pass up. If everything was as cut and dry as a statement of policy like AIGA’s above, no one would have work. Work on developing your instincts and trust them. Sometimes in the design field that’s all you have to go on.

Other Posts On This Topic (from other sites) 

• Logo Design Contests are Bad for Business 

It is that season again: the season where all good Christian girls and boys sit around the table and talk about who is doing what for Lent. Popular choices include things like ice cream, fatty foods, and television. Not surprisingly, many of the things we give up are good for us to rid ourselves of anyway – bad habits, unhealthy diets, etc. Kind of makes the “giving up” process a little easier, does it not?

Part of me wonders what we should really be giving up during this time. What would truly be beneficial, in the Lord pleasing, kingdom serving sense of the word?

But honestly, and with all due respect, I do not care what you are doing for Lent.

This beautiful experience during the Lenten season gives us the opportunity – the blessing – of giving something to our Creator. In some sort of divine allowance we are actually allowed to approach the Almighty with a gift. Hopefully this gift is something of worth – maybe even something which we have valued more than God.

Consider a gift given to your closest friend, your parents, or better yet your husband or wife. Are you going to parade the information around, making sure everyone knows what you did for them? Better yet get in a circle (with them present, mind you) and begin to compare and rate your gifts. Weird, right?

I like to think about close relationships when I think about my relationship with God. There are a couple of reasons, but mostly I want my relationship with God to be a close one, a very intimate one. So the best I can do is to take as much truth from the relationships I experience and know well and use those concepts in my relationship with God.

So, basically, I will not be telling you what I am doing for Lent. And please do not tell me – especially if it is ice cream.

A small group of my colleagues today (which could probably be extended into a much larger group) were unsettled by today’s chapel speaker. I’m not one to name names, but let’s just say it was insulting to us on both an academic and a theological level.

Kingsley made a number of statements which made a group of us look up from our work (be it Greek translations or some other amusement) and turn our heads to the side.

Some people think that Christ gave up part of his omniscience when He came to Earth. But that’s just not the case.

Jeremy Kingsley

I’m not sure whether I agree or disagree (the Christological question hasn’t been something I’ve set to work on at any point – possibly because it doesn’t come across as all that alarming of a question) but I take issue with him based on principle. How can he brush aside an entire theological debate with the wave of his hand?

Kingsley’s entire talk was steeped what might be called a “youth leader’s” mentality. There was a very real sense of him saying “I’m going to use big words like omnisciencenow that you don’t know, so just pay attention, okay?” At one point he even took a moment to mock academic Christians by telling the chapel to “put their theological caps on” and “get ready to judge me.” His attitude toward educated Christians was probably due to his apparent lack of Christian scholarship, but I digress.

Chapel speakers at Huntington are notorious for being poor. I don’t mean poor like the I-can’t-buy-a-Big Mac-and-I’m-hungry kind of poor, I mean poor academically. Most speakers are “youth leaders” or at worst aspiring “youth leaders.” There isn’t much respect paid to actual Biblical or authoritative work on subjects; instead flowery and excessive emotional language is preferred.

This isn’t an isolated event – that’s the sad part. I only hope that not everyone in chapel took Kingsley’s word for it. I hope some students get angry about it and do some studying and find out the very real (and no, Kingsley, not stupid) options which exist as answers to Christological questions and questions on the nature of divinity. I hope students become concerned to the point that they start making noise about chapels. I hope students demand more out of their chapel program.

If we don’t become upset, if we don’t start talking about it – loudly – will anything ever change?

The American Heritage Dictionary says “inconsistency” means “the state or quality of being inconsistent.” Helpful, right? “Inconsistent” is defined as something which is “lacking in correct logical relation,” or “incompatible.”

By this definition, then, Huntington is inconsistent.

When dorms are policed and open dorms are held to certain times in order to restrain the hormones of college students and yet the parking lots, library, and baseball diamond aren’t policed, Huntington is being inconsistent.

Students are asked to sign away their right to smoke and to drink (as of age 18 and 21, respectively) when they are at Huntington. This is for the sake of the health of the temple. But when students are allowed to create daunting chocolate and sugar coated ice cream concoctions three meals a day – you guessed it – Huntington is being inconsistent.

