Author: Paul Austin-Menear

  • [Medium] Tariff Tantrums : Minimizing the Cashflow Smackdown from Uncle Sam’s New Import Tax

    [Medium] Tariff Tantrums : Minimizing the Cashflow Smackdown from Uncle Sam’s New Import Tax

    Your business didn’t change today — but your cashflow might be under threat.

    An image of uncle sam with a devious look on his face. He's swinging a sledgehammer at a cargo ship bound for a port.

    The New Tariff Reality : What Global Brands Need to Know (and Do) Right Now

    Ouch.

    That’s the polite version of what many international brands said after the White House’s latest announcement on tariffs. With a sweeping new policy introducing near-universal import duties starting at 10% — and climbing above 50% in many cases — US trade policy has entered a new era of protectionism.

    In this article, I’ll break down what these tariffs really mean, who pays them, and most importantly, how international brands and manufacturers can adapt. We’ll look at real-world warehousing and distribution strategies that can help mitigate the financial impact of these changes — and I’ve created a downloadable modelling tool to help you estimate the impact for your own business.

    Whether you’re a seasoned global operator or a growing brand trying to crack the US market, this post is for you.

    First, Let’s Get Something Straight

    Tariffs are commonly misunderstood, so let’s clarify a few critical points :

    • Tariffs are paid by the US importer of record, not the country that produces the goods.
    • Tariffs are based on where a product was made or substantially assembled, not where it was shipped from.
    • Tariffs apply only to physical goods, not to digital products or services.
    • Costs are often passed to consumers, meaning higher shelf prices for American buyers.

    So while these tariffs are aimed at penalizing foreign producers, the brunt of the cost lands squarely on US businesses and their customers.

    The White House’s Message : “Build It Here”

    The intention behind the policy is clear… shift production to the US But here’s the rub — supply chains don’t pivot overnight. Especially not value-added, capital-intensive ones.

    Take the North American automotive sector. It’s taken decades to build a finely-tuned just-in-time (JIT) system. Upending that isn’t just about moving factories — it’s about reshaping entire ecosystems of materials, components, and expertise.

    And even if a manufacturer does move final assembly to the US, they’ll still need to import parts. Many of those parts aren’t made domestically — or not at scale — and will still face tariffs. That’s why companies need more flexible strategies to respond in the short and medium term.

    The Real Question… Where Should You Warehouse?

    If you’re a brand based outside the US and selling into the US market, one of the most impactful levers you can pull is your warehousing strategy.

    Warehousing decisions affect :

    • When you pay duties
    • Where duties are assessed
    • Cash conversion cycles
    • Delivery lead times
    • Customer experience
    • Operating costs

    Let’s walk through the major options — and the tradeoffs that come with each.

    Scenario A : Warehouse Goods in the US

    You inventory your goods within the United States and fulfill orders domestically.

    This is the most common setup for companies with an established US customer base. It minimizes last-mile costs and delivery times.

    Pros

    • Lowest delivery costs and lead times for US customers
    • Simplified customs and compliance processes
    • No need to track duty drawback eligibility
    • No sales tax on import

    Cons

    • Tariffs are due upon import, regardless of whether goods are sold
    • Tariffs are steep under new rules (10%–50%+)
    • Duties are payable to US Customs shortly after import
    • Deferring duties through bonded warehouses or FTZs is complex and expensive

    TL;DR… Warehousing in the US is best for speed and simplicity — but it’s costly under the new tariff regime.

    Scenario B : Warehouse Goods in Canada

    You import your goods to Canada, store them there, and ship to US customers upon sale.

    Thanks to four decades of free trade, US-Canada logistics are well-oiled. Efficient border crossings and integrated freight networks make this a viable alternative to direct US warehousing.

    Pros

    • Lower import duties (Canada averages 8.5%, often lower for FTA countries)
    • Robust duty drawback systems and programs like the Export Distribution Centre Program
    • Ability to consolidate US and Canadian inventory
    • Access to major metropolitan hubs (Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Vancouver)

    Cons

    • 5% GST is payable upon import (can be reclaimed via input tax credits)
    • Longer delivery lead times to US customers
    • Higher last-mile costs for US orders
    • Seasonal rail congestion may affect transit times in certain corridors

    TL;DR… Warehousing in Canada reduces duty pain and supports dual-market strategy, but adds cost and time on the logistics side.

    Scenario C : Warehouse Goods in Mexico

    You import to Mexico, warehouse near the US border, and ship across upon sale.

    With one of the lowest average duty rates globally (2.69%) and proximity to US population centres like Southern California and Arizona, Mexico is an increasingly attractive option.

    Pros

    • Very low duties and taxes
    • Access to IMMEX and VAT relief programs
    • Proximity to major western US markets
    • Mature border logistics infrastructure (Ensenada, Tijuana, Mexicali)

    Cons

    • 16% IVA (VAT) payable upon import (recoverable but affects cashflow)
    • Longer lead times and higher costs for last-mile US delivery
    • More complex compliance requirements for importers
    • Less predictable customs clearance times than Canada or US

    TL;DR… Mexico is a cost-efficient gateway to the western US, especially for value-focused brands — if you can handle the paperwork.

    Hybrid Strategy : Use Both Canada and Mexico

    Yes, you can split your warehousing strategy. Many brands may find that a two-hub approach — with inventory in Canada for the eastern US and Mexico for the west — yields the best balance of cost, flexibility, and risk mitigation.

