Risk

 

Life is a risky proposition. No one knows what the future holds. People who never take any real risks tend, in my opinion, to lead breathtakingly boring lives. If you never go anywhere, do not meet new people or are not open to new ideas and experiences you are not only cheating yourself but not living up to your potential.

 

Over the years in both business and life, I have had to take risks both large and small. Perhaps I weighed them more carefully than many, less than others.

 

Here is my take on risk:

 

Business folklore is full of stories about wild entrepreneurs who were very lucky. H.L. Hunt, the early billionaire oil baron, was said to have won his first few petroleum leases in a poker game. Others were said to have put charges on their credit card to the max, a few days before a major order came through. One well known player a few years back, allegedly won a bundle at a casino and dragged his fledgling company out of imminent bankruptcy. These make for great stories but, I would wager, are likely half-truths at best.

 

I learned VERY early in the media business that selecting the proper allocation of advertising vehicles was not so simple. Clients and colleagues would tell me that “you cannot go wrong with television.” They did not seem to understand that, at the time, some 72% of primetime programs were cancelled in the first season. To succeed, you needed to pick a mix of established programs and only take a flyer on a few new programs. I hit a 500-foot home run with “Murphy Brown” in the 1990’s but was way off by avoiding “The Big Bang Theory” early in this century.

 

When digital took off some years back, simply saying the word Facebook insured client commitment. It did not work out for many along with a host of online alternatives. Big Data let the major players follow customers and reach them effectively and well. Marketing risk declined as implementing big brother options accelerated.

 

Most movies lose money—big time. I almost laugh out loud when I see the number of Executive Producers listed in the credits for Netflix, Amazon Prime, or Apple TV films and programs. I also see a similar thing at the actual movie theaters. These “Executive Producers” are largely not big-time players in Tinseltown. They are often hedge fund types or money managers who have cash to burn and have “gone Hollywood.” It will end badly for some as they realize that the Wall Street casino has better odds than the motion picture industry.

 

Most businesses fail, as I have often written, and restaurants have the highest mortality rate of all categories. Yet, each year many thousands take the plunge and bet the ranch on their concept.

 

Over time, I have observed a similarity between successful gamblers (usually poker players) and investors. Both know when to quit. Some of the shrewdest investors whom I have ever encountered cut their losses quickly. If a stock they buy drops 20%, they get out immediately. Yes, it may and sometimes does bounce back, but they “take their medicine” and absorb the small loss and move on to something else.

 

The best gamblers usually have a similar discipline. They have a pre-set limit to their losses. The sharpies do not double down when behind. They realize that each deal is an independent event, and a hot streak is not a real thing. As Kenny Rogers once sung, they “know when to walk away and know when to run.”

 

The media does a poor job of profiling entrepreneurs in my mind. Sir Richard Branson is always portrayed as a swashbuckling risk-taker who loses a lot but is also very lucky. If you follow him at all closely, you find that his philosophy is and I quote, “It is only by being bold that you get anywhere. If you are a risk-taker, then the art is to protect the downside.” When he started as a teenager, he took some huge chances. Now, his risks are far more calculated.

 

Successful people take risks, but they also hedge their bets. Hedging is, in financial terms, is more than keeping one’s options open. It is lessening risk. One gives up potential gains if you are right but cutting losses if things go awry. So, it increases your chances of getting your goal of getting what you want but lowers the chances of getting more. Some people do this via options (puts and calls) in securities markets or via insurance in other venues.

 

To me, President Eisenhower put it well when he was a World War II general. He wrote, “Plans are worthless, but planning is everything.” Ike understood risk better than most of us. You need to plan and hedge your bets and have downside protection.

 

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com

 

 

 

 

Economic Man and Advertising

 

In 1836, the brilliant political theorist and sort of economist John Stuart Mill introduced a character to the world of thought known as Homo Economicus or Economic Man.

 

There were, in my view, three basic tenets to the idea:

 

1)  Many people are ideal decision makers who make perfectly rational economic decisions.

2)  Consumers have perfect access to information.

3)  People, especially in business, pursue their goals consistently and are largely self-interested.

 

 

When I was first introduced to this as an economics major, I had to shake my head in wonder. It seemed as everyone whom I knew (and including myself) often made irrational purchases. Another joke to me was the idea of perfect access to information. Today, we have the internet, consumer reviews of all kinds and can engage in a comparative analysis of competing brands. Back then, you talked to a few people but often were flying blind. I remember terrible angst trying to buy a used car as a 20-year-old. And, of course, often you knew you were spending more than you should to impress someone (invariably a young woman). 

 

The third leg of the stool, being self-absorbed and focused on profit to the exclusion of all else in business was certainly true (sadly) for some people.

