I finished reading Cable Cowboy: John Malone and the Rise of the Modern Cable-TV Business. I learned a ton about Malone as well as the cable industry and its importance in technological evolution.

Cable systems own and are responsible for the wires that deliver digital information to and from consumers’ homes. This book illuminated the impact that cable companies have had on life as we know it, how valuable their last-mile delivery service has been over the years, and why they made John Malone a billionaire.

Cable has gone through three periods:

• Antenna extension – In the 1950s, the big three broadcast networks (ABC, NBC, and CBS) ruled television, but their signals didn’t reach rural areas. Rural residents couldn’t watch the evening news or shows enjoyed by large and medium-sized towns. Cable entrepreneurs erected large antennas to pull down broadcast signals from TV stations in larger cities nearby. They ran wires to rural homes to pump the pirated broadcast signals to rural residents. These entrepreneurs charged a monthly fee but paid nothing for programming. Cable systems were antenna extensions that made broadcast networks more accessible.
• Programming – Regulators outlawed the pirating of broadcast signals in the 1970s. In 1975, the upstart HBO and cable system owner Time Inc. used satellites to broadcast to consumers the Ali–Frazier boxing match live from the Philippines. This was revolutionary then and something the big three broadcasters couldn’t pull off. Satellites transformed cable economics. Programming exploded, with channels such as ESPN, Showtime, WGN, CNN, and BET launching. Demand for cable service in urban areas also exploded, kicking off a rush to wire every home in America for cable.
• Internet – By the 1990s, it was internet usage that was exploding in America. The internet was the future, but accessing it was still painful. Dial-up services, such as America Online (AOL), were slow. Cable became the best option for delivering fast internet access to homes. Internet entrepreneurs, including Microsoft’s Bill Gates and Paul Allen, each spent several billion dollars buying into cable companies so they could own part of the infrastructure delivering the products and services tech entrepreneurs created. Cable companies went from mainly providing access to unique programming to also providing access to the World Wide Web.

Malone was recruited to TCI in 1972, at the end of the antenna extension era, and was CEO until the company was sold to AT&T for $48 billion in 1998. While Malone couldn't have predicted how technology would evolve over his decades as CEO, he recognized the value in what TCI had. A direct line into American homes. A way to get data and information in and out of homes. His genius was keeping a finger on the pulse of where technology was going and partnering with the entrepreneurs building technology that improved consumers’ lives. Over the years, TCI partnered with and owned stakes in programming channels, satellite companies, cable box manufacturers, internet companies, and others while continually building its cable system and increasing the number of subscribers.

Malone’s career highlights to me that to have outsize success, predicting where technology is going isn’t necessary. Sometimes, owning the infrastructure that new technologies will likely rely on for distribution will be lucrative and allow you to continually benefit through numerous technology cycles.

As I’ve been reading Cable Cowboy: John Malone and the Rise of the Modern Cable-TV Business, I’ve gotten a clearer picture of John Malone. Malone is brilliant and shrewd. I’d consider him more of a financial engineer than anything else. He excelled at deal making, strategy, and capital allocation—but not at building a cable service customers loved or a company that was sustainable long-term.

Between 1973 and 1989, he completed 482 deals, or one every two weeks or so. From the company’s low in 1974, not long after Malone joined, through mid 1989, the stock rose 55,000 percent, a spectacular return.

Malone’s constant deal making created remarkable shareholder value. But it came at a cost. Customers hated TCI. Malone’s goal was to charge as much as possible for his service but spend as little providing it as he could get away with. This strategy maximized cash flow but resulted in notoriously poor customer service, massive rate hikes, unreliable service technicians, and inconsistent cable service. TCI’s poor reputation with customers and its business practices (including others not mentioned here) led to Malone being forced to appear before Congress to defend himself and TCI’s business practices. He and various state and federal politicians became enemies. TCI’s shareholders were happy, but Malone and the company were under constant attack.

Malone was in a service-oriented business selling to consumers, but he didn’t approach it that way. He focused on engineering financial outcomes, not making customers happy. He got the financial returns he wanted, but he and TCI were vilified by customers, politicians, and competitors. It all took a toll on Malone over the years. As I read this part of the book, I couldn’t help but wonder if all the hate he encountered was worth it. Couldn’t he have gotten a similar outcome if he built something people loved, not hated?