    But beware : managing a multi-site, multi-country setup is complex. You’ll need tight systems, reliable 3PLs, and a robust analytics stack to make it work.

    If that’s too much, another hybrid option is to warehouse on both coasts within Canada (e.g., Vancouver and Toronto) and serve the US from those nodes.

    A Note on Section 321

    Until recently, businesses were leveraging the Section 321 de minimis rule to avoid duties on shipments under $800. That’s changed.

    As of May 2, 2025, all goods of origin from China — including Hong Kong and Macau — will no longer be eligible for Section 321 exemptions. More countries may be removed from 321, especially those in Southeast Asia (to nix transshipping evasion).

    This effectively closes a major loophole and makes warehousing strategy even more important.

    Key Terms to Know

    USMCA / CUSMA / T-MEC : The free trade agreement covering North America, known by different names in each member country.

    3PL (Third-Party Logistics) : Contract warehousing and fulfillment services provided by a logistics partner.

    Duty Drawback : A refund mechanism for duties paid on goods later exported.

    Cash Conversion Cycle : The time it takes to turn inventory spending back into cash through customer sales.

    Importer of Record : The party legally responsible for duties, taxes, and customs compliance when goods enter a country.

    Last Mile : The final leg of delivery — from warehouse to customer.

    What To Do Now

    If you’re a brand or manufacturer outside the US, now is the time to run the numbers.

    Start with your landed costs. Add in the new tariffs. Then model out how warehousing in Canada, Mexico, or both could change your cost-to-serve and your cashflow profile.

    To help, I’ve built a simple Google Sheets calculator that lets you plug in your inputs and compare scenarios. You can also download it as an Excel file if you prefer working locally.

    It’s not the kind of season where you can afford to wait and see.

    Get ahead of the impact.

    Download the tool and explore the full breakdown in my companion Substack post : https://6catalysts.substack.com/p/tariff-tantrums-minimizing-the-cashflow-new

  • Start with Why

    Start with Why

    Start with why.

    It’s a simple idea—but one that reshaped how I think about leadership, brand, and purpose. In this short read, I share why I started Six Catalysts—and why I believe that backing more builders is key to stronger, more resilient communities.

    Read More : https://6catalysts.substack.com/p/start-with-why

  • [Medium] Testing Ideas : The Alignment Method

    [Medium] Testing Ideas : The Alignment Method

    Validating Ideas by Playing Make Believe

    The Power of Make-Believe: A Better Way to Stress-Test Your Next Big Idea

    There’s a powerful question that can change the way you think about building something new :

    What would have to be true for this idea to be the best choice for our customer?

    This isn’t just a thought experiment — it’s the foundation of a collaborative validation technique that I call The Alignment Method. It’s similar in spirit to playing devil’s advocate, but with a key philosophical twist : instead of trying to tear an idea down, you work together to construct the world in which it succeeds.

    And that difference matters. Because instead of sharpening your defenses, you’re enriching your perspective.

    From Criticism to Constructivism

    While playing devil’s advocate thrives on opposition, make-believe is a cooperative exercise. A diverse group of participants from across functions — marketing, ops, legal, customer success, talent, product — join forces to imagine a world where your idea works brilliantly.

    It’s a subtle shift, but a powerful one. This method doesn’t just test your idea. It builds alignment, creativity, and shared ownership across teams.

    You’re not just validating an idea — you’re learning how to think like a system.

    Let’s break it down.

    What You’ll Need

    You won’t need a research budget or a formal innovation lab. But you will need the right people and space.

    Here’s what sets the stage :

    • 3–6 participants, each from a different functional background
    • A quiet, distraction-free room, ideally offsite or shielded from workplace noise
    • A facilitator to guide the process and ensure it stays on track (can be you, but better if it’s someone neutral)
    • Optionally, a scribe or AI assistant to take notes and summarize outcomes

    This mix creates a healthy tension between imagination and execution. Diverse voices offer richer insights. A focused environment protects the mental bandwidth needed to build something meaningful.

    And most importantly, everyone leaves the room feeling like a co-creator, not a critic.

    What You’ll Do

    The magic of this method lies in how it structures a creative group conversation. You’ll be constructing an imaginary — but plausible — world where your spark is the right move. Along the way, you’ll uncover assumptions, clarify gaps, and reveal the organizational shifts required to make that world a reality.

    Here’s how to run the session :

    Prep the Spark

    Before you gather the group, prepare your idea as if explaining it to a complete outsider. Jot down key points. If the idea is complex, share a short written summary with participants ahead of time so they have context going in.

    Set the Scene

    Book a 1.5–2 hour block. Any shorter and you risk rushing the discussion. Any longer and attention spans start to fray.

    Set ground rules :

    • No one is here to criticize the idea.
    • The goal is to collaboratively build the world in which the idea is the best choice for the customer.
    • Keep contributions short and take turns in a round-robin format.
    • “What if…” questions are gold — ask them often.

    Then, define your customer. Is this an external buyer or an internal stakeholder? The exercise still works either way — just make sure the group shares the same understanding.

    Present the Idea

    Share your idea clearly, concisely, and without interruption (except for clarifying questions).

    When you’re done, pose the anchor question to the group:

    “What would need to be true in order for this idea to be the best choice for the customer?”

    Build the World

    Start a round-robin. Each participant answers the question by contributing one piece of the puzzle :

    • Maybe marketing says, “Customers would need to already trust us in this category.”
    • Legal adds, “Regulations would need to shift to make this compliant.”
    • Ops notes, “We’d need to scale fulfillment by 30% without doubling headcount.”