 

After a few weeks of struggle with my thinking, I approached one of my economic professors and great mentors and gingerly made the case for Homo Economicus being absurd.

 

The great man broke into a soft smile and said he agreed with much of what I was saying. However, he said that the seemingly unrealistic assumptions regarding Homo Economicus seemed to work more often than not when putting together forecasting models.

 

I went to graduate school and Economic Man never came up nor did it for my first 10 years in advertising. Just before my time, Rosser Reeves of Ted Bates had succeeded with very factual or even a bit dry creative executions most famously for Anacin (The tagline was “Anacin means fast pain relief”).

 

A creative revolution emerged in the 1960’s led by Doyle Dane Bernbach where humor and cleverness came front and center along with selling dreams.

 

In 1979, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky essentially founded a new field, Behaviorial Economics. They challenged the long-held views of Economic Man and focused on risk aversion and demonstrated that human beings do not always act rationally. The concepts snowballed and were joined by others especially in the field of Consumer Behavior and Psychology.

 

In 2001, Kahnemann was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics.** This caused more than a little stir as Kahnemann was a research psychologist who freely admitted that he had never taken an economics course!

 

Clearly, consumers do not have perfect knowledge and they do not behave rationally all the time. One area that has grown exponentially given wealth inequality around the world is that of luxury products, often referred to as Veblen goods (Thorsten Veblen was a fiery late 19^th-early 20^th century economist who attacked the noveau-riche with an acid wit best exemplified in his book, THE THEORY OF THE LEISURE CLASS).

 

Veblen goods are those that seem to defy the law of supply and demand. Rolex watches, Rolls Royces, Louis Vuitton luggage, and designer clothes seem to see sales growth as their prices rise. Bernard Arnault, the chairman of luxury conglomerate LVMH, has been the wealthiest man in the world at times during last few years. People often buy these products for status or to highlight their wealth.  Some cannot reasonably afford them but purchase them to send a message to others. Veblen goods do not stop there. A hot hair stylist or caterer in a locality also fall into that category.

 

So, we seem to be entering a new era. As Amazon reviews and other sources allow us to comparison shop far easier than ever and with conventional advertising facing a slow but steady extinction, selling dreams may fade a great deal. Social media and viral efforts will break through, but the world is changing. So, even though our knowledge is increasing, or at least available, irrational behavior still lives.

 

Homo Economicus (Economic Man) was suspicious to me over 50 years ago and is even more so now. Long live Behaviorial Economics!

 

**A note of clarification so I do not get angry e-mails from some purists out there. Technically, there is no Nobel Prize in Economics. In 1968, The Sveriges Riksbank (Bank of Sweden) approached the Nobel committee and asked if they could give a prize in Economics made in memory of Alfred Nobel. They agreed and were gracious enough to allow the economic prize winner(s) to receive the award at the same time as those in the sciences and be addressed as Nobel Laureates. It is the only social science in the Nobel stable.

 

 

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com or leave a message on the blog.

 

 

Recipe For A Happy Life

 

On January 1, 2023, Charles T. “Charlie” Munger celebrated his 99^th birthday. Charlie is the Chairman of Daily Journal Corporation but is better known as the Vice Chairman of Berkshire Hathaway and Warren Buffett’s business partner and sidekick for over 60 years.

 

I love watching Warren and Charlie answering questions at the Berkshire Hathaway (Woodstock for Capitalists) annual meeting each year. Warren tends to be verbose and comes off as a kindly but wise Middle-American grandfather. Charlie’s answers are direct, succinct, and often hilarious.

 

Over the years, I have watched virtually every taped interview that Charlie has given. Most are available on YouTube and I highly recommend them. On or around his recent birthday, he was asked about what his advice for a person was to have a happy life.

 

His answer was not making billions as he and Warren have. He summed it up as “lowering your expectations.” We all have dreams, but Charlie seemed to be cautioning about getting unrealistic with him. He suggested honesty in all that you do, working steadily, spending less than you earn, keep learning and stay positive.

 

At times, during the various questions he has received on the topic, he sounded like a blend of Ben Franklin’s advice and suggestions made in Thomas Stanley’s THE MILLIONAIRE NEXT DOOR.

 

With typical self-deprecation, he said that nerds got a lot out of his advice, but most people did not follow it. By playing the long game in life and in finances, you tend to be happier than most.

 

One thing that I have observed in recent years makes me wish that many more people would be exposed to Charlie’s simple suggestions. When I began teaching almost full time some 14 years ago it was not uncommon to have some “happy go lucky” students in each class. By my final year, the levels of angst were off the charts and students tended to be in two distinct groups:

 

1)  Many felt that the world was against them and that they had little chance. Student debt would hold them back, social security would be empty by the time they were geezers, and AI and robots would grab millions of jobs.

