February 29, 2024 • 44 mins
Step into the dynamic world of entrepreneurship and investment with Scott Clary. Discover the latest strategies for business growth, leveraging AI, and navigating the complexities of venture capital in an engaging and relatable format. Through his personal anecdotes and expert insights, Scott shares his journey from podcasting success to startup advising, offering valuable lessons for entrepreneurs of all levels.
Excited to learn his ways?
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The beauty of entrepreneurship is the
opportunity to figure it out foryourself.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
I'm Colter DeVries, owner of Ranch Investor Advisory
and Brokerage Services.
I'm an accredited landconsultant with the Realtor Land
Institute and proud member ofASFMRA.
Speaker 3 (00:17):
The Ranch Investor Podcast is the most downloaded
and informative industryspecific content that intrigues
while entertains.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Thanks for coming on the Ranch Investor Podcast.
I'm going to give yourintroduction.
Today.
We have Scott Clary coming on.
Scott is an entrepreneur, aninvestor, author and podcaster.
Over your career, it soundslike you have sold and marketed
to the most iconic Fortune 500and Fortune 100 brands.
(00:48):
Scott, I understand that yourthought leadership has been
featured in over 100 news sitesand publications.
You speak globally at industryconferences that I want to hear
more about.
As we get into this.
You've had articles again Iwant to hear more about this
featured in Forbes, wall StreetJournal, hacker, noon, the
(01:10):
Startup and a few others.
I think this is going to be agood episode for all my broker
agent listeners out there.
And then lots of entrepreneurs,scott.
We have people calling in whoare like me.
They're trying to figure outhow to syndicate ranches using
(01:30):
fractional ownership,co-ownership models,
crowdfunding.
There's a thousand ways to skinthis cat per se.
There's a lot of entrepreneurslistening in.
I'm excited to have them tunein because you're also the
founder and CEO of the SocialClub, which is a highly vetted
(01:51):
private members community ofentrepreneurs, investors and
executives.
Of course, you have your ownpodcast, the Success Story.
Speaker 1 (02:01):
I talked to a lot of entrepreneurs there too.
Speaker 2 (02:03):
We talked to a lot of entrepreneurs.
That's how we found you.
It's one of the top 10 businesspodcasts with over 321,000
subscribers.
You have an entrepreneurbusiness newsletter with over
313,000 readers.
Man, that's a lot to cover.
(02:24):
22 million downloads.
Hundreds of thousands offollowers on social media.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
Let's get started.
How did you accomplish this?
Time and work is usually theanswer to most problems.
None of this is something thatyou do over a short period.
It's something that you have toshow up every day and similar
(02:51):
to building a business, apersonal brand, an audience, a
community.
Whether or not you want to be asuccessful investor, whether or
not you want to be a successfulcapital allocator operator,
it's all about time.
I'm very bullish on the conceptthat if you commit 10 to 15
years to anything and you learnfrom your mistakes and you
(03:13):
incorporate feedback loops intowhat's worked and what's not,
and you iterate and youpotentially pivot when things
aren't going so well, but atleast you consistently learn, I
do believe that eventually youwill end up some version of
success at that thing.
A podcast, a newsletter, asocial audience, a great
portfolio it's no differentreally.
At the end of the day, it'sconsistently showing up and
(03:37):
learning for a period of timeand executing.
Then eventually, like I said,10 to 15 years later, you will
have some version of it figuredout.
Speaker 2 (03:44):
How about, in your experience, and the people you
network with?
How do they stay disciplined,not chasing shiny objects?
Or he who chases two rabbitscatches neither, because, as an
entrepreneur, the wheels arealways turning and you see an
opportunity everywhere you go.
How do you stay focused?
Speaker 1 (04:09):
First of all, I don't think that it's easy.
I think that every entrepreneursuccumbs to shiny object
syndrome at some point.
I think they succumb to itrepeatedly.
I think that you do have toobviously focus on what's urgent
and important and what's goingto be mission critical and
moving the needle in yourbusiness or with your portfolio
(04:29):
or with your investment.
If you have a thesis like ranchinvestor is a highly specific
investment thesis that's great.
Now you aren't distracted byinvesting in early stage SaaS
startups.
You're not trying to do aprivate equity play for a dental
office rollup or you're notputting whatever it is.
You have a very specific thesis.
(04:49):
I think that you understandwhat the North Star metric is
that you have to achieve andthat you focus on urgent and
important tasks that lead you tothat outcome.
But I said that it's not easybecause everybody succumbs to it
.
It's not like there's somesecret recipe that over the
(05:10):
course of your career, you'llnever try something new that
doesn't work out or you'll neverbe distracted by something that
seems highly lucrative.
I really do believe that youjust have that North Star that
you keep coming back to againand again and again.
It takes a lot of I would saywhat's the word I'm thinking of.
It takes a lot ofself-discipline to focus on that
(05:32):
thing that you know willactually yield the end result.
I think that it becomes easierto have that self-discipline
when you, like I said originally, you mentally commit to that
thing for a long term, becausethen you're okay with it not
working out right away and sortof, as you know, even as I'm
(05:52):
speaking through this, I'm justthinking about what causes.
What causes that shiny objectsyndrome?
And I think what causes thisshiny object syndrome is when
the results that you want don'tmanifest immediately enough
because you have not mentallyprepared yourself for the time
(06:12):
required to actually achievethose results.
Realistic timeframe has notbeen set.
So then you focus on somethingthat in your mind you think
could accomplish those goals alittle bit quicker than the
thing that you're already tryingto do.
And that's what distracts you.
Because I think that shinyobject syndrome would be less of
a concern if you with 100%certainty could say, for example
(06:36):
I'm starting a business, thisis the one product I'm going to
sell, this is the one market Iwant to sell into, and I know
that it's going to achieve 10million, 50 million, 100 million
dollars in top line in 10, 15,20 years.
If that was a certainty, Ithink shiny object would be less
of a problem.
But because it's not acertainty and because
(06:57):
expectations are not properlyset, we don't set our own
expectations properly in termsof what we actually have to do,
the work that we have to do toget to where we want to go.
I think that's when shiny objectsyndrome starts to manifest and
it starts to like creep in andyou're like I've been working
for three years, it's not whereI want it to be.
Maybe I can try this new shinything that looks a little bit
more exciting because it soundslike it could take way less time
(07:17):
.
But ultimately you're juststarting your new cycle with
something brand new that'sprobably going to take another
10, 15 years.
So yeah, I think that it's hard.
It's hard, but I think it'sabout being real with how
difficult and how long it'sgoing to take us to achieve what
we want to achieve, which isfine, because long is very
subjective.
Like 10, 15 years.
It sounds like a long time, butin the grand scheme of things
(07:38):
in life, it's actually not thatlong.
So are we actually committingto the journey that we want to
sign up for Are we committing tosome get rich quick version of
entrepreneurship which isn'taccurate and not true, and I
think that's where the shinyobject syndrome comes from.
So I think it's maybe aboutsetting the right expectations
for what we're going to take on.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
It seems like a lot of people are chasing AI.
Every pitch out there here nowincludes some form of AI and
they think to raise investmentyou have to have some feature of
AI.
Does that seem accurate thatnow people are just using that
(08:18):
to sell their core model, like,oh, we're not marketable unless
we're doing AI?
Speaker 1 (08:24):
Well, this is not so different than crypto.
This is not.
This is the exact same thing.
So this is what happens whenyou have, like, a trend.
So it's very dangerous, right?
It's because it's gonna be alot of well-meaning
entrepreneurs that can use thetrend to go raise money for that
particular company crypto, ai,whatever it is it could be
(08:46):
cannabis, it could be solar,like there's all these trends,
right.
So it's exciting to build in atrend because there's a lot of
momentum.
When there's momentum, investorswant to invest in these trends
because they don't wanna missout.
There's FOMO, so you can.
If you want to build a companyin a trend, it's a little bit
(09:07):
easier because you will findmoney a little bit easier than
if you're building somethingthat doesn't have FOMO around it
, not to say you can't,obviously, raise money for a
boring business.
It's not topical, but I mean,the issue becomes now there's
good actors and bad actors thattake advantage of the fact that
investors are excited about atrend and then, like in crypto,
(09:30):
like with AI, you'll have peoplethat have absolute business
building a crypto or an AIcompany, and then people that
have no business building acrypto or an AI company, so
people that are genuinelybuilding a company in the space.
That is going to disrupt, it'sgoing to change the way that we
(09:51):
operate, live our lives, dobusiness and it's truly
revolutionary.
Good for them.
And if they have the cognitiveabilities and the pedigree in
the background and theproficiency to build, good for
them.
But the issue is when, like yousaid, somebody who has no
business building an AI companyputs like a dot AI or includes
some AI component just to raisemoney.
(10:11):
I don't think that's ethicaland I don't think it's needed
and I actually think it's adistraction.
I think that if people weremore confident raising money
against their thesis and theiractual business, then that's
what they should do and theythink that it's going to be
easier to raise money becausethey include an AI component.
They could maybe get a couplemore investor meetings that way,
but then ultimately you'regoing to be distracting yourself
(10:35):
from building the actualproduct, because if your product
was not good before you addedan AI component, unless it's
radically different, it's stillgoing to be a shitty product
with like an AI marketing spin.
So that doesn't really solvefor what you're actually trying
to solve for and what's going tohappen is you're going to have
a hard time taking that productto market and you're going to
(10:55):
have a hard time findingcustomers for your product
because the products you standalone, with or without AI, and
then you're going to have a hardtime delivering returns to your
investors and it's actuallygoing to be a very shitty
experience for everyone involved.