    Piece by piece, a world takes shape.

    After a few rounds, the conversation will naturally open up. Participants will ask each other clarifying questions. Let this happen — but keep the tone constructive, not adversarial.

    Refine the Picture

    Once the world is mostly built, ask for suggested revisions. This is a second, looser round-robin where people can amend or elaborate on earlier contributions.

    Facilitators should keep things moving, ensuring no one dominates the discussion but everyone is heard.

    At the end of this phase, the scribe or facilitator reads back the full list of “must-be-trues.”

    What Happens Next?

    Now comes the truth test.

    Ask the group :

    • Is this reasonable today?
    • What would need to change in our business to make these conditions true?

    Let the group explore. Don’t force consensus — just surface insights.

    Then ask :

    “Overall, do you think this idea is viable and worth pursuing?”

    Each participant gives a thumbs-up or thumbs-down.

    For any thumbs-downs, ask why. Again, keep it exploratory — not debate for debate’s sake. You’re looking for friction points, not winners and losers.

    Finally, gather all notes, contributions, and feedback into a shared document. This becomes both a record and a roadmap.

    Why It Works

    This isn’t brainstorming. It’s not a strategy session. It’s something in between: an exercise in collaborative foresight.

    Here’s why it works so well :

    • It promotes alignment. Everyone’s focused on a common goal: uncovering what conditions would make the idea viable.
    • It avoids unnecessary conflict. Because the idea isn’t under attack, people contribute more freely.
    • It creates rich insight. The diversity of perspectives helps uncover blind spots.
    • It builds team trust. You’re modeling creative collaboration across silos.

    In many organizations, this is the kind of structured yet human conversation that rarely happens — but should.

    Where It Can Fall Short

    Of course, it’s not perfect.

    • It doesn’t scale well. More than 6 people and the session bogs down.
    • Personality dynamics matter. Strong opinions or dominant voices can derail the process unless actively moderated.
    • It’s not a replacement for market feedback. Internal alignment ≠ external validation.
    • Groupthink is real. Especially if the participants are too similar or overly optimistic.

    If your team is running hot — always busy, always reactive — this exercise can also fall flat. People need space to think for this to be effective. That’s why scheduling it as part of a leadership retreat or offsite often works best.

    Ready to Try It?

    If you’re building something bold and want a smarter way to vet it — without the usual resistance or performative brainstorming — make-believing it might just be your new favourite tool.

    It’s lightweight. It’s collaborative. And it works as a forcing function to bring stakeholders together in a productive, focused way.

    You’ll be surprised how much clarity a little imagination can create.

    Want a head start?

    I’ve included a downloadable template at the end of the original Substack post to help you run your own Make-Believe session. Check it out and dig deeper into this method in the original post : https://6catalysts.substack.com/p/testing-ideas-the-alignment-method-new

  • [Medium] Testing Ideas : The Customer-Centric Method

    [Medium] Testing Ideas : The Customer-Centric Method

    Talk to Strangers : Why Hitting the Sidewalk Might Be the Smartest Thing You Do for Your Business

    There’s a certain kind of magic that happens when you step away from the whiteboard and into the real world. When you put your idea in front of people who have never heard of you, your company, or your vision — and ask, plainly, What do you think of this?

    That’s the essence of this third validation method : street-level engagement. Unlike more abstract or collaborative techniques, this one demands action. Real conversations with real people. Unfiltered, unscripted, and often surprising.

    It’s more hands-on than the other methods — and a lot more human.

    You might think of it as founder fieldwork. You’re not launching. You’re not pitching investors. You’re talking to potential customers (or people who look like them) to see how your idea lands.

    No algorithms. No spreadsheets. Just you, your spark, and a sidewalk full of possibilities.

    Why Talk to Strangers?

    Because they don’t care about your brand, your backstory, or how long you spent refining your pitch. They’re honest in a way that internal teams or loyal customers can’t always be. That honesty is gold.

    This method mirrors the logic of market feedback — without needing to build a full product or run a pilot program. Done right, it can help you gauge early traction and interest, reveal unexpected blockers, and refine your messaging before you commit time or money to a larger launch.

    And while larger companies often outsource this work to focus groups or structured surveys, early-stage builders can — and should — go direct.

    Yes, it’s scrappy. But that’s the point.

    What You’ll Need

    Before you lace up your shoes and hit the sidewalk, you’ll need to do some thinking. This method isn’t about wandering aimlessly. It’s purposeful serendipity.

    Here’s your kit :

    • A plan. Know who you want to talk to. What do your ideal customers look like? Where might they spend time? Are they conference attendees? Transit commuters? Busy parents at a playground? Clarity here matters.
    • An elevator pitch. Your idea should be explainable in 15–30 seconds. No jargon. No slides. Just clear, simple language anyone can understand.
    • A note-taking strategy. Conversations fly by. You’ll want a teammate taking notes while you talk, or an AI assistant transcribing — but be mindful of privacy. Many people are uncomfortable being recorded, especially by strangers.
    • A generous mindset. You’re asking for someone’s time. Respect it. Gratitude goes a long way — and offering a small token of appreciation (even just a warm “thank you” and a discount code) can leave a lasting impression.

    What You’ll Do

    The beauty of this method is in its simplicity. But that doesn’t mean it’s easy. Execution takes courage, curiosity, and a little finesse.