Last week I learned about John Malone while reading The Outsiders: Eight Unconventional CEOs and Their Radically Rational Blueprint for Success. This inspired me to buy and begin reading Cable Cowboy: John Malone and the Rise of the Modern Cable-TV Business.

Tele-Communications Inc. (TCI) was a cable company founded by rancher and cottonseed salesman Bob Magness. TCI laid wires to allow cable to reach homes and charged monthly fees for access to its infrastructure and programming.

Magness used debt to expand TCI and got in over his head. In 1972, he recruited Malone to get the company’s finances in order and take it to the next level.

Malone focused on increasing the long-term value of TCI, not short-term profits. He ignored reported profits and concentrated on the company’s cash flows, not net income. He reinvested cash flow in ways that would generate a high return and increase TCI’s market capitalization (i.e., valuation). Here are two key things I noticed Malone did:

• Depreciation – Cable systems were depreciable assets. Once a system was acquired, TCI depreciated this cost over time, which minimized (and often eliminated) TCI’s tax bill. The lower the tax bill, the more cash TCI had to buy more cable systems. The more cable systems TCI purchased, the more cash flow Malone had to reinvest and the more depreciation lowered TCI’s tax bill. The bigger the system became, the more subscribers Malone had to use as leverage in negotiations.  
• Programming – Cable system operators thought programming was a commodity they had to pay for. Malone realized programming companies were valuable because they had two revenue streams: advertising and payments from cable systems (like TCI) based on subscribers. New channels increased fees to cable systems as popularity increased. Malone realized that owning part of new programming (i.e., new cable channels) would allow TCI to profit twice by owning “both the pipe and the water flowing through it.” He could offer new channels broad distribution early and negotiate lower programming rates for TCI, a win-win. Malone started seeding new cable networks. He provided capital and access to subscribers in his system in exchange for 20% of new programming channels.

Malone ended up building a powerful flywheel that increased TCI’s long-term value. The more cable systems he bought, the more cash flow and subscribers he had. The more subscribers and cash he had, the more leverage he had with new cable channels. The more these new channels succeeded, the more revenue they had and the more valuable they became. The more valuable new programmers became, the more valuable TCI became.

Using this approach, Malone ended up owning stakes in BET, the Discovery Channel, the Family Channel, and others.

I haven’t finished the book yet, but I can already see why Malone is considered one of the best capital allocators.

I’ve recently read books about two founders who founded massive publicly traded companies, but in different ways: Pierre Omidyar, founder of eBay, and Willis Johnson, founder of Copart. Both companies offer online auctions. As of this writing, eBay has a market capitalization of roughly $27 billion, while the Copart valuation is roughly $53 billion.

Omidyar worked in Silicon Valley and was financially comfortable after a previous employer was acquired. He thought the world was unnecessarily unfair economically. He envisioned an efficient market that empowered people financially so they could control their own lives. His mission was to create an online auction with a strong community. His vision- and mission-first approach led to his nailing product–market fit straight out of the gate. The company went from zero to $41.7 million in revenue and was publicly traded on the stock market in three short years.

Johnson didn’t want to work for anyone but needed to support his family. He knew the salvage industry and started a salvage yard because he knew he could make money. As more problems presented themselves and money-making opportunities arose, he took them on too. After twenty years of opportunistically solving various problems, the rapid success of his online auction market in 2003 caused him to question his “job.” He shifted his mission from solving various salvage problems for profit to “streamline and simplify the auction process.” Johnson’s twenty-year transition from mercenary to missionary led to unprecedented growth at Copart. It’s now a global online auction market.

I, too, began as a mercenary when I started my company. I wanted more control over my life and needed to replace the salary from the job I’d had. I went from problem to problem with a focus on profitability. Years later, after I had financial breathing room, I started to focus on the painful problems. I became something of a missionary. This led to $10 million in annual revenue, but that could have been $300 million if I’d gone full missionary. I should have been laser-focused on our customers’ most painful problem.  

As I thought about my founder friends and myself, I realized that Johnson’s journey is most common among my peers. Most of them picked a market and focused on making money to support themselves. They often attempted to solve various problems. But my friends who had outsize success didn’t stick with that approach. When their companies began to grow rapidly, it was because they were laser-focused on a single problem and mission. Their outsize success was the result of converting to being missionary founders, often after they had financial breathing room.