So I think that it's veryshort-sighted to add AI as a
component on your business whenyour business has no business
being an AI company, similar towhen people were like tokenizing
everything as part of theirbusiness and their business
(11:16):
really just had no reason to betokenized.
And I think that someentrepreneurs first time
entrepreneurs could be slightlyshort-sighted and not understand
how building a company in aspace that they have no business
playing in is not going to be avery positive experience, like
it's already stressful enough,but add on the stress of not
(11:38):
delivering returns to investorsand having to constantly explain
why you're adding on thisalmost like gimmicky feature
into your business.
It's not a business that Ipersonally want to build.
There'd be too much stress forme.
I like staying grounded in likewhat did I actually want to
build and the audience that Iactually serve, and if that
(11:59):
isn't getting traction, thenthat's a business problem.
That's a product problem and Ican fix that.
But it's not by adding on somebullshit component to what I'm
trying to take to market.
Speaker 2 (12:10):
It sounds like if I'm going to summarize some of that
sounds like your minimum viableproduct has to be market ready
and you have to have productmarket fit.
And then you have to have abeta test, proof of concept, and
you have to have this feedbackrather than creating novel
solutions in an ivory tower thatseem marketable, why don't we
(12:34):
just find out what works at theleast cost to begin with and
improve upon that?
Because it seems like theseguys who blitz scale and, let's
say, saas products and you evensee it with well, especially
with marketplaces, becausemarketplaces are non-proprietary
.
So you have to cash flow, orsorry, you have to blitz scale,
(12:56):
because cash flow isn't reallyan option.
It's about gaining.
It's about gaining orcherishing.
Blitz scaling is another issue.
Speaker 1 (13:02):
Blitz scaling is a bigger, is a separate issue than
leveraging like a trending,like a trending topic, to raise
money.
Blitz scaling you could be likeI could be like a consumer
focused B2C SaaS product andnever be profitable and raise,
keep raising rounds atincredible valuations,
exceptionally high valuations.
(13:23):
I mean you saw this with, likeI think we work as probably the
most notable blitz scalingfailure where you marketed it as
a software company and it's areal estate play, but the
valuations kept, you know,replicating software valuations,
which allowed them to raiselike billions and billions and
billions and billions, and thenobviously, we didn't know how
that story played out.
So, but I don't think manycompanies and I don't think many
(13:47):
VCs really enjoy blitz scalinga company anymore.
I think that's a little bit ofan outdated play.
I think that investors excuse methey want cash flow, they want
to see that you're profitable,they want to see that you have a
product again, mvp or otherwise, that resonates with an ideal
customer profile as certainmarkets, solves a viable pain
(14:08):
point and it's a difficultbalance.
Like, are we trying to build aprofitable company?
Are we trying to buildsomething that is highly
disrupted and has never beendone before?
I mean, there's a lot of nuanceto this conversation, but I
mean, yes, done improperly, butblitz scaling is also a huge
issue, because it's not for usto be.
Speaker 2 (14:28):
It seems like it well , and you take in all that VC
money and it seems like itforces you to throw something
against the wall and see if itsticks that, yes, I've been
watching this with some.
What are we going to call themFinTech?
They start as FinTech, and thenAbout the payment processor
what was it?
Speaker 1 (14:47):
Bolt or what was the one there was one Bolt or, and
they blitz scaled and then theywent bankrupt.
It was like two years ago.
It was one sort of competitorto strike.
I can't remember which one itwas, and if it wasn't Bolt, then
I'm sorry for Bolt, but it wasone of.
There was like two companiesthat scaled way too fast and it
was all FinTech.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
But yeah, and then did they try to launch other
products.
Hey, we've got to do somethingwith all this VC money.
We've got to get these 30%returns.
Speaker 1 (15:13):
I can't remember if they expanded their product
portfolio.
I think they tripled down ontheir primary offering.
They had an $11 billionvaluation at their last raise
and there was some like theirrevenues were just like.
It was like a couple of hundredthousand dollars a month, like
it was so out of, like that isthe epitome of blitz scaling.
(15:35):
Like somehow the story wasworth $11 billion, but if you
actually looked at under thehood revenues, I don't even
think we're a million dollars amonth, which obviously does not
lead to an 11,.
Let's say you have a couple ofhundred thousand dollars revenue
per month, great startercompany, but it's not.
It's not an $11 billion company.
So that is the epitome of theissues with blitz scaling and I
(15:58):
think I don't think many VCslike to do that anymore because
there's been so many issues andso many people have lost so much
money.
Speaker 2 (16:05):
Well, just to be forthright and candid with you,
scott, I am bootstrapping ranchinvestor for many, many reasons,
but I believe it's up to me toprove the right product, product
market fit, have it beta tested, have a good case that cash
(16:26):
flows, and if it doesn't cashflow, that's on me.
That's all coming out of mypocket.
Speaker 1 (16:31):
And you become a better entrepreneur by building
a cash flowing, even profitable,business Like it's not as easy,
but you figure out all the shityou have to figure out at a
very early stage.
And this is why I lovebootstrapping, because then you
don't take on the pressure.
You don't take on the pressureto blitz scale or to hyperscale.
You build it at your own pace.
(16:52):
You know what's working andwhat's not and you continuously
optimize and you focus onprofitability versus just
customer acquisition, which Iactually think is a really sound
business concept to focus on.
I mean, after my last companywas acquired, I dabbled in
private equity and by that Ireally just mean I was doing
(17:14):
some small.
I was spinning up SPVs, doingsmall acquisitions like majority
stake in smaller, like Ecom andCPG and like online businesses.
But I mean in the privateequity world like it's all cash
flow, it's all based on cashflow.
You look at the historicals,you look at the profitability,
you look at basically the lastfive, 10 years of business and
(17:37):
then some, and that's how youmake your decision.
And I was thinking about assomebody with a tiny bit of
money do I wanna start to angelinvest or do I want to
contribute to like a venturecapital fund, or do I want to
raise a VC fund or raise aprivate equity fund or dabbling
private equity, whatever it is?
(17:57):
But for me it just made a lotmore sense to hedge my bets on
companies that had cash flow,that had profitability, and I
think that VC has been, vc hasbeen made to seem a lot sexier
than it is, and I think thatthat's.
I think that people arestarting to come to terms with
(18:19):
maybe throwing money into thingsthat have no product, market
fit or no viability is probablynot the best thing, except if I
understand that industry.
If I came from that industryand I understand that industry,
maybe I can figure out if it's aright team, right product and
there's a good chance and I canoffer some, maybe some, guidance
and mentorship if they'refumbling a little bit.
But I think to come and peoplethrow money into VC without
(18:40):
really knowing the industry orthe product or the risk factor
involved, which is why I lovebootstrapping Cause.
Speaker 2 (18:48):
I think it's smart and it's healthy and it will
stress off you Well, and I feela strong sense of duty to the
LPs, the investors, passiveinvestors, and if I am going to
be VC backed, then I would owethe VCs priority on their
(19:10):
returns over the LPs.
And you can't serve two gods.
That's also true, and I'vewatched this with other online
syndication platforms and itseems like they took all this VC
money.
The actual product were the LPsthat they were getting to their
online syndication platform.
So those LPs were the product,it wasn't the real estate.
(19:34):
And then you take in all thismoney and you find out, well, we
can't really scale this to thereturns the VCs need.
So we're going to shift fromprop tech to FinTech and from
FinTech to real estate tech andfrom real estate tech to map
tech, and it's just it seemslike again chasing shiny objects
(19:56):
or throwing something againstthe wall.
See if it sticks.
It's to me.
I want to stick to my corebeliefs and values and it's got
to work for the longterm andit's got to work for me
personally.
Speaker 1 (20:05):
And another fact that we didn't even consider or
speak about is when you do takeon vested interests, vcs, who
are committed to these hyperaggressive growth goals, the
other person that loses is thecustomers.
So, as the customers would bethe tenants, the customers would
be your if you're in realestate, if customers could be
(20:26):
actual customers.
If you have a product companyor service company, customers
lose, customer experiencesuffers.
A lot of venture capital firmsgrow at all costs and that could
also be employees suffer, likethere's like a lot of people.
A lot of people end upsuffering right when it's growth
at all costs, absolutely, andyou can still make, and not
(20:49):
having growth at all costs doesnot mean you don't make money.
You can make a lot of money inprivate equity.
You can make a lot of moneywith LPs over VCs, but it's just
about.
I think that Silicon Valleyruined a lot of it, because
before that I don't think therewas leveraged growth, which is a
different issue in traditionalprivate equity world, but it
(21:12):
wasn't like growth at all costs.
So there's always listen.
Whenever there's money invested, there's always good actors,
bad actors.
You just got to make sureyou're with the right people.
That's all that matters.
Speaker 2 (21:21):
And it seems like we are trending away from those,
those mega valuations andcapital raising for for series A
and seed rounds and angelrounds and even series B, cs,
that those are getting more andmore difficult.
So now you took in all thismoney over the last four years
(21:43):
and you got to do a series C andit's it's harder to accomplish
or you're going to, or you'regoing to fold.
Speaker 1 (21:50):
You're right, you're on a present right.
I think.
I think that if if you're justtaking money from LPs and you're
scaling and you're scaling thatway, I think it's a healthier
way.
I mean, this is literally why Imoved away from angels slash VC
and and moved towards privateequity.