    Here’s how to roll it out…

    Craft Your Plan

    Think through the customer profile you want to learn from :

    • What are their habits?
    • Where do they hang out?
    • What are they likely to be doing when you approach them?

    From there, identify where you’ll find them and how you’ll approach. Will you attend a trade show? Wander a busy commercial district? Set up a pop-up booth near a farmer’s market?

    Most importantly: how will you build trust in the first few seconds? You’re not selling. You’re not pressuring. You’re inviting feedback — and people need to feel that.

    Refine Your Ask

    Prepare 2–3 open-ended questions to guide your conversations. Avoid yes/no phrasing. You’re looking for reactions, thoughts, and emotional signals.

    For example :

    • “Does this sound like something that would make your life easier?”
    • “Have you ever run into this kind of problem?”
    • “What would you need to hear to trust a company offering this?”

    Stay open, stay humble, and be ready to go off-script.

    Be Present — and Take Notes

    Approach, ask, listen. No distractions. This is real-world signal-gathering in its purest form.

    If working in a pair, have one person engage and the other take notes. If solo, jot down key takeaways immediately after each conversation — while the interaction is still fresh.

    Note patterns, phrases that stand out, emotional cues (curiosity, confusion, laughter), and specific objections.

    Say Thanks — and Leave a Door Open

    Whenever possible, offer a gesture of thanks. A sample. A discount code. A follow-up invite to learn more.

    This isn’t just about research — it’s also low-touch brand building. Make the interaction memorable (in a good way).

    Real Talk : It’s Not for Everyone

    Let’s be honest — this method can be intimidating. Talking to strangers requires energy, confidence, and a high tolerance for awkward moments. If you’re an introvert, this might feel unnatural at first.

    But it gets easier with practice. And often, you’ll be surprised by how kind and receptive people are when approached with sincerity.

    The first conversation is the hardest. The tenth is better. By the fiftieth, you might even start enjoying it.

    Why It Works

    There’s a reason this method continues to be used by everyone from scrappy startups to billion-dollar consumer brands:

    • Unfiltered feedback. No echo chambers. No internal politics. Just honest reactions.
    • Built-in exposure. Every conversation is a micro-touchpoint for your brand or idea.
    • Second-order thinking. The diversity of interactions pushes you beyond the surface and into richer, more strategic insights.
    • Creative energy. Being outside, away from your desk, shifts your perspective in ways spreadsheets can’t.

    Even if you only gather a handful of genuinely useful insights, the process often re-energizes you in ways that surprise you.

    Where It Can Fall Short

    As powerful as this method is, it’s not without its limitations:

    • Sampling bias. You’re not talking to a statistically valid cross-section of the market. And that’s okay — as long as you don’t treat the data like gospel.
    • Time investment. Planning, execution, and analysis take real time. More than playing devil’s advocate or make-believe sessions, this method requires hustle.
    • Unpredictability. You might strike gold in one conversation and hit a wall in the next five.
    • Mismatch for internal ideas. This method is best suited to customer-facing sparks. If your idea is about optimizing an internal workflow or team process, talking to external strangers likely won’t help much.

    And of course, some people simply won’t want to engage. That’s part of the process, too.

    You Don’t Need Permission

    Too many early-stage builders wait to do this. They over-prepare. Overthink. Wait for “readiness.”

    But here’s the truth : the earlier you start engaging with real people, the faster you’ll learn what matters — and what doesn’t.

    So make the pitch. Ask the questions. Say thanks. Repeat.

    You don’t need a brand. You don’t need a product. You don’t even need a landing page.

    You just need curiosity, a plan, and the courage to start a conversation.

    Want to make your own outreach smarter?

    I’ve included a polling plan template at the end of the original Substack post, which you can download or copy into your own workspace. It’ll help you organize your customer conversations and make sense of what you hear.

    You can check out the full companion post and podcast episode here : https://6catalysts.substack.com/p/testing-ideas-the-customer-centric-new

  • [Medium] Testing Ideas : The Contrarian Method

    [Medium] Testing Ideas : The Contrarian Method

    Why Playing Devil’s Advocate Might Be the Best Move You Make for Your Business Idea

    If you’ve ever taken a walk through startup Twitter or sat in on a founder roundtable, you’ve likely heard phrases like “stress test the idea” or “fail fast.” What people are really talking about — though they might not always realize it — is the contrarian method.

    Sometimes framed as “playing devil’s advocate,” this technique involves flipping your perspective and actively trying to tear your own idea down before someone else does. Not out of pessimism, but out of discipline. Done well, this isn’t a downer exercise — it’s a form of creative resilience. It helps you see the cracks before they break under pressure.

    And the best part? It costs almost nothing.

    Why Tear Down Your Own Idea?

    When inspiration strikes, we tend to treat our ideas like fragile eggs. Handle them delicately. Guard them from the world. But real-world impact doesn’t come from ideas that are sheltered. It comes from ideas that are sharp, adaptable, and tested.

    Playing devil’s advocate is a fast, low-cost way to challenge your own assumptions and improve your odds of success. It lets you identify weak points early, refine the core concept, and uncover insights that might otherwise take months — or thousands of dollars — to surface through trial and error.

    It’s also one of the few exercises that rewards skepticism. Not cynicism, but constructive scrutiny. There’s a difference.

    So how do you do it well?

    What You’ll Need

    This is a deliberately lightweight approach. You don’t need whiteboards full of customer personas or a full research deck. You need three things :

    1. A quiet space. Somewhere you can think clearly and talk freely.
    2. A devil’s advocate. A trusted friend, colleague, or advisor willing to poke holes in your idea — not in you.
    3. A scribe. Someone (or an AI tool) to take notes so neither of you has to break character.