Entrepreneurs wanting financial independence and control of their lives can accomplish these goals as mercenaries, but if they aspire to have a bigger impact or build something significant, crystallizing a vision and mission is likely the key.

Today, I finished reading Junk to Gold: From Salvage to the World’s Largest Online Auto Auction, an autobiography of Copart founder Willis Johnson. Johnson founded Copart in 1982. It started as a salvage yard. He purchased wrecked cars and sold the parts and scrap metal for a profit.

Johnson picked the salvage market because it was supported by two larger industries. Car manufacturers had to produce cars or they’d go out of business. Insurance companies had to write car insurance policies or they’d go out of business. “They’re always gonna make cars, and they’re always gonna insure them. We’re the guy in between.” The salvage business was important because it sat between the two and helped dispose of wrecked or inoperable cars, which are inevitable.

Johnson started with a salvage yard but was always scanning the landscape, paying attention to what was happening around him and searching for the next thing. He started a pick-your-own-parts yard and other businesses as opportunities cropped up. Over the years, he realized that providing a place to auction salvaged cars helped insurance companies recoup more money—and insurance companies were great repeat customers.

He continued to iterate on the auction model. In 2003, Copart rolled out an online auction platform. The platform was a tremendous success. Johnson realized he was on to something big and began to ask himself, What is our job? which I translate to What’s our mission? Up to this point, he’d been chasing anything that could make money. But now, the online platform’s success changed his thinking. He’d found product–market fit but wasn’t sure what to do with the in-person auctions and other businesses. Where should he spend his time? What was the biggest opportunity? He realized that his mission was to “streamline and simplify the auction process.” With a clear mission, his decisions were easy. He ended in-person auctions. All auctions would be online going forward.

Having a clear mission and product–market fit took Copart on an unprecedented run. The company is now a global online auction market and has a market capitalization (i.e., valuation) of over $52 billion as of this writing.

I enjoyed learning about Johnson’s journey. The distance he traveled was impressive. He doesn’t have a college degree and isn’t technical, but he nevertheless built a massive company centered on technology. Johnson’s business was founded in 1982 and started trading on the NASDAQ stock exchange in 1994. It took nine more years for him to crystallize his mission and focus on a single solution with massive potential in 2003.

Johnson hustled in the salvage industry for twenty years before he found product–market fit. When that happened, he switched from hustling to being laser focused.

Johnson’s journey is unconventional, even by entrepreneurial standards, but his success is outsize and undeniable. His story reminds us that there are many paths to success as an entrepreneur, including unsexy paths like the salvage industry. In the end, it boils down to finding a painful problem, solving that problem well, and providing the solution to a large pool of people or businesses.

Today, I began reading Junk to Gold: From Salvage to the World’s Largest Online Auto Auction. It’s by, and about, Willis Johnson, the founder of the online wholesale and salvage vehicle auction Copart. He tells readers about his life from childhood on and shares a series of stories from each point in his life and the lessons he learned.

Copart is a publicly traded company with a market capitalization (i.e., valuation) of roughly $52 billion as of this writing. The company’s core offering appears to be an online auction.

Given what the company is today, I expected Johnson to have had a big vision. I haven’t finished the book, but it’s clear that he didn’t. Instead, he built his company in what I’d consider a reactive manner.

He was constantly scanning his surroundings for opportunities and reading the newspaper (yes, the newspaper) to look for new ideas. When he saw an opportunity that seemed like a good deal, he pulled the trigger quickly. He was always shaking the trees, seeing what fell out, and snatching up the best option. Some of his biggest decisions were opportunistic plays that presented themselves. Often, he wasn’t even considering them the day before he committed.

When he saw a competitor doing something he liked, he promptly cloned it. For example, Johnson knew nothing about IPOs or the stock market. But when a competitor completed its IPO, Johnson decided to copy the move. Keep in mind that he didn’t even know what “IPO” stood for at the time. Roughly two years later, his company was publicly traded.

From what I can tell, junkyards (this is how Copart started) and auction businesses are highly unpredictable. You never know what’s going to roll through your doors. You have to react to whatever happens and try to turn a profit with whatever shows up. Johnson not only thrived in this environment but figured out how to build a massive business one reactive decision at a time.