It's, I think, we think, verysimilarly.
So I also took money LP moneyon some of the deals, but it
wasn't like growth at all costs,it was.
(22:11):
These are the expectations.
This is a projected P and L.
This is what we're going tostick to.
This is a return we're going toaim for, but we're not trying
to build this $10 millioncompany into a billion dollar
company.
We'll get good returns, butit's not going to be a billion
dollar company.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
So and in my world, rural America, salt of the earth
, cowboys, ranchers, farmers,lieover state Americans.
I come in and if I pitchsyndication of ranches, or some
some might call it fractionalownership, it's really just a
direct participation program,not unlike any other DPP, real
(22:49):
estate DPP.
But to them what they hear isWall Street.
You're going to come in withthe suits and you're going to
monetize what we have and you'regoing to export, you're going
to squeeze out all these profitsand export it to Wall Street.
So that's a huge pushback towhere there are.
(23:11):
You mentioned stakeholders andone of one of the community
meetings I was at in centralMontana, stakeholders got
brought up and they said well,what's your plan for wildlife
management and how are you goingto manage biological risk?
Cause what you're doing, youmight incentivize more elk.
(23:32):
It could be in your bestinterest that the elk population
triples around your ranch,because that's more hunts you
get to sell, more placements,more LPs you're going to bring
in.
On the other hand, someone saidbut it also might be scorched
earth you might bring in a bunchof Texans and Floridans who
just kill everything that movesand it drastically eliminates
(23:57):
the elk population in that localarea.
So these stakeholders ofdifferent sides of the argument
are asking me what's my plan?
And I'm saying this is my plan.
Talk to the guys and listen.
Speaker 1 (24:10):
And it's not, by the way, it's not exclusive, it's
exclusive to your niche.
So I have a good friend whodoes dental office rollups and
that's very popular, by the way.
You'll buy 10 dental offices ata million, two million dollars
each and then roll them all up.
You sell them at a multiple.
It's a good traditional rollup,but DSOs our dental office
(24:33):
rollups, dental services rollupsare very, very popular.
I'm not actually sure why theybecame so popular, probably
because there was a hugeopportunity there and it's owner
operated.
There's a play that can berepeated, but I do know that a
big concern now is privateequity firms doing these DSOs or
(24:53):
other similar types of rollupsand basically ruining the
culture of the company, layingoff all the team, like cutting
massive amounts of costs, likebasically deconstructing the
business.
So now, after a while of badbehavior in a market, you'll
have owner operator like Dentist.
They no longer want to evenentertain or speak with somebody
(25:14):
who's doing this, even if thatperson is a good business owner,
a good leader, an ethicalprivate equity or fund manager.
That actually would be a hugevalue add to the patients, to
the employees, and improvethings versus just cut costs,
fire here, fire there, basicallydestroy the patient experience,
(25:36):
whatever it is that put intheory, like make the business
more profitable.
So there's good actors, badactors and, similar to you, you
have a different set of problemsand pain points that the
investor's thinking or theseller is thinking about, and I
think you just have to addressthose and understand that.
Like if you're going to besomebody who is buying these
groupings of businesses, asopposed to just thinking about
(25:58):
it through your lens as aninvestor, what is the pain point
that the seller or the currentoperator owner actually cares
about, and then not justthinking about it in terms of,
oh, I'm going to include it aspart of the sales strategy, like
, how do I make a profitablebusiness or holding company or
strategy that actually fulfillsthe needs and requirements and
(26:20):
worries and pain points of thepotential seller, so it's not
just lip service, like you'reactually thinking, okay, so this
is not part of my playbook Idon't know much about, I don't
know much about ranches, but allthose problems make a lot of
sense.
So how do I actually addressthem so that I don't make people
have sellers regret when theyactually sell to me?
(26:41):
Because sellers regret ends upbeing my reputation as an
investor and I can maybe do onedeal and maybe lie my way
through that deal, but I canguarantee you won't do a second
one or a third one and you'llhave a horrible reputation.
So reputation means a lot inthis game as well, especially
because you're doing like aagain.
Like a.
It's a real estate play, but italso sounds a lot like a
(27:05):
private equity play to a degree.
So I think reputation means alot.
So you can't just go in therelike Wall Street, because that's
what they're worried thatyou're gonna do.
So you lead with.
How is this going to improve theenvironment, the ecosystem, the
lives of the animals and thepeople that work for the ranch
is how do you lead with that?
Cause that's what people careabout.
(27:26):
Cause you're doing businesswith people.
And I think sometimes peopleforget that and they think that
you're doing business just withlike spreadsheets and numbers,
but you're doing business withlike actual people.
So that's always important.
I mean that's what makes a goodreal estate investor versus a
bad one.
Like when they take over abuilding is, or they buy a six
plus or a multiplex, or evenlike a single family home.
(27:46):
Is the life of the individualthat lives in that home better
after you've come in, or is itworse?
And I think the people I thinkI'm very bullish on the future
of ethical capitalism I that'swhat I believe will win, because
I think that that createsreputation.
I think people want to dobusiness with people that
(28:07):
improve their lives.
It's a very common sense to me,but I think that it's lost on
some.
Speaker 2 (28:11):
So that makes me think about one of my clients,
so I can say this without beingtoo specific, but one of my
clients is.
Let's see how specific I wantto be here.
Speaker 1 (28:26):
Yeah, we can.
We can redact the names aftersee no getting in trouble.
Speaker 2 (28:31):
It is a religious organization that's very, very
conservative and it's veryunique.
It's a novel religiousorganization.
It seems to be closed off fromthe outside world, and they've
been I guess that's what it is,but I won't say Okay, so but I
(28:53):
have tremendously enjoyedworking for them.
They come in with an attitudewhen they enter a new area they
say they've said this severaltimes it's gotta work for
everyone.
Because a lot of times whenthey enter an area they drive up
values and then the locals feelpriced out and they bring in
competing businesses and thoseother local services.
(29:15):
Products feel undercut andundervalued because this
religious sect, this group, hasa very good brand premium for
the products they create and theservices they do.
Their brand reputation isexceptional, so they are
competitive in the areas thatthey market.
But they have never once comein and said we're gonna undercut
(29:38):
everyone.
We're going to negotiate hardand get this seller down as much
as we can and we're gonnasteamroll the county
commissioners to get what wewant for zoning and regulation.
They've never done it.
They keep saying it's gottawork for everyone.
We're here for the long term.
(29:59):
Whether we do good or bad,there's gonna be people that
don't like us just because we'rehere.
So we have to kind of keep inmind to a high degree this
reputation and I just reallyadmire working with them because
they think holistically in thatregard.
Speaker 1 (30:20):
That's what they lead with as an investor they lead
with.
The self-awareness is obvious,which is great.
Like they understand theenvironment they're gonna go
into and they're not ignorant.
They're like people are gonnahate us regardless but whatever,
like let's just, people willalways hate you.
By the way, regardless of whatyou try and do, doesn't matter
if you're investing or you'reselling a product or you're
(30:44):
building an audience, like therewill always be people that
don't love what you do.
But if you're coming from aplace of I'm doing the best I
can and trying to impact themost amount of people in a
positive way and you're aware ofhow to do that as effectively
as possible, I think that's agreat place to operate from as a
professional, as anentrepreneur, as an investor,
whatever.
Speaker 2 (31:03):
Well, let's take a tangent here in the last part of
our episode and tell me moreabout some of your speaking
engagements and your exclusivegroups.
I mean, you've been.
You pitched how to sellanything in 2023, building a
business from zero to 100million.
Speaker 1 (31:22):
I do a lot of entrepreneurship stuff, so I
like working with entrepreneurs.
Speaker 2 (31:26):
How did you get invited to the real housewives
of Miami?
Listen, I think that.
Speaker 1 (31:36):
I mean that's through building a brand in a city and
networking and putting yourselfout there, and so the podcast
has been a massive networkingplay right.
The podcast lets me sit downwith some of the most incredible
people in the world.
It is something that I thinkhas absolutely changed my career
and a lot of the things thatyou just mentioned.
(31:57):
So I spoke at just morerecently inbound Massive
Conference put on by HubSpot.
My podcast is sponsored byHubSpot.
I've spoken at other events aswell, but that was the most
recent out of a boss.
I think like 30,000 people goto that one.
The invitation to the realhousewives of Miami premiere.
All that stuff is puttingyourself out there, connecting
(32:20):
with the right people, likespeaking about the things that
you know and you care about.
And when you repeatedly do thatand show up and speak about the
stuff that you're doing,working on, care about, know
about on social media for aperiod of time, like you do
build a community aroundyourself.
And when you build a community,that's when people are
interested in learning moreabout you and inviting you to
(32:40):
speak on certain subjects.
And I mean I've worked instartups, I've worked for
startups, I've mentored startups, advised startups, so it's a
lot of like startup.
That's most of the topics thatI speak about how to start from
scratch, how to build, how to goraise money, how to find your
first figure and find your first50 customers.
What's an MVP?
How to whatever All marketingsales, all that stuff.
Speaker 2 (33:03):
You were shitting on Bitcoin earlier, and are you not
a Bitcoin billionaire in Miami?
I'm not a.
Speaker 1 (33:08):
Bitcoin billionaire in Miami?
I'm not of it.
I don't shit on Bitcoin.
I shit on people that have nobusiness.
I'm bullish on entrepreneursthat are building products that
actually solve problems, andthere's a lot of Bitcoin crypto
people that do solve problems,but there's a lot that don't as
well.