    This setup ensures focus, clarity, and good documentation — especially important when the conversation heats up or veers in unexpected directions.

    What You’ll Do

    The goal here is not just to stress test an idea. It’s to understand under what conditions that idea might actually work. That’s a subtle but critical distinction.

    Here’s a step-by-step :

    1. Prepare your pitch. Before the conversation, take time to outline your idea as if you’re explaining it to someone with no prior context. Think about what it solves, who it’s for, and why it matters.
    2. Set the stage. Find a distraction-free environment and schedule enough time for deep conversation. Depending on the complexity of the idea, this might be an hour or an entire afternoon.
    3. Clarify the ground rules. Your devil’s advocate isn’t there to play nice or agree with you. Their job is to find every assumption, gap, or flaw they can. But their criticism must remain focused on the idea, not on you. And as the idea owner, you agree to receive the critique in good faith.
    4. Start the session. Your scribe begins note-taking or recording. You present the idea fully, ideally without interruption (unless clarification is needed).
    5. Launch the inquiry. After your presentation, hand the mic to your critic with one deceptively simple prompt : “Why won’t this work?”
    6. From there, the conversation should be free-flowing. Let it turn into a real discussion. You’re not defending the idea out of pride — you’re engaging with it so you can make it stronger. And your critic isn’t trying to kill your dream — they’re trying to help you build a sturdier version of it.
    7. Wrap and reflect. When the session ends, the scribe summarizes the takeaways. These might include flawed assumptions, market risks, operational gaps, or even moments of unexpected clarity where the idea actually did hold up under scrutiny.

    Optional but useful : sketch things out on whiteboards or paper. Visual thinking can clarify complex ideas in ways that conversation alone sometimes can’t.

    Want to Go Further? Try Group Critique

    While one-on-one sessions are great for speed and intimacy, you can up the stakes by bringing a small group together to play the devil’s advocate role collectively. This adds more perspectives, more domain knowledge, and — yes — more pressure. But it often leads to richer insights and more rigorous refinement.

    It’s not for the faint of heart, though. Group critique can feel intense. If you go this route, be extra intentional about setting the tone and keeping things respectful.

    Why This Works

    Let’s talk pros :

    • Minimal prep. Unlike formal research studies, this method requires little setup.
    • Low cost. No expensive consultants or fancy software needed.
    • Quick feedback. You get insight right away.
    • Mental model testing. It forces you to articulate, and often challenge, your core assumptions.
    • Versatility. It works as a stand-alone test or as a first step before deeper validation work like customer interviews or prototyping.

    But it’s not a silver bullet.

    Where It Falls Short

    • Good critics are rare. Not everyone has the mix of tact and toughness needed to play devil’s advocate well.
    • Bias creeps in. Even your most well-meaning friend carries unconscious assumptions that shape their feedback.
    • Discouragement risk. The goal is to refine your idea, not abandon it — but strong criticism can shake your confidence.
    • False security. Just because an idea survives a devil’s advocate session doesn’t mean it’s ready for launch. It’s a step, not a stamp of approval.

    Which brings us to an increasingly popular twist…

    Can AI Be Your Devil’s Advocate?

    In a world of fast-moving AI tools, it’s tempting to replace your human critic with a digital one. After all, an LLM (like ChatGPT) is always available, doesn’t get tired, and never pulls punches out of politeness.

    But there’s a catch — or three.

    1. LLMs don’t think like humans. They generate language by predicting what sounds plausible, not by forming arguments based on reasoned critique.
    2. They lack context. If your idea is highly specific, nuanced, or relies on market dynamics, they might miss the mark.
    3. They hallucinate. AI can invent “facts” that sound right but aren’t. That’s not the foundation you want for a serious critique.

    Used carefully, though, an AI devil’s advocate can still serve a purpose. It can help you rehearse your pitch, highlight obvious gaps, or offer counterpoints that sharpen your thinking. Just don’t rely on it for your final gut check — especially on high-stakes ideas.

    The Real Value : Mental Fitness for Builders

    If there’s a deeper reason this method works, it’s this : it helps you become mentally fit for entrepreneurship.

    The path of a builder is filled with friction. Ideas collide with reality. Strategies evolve. Customers surprise you. Playing devil’s advocate builds the muscle memory you’ll need to adapt — not just to defend your ideas, but to evolve them under pressure.

    It’s not just about saving time or money. It’s about building a mindset.

    And when done regularly — with trusted peers or as part of a culture of open critique — it can dramatically improve the quality of your decisions and the viability of your ventures.

    So the next time lightning strikes and a new idea grabs you by the collar, don’t rush to ship it or shield it. Pull it into the arena. Invite criticism. Make it sweat.

    Then see if it still stands.

    Want to learn more about how to test, validate, and strengthen the early sparks of your next big idea?

    Dig deeper by reading the free companion post on Substack :

    https://6catalysts.substack.com/p/testing-ideas-the-contrarian-method-updated

  • Survey Smarter : How to Turn Questions into Gold

    Survey Smarter : How to Turn Questions into Gold

    Good businesses talk to their customers. Great businesses listen. Exceptional businesses build with them.

    In this post, we explore how to turn customer insights into a repeatable, innovation-fueling habit. From framing better questions to aligning feedback with team purpose—and creating what we call an Innovation Heartbeat—you’ll walk away with clear, actionable tactics to improve your survey game.

