or higher gross margins. All right? So, what that means is if I'm selling something for $1,000 a month, it has to cost me less than $200 a month. And for those of you who are new to making money, people will get their panties in a wad about that, but like profit is what drives business. All right? And it's not that all of that gross profit that's before cost of doing business goes to the owner. That's just everything that you have to chip down away from. So, you're starting at 80 and let's say you want to run a business that runs 50% margins. Well, then that means you've got 30% there, right? If in that $1,000 a month example, I got 300 bucks a month to cover everything else that I do in the business. That covers marketing, that covers admin costs, that covers payroll, that covers that uh that covers, you know, HR, finance, all of these other fun, legal, whatever, all the other functions of the business. So, the thinking is 80% is minimum. And the thing is, especially smaller businesses think for some reason that that's like charging more is bad, right? And you got to get out of that because if you want to help more people, you need to have gross profit in order to scale. If you look at the biggest companies that exist out there, they sell something that's very valuable that costs them almost nothing. So think about Google, right? They sell ad space, it costs them almost nothing besides the actual like their incremental cost of running an ad is virtually zero, right? And they charge a king's ransom for it, right? Facebook, same thing, right? They charge for eyeballs that cost that like they have onetime cost of building. Then after that, the incremental cost of showing ads to more eyeballs is almost nothing. So it's all margin. You look at the phone company that I was explaining earlier. They have their onetime cost of building the thing, but then the additional cost of adding one more user is almost insignificant, right? But they can still charge a great amount of money for it. This is the reason software is something that people find incredibly valuable. It costs one time to build it and then after that the incremental user is almost all profit. Now the only other type of business that's like this with a close to 100% gross margin is information and education businesses which is why Leila and I like these types of businesses because they have uh they have the same u margin as software businesses except you don't have the cost of development. The downside is that those types of businesses tend to um have higher churn because the increased value or the value declines over time when someone learns a skill from this type of business. That being said, there are ways of reconfiguring the business to increase the stick of the client with by pulling out the things that are consumable versus not versus one times consumable. Um, and I'm going into the weeds here, but hopefully you'll enjoy it. So, something that's a one-time consumption would be something where I have now gotten the skill from the thing or I've learned the process. And this is especially true with learning or e-learning type businesses that someone comes for a skill, they learn the skill, and then the value of training for the skill decreases because they already have it. Duh, that makes sense. But the thing is a lot of times when people are learning something there are other components that surround them that are consumable on an ongoing basis. So the information is one time consumable as long as they learn the skill. But then there become other things that are consistently consumable. So community is consumable as in like I want access to it this month. next month. Accountability is consumable. I consumed it this month to get to point B, but now I want to consume it again to get to point C. Um, an additional piece would be if the type of skill that you're teaching someone creates new problems, which most times if you're good at teaching something, all problems create solutions or all solutions create more problems, right? And so when we solve the old problems, we get new ones. And that's why we as business owners should always just see problems as blank checks for us to cash in at our own desire, right? There are problems everywhere and they just have a dollar amount attached to them. And the question is, do we want to go and cash that check in and solve that problem? Right? Like that's how you can perceive problems in the world in terms of opportunity for these types of business, which is why we like them is that we can pull these pieces out and then create something that has really high margin and has high LTV and continues to build enterprise value over time by selecting and peeling these pieces apart. And so finally, I want to talk about why I think TAM is not as good of a, you know, indicator for the potential size of a company. Well, look at some of these original companies. So look at Facebook. when they started out, it was like supposed to just be a college, you know, network thing, right? It was supposed to be, you know, Facebook, I think is what the actual term was way back in the day, uh, for like a yearbook, right? And so that's literally what the name of the thing was, right? And so somebody might look at that initially. Obviously, people could see where it could potentially go, but they saw that and be like, well, maybe the TAM, the total journal market is just college students. The reason that I think it's interesting is that businesses and founders expand in vision over time. And the the time when a vision is a visionary or a founder has run out of vision or run out of future is the moment that the business dies or they sell it because they just don't know what else to do to grow it. Right? What happens a lot of times is that if we can if we can, you know, continue to increase and eat up the total market that we have defined for ourselves in our business. A lot of times adjacent, you know, or adjacent markets or silos all of a sudden become more and more attractive. We find out that there's a lot of similarities or that we find out there's another need and then we can branch into yet another silo. Now, if you're like, I that's the exact decision I did and I went from 100,000 to 200,000 a year. No, that was dumb. Like, that's not the point of this. Like, you could just scale one avatar to probably, you know, 100 million a year before doing that. That's not the point. The point is that in a on a long enough time horizon, businesses also through mergers and acquisition, things like that, they can buy up other companies that are adjacent, close to them, etc., and expand the total market they have. Which is why I don't necessarily think of it on a long-term time horizon, but I do think about it on a short-term time horizon. So, if I'm looking at like the next 3 to 5 years, then I might be like, "Okay, we're not going to change avatars in the next 3 to 5 years. " But, do I think that this thing over the next 20 years could eat up more and more of the pie by expanding who we're potentially serving? If the answer is yes, then the original TAM or the current TAM is not necessarily what the future TAM is going to be. And so, that's why I don't see TAM as valuable as I think it is purported to be. If you're new to the channel, welcome. You hopefully can think through those three different opportunity kind of vehicle frames in terms of like how can I look at my TAM in a way that potentially could sell more customers. How can I increase the value versus the cost of what it is that I'm delivering? And is there a way that I can enter a space that is more unique or newer which I can either do by going into the clearly new spaces or by trying to redefine what I'm doing in a new way. Right? And if we can do those things then we increase what I would consider the opportunity size of what we are pursuing and then ultimately make more money. All right? And so that's what I'm thinking about when I'm looking at these companies that we're, you know, potentially uh investing time and money into. Otherwise, hope you have an amazing day and I'll see you guys in the next vid.