So I think that I'm bullish onpeople that actually understand
(33:33):
the problem that they're solvingand build solutions around that
problem and work on that forfive to 10 years, not somebody
that leverages hype and FOMO tobuild an unsustainable company.
So no, I'm not a Miami.
I'm not a Miami Bitcoinbillionaire.
If I was, maybe I wouldn't bebad silly pop.
I think that's a lie.
Speaker 2 (33:54):
I like doing it too much, but Well, and we were
talking about your the successstory podcast and the
involvement you have with theentrepreneurial community of
advising, consulting, investing.
You're deeply in with them.
Why didn't you just go theroute of being a McKenzie
consultant?
Why not McKenzie you want?
Speaker 1 (34:18):
me to.
You want me to shit on Bitcoinand McKinsey in one podcast.
Speaker 2 (34:23):
No it is very common for the entrepreneur community
to shit on McKinsey.
But let's hear your, let's hearyour side.
Speaker 1 (34:31):
They serve a purpose.
Right, they serve a purpose.
I think that the beauty ofentrepreneurship is is the
opportunity to figure it out foryourself, and when you figure
it out for yourself, you becomea different level of of
(34:51):
effective and dangerous in thegame of business, and I think
that outs.
So my career success has beenbased on me figuring it out
first and then hiring peoplebased on the things that I've
already figured out.
I think that when you, I thinkthat agencies, firms, larger
(35:12):
ones, especially even smallerones in the entrepreneurial
ecosystem, sometimes there's alittle bit of a predatory aspect
because the rates that theycharge and the promises that
they commit to can completelydestroy startups again and again
.
And not not McKinsey.
I've actually I've never workedwith McKinsey.
(35:34):
I've worked with I mean there'sonly four, so I worked with
other ones.
But I mean I've seen startupspay $50,000 per month retainers
pre revenue with consultingfirms.
I've seen $50,000 to $75,000for a pitch deck proving a
market viability for a productthat has no market viability or
(35:55):
not that it has no marketviability.
But they'll tell you whateveryou want to hear is the best way
and that's not useful assomebody starting, that's not
useful at any level in business,but it hurts more when you're
just starting in the business,because the difference between a
fortune 100 using a top fourand getting bad advice or even
good advice but most sometimesbad advice is that it won't
(36:20):
bankrupt a fortune 100, but itcould stop an entrepreneur from
figuring out or even being ablefinancially to take a product to
market.
So I am bullish on figuringshit out yourself, on not
outsourcing your thinking, onnot raising too much money, on
trying to find your first 50customers, on, if you're not a
(36:41):
technical person, finding atechnical co-founder that can
help build you your product.
So there's a lot of ways to doit and I don't find that
agencies or consulting groupsare a good way to start, because
I've had more bad experienceswith them than good.
They do good work but not allthe time and it can be really,
really detrimental.
Speaker 2 (37:00):
Well now, now it makes perfect sense to me why
McKenzie consultants become CEOsof fortune 500 companies and
politicians.
They tell you what you want tohear and then they bankrupt you.
Speaker 1 (37:15):
Well, it takes a certain kind of fortune 500 CEO
and politician.
Very few of them not all, butvery few of them will have what
it takes to build a company fromscratch and keep, make it
profitable and keep it inbusiness for 10 years.
That is a very certain skillset and, by the way, a startup
CEO founder is not always theperson to run a fortune 500
(37:38):
company.
So I think that sometimesthere's a disconnect.
There's a disconnect in andpeople look.
When you're, when you'rebuilding something from scratch,
especially the first time, youlook for anybody who, in theory,
could make it easier.
But sometimes you latch ontothe wrong people or the wrong
support or the wrong servicesand it actually just stresses
(37:59):
you financially or it gives youbad advice based on where you
are in the market.
And I don't think that, as astartup founder, you should look
anywhere else other than youfiguring it out yourself.
To a degree, you have.
You have you have your mentorsand you have your advisors and
you have your co-founders,whatever.
But I think a large portion ofpeople that started did a lot of
figuring the stuff outthemselves before they started
(38:20):
spending $50,000 on a pitch deck.
Speaker 2 (38:23):
Well, I, I hope the board, the board of Disney, is
listening to this and Irecommend they go find Travis
Kalanick and see if he canreplace Bob Iger you know, it's
actually really interesting whenyou see somebody who is a
hardcore operator going to acorporate.
Speaker 1 (38:40):
I mean, like, look at , this is what Elon is, elon's
an operator.
Elon builds stuff from scratchand Elon can build repeated
things from scratch.
He could jump into pick a picka pick a category, pick an itch,
pick an industry.
He could build something inthat industry.
Cause after you've done it,once you can start to you can
you understand what it will taketo get there, and it's not so
it's.
It's not complicated work, it'sjust hard work.
(39:01):
But I would be very interestingto see.
I also think that governmentwould be better if there was
more entrepreneurs in government.
I genuinely believe that.
I think people that can figureshit out and aren't just great
speakers but are great doers andare highly critical thinkers.
I think that makes for bettergovernment too, but that's.
(39:21):
I don't want to go intogovernment because it's just
it's more stress than you need,like who wants to do that, cause
you're constantly being beratedby the constituency, of course,
and the entrepreneur is notused to that.
Speaker 2 (39:35):
The entrepreneur is kind of like some of my ranching
clients who are 65, nevermarried, no children, have been
in rural America on the ranchtheir whole life.
Bachelors, they do not know howto interact with other people.
Speaker 1 (39:51):
Yeah, I mean they're good at what they know.
It's unfortunate because somepeople would be better, they'd
lead the country in a betterdirection.
But I mean, if you're notcomfortable taking up that
mantle and doing that job, it'snot easy.
Your life is under scrutiny, alot of public pressure, it's not
fun.
I mean, look at the trying tothink of.
We had Mike Bloomberg.
(40:13):
He ran, didn't do so well.
Obviously Trump's veryentrepreneurial.
He's very, very polarizing, buta very entrepreneurial person.
But not many otherentrepreneurs Vivek, vivek.
Actually, I like Vivek, I likeVivek.
I had him on my show a whileback.
I don't mind him.
He's very smart.
Biotech right.
Yeah, he's another entrepreneur.
Speaker 2 (40:34):
But some of this discussion reminds me of a
conversation I was having withmy attorneys who were drafting
the PPM and the LP agreement andthe structure.
So you've got the S corp right,the holding entity that rolls
up from the SPV and themanagement LLC.
You know the structure, yeah,and so we're figuring out the
(40:56):
term sheet.
And how do you monetizerecreation on a ranch?
How do you, how do you providethat benefit?
Well, property right.
When it's when it's on a ranch,it's a property right.
But when it becomes part of anSPV, it's it's more of a feature
to benefit.
(41:16):
And how do you allocate that sothat it's not a time share?
And my attorneys were saying,geez, coulter, this is, this is
some risk, this is someliability.
We, we've never seen anythinglike this.
This is pretty tough to do, areyou sure?
Let's just go the conventional,normal route and you, you lease
out the hunting, lease out therecreation, and that's the best
(41:40):
way to do it.
Don't offer it to the LPs.
If they're going to invest inyour PPM, it's because the cash
flows and the risk adjust toreturn.
So don't dangle this carrot of.
They can, they can access theranch because it's just too hard
.
And I go well, guys, here's mystory.
As a kid on a ranch, grown upon a ranching family, there were
(42:03):
never any SOPs, there was neverany formal training, no
onboarding and everything we did.
If I, if I did it just slightlywrong, my grandpa and my dad
would scream at us brothers, goddamn it, just figure it out.
Speaker 1 (42:19):
Just figure it out.
That's a quote.
By the way, there's no SOPs ona ranch.
Speaker 2 (42:26):
And so I told the attorneys.
I said I've just got this.
I've got this belief that wecan just figure it out, and it's
in the back of my head.
I'm being being screamed out.
God damn it.
Just figure it out, coulter.
Speaker 1 (42:39):
You know what and and I love it, by the way, I love,
I love when you sort of breakthe mold on something too.
It's very entrepreneurialmindset.
I think it's important, but Ithink you figure it out.
I mean, yeah, fine, someliabilities, but not not insane
liabilities, not not beyond.
I mean, people are people areshooting people into space.
(43:00):
I'm sure you can figure outyour liabilities for having
people on a ranch Right.
I'm sure it's fine.
I'm sure some disclaimer youcan get them to sign.
It's not, it's not going to notgoing to be the end of you.
But I mean, yeah, disrupt theexperience a bit.
That's what creates.
Create novel experiences.
That's also what's fun aboutentrepreneurship.
You create things that haven'tbeen created before, or you give
people access to a lifestyle oran experience that they
(43:22):
normally couldn't have had orthey didn't think was possible,
something that was so normal foryou.
I love it.
Speaker 2 (43:27):
Well, I think the listeners are loving hearing
this from you, scott, andthey're going to feel inspired
to learn more.
Where.
Where can they find you andbest best see more of?
Speaker 1 (43:37):
your work.
Um, if you want to go to thewebsite, the website has all the
social.
So it's scottdclary, c L A R,ycom or I got all the same tags
on social, which is pretty,pretty fun.
So it's at scottdclary and theycan check out the podcast,
check out more content like this.
Um, yeah, that's pretty much it.
Speaker 2 (43:59):
Well, scott Clary the success story podcast.
Thanks for coming on the ranchinvestor podcast and sharing
your experience.
Speaker 1 (44:06):
Thanks for having me, Matt.
I appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (44:08):
Click subscribe on your streaming platform so you
know when the latest episode hasdropped.
Be the source of knowledge andthe maven that other
professionals are excited torefer.
The beauty of entrepreneurship is the
opportunity to figure it out foryourself.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
I'm Colter DeVries, owner of Ranch Investor Advisory
and Brokerage Services.
I'm an accredited landconsultant with the Realtor Land
Institute and proud member ofASFMRA.
Speaker 3 (00:17):
The Ranch Investor Podcast is the most downloaded
and informative industryspecific content that intrigues
while entertains.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Thanks for coming on the Ranch Investor Podcast.
I'm going to give yourintroduction.
Today.
We have Scott Clary coming on.
Scott is an entrepreneur, aninvestor, author and podcaster.
Over your career, it soundslike you have sold and marketed
to the most iconic Fortune 500and Fortune 100 brands.
(00:48):
Scott, I understand that yourthought leadership has been
featured in over 100 news sitesand publications.
You speak globally at industryconferences that I want to hear
more about.
As we get into this.
You've had articles again Iwant to hear more about this
featured in Forbes, wall StreetJournal, hacker, noon, the
(01:10):
Startup and a few others.
I think this is going to be agood episode for all my broker
agent listeners out there.
And then lots of entrepreneurs,scott.
We have people calling in whoare like me.
They're trying to figure outhow to syndicate ranches using
(01:30):
fractional ownership,co-ownership models,
crowdfunding.
There's a thousand ways to skinthis cat per se.
There's a lot of entrepreneurslistening in.
I'm excited to have them tunein because you're also the
founder and CEO of the SocialClub, which is a highly vetted
(01:51):
private members community ofentrepreneurs, investors and
executives.
Of course, you have your ownpodcast, the Success Story.
Speaker 1 (02:01):
I talked to a lot of entrepreneurs there too.
Speaker 2 (02:03):
We talked to a lot of entrepreneurs.
That's how we found you.
It's one of the top 10 businesspodcasts with over 321,000
subscribers.
You have an entrepreneurbusiness newsletter with over
313,000 readers.
Man, that's a lot to cover.
(02:24):
22 million downloads.
Hundreds of thousands offollowers on social media.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
Let's get started.
How did you accomplish this?
Time and work is usually theanswer to most problems.
None of this is something thatyou do over a short period.
It's something that you have toshow up every day and similar
(02:51):
to building a business, apersonal brand, an audience, a
community.
Whether or not you want to be asuccessful investor, whether or
not you want to be a successfulcapital allocator operator,
it's all about time.
I'm very bullish on the conceptthat if you commit 10 to 15
years to anything and you learnfrom your mistakes and you
(03:13):
incorporate feedback loops intowhat's worked and what's not,
and you iterate and youpotentially pivot when things
aren't going so well, but atleast you consistently learn, I
do believe that eventually youwill end up some version of
success at that thing.
A podcast, a newsletter, asocial audience, a great
portfolio it's no differentreally.
At the end of the day, it'sconsistently showing up and
(03:37):
learning for a period of timeand executing.
Then eventually, like I said,10 to 15 years later, you will
have some version of it figuredout.
Speaker 2 (03:44):
How about, in your experience, and the people you
network with?
How do they stay disciplined,not chasing shiny objects?
Or he who chases two rabbitscatches neither, because, as an
entrepreneur, the wheels arealways turning and you see an
opportunity everywhere you go.
How do you stay focused?
Speaker 1 (04:09):
First of all, I don't think that it's easy.
I think that every entrepreneursuccumbs to shiny object
syndrome at some point.
I think they succumb to itrepeatedly.
I think that you do have toobviously focus on what's urgent
and important and what's goingto be mission critical and
moving the needle in yourbusiness or with your portfolio
(04:29):
or with your investment.
If you have a thesis like ranchinvestor is a highly specific
investment thesis that's great.
Now you aren't distracted byinvesting in early stage SaaS
startups.
You're not trying to do aprivate equity play for a dental
office rollup or you're notputting whatever it is.
You have a very specific thesis.
(04:49):
I think that you understandwhat the North Star metric is
that you have to achieve andthat you focus on urgent and
important tasks that lead you tothat outcome.
But I said that it's not easybecause everybody succumbs to it
.
It's not like there's somesecret recipe that over the
(05:10):
course of your career, you'llnever try something new that
doesn't work out or you'll neverbe distracted by something that
seems highly lucrative.
I really do believe that youjust have that North Star that
you keep coming back to againand again and again.
It takes a lot of I would saywhat's the word I'm thinking of.
It takes a lot ofself-discipline to focus on that
(05:32):
thing that you know willactually yield the end result.
I think that it becomes easierto have that self-discipline
when you, like I said originally, you mentally commit to that
thing for a long term, becausethen you're okay with it not
working out right away and sortof, as you know, even as I'm
(05:52):
speaking through this, I'm justthinking about what causes.
What causes that shiny objectsyndrome?
And I think what causes thisshiny object syndrome is when
the results that you want don'tmanifest immediately enough
because you have not mentallyprepared yourself for the time
(06:12):
required to actually achievethose results.
Realistic timeframe has notbeen set.
So then you focus on somethingthat in your mind you think
could accomplish those goals alittle bit quicker than the
thing that you're already tryingto do.
And that's what distracts you.
Because I think that shinyobject syndrome would be less of
a concern if you with 100%certainty could say, for example
(06:36):
I'm starting a business, thisis the one product I'm going to
sell, this is the one market Iwant to sell into, and I know
that it's going to achieve 10million, 50 million, 100 million
dollars in top line in 10, 15,20 years.
If that was a certainty, Ithink shiny object would be less
of a problem.
But because it's not acertainty and because
(06:57):
expectations are not properlyset, we don't set our own
expectations properly in termsof what we actually have to do,
the work that we have to do toget to where we want to go.
I think that's when shiny objectsyndrome starts to manifest and
it starts to like creep in andyou're like I've been working
for three years, it's not whereI want it to be.
Maybe I can try this new shinything that looks a little bit
more exciting because it soundslike it could take way less time
(07:17):
.
But ultimately you're juststarting your new cycle with
something brand new that'sprobably going to take another
10, 15 years.
So yeah, I think that it's hard.
It's hard, but I think it'sabout being real with how
difficult and how long it'sgoing to take us to achieve what
we want to achieve, which isfine, because long is very
subjective.
Like 10, 15 years.
It sounds like a long time, butin the grand scheme of things
(07:38):
in life, it's actually not thatlong.
So are we actually committingto the journey that we want to
sign up for Are we committing tosome get rich quick version of
entrepreneurship which isn'taccurate and not true, and I
think that's where the shinyobject syndrome comes from.
So I think it's maybe aboutsetting the right expectations
for what we're going to take on.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
It seems like a lot of people are chasing AI.
Every pitch out there here nowincludes some form of AI and
they think to raise investmentyou have to have some feature of
AI.
Does that seem accurate thatnow people are just using that
(08:18):
to sell their core model, like,oh, we're not marketable unless
we're doing AI?
Speaker 1 (08:24):
Well, this is not so different than crypto.
This is not.
This is the exact same thing.
So this is what happens whenyou have, like, a trend.
So it's very dangerous, right?
It's because it's gonna be alot of well-meaning
entrepreneurs that can use thetrend to go raise money for that
particular company crypto, ai,whatever it is it could be
(08:46):
cannabis, it could be solar,like there's all these trends,
right.
So it's exciting to build in atrend because there's a lot of
momentum.
When there's momentum, investorswant to invest in these trends
because they don't wanna missout.
There's FOMO, so you can.
If you want to build a companyin a trend, it's a little bit
(09:07):
easier because you will findmoney a little bit easier than
if you're building somethingthat doesn't have FOMO around it
, not to say you can't,obviously, raise money for a
boring business.
It's not topical, but I mean,the issue becomes now there's
good actors and bad actors thattake advantage of the fact that
investors are excited about atrend and then, like in crypto,
(09:30):
like with AI, you'll have peoplethat have absolute business
building a crypto or an AIcompany, and then people that
have no business building acrypto or an AI company, so
people that are genuinelybuilding a company in the space.
That is going to disrupt, it'sgoing to change the way that we
(09:51):
operate, live our lives, dobusiness and it's truly
revolutionary.
Good for them.
And if they have the cognitiveabilities and the pedigree in
the background and theproficiency to build, good for
them.
But the issue is when, like yousaid, somebody who has no
business building an AI companyputs like a dot AI or includes
some AI component just to raisemoney.
(10:11):
I don't think that's ethicaland I don't think it's needed
and I actually think it's adistraction.
I think that if people weremore confident raising money
against their thesis and theiractual business, then that's
what they should do and theythink that it's going to be
easier to raise money becausethey include an AI component.
They could maybe get a couplemore investor meetings that way,
but then ultimately you'regoing to be distracting yourself
(10:35):
from building the actualproduct, because if your product
was not good before you addedan AI component, unless it's
radically different, it's stillgoing to be a shitty product
with like an AI marketing spin.
So that doesn't really solvefor what you're actually trying
to solve for and what's going tohappen is you're going to have
a hard time taking that productto market and you're going to
(10:55):
have a hard time findingcustomers for your product
because the products you standalone, with or without AI, and
then you're going to have a hardtime delivering returns to your
investors and it's actuallygoing to be a very shitty
experience for everyone involved.
