Ying-Yang – Andrew's unconventional approach producing unconventional results
Bottom Line: Controversial as it was, Andrew Yang’s pay for Universal Income pitch on his website in the Democratic debate proved effective. The number of submissions he received to attempt to become one of the ten random recipients of $1,000 for twelve months, turned out to be 500,000. According to his campaign, 90% or 450,000, had not previously engaged with his campaign. He also raised $1 million from those first timers. That’s quite the ROI on $120,000. It may or may not prove to move the needle enough to achieve much in the Democratic race, but it is the kind of swing for the fences type of move a long-shot outsider probably needs to at least attempt. I’m not saying I agree with the approach but rather the philosophy. Simply debating again and expecting dramatically different polling results would be the definition of insanity. But there is something, other than Yang at least being a capitalist, that does resonate with me about his campaign.
He’s taken lots of heat from across the spectrum for the perceived effort to “buy” votes. His response to the critics to Politico caught my attention.
“If I gave a million dollars to a media company or consultants or hired like a small army of canvassers no one would blink an eye, but if we give the money directly to the American people somehow that’s problematic. So, it just speaks to how messed up our system is where giving money directly to Americans actually raises eyebrows.”
That to me is exciting for reasons unrelated to politics. Andrew Yang is a highly successful entrepreneur. He’s wired to challenge convention. Every time you do something that’s atypical, you’ll run up against a wall of critics and naysayers. Successful entrepreneurs over come all of that doing what hasn’t been done previously. It’s normal for someone like Yang to be regularly frustrated by those who lack the same vision and think that textbooks have more answers than people. What I miss most about entrepreneurship is having an idea, putting it into practice, and having it succeed or fail based on the validity of the idea/product. On that note, is it that Yang’s wrong in his approach or that it’s unconventional? The market test suggests he was on to something, but heaven forbid, right? There are few things more frustrating for successful, analytical people than to be surrounded by people making decisions who aren’t adept at thinking on that level.
You may or may not agree with his approach or his policy positions, but he is wired vastly different, in a potentially positive way, from the other Democrats running for president. And he’s a capitalist (which is more than can be said for many).