 

2)  The second group came off as if they had just spent the last 48 hours at a Tony Robbins seminar and they were going to be billionaires by the time that they were 35. Oddly, they were not the best students nor were they particularly inquisitive.

 

A smaller group had their feet on the ground and instinctively seemed to follow Charlie’s mantra of realistic expectations. They seemed well adjusted and optimistic.

 

So, while this remnant may be nerds they will keep going, take life as it comes, and if they live long enough, have a very substantial level of happiness, fulfillment, and financial gain.

 

Bless you, Charlie.

 

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com or leave a message on the blog.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Sleeper Reason For Growing Inequality in America

 

Almost daily you hear or read comments about inequality in America. Some phrase it as “a hollowing out of the middle class.” As someone for whom demographics were his beat these past 50 years, it is hard to dispute the clear data.

 

The causes by most in the media run the gamut from Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, Neutron Jack Welsh, the decline of unions, tax policy by all administrations which favor the truly rich, globalization, financialization of the economy, unchecked immigration, an aging population, robots, computers, and the growing threat of artificial intelligence.

 

Well. You may agree with some or many of the reasons listed above but here is one that is rarely mentioned that I find to really have some traction. It is the Minimum Wage Rate in the United States.

 

Do you know what the Minimum Wage Rate is? It is $7.25 per hour. It was last raised in July, 2009. Not a typo, my friends. The rate has not been raised in nearly 14 years. Has your pay remained flat during that period?

 

On April 28, 2021 newly installed President Joe Biden signed an executive order that raised the minimum wage on all federal contracts to $15. I had no problem with that. Federal projects were funded by taxpayer money and debt.  A few months later he asked that it be raised to that level for the 27 million workers who earned less than $15 per hour in the private sector. I had to smile at the absurdity of the suggestion.

 

The president admitted that it would squeeze some employers. What an understatement.

 

Most business startups in the U.S. fail within five years and the majority of them are restaurants (more about them later). Around one half of one percent of shops last 40 or more years and every year hundreds of thousands of small firms go bankrupt. So, a big jump to $15/hour in the minimum wage would not just squeeze small employers. It would put them out of business!

 

Now, while the federal minimum wage is now at $7.25, it varies greatly by state. The prosperous state of Washington pegs it at $15.74 cents an hour and California $15.50. New York is $15 in New York City and $14.20 for the rest of the state. Oregon is $13.50 and Vermont is $12.55.

 

Yet some states including Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin are still pegged at the 2009 rate of $7.25 per hour.

 

When I bring this fact up with many people some express shock but others shrug and say “it is a great deal less expensive to live in Biloxi, Mississippi than San Francisco.” Agreed, but people still need to buy food, shelter and perhaps a used car at some point and $7.25 is a living wage in very few localities in the U.S.

 

When you dig just a bit, it gets even worse. Many states have a separate minimum wage for “tipped employees.” In states that still pay $7.25/hr., the tipped rate is $2.13/hr. Even Delaware which has a reasonable rate of $11.75, has a required rate of $2.23 for tipped employees. That might work if you are part of the waitstaff at a posh watering hole at Rehoboth Beach, but not everywhere.

 

I have read accounts over the years where investment bankers celebrating closing a new issue or big bond issue may go to a trendy restaurant in Manhattan, order endless bottles of $600 wine and tip the hot waitress several thousand dollars. Okay, good for her. What about the man or woman serving you at a pizza place or casual chain restaurant in Hammond, Indiana? Does he/she get enough tips to take them up to $15/hour in an average night. Highly unlikely.

 

My suggestion and no one in Congresss is listening would be to raise the national rate a few dollars and then index it a point or two above the CPI going forward. Why not simply index it to inflation a la Social Security? Well, what if Jay Powell and company work some magic and bring inflation down to their 2% target rate and somehow keep it there? At a 2% rate, the minimum wage would double in 36 years. Do the math. So, some catch up is needed but you still do not want to kill too many small businesses by doubling it all at once.

 

What can you do as a person? I have two suggestions and they are what I do personally. First, if you are at a white tablecloth restaurant give a generous tip if the service was good. Unless, it was horrible, leave at least 15%. Second, if it is a lunch counter or a casual chain (especially in a rural area), give your server a cash tip. Still want to use a credit card? Okay, give them the cash as a tip and write “on table” on the credit card slip. Servers love it as many have told me they often do not get tip money for a month and if the restaurant goes bust (most do eventually), they never see the tip money in many cases.