So I think that it's veryshort-sighted to add AI as a
component on your business whenyour business has no business
being an AI company, similar towhen people were like tokenizing
everything as part of theirbusiness and their business
(11:16):
really just had no reason to betokenized.
And I think that someentrepreneurs first time
entrepreneurs could be slightlyshort-sighted and not understand
how building a company in aspace that they have no business
playing in is not going to be avery positive experience, like
it's already stressful enough,but add on the stress of not
(11:38):
delivering returns to investorsand having to constantly explain
why you're adding on thisalmost like gimmicky feature
into your business.
It's not a business that Ipersonally want to build.
There'd be too much stress forme.
I like staying grounded in likewhat did I actually want to
build and the audience that Iactually serve, and if that
(11:59):
isn't getting traction, thenthat's a business problem.
That's a product problem and Ican fix that.
But it's not by adding on somebullshit component to what I'm
trying to take to market.
Speaker 2 (12:10):
It sounds like if I'm going to summarize some of that
sounds like your minimum viableproduct has to be market ready
and you have to have productmarket fit.
And then you have to have abeta test, proof of concept, and
you have to have this feedbackrather than creating novel
solutions in an ivory tower thatseem marketable, why don't we
(12:34):
just find out what works at theleast cost to begin with and
improve upon that?
Because it seems like theseguys who blitz scale and, let's
say, saas products and you evensee it with well, especially
with marketplaces, becausemarketplaces are non-proprietary
.
So you have to cash flow, orsorry, you have to blitz scale,
(12:56):
because cash flow isn't reallyan option.
It's about gaining.
It's about gaining orcherishing.
Blitz scaling is another issue.
Speaker 1 (13:02):
Blitz scaling is a bigger, is a separate issue than
leveraging like a trending,like a trending topic, to raise
money.
Blitz scaling you could be likeI could be like a consumer
focused B2C SaaS product andnever be profitable and raise,
keep raising rounds atincredible valuations,
exceptionally high valuations.
(13:23):
I mean you saw this with, likeI think we work as probably the
most notable blitz scalingfailure where you marketed it as
a software company and it's areal estate play, but the
valuations kept, you know,replicating software valuations,
which allowed them to raiselike billions and billions and
billions and billions, and thenobviously, we didn't know how
that story played out.
So, but I don't think manycompanies and I don't think many
(13:47):
VCs really enjoy blitz scalinga company anymore.
I think that's a little bit ofan outdated play.
I think that investors excuse methey want cash flow, they want
to see that you're profitable,they want to see that you have a
product again, mvp or otherwise, that resonates with an ideal
customer profile as certainmarkets, solves a viable pain
(14:08):
point and it's a difficultbalance.
Like, are we trying to build aprofitable company?
Are we trying to buildsomething that is highly
disrupted and has never beendone before?
I mean, there's a lot of nuanceto this conversation, but I
mean, yes, done improperly, butblitz scaling is also a huge
issue, because it's not for usto be.
Speaker 2 (14:28):
It seems like it well , and you take in all that VC
money and it seems like itforces you to throw something
against the wall and see if itsticks that, yes, I've been
watching this with some.
What are we going to call themFinTech?
They start as FinTech, and thenAbout the payment processor
what was it?
Speaker 1 (14:47):
Bolt or what was the one there was one Bolt or, and
they blitz scaled and then theywent bankrupt.
It was like two years ago.
It was one sort of competitorto strike.
I can't remember which one itwas, and if it wasn't Bolt, then
I'm sorry for Bolt, but it wasone of.
There was like two companiesthat scaled way too fast and it
was all FinTech.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
But yeah, and then did they try to launch other
products.
Hey, we've got to do somethingwith all this VC money.
We've got to get these 30%returns.
Speaker 1 (15:13):
I can't remember if they expanded their product
portfolio.
I think they tripled down ontheir primary offering.
They had an $11 billionvaluation at their last raise
and there was some like theirrevenues were just like.
It was like a couple of hundredthousand dollars a month, like
it was so out of, like that isthe epitome of blitz scaling.
(15:35):
Like somehow the story wasworth $11 billion, but if you
actually looked at under thehood revenues, I don't even
think we're a million dollars amonth, which obviously does not
lead to an 11,.
Let's say you have a couple ofhundred thousand dollars revenue
per month, great startercompany, but it's not.
It's not an $11 billion company.
So that is the epitome of theissues with blitz scaling and I
(15:58):
think I don't think many VCslike to do that anymore because
there's been so many issues andso many people have lost so much
money.
Speaker 2 (16:05):
Well, just to be forthright and candid with you,
scott, I am bootstrapping ranchinvestor for many, many reasons,
but I believe it's up to me toprove the right product, product
market fit, have it beta tested, have a good case that cash
(16:26):
flows, and if it doesn't cashflow, that's on me.
That's all coming out of mypocket.
Speaker 1 (16:31):
And you become a better entrepreneur by building
a cash flowing, even profitable,business Like it's not as easy,
but you figure out all the shityou have to figure out at a
very early stage.
And this is why I lovebootstrapping, because then you
don't take on the pressure.
You don't take on the pressureto blitz scale or to hyperscale.
You build it at your own pace.
(16:52):
You know what's working andwhat's not and you continuously
optimize and you focus onprofitability versus just
customer acquisition, which Iactually think is a really sound
business concept to focus on.
I mean, after my last companywas acquired, I dabbled in
private equity and by that Ireally just mean I was doing
(17:14):
some small.
I was spinning up SPVs, doingsmall acquisitions like majority
stake in smaller, like Ecom andCPG and like online businesses.
But I mean in the privateequity world like it's all cash
flow, it's all based on cashflow.
You look at the historicals,you look at the profitability,
you look at basically the lastfive, 10 years of business and
(17:37):
then some, and that's how youmake your decision.
And I was thinking about assomebody with a tiny bit of
money do I wanna start to angelinvest or do I want to
contribute to like a venturecapital fund, or do I want to
raise a VC fund or raise aprivate equity fund or dabbling
private equity, whatever it is?
(17:57):
But for me it just made a lotmore sense to hedge my bets on
companies that had cash flow,that had profitability, and I
think that VC has been, vc hasbeen made to seem a lot sexier
than it is, and I think thatthat's.
I think that people arestarting to come to terms with
(18:19):
maybe throwing money into thingsthat have no product, market
fit or no viability is probablynot the best thing, except if I
understand that industry.
If I came from that industryand I understand that industry,
maybe I can figure out if it's aright team, right product and
there's a good chance and I canoffer some, maybe some, guidance
and mentorship if they'refumbling a little bit.
But I think to come and peoplethrow money into VC without
(18:40):
really knowing the industry orthe product or the risk factor
involved, which is why I lovebootstrapping Cause.
Speaker 2 (18:48):
I think it's smart and it's healthy and it will
stress off you Well, and I feela strong sense of duty to the
LPs, the investors, passiveinvestors, and if I am going to
be VC backed, then I would owethe VCs priority on their
(19:10):
returns over the LPs.
And you can't serve two gods.
That's also true, and I'vewatched this with other online
syndication platforms and itseems like they took all this VC
money.
The actual product were the LPsthat they were getting to their
online syndication platform.
So those LPs were the product,it wasn't the real estate.
(19:34):
And then you take in all thismoney and you find out, well, we
can't really scale this to thereturns the VCs need.
So we're going to shift fromprop tech to FinTech and from
FinTech to real estate tech andfrom real estate tech to map
tech, and it's just it seemslike again chasing shiny objects
(19:56):
or throwing something againstthe wall.
See if it sticks.
It's to me.
I want to stick to my corebeliefs and values and it's got
to work for the longterm andit's got to work for me
personally.
Speaker 1 (20:05):
And another fact that we didn't even consider or
speak about is when you do takeon vested interests, vcs, who
are committed to these hyperaggressive growth goals, the
other person that loses is thecustomers.
So, as the customers would bethe tenants, the customers would
be your if you're in realestate, if customers could be
(20:26):
actual customers.
If you have a product companyor service company, customers
lose, customer experiencesuffers.
A lot of venture capital firmsgrow at all costs and that could
also be employees suffer, likethere's like a lot of people.
A lot of people end upsuffering right when it's growth
at all costs, absolutely, andyou can still make, and not
(20:49):
having growth at all costs doesnot mean you don't make money.
You can make a lot of money inprivate equity.
You can make a lot of moneywith LPs over VCs, but it's just
about.
I think that Silicon Valleyruined a lot of it, because
before that I don't think therewas leveraged growth, which is a
different issue in traditionalprivate equity world, but it
(21:12):
wasn't like growth at all costs.
So there's always listen.
Whenever there's money invested, there's always good actors,
bad actors.
You just got to make sureyou're with the right people.
That's all that matters.
Speaker 2 (21:21):
And it seems like we are trending away from those,
those mega valuations andcapital raising for for series A
and seed rounds and angelrounds and even series B, cs,
that those are getting more andmore difficult.
So now you took in all thismoney over the last four years
(21:43):
and you got to do a series C andit's it's harder to accomplish
or you're going to, or you'regoing to fold.
Speaker 1 (21:50):
You're right, you're on a present right.
I think.
I think that if if you're justtaking money from LPs and you're
scaling and you're scaling thatway, I think it's a healthier
way.
I mean, this is literally why Imoved away from angels slash VC
and and moved towards privateequity.
It's, I think, we think, verysimilarly.
So I also took money LP moneyon some of the deals, but it
wasn't like growth at all costs,it was.
(22:11):
These are the expectations.
This is a projected P and L.