    Plus: ideas for incentivizing responses, a free list of feedback touchpoints, and examples of what to do (and what to avoid).

    Read the full post or listen to the podcast edition here : https://6catalysts.substack.com/p/survey-smarter-turn-questions-into-gold

  • The Journey : In Conversation with Katelyn McArdle

    The Journey : In Conversation with Katelyn McArdle


    From Strategy to Self-Employed: A Conversation with Katelyn McArdle

    Katelyn McArdle spent over a decade working in nonprofit digital strategy before striking out on her own to found Functional Authority LLC. In this inaugural episode of The Journey : In Conversation, she and Paul dive into the mindset shifts, early failures, and practical lessons that come with moving from employee to founder.

    They discuss how to earn trust in client relationships, avoid over-engineering before you know what sells, and define success on your own terms—not just scale for scale’s sake. Katelyn’s advice is clear : start small, build what you need, and only grow if growth fits your life.

    Whether you’re a nonprofit pro thinking about a new path or a founder wondering how to escape the hourly trap, this episode is packed with insight.

  • AMA : I Want to Hire, But I Can’t Afford It

    AMA : I Want to Hire, But I Can’t Afford It

    Olivier in Lyon asks the million-euro question for bootstrappers : when is it time to stop going solo and bring someone on board?

    In this week’s edition of The Journey, we dig into the real answer. No fluff—just straight talk to help founders decide when to scale and when to stay lean. We explore the question through three important lenses : organization, product, and finances.

    Whether you’re dreaming of a remote-first solo business or building the foundations of a scalable media company, this post gives you clarity.

    Read the full post or listen to the podcast edition here : https://6catalysts.substack.com/p/ama-i-want-to-hire-but-i-cant-afford-it

  • I’m a Terrible Capitalist (And That Might Be a Good Thing)

    I’m a Terrible Capitalist (And That Might Be a Good Thing)

    -isms are everywhere. In the English language, we love to append -ism to a word in order to indicate that the word is a doctrine, theory, system… or practice… or a state of being, a condition, or a quality. “ism” was even its own word in the English language until the late 17th century. Today, just a suffix. “Just”. There’s a lot of weight attached to those three letters in the 21st century.

    Given the modern context, where polarization seems to be sharpening, an ism is also a pretty reliable indicator that there are tribes attached to different camps that butt heads over the underlying context of the word. Racism. Sexism. Wokeism (hunh?). Communism. Socialism. Capitalism.

    It’s all human tribalism.

    See? Another ism.

    Subconsciously, we organize ourselves around tribes. They give our brains context to anchor to a place in society — helping us to create groupings and units which shrink the vastness of human civilization into something which we can actually comprehend.

    The cultural anthropologists in the room could do a much better job of elaborating on this that I can, but for our purposes — this is just context for what comes next.

    Capitalism and commerce are not the same thing.

    Though, they’re often linked together and the words are used interchangeably in some conversations. The nuance and the history of what each word represents is perhaps lost on people.

    I’ve been thinking about the differences between them for several months now, after a stranger on the interwebs commented on one of my posts about organizational structure for small businesses and called me a fasciocapitalist [sic].

    Fasciocapitalist, or fascio-capitalist, isn’t a recognized (ie, “real”) word. But, the implication and underlying meaning as I interpret it is that because I was openly discussing my experience and knowledge in a specific domain (private enterprise), and because this other person doesn’t like their own perception of that specific domain, then I must be part of a different (and hostile) tribe. And, that tribe is populated by fat-cat, wealthy fascists out to subsume or destroy the tribe that this person believes they belong to. Ergo, I’m a fascio-capitalist.

    Not an accurate description of me as a person, and still not a word.

    In retrospect, I was probably bantering with a bot. But, I had a glass of scotch in hand and some free time, so… meh?

    But it did get me thinking, nonetheless.

    Why do some people get so worked up about the words “socialism” and “capitalism”? Especially when there are precisely zero societies on the planet which practice pure capitalism or pure socialism? Every modern nation runs on a blend of policies and principles that can be classified as one or the other. Reality isn’t binary, in any of the ways which truly matter to society on a collective scale.

    The United States isn’t a purely capitalist society. Unemployment insurance, medicare, and medicaid are socialist policies — and when the Federal Reserve acts as a lender of last resort or bails out corporations that are ‘too big to fail’, it does so with the preservation of capital in mind and the preservation of social systems (sorry about the paywall, the NY Times is clearly run by a bunch of capitalist punks).

    Sweden isn’t a purely socialist society. There are limits to the state’s social safety net, and people freely exchange money for goods and services in shops — just like in every other country. Interestingly, Sweden is also a near-cashless society. Physical currency is largely eschewed in favour of electronic payment methods, in stark contrast to the experience down the road in Germany*. You could call this cashless dynamic a technocapitalist feature of Swedish society.

    (that one’s also not a recognized word, but has at least been discussed intelligently through a lens of philosophical investigation).

    What is Capitalism?

    Capitalism, according to Oxford Reference :

    an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.

    So, we’re talking about the private ownership of enterprise with a purpose of generating profit (a proxy for resources, in the modern economy).

    Not so bad, right?

    People who bristle at the question I just asked, or those who have a visceral revulsion to the word capitalism are doing so due to their experience with the system. Especially the system of free-market capitalism. Free-market capitalism in its extreme is where profits begin to matter far more than the well-being of people.