Only movies rated PG-13 or below are allowed on campus. This is because we Christians are delicate beings and should not be caused to stumble from our walk with Christ. But the rating system used to distinguish what is allowable or not is taken from a secular rating system, namely the Motion Picture Association of America.

There is also the exception of The Passion of the Christ. Apparently an extremely violent and disturbing – yet still very controversial – Christian movie is acceptable.

Inconsistent.

A week ago open dorms was extended approximately five hours for the sake of the super bowl. That one is too easy.

Above all else, although Huntington claims to be an institution that values academic freedom in a Christian environment it is still willing to remove a groundbreaking theological mind for the sake of its own interests.

Maybe I’m just being a cynic. But either we take issue with these things or we choose to live a life of inconsistency. We can’t have it both ways.

On the one hand, there are plenty of “Christians” (more than I like to think about) who decide that homosexuals are damned by God and going to hell. The other group lands far from the fence, creating groups like The Gay/Straight Alliance to accept and encourage those turning to homosexual lifestyles.

Which is Biblically accurate?

I don’t like the approach of either side. What I desire is a truly honest dialogue that questions the fundamental reasoning behind this whole idea. What I desire is what many students at Huntington University have desired for a long time. What we all desire isn’t what Huntington delivered during their token homosexual week of chapels a few days ago.

Last year, from what I hear, there was a lot of controversy over the rumor of gays/lesbians on campus, and how students should respond to it. Not wanting to miss a chance to spread its biased propaganda, Huntington invited Exodus International to attempt to brainwash those students gullible enough to think they might gain something intellectually through a HU chapel (since, I don’t know, they tend to shoot for the lowest common denominator). Exodus offers retreats and conferences that you can send your kids to. Does it sound like they would provide a balanced collection of differing Biblical perspectives?

Ironically enough, trying to look at the various sites from links off the Exodus website that offer treatment for homosexuals/counseling/services is blocked by HU’s Traffic Control System as “Adult Lifestyles.” Interesting.

But I’m not completely against their side of the fence. The radicals (well, the other ones) will say that homosexuality isn’t wrong, and they only feel it is because we tell them it is. They claim that Biblical evidence does not support heterosexuality as the only way to lead a God pleasing life, and they encourage their homosexual friends.

Like I said, neither side is attractive to me. On the one hand, homosexuality does seem to go against some sort of standard (wherever/however you want to define it). But it gets messy for me whenever I try to pin down a verse or a story or a principle somewhere that explicitly states the truth of the manner. I’d much rather focus on loving everyone. This seems simple to me. So then I side with the liberals; I really like that their goal seems to be to push the administration of HU to define what “homosexual activity” as stated in the community life agreement, actually is. I applaud their efforts in that area. Facing that decision, HU has two options: either explicitly state what “homosexual activity” (which our community life agreement forbids) actually is (which they would probably be much too embarrassed to do) or make the statement that homosexuals are not welcome on the campus.

What would that do to enrollment?

Really I think this issue is part of a bigger problem the university is facing. Right now they are very much at a half fundamental-half liberal arts school. So what happens is they say things like they are open to new things, ideas, and want you to experience life; at the same time they lay down rules such as “no R rated movies on campus” and “no smoking on campus.”((Which, by the way, the former is ignored and the latter avoided by walking across the street to “smoker’s corner.”)) In the end, what do these rules do? They do exactly what I hope against for Christians – they turn them into individuals that can barely handle themselves in the real world. No R movies? That’s ridiculous. No drinking at all – even when you’ve turned 21? Why?

The issue of homosexual activity is just a bullet point on my list of problems with the rules. Why must we set rules like this in order to call this a “Christian institution?” Instead of creating balanced, healthy individuals like I’m sure they are trying to do, they create finger-pointing Bible beaters (switch out student handbook with Bible, the thinking will carry over) that believe a list of rules is how you live the Christian life.

I’ll stop talking about this because it’s starting to piss me off.

Oh, and I don’t know what I think about homosexuality yet. But I know HU isn’t going to convince me of anything with their chapel series. How can you respect something like that from an institution - a university, at that – that basically snubs students who are willing to think for themselves, ask intelligent and difficult questions, maybe even read a damn book or two, and tell them ”These chapels aren’t aimed at you. We were talking to everyone else.”

How sad.