This is what we're going tostick to.
This is a return we're going toaim for, but we're not trying
to build this $10 millioncompany into a billion dollar
company.
We'll get good returns, butit's not going to be a billion
dollar company.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
So and in my world, rural America, salt of the earth
, cowboys, ranchers, farmers,lieover state Americans.
I come in and if I pitchsyndication of ranches, or some
some might call it fractionalownership, it's really just a
direct participation program,not unlike any other DPP, real
(22:49):
estate DPP.
But to them what they hear isWall Street.
You're going to come in withthe suits and you're going to
monetize what we have and you'regoing to export, you're going
to squeeze out all these profitsand export it to Wall Street.
So that's a huge pushback towhere there are.
(23:11):
You mentioned stakeholders andone of one of the community
meetings I was at in centralMontana, stakeholders got
brought up and they said well,what's your plan for wildlife
management and how are you goingto manage biological risk?
Cause what you're doing, youmight incentivize more elk.
(23:32):
It could be in your bestinterest that the elk population
triples around your ranch,because that's more hunts you
get to sell, more placements,more LPs you're going to bring
in.
On the other hand, someone saidbut it also might be scorched
earth you might bring in a bunchof Texans and Floridans who
just kill everything that movesand it drastically eliminates
(23:57):
the elk population in that localarea.
So these stakeholders ofdifferent sides of the argument
are asking me what's my plan?
And I'm saying this is my plan.
Talk to the guys and listen.
Speaker 1 (24:10):
And it's not, by the way, it's not exclusive, it's
exclusive to your niche.
So I have a good friend whodoes dental office rollups and
that's very popular, by the way.
You'll buy 10 dental offices ata million, two million dollars
each and then roll them all up.
You sell them at a multiple.
It's a good traditional rollup,but DSOs our dental office
(24:33):
rollups, dental services rollupsare very, very popular.
I'm not actually sure why theybecame so popular, probably
because there was a hugeopportunity there and it's owner
operated.
There's a play that can berepeated, but I do know that a
big concern now is privateequity firms doing these DSOs or
(24:53):
other similar types of rollupsand basically ruining the
culture of the company, layingoff all the team, like cutting
massive amounts of costs, likebasically deconstructing the
business.
So now, after a while of badbehavior in a market, you'll
have owner operator like Dentist.
They no longer want to evenentertain or speak with somebody
(25:14):
who's doing this, even if thatperson is a good business owner,
a good leader, an ethicalprivate equity or fund manager.
That actually would be a hugevalue add to the patients, to
the employees, and improvethings versus just cut costs,
fire here, fire there, basicallydestroy the patient experience,
(25:36):
whatever it is that put intheory, like make the business
more profitable.
So there's good actors, badactors and, similar to you, you
have a different set of problemsand pain points that the
investor's thinking or theseller is thinking about, and I
think you just have to addressthose and understand that.
Like if you're going to besomebody who is buying these
groupings of businesses, asopposed to just thinking about
(25:58):
it through your lens as aninvestor, what is the pain point
that the seller or the currentoperator owner actually cares
about, and then not justthinking about it in terms of,
oh, I'm going to include it aspart of the sales strategy, like
, how do I make a profitablebusiness or holding company or
strategy that actually fulfillsthe needs and requirements and
(26:20):
worries and pain points of thepotential seller, so it's not
just lip service, like you'reactually thinking, okay, so this
is not part of my playbook Idon't know much about, I don't
know much about ranches, but allthose problems make a lot of
sense.
So how do I actually addressthem so that I don't make people
have sellers regret when theyactually sell to me?
(26:41):
Because sellers regret ends upbeing my reputation as an
investor and I can maybe do onedeal and maybe lie my way
through that deal, but I canguarantee you won't do a second
one or a third one and you'llhave a horrible reputation.
So reputation means a lot inthis game as well, especially
because you're doing like aagain.
Like a.
It's a real estate play, but italso sounds a lot like a
(27:05):
private equity play to a degree.
So I think reputation means alot.
So you can't just go in therelike Wall Street, because that's
what they're worried thatyou're gonna do.
So you lead with.
How is this going to improve theenvironment, the ecosystem, the
lives of the animals and thepeople that work for the ranch
is how do you lead with that?
Cause that's what people careabout.
(27:26):
Cause you're doing businesswith people.
And I think sometimes peopleforget that and they think that
you're doing business just withlike spreadsheets and numbers,
but you're doing business withlike actual people.
So that's always important.
I mean that's what makes a goodreal estate investor versus a
bad one.
Like when they take over abuilding is, or they buy a six
plus or a multiplex, or evenlike a single family home.
(27:46):
Is the life of the individualthat lives in that home better
after you've come in, or is itworse?
And I think the people I thinkI'm very bullish on the future
of ethical capitalism I that'swhat I believe will win, because
I think that that createsreputation.
I think people want to dobusiness with people that
(28:07):
improve their lives.
It's a very common sense to me,but I think that it's lost on
some.
Speaker 2 (28:11):
So that makes me think about one of my clients,
so I can say this without beingtoo specific, but one of my
clients is.
Let's see how specific I wantto be here.
Speaker 1 (28:26):
Yeah, we can.
We can redact the names aftersee no getting in trouble.
Speaker 2 (28:31):
It is a religious organization that's very, very
conservative and it's veryunique.
It's a novel religiousorganization.
It seems to be closed off fromthe outside world, and they've
been I guess that's what it is,but I won't say Okay, so but I
(28:53):
have tremendously enjoyedworking for them.
They come in with an attitudewhen they enter a new area they
say they've said this severaltimes it's gotta work for
everyone.
Because a lot of times whenthey enter an area they drive up
values and then the locals feelpriced out and they bring in
competing businesses and thoseother local services.
(29:15):
Products feel undercut andundervalued because this
religious sect, this group, hasa very good brand premium for
the products they create and theservices they do.
Their brand reputation isexceptional, so they are
competitive in the areas thatthey market.
But they have never once comein and said we're gonna undercut
(29:38):
everyone.
We're going to negotiate hardand get this seller down as much
as we can and we're gonnasteamroll the county
commissioners to get what wewant for zoning and regulation.
They've never done it.
They keep saying it's gottawork for everyone.
We're here for the long term.
(29:59):
Whether we do good or bad,there's gonna be people that
don't like us just because we'rehere.
So we have to kind of keep inmind to a high degree this
reputation and I just reallyadmire working with them because
they think holistically in thatregard.
Speaker 1 (30:20):
That's what they lead with as an investor they lead
with.
The self-awareness is obvious,which is great.
Like they understand theenvironment they're gonna go
into and they're not ignorant.
They're like people are gonnahate us regardless but whatever,
like let's just, people willalways hate you.
By the way, regardless of whatyou try and do, doesn't matter
if you're investing or you'reselling a product or you're
(30:44):
building an audience, like therewill always be people that
don't love what you do.
But if you're coming from aplace of I'm doing the best I
can and trying to impact themost amount of people in a
positive way and you're aware ofhow to do that as effectively
as possible, I think that's agreat place to operate from as a
professional, as anentrepreneur, as an investor,
whatever.
Speaker 2 (31:03):
Well, let's take a tangent here in the last part of
our episode and tell me moreabout some of your speaking
engagements and your exclusivegroups.
I mean, you've been.
You pitched how to sellanything in 2023, building a
business from zero to 100million.
Speaker 1 (31:22):
I do a lot of entrepreneurship stuff, so I
like working with entrepreneurs.
Speaker 2 (31:26):
How did you get invited to the real housewives
of Miami?
Listen, I think that.
Speaker 1 (31:36):
I mean that's through building a brand in a city and
networking and putting yourselfout there, and so the podcast
has been a massive networkingplay right.
The podcast lets me sit downwith some of the most incredible
people in the world.
It is something that I thinkhas absolutely changed my career
and a lot of the things thatyou just mentioned.
(31:57):
So I spoke at just morerecently inbound Massive
Conference put on by HubSpot.
My podcast is sponsored byHubSpot.
I've spoken at other events aswell, but that was the most
recent out of a boss.
I think like 30,000 people goto that one.
The invitation to the realhousewives of Miami premiere.
All that stuff is puttingyourself out there, connecting
(32:20):
with the right people, likespeaking about the things that
you know and you care about.
And when you repeatedly do thatand show up and speak about the
stuff that you're doing,working on, care about, know
about on social media for aperiod of time, like you do
build a community aroundyourself.
And when you build a community,that's when people are
interested in learning moreabout you and inviting you to
(32:40):
speak on certain subjects.
And I mean I've worked instartups, I've worked for
startups, I've mentored startups, advised startups, so it's a
lot of like startup.
That's most of the topics thatI speak about how to start from
scratch, how to build, how to goraise money, how to find your
first figure and find your first50 customers.
What's an MVP?
How to whatever All marketingsales, all that stuff.
Speaker 2 (33:03):
You were shitting on Bitcoin earlier, and are you not
a Bitcoin billionaire in Miami?
I'm not a.
Speaker 1 (33:08):
Bitcoin billionaire in Miami?
I'm not of it.
I don't shit on Bitcoin.
I shit on people that have nobusiness.
I'm bullish on entrepreneursthat are building products that
actually solve problems, andthere's a lot of Bitcoin crypto
people that do solve problems,but there's a lot that don't as
well.
So I think that I'm bullish onpeople that actually understand
(33:33):
the problem that they're solvingand build solutions around that
problem and work on that forfive to 10 years, not somebody
that leverages hype and FOMO tobuild an unsustainable company.