    Free-Market Capitalism, according to Oxford Reference :

    an economic system where private individuals and corporations own the means of production (like factories and land) and where prices, production, and distribution are primarily determined by market forces (supply and demand) rather than government intervention. It emphasizes private property rights, competition, and the pursuit of profit as key drivers of economic activity.

    The bolded emphasis above is where the problems with capitalism emerge. When bad actors operate within a framework featuring minimal constraints or interventions by government to protect people, generating profit becomes more important than the well-being of people due to systemic influences (or lack thereof).

    Capitalism, and even free-market capitalism, is only as destructive as it is in the absence of a framework or code of conduct for ethical behaviour that places equal importance in the well-being of people (and planet, many would also say).

    Capitalism doesn’t harm people. People using capitalism as an excuse to ignore the well-being of others is what harms people.

    What is Socialism?

    Again, according to Oxford Reference :

    a political and economic theory or system advocating for collective** or governmental ownership and management of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, with the goal of benefiting all members of society.

    So, ownership of enterprise by government(s) or collectives of people with a purpose of more or less equitably distributing the fruits of labour.

    Personally, I can’t say that I buy into this completely — what’s the incentive for innovation and continuous improvement (“building things”) in the absence of the risk and reward of entrepreneurship? A moot point though, as there are no purely capitalist or purely socialist societies.

    The notable part about socialism though, is the very end of the definition :

    … with the goal of benefiting all members of society.

    People who jive with the idea of socialism are actually jiving with that part, I believe. Equality and equity, and some assurance that their basic needs will be provided for even if circumstances beyond their control make a mess of their lives.

    I really don’t care for the idea of total state control of enterprises, but I can certainly get behind the benefiting all members of society part. It’s not that conceptually different from buying insurance, or attending a potluck dinner.

    The root of the really negative connotations about socialism can be found in this part of the definition :

    … governmental ownership and management of the means of production …

    Governments formed through democratic elections aren’t perfect. In the best-case scenarios, they’re barely adequate. Sometimes, they’re downright destructive. Personally, I believe that this is partly linked to the predominance of capitalism and the meritocratic attraction of the private sector (which is more illusion than reality, anyway). The “best and brightest” of society tend not to gravitate toward public sector organizations where innovative ideas and a desire for positive change are snuffed out by bureaucracy and below-market salaries***.

    The memory of central economic planning and “equal” distribution of the fruits of labour under the USSR and eastern-European regimes in the twentieth century leaves many people with a bad taste in their mouth when they hear the words “communism” or “socialism”. So, like “free-market capitalism”, the bad experiences of people under these systems is a trigger for deeply-held revulsion.

    And then, there are also people who simply just don’t understand what these terms actually mean and rely on the emotions and opinions of others to guide themselves toward a tribe which they think they should belong to.

    We’ll leave that, at that.

    OK, So What’s “Commerce”?

    Leaning on Oxford Reference again :

    the activity of buying and selling, especially on a large scale, and the exchange of goods and services, often between countries.

    I’m not a big fan of this definition, as it has a very macroeconomic bend to it. Reading this in isolation of other contextual knowledge and experience, you would assume that countries and nation states are the primary buyers and sellers of goods — and that individuals, businesses, and small groups are irrelevant to commerce.

    Intuitively, we know that this simply isn’t the case. Although international and domestic commerce involves nation states, trade amongst consumers and businesses is the lifeblood of commerce.

    I prefer this definition of commerce :

    the exchange of one thing of value for another thing of value.

    Money has value. The pen on the shelf at the office supply shop has value. I’ll give them some money, they’ll give me that pen. Commerce.

    Can We Finally Get to the Point?

    Well yes, we just talked about the pen… didn’t we?

    Sorry.

    Here’s the non-inky point : capitalism requires commerce.

    But commerce does not require capitalism.

    In fact, capitalism (the term) is only around two hundred years old — the first references to it as an organized system date back to the early 1850s. The concept, though different from what we’d consider capitalism today, stretches back to the 1770s.

    Commerce (not to be confused with mercantilism… ugh, another ism) is several millennia older. The earliest historical references that we’ve found for organized systems of trade date back over eight thousand years, to ancient Mesopotamia (modern-day Iraq).

    Nice looking barley bushels you’ve got there. I just so happen to have some top-notch ceramics over by my oxcart. Care to make a deal?

    Commerce was originally barter.

    By 3000 BCE, the ancient Phoenicians were trading a wide range of commodity and luxury goods back and forth across the Mediterranean. And, they were partly using forms of credit alongside a rudimentary precursor to the double-entry accounting system to power and scale the effectiveness of their commerce activities.

    That’s just the recorded and recovered history, of course. It’s likely that human beings have been trading ever since we figured out how to walk upright. It’s an integral part of our experience… no one person (or business, or city, or nation) can produce everything that it needs in order to function optimally.

    No Really, GET TO THE POINT!

    Back to commerce does not require capitalism.

    If we accept this concept, then we can also accept that running a business and engaging in commerce (an exchange of value) doesn’t have to mean generating profit at the expense of the well-being of people.

    We can be engaged in private enterprise while treating employees, customers, and other stakeholders with fairness and equity. We can carry out commerce and choose not to prioritize profit at the expense of all else, simply because a system or a clash of cultures tells us that’s what our tribe does.

    Maximizing profit above and beyond everything else is a choice. Not a necessity.