I’m someone who likes to start with the end in mind and then figure out the best path to that goal. Johnson’s operating style isn’t something I’d be able to adopt, but I’m fascinated by how successful he was. I’m curious to finish the rest of Johnson’s unusual story.

Reviewing my notes on The Outsiders: Eight Unconventional CEOs and Their Radically Rational Blueprint for Success, I spotted a few patterns. Most of the CEOs displayed the following traits:

• Daily operations – These CEOs hired strong lieutenants who managed day-to-day operations. This time-management hack allowed them to focus on whatever the most pressing issue was at any given time and strategic things like capital allocation. Finding the right number two took years in some cases, but when it happened, it freed these CEOs from the weeds of the business and gave them more control of their time.  
• Frugal – There’s an old saying: “If you watch the pennies, the dollars will take care of themselves.” All these CEOs took this to heart and watched their costs. They were happy to spend, but only when the return was clear. They avoided unnecessary layers of people and the associated costs. Most avoided expensive class A offices, opting for modest, unassuming offices instead. Tom Murphy of Capital Cities Broadcasting used frugality as a defense to his company’s inconsistent ad revenue. He recognized that he couldn’t control revenue but he could control his costs.
• Independent thinking – These CEOs didn’t believe in mimicking others. They didn’t follow their peers or conventional thinking. Instead, they spent time doing their own thinking to arrive at rational and pragmatic decisions. These decisions were often the opposite of what peers were doing and led to returns that exceeded those of their peers.
• Free cash flow – Free cash flow is a recurring focus among these CEOs. They didn’t pay attention to reported profits (i.e., net income); rather, they wanted to know how much cash the business generated that they could allocate. The distinction between free cash flow and net income is an important one. Many entrepreneurs don’t understand that difference, and it shows in their decision-making.

These CEOs ran large public companies, but these are traits that founders of almost any stage company can embrace and benefit from.

Today I finished reading The Outsiders: Eight Unconventional CEOs and Their Radically Rational Blueprint for Success. William N. Thorndike, Jr. profiled these CEOs:

• Tom Murphy, Capital Cities Broadcasting
• Henry Singleton, Teledyne
• Bill Anders, General Dynamics
• John Malone, TCI
• Katharine Graham, The Washington Post
• Bill Stiritz, Ralston Purina
• Dick Smith, General Cinema
• Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway

The book describes how CEOs generated capital and executed creative approaches to capital allocation, and it reports their returns over a long period. I was familiar with Buffett but less so with the others. I took many notes on Murphy, Singleton, Malone, and Graham.

It was interesting to learn about Singleton’s strategy. It was the same as Buffett’s playbook, and Singleton was older than Buffett and deployed his strategies before Buffett did. Buffett has praised Singleton as one of the best businessmen ever, and I’d imagine many strategies that make Berkshire Hathaway successful were borrowed from Singleton’s playbook.

John Malone is the CEO I’m most unfamiliar with and most excited to learn more about. Malone recognized the predictability and high growth rate of the cable industry early. He used various strategies to build one of the largest cable distribution companies. He also helped seed various cable programming entrepreneurs, such as Bob Johnson of BET, and partnered with other cable entrepreneurs, including Ted Turner.

This book chronicles CEOs of publicly traded companies, so most examples don’t apply to early-stage entrepreneurs. But it does a good job of explaining capital allocation, including why it’s the most important job of a CEO, and quantifying the results of superior capital allocation by talented CEOs.

Capital allocation is a mindset and a skill all entrepreneurs should be aware of. For entrepreneurs seeking to grow their companies, capital allocation is a critical skill to master.

Today I finished reading Getting Things Done: The Art of Stress-Free Productivity. Here are some high-level thoughts:

• À la carte – Allen’s complete system, as described in the book, isn’t something I’d fully implement given my digital workstyle and other factors. However, as an à la carte framework, I see lots of value. Allen details several concepts that can add immediate value. I implemented his 2-minute rule years ago and will implement others now.
• Locus of control – People who want to drive the direction and outcome of their life (rather than having life happen to them) may see immediate value in several concepts in Allen’s framework.
• Brain – Allen believes the brain is better suited to making connections between ideas and creating new ideas than to storing information. He cites a study to support this. I agree. I’m more creative and insightful when I’m not worrying about everything I’m managing. Allen’s framework is good for generating more ideas and insights.
• Wisdom – Wisdom is the ability to apply knowledge in a manner that aligns with the desired outcome. Wisdom means changed behavior and improved decision-making—knowing what to do and when to do it. President Hoover once said, “Wisdom consists not so much in knowing what to do in the ultimate as knowing what to do next.” Allen’s ideas around continuously and quickly identifying next actions can be powerful and accelerate the acquisition of wisdom.