So no, I'm not a Miami.
I'm not a Miami Bitcoinbillionaire.
If I was, maybe I wouldn't bebad silly pop.
I think that's a lie.
Speaker 2 (33:54):
I like doing it too much, but Well, and we were
talking about your the successstory podcast and the
involvement you have with theentrepreneurial community of
advising, consulting, investing.
You're deeply in with them.
Why didn't you just go theroute of being a McKenzie
consultant?
Why not McKenzie you want?
Speaker 1 (34:18):
me to.
You want me to shit on Bitcoinand McKinsey in one podcast.
Speaker 2 (34:23):
No it is very common for the entrepreneur community
to shit on McKinsey.
But let's hear your, let's hearyour side.
Speaker 1 (34:31):
They serve a purpose.
Right, they serve a purpose.
I think that the beauty ofentrepreneurship is is the
opportunity to figure it out foryourself, and when you figure
it out for yourself, you becomea different level of of
(34:51):
effective and dangerous in thegame of business, and I think
that outs.
So my career success has beenbased on me figuring it out
first and then hiring peoplebased on the things that I've
already figured out.
I think that when you, I thinkthat agencies, firms, larger
(35:12):
ones, especially even smallerones in the entrepreneurial
ecosystem, sometimes there's alittle bit of a predatory aspect
because the rates that theycharge and the promises that
they commit to can completelydestroy startups again and again
.
And not not McKinsey.
I've actually I've never workedwith McKinsey.
(35:34):
I've worked with I mean there'sonly four, so I worked with
other ones.
But I mean I've seen startupspay $50,000 per month retainers
pre revenue with consultingfirms.
I've seen $50,000 to $75,000for a pitch deck proving a
market viability for a productthat has no market viability or
(35:55):
not that it has no marketviability.
But they'll tell you whateveryou want to hear is the best way
and that's not useful assomebody starting, that's not
useful at any level in business,but it hurts more when you're
just starting in the business,because the difference between a
fortune 100 using a top fourand getting bad advice or even
good advice but most sometimesbad advice is that it won't
(36:20):
bankrupt a fortune 100, but itcould stop an entrepreneur from
figuring out or even being ablefinancially to take a product to
market.
So I am bullish on figuringshit out yourself, on not
outsourcing your thinking, onnot raising too much money, on
trying to find your first 50customers, on, if you're not a
(36:41):
technical person, finding atechnical co-founder that can
help build you your product.
So there's a lot of ways to doit and I don't find that
agencies or consulting groupsare a good way to start, because
I've had more bad experienceswith them than good.
They do good work but not allthe time and it can be really,
really detrimental.
Speaker 2 (37:00):
Well now, now it makes perfect sense to me why
McKenzie consultants become CEOsof fortune 500 companies and
politicians.
They tell you what you want tohear and then they bankrupt you.
Speaker 1 (37:15):
Well, it takes a certain kind of fortune 500 CEO
and politician.
Very few of them not all, butvery few of them will have what
it takes to build a company fromscratch and keep, make it
profitable and keep it inbusiness for 10 years.
That is a very certain skillset and, by the way, a startup
CEO founder is not always theperson to run a fortune 500
(37:38):
company.
So I think that sometimesthere's a disconnect.
There's a disconnect in andpeople look.
When you're, when you'rebuilding something from scratch,
especially the first time, youlook for anybody who, in theory,
could make it easier.
But sometimes you latch ontothe wrong people or the wrong
support or the wrong servicesand it actually just stresses
(37:59):
you financially or it gives youbad advice based on where you
are in the market.
And I don't think that, as astartup founder, you should look
anywhere else other than youfiguring it out yourself.
To a degree, you have.
You have you have your mentorsand you have your advisors and
you have your co-founders,whatever.
But I think a large portion ofpeople that started did a lot of
figuring the stuff outthemselves before they started
(38:20):
spending $50,000 on a pitch deck.
Speaker 2 (38:23):
Well, I, I hope the board, the board of Disney, is
listening to this and Irecommend they go find Travis
Kalanick and see if he canreplace Bob Iger you know, it's
actually really interesting whenyou see somebody who is a
hardcore operator going to acorporate.
Speaker 1 (38:40):
I mean, like, look at , this is what Elon is, elon's
an operator.
Elon builds stuff from scratchand Elon can build repeated
things from scratch.
He could jump into pick a picka pick a category, pick an itch,
pick an industry.
He could build something inthat industry.
Cause after you've done it,once you can start to you can
you understand what it will taketo get there, and it's not so
it's.
It's not complicated work, it'sjust hard work.
(39:01):
But I would be very interestingto see.
I also think that governmentwould be better if there was
more entrepreneurs in government.
I genuinely believe that.
I think people that can figureshit out and aren't just great
speakers but are great doers andare highly critical thinkers.
I think that makes for bettergovernment too, but that's.
(39:21):
I don't want to go intogovernment because it's just
it's more stress than you need,like who wants to do that, cause
you're constantly being beratedby the constituency, of course,
and the entrepreneur is notused to that.
Speaker 2 (39:35):
The entrepreneur is kind of like some of my ranching
clients who are 65, nevermarried, no children, have been
in rural America on the ranchtheir whole life.
Bachelors, they do not know howto interact with other people.
Speaker 1 (39:51):
Yeah, I mean they're good at what they know.
It's unfortunate because somepeople would be better, they'd
lead the country in a betterdirection.
But I mean, if you're notcomfortable taking up that
mantle and doing that job, it'snot easy.
Your life is under scrutiny, alot of public pressure, it's not
fun.
I mean, look at the trying tothink of.
We had Mike Bloomberg.
(40:13):
He ran, didn't do so well.
Obviously Trump's veryentrepreneurial.
He's very, very polarizing, buta very entrepreneurial person.
But not many otherentrepreneurs Vivek, vivek.
Actually, I like Vivek, I likeVivek.
I had him on my show a whileback.
I don't mind him.
He's very smart.
Biotech right.
Yeah, he's another entrepreneur.
Speaker 2 (40:34):
But some of this discussion reminds me of a
conversation I was having withmy attorneys who were drafting
the PPM and the LP agreement andthe structure.
So you've got the S corp right,the holding entity that rolls
up from the SPV and themanagement LLC.
You know the structure, yeah,and so we're figuring out the
(40:56):
term sheet.
And how do you monetizerecreation on a ranch?
How do you, how do you providethat benefit?
Well, property right.
When it's when it's on a ranch,it's a property right.
But when it becomes part of anSPV, it's it's more of a feature
to benefit.
(41:16):
And how do you allocate that sothat it's not a time share?
And my attorneys were saying,geez, coulter, this is, this is
some risk, this is someliability.
We, we've never seen anythinglike this.
This is pretty tough to do, areyou sure?
Let's just go the conventional,normal route and you, you lease
out the hunting, lease out therecreation, and that's the best
(41:40):
way to do it.
Don't offer it to the LPs.
If they're going to invest inyour PPM, it's because the cash
flows and the risk adjust toreturn.
So don't dangle this carrot of.
They can, they can access theranch because it's just too hard
.
And I go well, guys, here's mystory.
As a kid on a ranch, grown upon a ranching family, there were
(42:03):
never any SOPs, there was neverany formal training, no
onboarding and everything we did.
If I, if I did it just slightlywrong, my grandpa and my dad
would scream at us brothers, goddamn it, just figure it out.
Speaker 1 (42:19):
Just figure it out.
That's a quote.
By the way, there's no SOPs ona ranch.
Speaker 2 (42:26):
And so I told the attorneys.
I said I've just got this.
I've got this belief that wecan just figure it out, and it's
in the back of my head.
I'm being being screamed out.
God damn it.
Just figure it out, coulter.
Speaker 1 (42:39):
You know what and and I love it, by the way, I love,
I love when you sort of breakthe mold on something too.
It's very entrepreneurialmindset.
I think it's important, but Ithink you figure it out.
I mean, yeah, fine, someliabilities, but not not insane
liabilities, not not beyond.
I mean, people are people areshooting people into space.
(43:00):
I'm sure you can figure outyour liabilities for having
people on a ranch Right.
I'm sure it's fine.
I'm sure some disclaimer youcan get them to sign.
It's not, it's not going to notgoing to be the end of you.
But I mean, yeah, disrupt theexperience a bit.
That's what creates.
Create novel experiences.
That's also what's fun aboutentrepreneurship.
You create things that haven'tbeen created before, or you give
people access to a lifestyle oran experience that they
(43:22):
normally couldn't have had orthey didn't think was possible,
something that was so normal foryou.
I love it.
Speaker 2 (43:27):
Well, I think the listeners are loving hearing
this from you, scott, andthey're going to feel inspired
to learn more.
Where.
Where can they find you andbest best see more of?
Speaker 1 (43:37):
your work.
Um, if you want to go to thewebsite, the website has all the
social.
So it's scottdclary, c L A R,ycom or I got all the same tags
on social, which is pretty,pretty fun.
So it's at scottdclary and theycan check out the podcast,
check out more content like this.
Um, yeah, that's pretty much it.
Speaker 2 (43:59):
Well, scott Clary the success story podcast.
Thanks for coming on the ranchinvestor podcast and sharing
your experience.
Speaker 1 (44:06):
Thanks for having me, Matt.
I appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (44:08):
Click subscribe on your streaming platform so you
know when the latest episode hasdropped.
Be the source of knowledge andthe maven that other
professionals are excited torefer.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.