    Just for Fun

    People who identify as capitalists, especially free-market capitalists, are doing themselves (and collectively, the companies which they own) a disservice by fighting against certain “socialist” policies.

    Namely :

    • Universal healthcare (or rather, universal health insurance)
    • Moderated collective bargaining
    • Environmental protections aimed at preventing the indiscriminate pollution of air, water, and arable land
    • Diversified and effective mass transit systems
    • Affordable housing
    • Affordable groceries and basic foodstuffs

    Why?

    It’s pretty simple.

    Companies sell things. People buy things.

    If people have less disposable income with which to buy things, companies will be able to sell fewer things. If there are fewer people, then there are fewer people to buy things. And companies will be able to sell fewer things.

    In the extremes, that could even affect the viability of certain companies to carry on business. You might argue that this doesn’t matter for companies which sell to businesses or governments… but where do their economic resources come from? Other businesses — many of which derive their revenue from selling to consumers. And, in the case of governments, taxation. Which is ultimately derived from the activities of people.

    A healthy economy isn’t just about the size of that economy (gross domestic product, or “GDP”). It’s also about the speed and reach with which capital resources (money) circulate through the economy, and are exchanged by people. Technically, GDP kind of measures this because GDP is a measure of transactions in aggregate, but it doesn’t do it very well or very holistically. Nor does it connect the dots between the velocity of and size or reach of capital very well.

    An economy is the plumbing in a building. Money is the water which moves through the pipes, in order to reach the people who operate the taps.

    Reduce the ability of the people to operate the taps to get the money, and the system can become one where the water doesn’t move… it just sits and stagnates. Economists call this “recession” or “depression” in the more drawn out cases (money not moving between market participants means fewer measured transactions, or, a “contraction in the GDP”).

    Let’s bring it back to the things which self-proclaimed capitalists really should start liking :

    Universal healthcare (or rather, universal health insurance)

    Without this, people die earlier than they otherwise would. Or go bankrupt paying bills for medical treatment. In both cases, fewer people buying things.

    Moderated collective bargaining

    Without this, lower wages, meaning less disposable income with which to buy things.

    Environmental protections aimed at preventing the indiscriminate pollution of air, water, and arable land

    A sick environment creates sick people. In other words, fewer people and less disposable income with which to buy things.

    Diversified and effective mass transit systems

    How productive are you when stuck in traffic jams on the highway? What are you buying or selling from the middle of that gridlock? Not to mention that injury or death is statistically much more likely while travelling via a private automobile than on a mass transit system.

    Affordable housing

    The more expensive basic housing becomes, the less disposable income consumers have with which to buy things. This has become a significant problem in many western nations over the past five years in particular.

    Affordable groceries and basic foodstuffs

    Same as housing. The higher the share of income that consumers need to spend on foodstuffs, the less disposable income there is for discretionary purchases (ie fiddly shit that we don’t really need to live, but we kinda like buying). Not to mention that nutritional deficiencies are strongly correlated to health issues and premature deaths (exacerbated by weak or missing universal health insurance or substandard healthcare services).

    TL;DR

    If you like the idea of earning profits and making money, you should slide yourself closer to the socialism end of the spectrum than the capitalism end.

    Sure, you’re less likely to become a billionaire. But is that really a requirement for living a long, healthy, personally-fulfilling life? You can’t take that money with you after you kick the bucket, after all.

    I’m a terrible capitalist, as the above suggests — and I’m OK with that. Commerce doesn’t need capitalism. Neither does happiness.

    — —

    * I’m fully aware that Sweden and Germany aren’t geographic neighbours. But, I’m from Canada. The entire European Union could fit inside less than half of my country’s landmass. So from that perspective, Sweden and Germany are practically neighbours. And I have a terrible sense of humour.

    ** Collective ownership of ‘the means of production’ isn’t as weird or unwieldy as common narratives suggest. The Mondragon Corporation in the Basque region of Spain is the country’s seventh largest revenue-generator and employs 70,000 people. It’s been employee-owned since its founding in 1956. In many Commonwealth nations, special tax status exists for Employee Ownership Trusts — an increasingly popular vehicle for private owners who wish to retire to sell their companies to its employees.

    *** Not that I’m intending to paint all governments and all public sector workers with such a dismal brush. There are some spectacular ones instilled with a deep sense of purpose and an orientation toward service to citizens and the desire to build a better society. I truly hope that the governance models which underpin the typical democracy can evolve over time to make you the norm and the apathetic cogs in the machine a rarity.

    **** If you want to support my silly view of commerce over capitalism, head on over to The Journey on Substack and subscribe. It’s free, and it’s all about supporting entrepreneurs and people who want to build great things.

  • Two Tin Cans and a String : Building a Scalable Feedback Engine

    Two Tin Cans and a String : Building a Scalable Feedback Engine

    Too many growing businesses lose touch with their customers. But it doesn’t have to be that way.

    This week’s post breaks down the Scalable Feedback Engine—a deliberate system made up of the right tools, human champions, and scalable processes. You’ll learn how to design a feedback loop that works even when you’re busy scaling. We cover everything from survey tools and data aggregation to avoiding bias in research and communicating insights effectively.

    This is a must-read for any founder or operator serious about staying close to their customer.

    Read the full post or listen to the podcast edition here : https://6catalysts.substack.com/p/two-tin-cans-and-a-string

    Also check out my deep dive on The Paradox of Success over on Medium : https://medium.com/@6catalysts/the-paradox-of-success-why-customers-fall-out-of-love-with-growing-brands-29a0bc831234