I’m glad I revisited this book. I’m looking forward to testing ideas it triggered.

This book contains ideas that are useful for anyone looking to be highly productive and approach work in a disciplined way.

For founders looking for a better way to manage the inevitable chaos of company building, wanting more creative or strategic time, or wanting to be more in the driver’s seat of their life, the ideas in this book are a great starting point, and many are worth cloning.

I’m finishing David Allen’s Getting Things Done: The Art of Stress-Free Productivity. Allen shares great concepts in his book. After reading more of his book, I picked up on a core concept, one I alluded to yesterday: his framework – working bottom up.

Allen believes it’s hard to take on new responsibilities, be creative, or think longer term until you’re effectively managing what’s already on your plate. To manage what’s on your plate, you must know the totality of what has your attention. Allen suggests capturing all lingering physical, digital, or mental “incompletes” and recording them in a system. This will give you a clear picture of everything on your plate.

After that, you’ll “clarify,” which I mentioned yesterday, then “organize” to put everything where it belongs, and then “reflect” periodically to review and update your incompletes. I won’t get into the specifics of each step. But notice that everything so far has focused on current, ground-floor activity.

After this, you’re ready to “engage” and start making action choices. Allen provides three priority frameworks to help manage action in a bottom-up manner. This is counter to how many approach this. Here they are (listed bottom up, of course):

Now: Choosing Action in the Moment

When you have time to accomplish something, this framework helps pinpoint what to work on.

• Context – What are your circumstances? Are you at your desk in the office, on a plane, or in a lobby waiting for a meeting to begin?
• Time – How much time do you have available?
• Energy – What’s your energy level? Are you in top form or in low-energy state?
• Priority – What’s the most important task?

Many people waste time trying to figure out what to work on. Going through this framework sequentially helps you quickly identify what to work on (you will have already categorized tasks that can be only done in a particular context, for instance, so you can ignore everything else for the time being). It’s helpful when you have free time you didn’t anticipate.

Today: Evaluating Daily Work

Throughout the day, you’ll likely be engaged in one of these three work types:

• Doing predefined work – Doing something on a next-action list is a good example.
• Doing work as it shows up – Having an impromptu chat with a direct report or responding to an email requesting a status report are examples.
• Defining your work – Reviewing a project and adding tasks to your next-action list is a way to define your work.

The goal is to manage your total inventory of work in a balanced manner, instead of only reacting to unexpected work. Deciding what to work on is a balancing act that relies on your intuition. But having the habit of defining and refining your work helps your intuition by crystallizing what you’re saying no to when an unexpected task arises.

Reviewing Your Work

On a regular basis, you should review your work. Starting at the bottom, of course.

• Ground – Confirm that all your lists of next actions are current. You want to make sure you’re not missing anything. For example, call brother.
• Horizon 1 – Confirm that your projects list captures all commitments requiring more than one action. The goal is to capture short-term commitments so you can free your mind. For example, onboard new hire.
• Horizon 2 – Confirm that all your areas of focus and responsibilities are captured on a list. For example, parenting. This level will determine what projects you start.
• Horizon 3 – Define your direction and intentions over the next one to two years.
• Horizon 4 – Paint a vision of life in three or more years.
• Horizon 5 – Define your life’s purpose.

Horizons 3–5 focus on the future; the others, more on the present. The goal is to get and keep the nearer horizons current so you have the mental bandwidth to think about the more distant horizons.

I see the value for most, not all, people in Allen’s bottom-up process. It’s a great approach to working productively and intentionally by getting the mundane under control so you’ll have the bandwidth to gain clarity in the long term. His approach is well suited for those working for an organization.

For entrepreneurs creating and growing companies, tweaking is required. Entrepreneurs usually start with a problem and craft a vision of what the world could look like if they solve that problem. Then, they figure out how to solve that problem and craft a mission to scale that solution. After that’s done, that’s when embracing Allen’s bottom-up work approach and iteratively turning a vision and mission into reality makes sense for entrepreneurs.