 

The second suggestion is when you are traveling. If you stay at an upscale hotel or inn, they invariably leave an envelope in your room market “chambermaid”. This summer many of you will be spending a night or two on a long road trip and could stay at a modest lodging such as a  Holiday Inn or even a Motel 6. Leave a bit of cash for the clean-up team. They get minimum wage but are likely immigrants or single Moms who are struggling. Over the years, people have stopped me in the parking lot or checkout desk and thanked me (some almost in tears) profusely for a $5 tip. C’mon. Leave them something. It will cost about the same as the umpteenth cup of coffee that you get at Starbucks that week.

 

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com

An Unsettling Statistic

 

As is often the case, politicians in Washington are arguing about raising the debt ceiling for the United States. To me, it has always been something of a theatrical pose as they will eventually raise it at the last minute. Actually, it serves no real purpose except to remind them and those of us paying attention to how high the total U.S. debt is.

 

What the media, in my mind, should be paying attention to is a simple calculation that speaks volumes to me. It is total debt to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) expressed as a percentage. I have followed it forever. When Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, it was 31. Twelve years later after George H.W. Bush did the handover to Bill Clinton, it was about 60. Clinton And George W. Bush held the line pretty well and we actually had a balanced budget at one point (under Clinton) so the statistic only crept up to 68. Since then, it has risen dramatically and the last figure that I could find was that the U.S. total debt to GDP was pegged at 129.

 

It is just a number you may say but how does it stack up against the debt levels of other countries? Okay, here is what I have been able to find out recognizing that the numbers change each quarter:

 

 

 

United Kingdom           105

Canada                        118

France                         116

Spain                           120

UNITED STATES        129

Portugal                       134

Italy                              156

Greece                         206

Venezuela                    350

 

Will we be playing tag with Italy in few years? It is possible.

 

Some Northern European countries such as Denmark, Holland and Norway weigh in at round 50 as does Australia. Germany, the largest economy in Europe is about 70 (since the great runaway inflation of the Weimar Republic in the early 1920’s plus the aftermath of World War II, Germany does not like public debt).

 

Again, you may say so what—it is just a number. The World Bank suggests that when your ratio of debt to GDP goes over 77, growth in the economy is hampered by debt service and slows expansion. The more you go over the benchmark, the harder it is to grow. Additionally, your credit rating declines as the possibility of default grows. Would you rather buy an Australian bond or a Venezuelan bond? I think you do not need to do some sharp figuring to decide on that one.

 

Yes, we are the United States of America and the dollar is the global reserve currency. We also are the top military power. Are we headed for default? I would say no as our debts are in dollars and the government can simply print money to cover it. What the purchasing power of those printing press dollars would be is another thing, but, nominally, we would not default on our obligations.

 

Greece and Spain are not in such an enviable position as their debt is in euros which they cannot control. Ditto places such as Argentina which has had debt problems for a few generations and can often only get financing which has to be paid back in “hard” US dollars.

 

So, default is not imminent no matter what the doomsters say. Yet, when I look at the debt to GDP ratio every few months, it gives me pause.

 

I have never been more confused about the state and direction of our economy. This unsettling statistic on debt to GDP does not help any and those in the media world rarely mention it.

 

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com or leave a message on the blog.

 

 

What Worries Me in 2023--Part III

 

A major issue which concerns me these days is climate change. My view differs from most in the mainstream. I am neither a climate denier of the “Drill, Baby, Drill” variety nor am I one who feel that we will become carbon neutral in the U.S. by the time some politicians are promising (2045-2050).

 

Let’s back up for a moment with an interesting story about the possible origin of the term “Climate Change.” Frank Luntz has been a long time Republican political strategist and pollster. As a political news junkie, I have seen him in action for a few decades and I must say he moderates focus groups better than anyone whom I have ever seen. In 2002, he is said to have penned a memo about climate science and recommended that candidates stress that there was no consensus about global warming among the scientific community. So, prospective lawmakers should challenge the science but instead of talking about global warming or lack of it, soften the message by using climate change as the topic title. It was felt to be less catastrophic a term than global warming. Interestingly, it has caught on all over the environmental spectrum with even rabid climate activists often saying climate change.

 

Full Disclosure---I began investing in windmill farms in 1985 and solar companies in 2002. Lesson learned was do not get stung in a good cause. Since then, both are producing energy at competitive levels and many mainstream providers and regulated utilities are getting into the game in a big way.

 

So, why do I worry? The plans to go carbon neutral are ambitious, probably unrealistic, and damned expensive (will cost trillions if existing blueprints are followed). Where will that money come from?

 

To me, there are practical approaches that are ignored. A major one is nuclear power which is clean but largely ignored by environmentalists. Even California Governor Gavin Newsom recognized this and extended the state’s last Nuke (Diablo Canyon) to shut down in 2030 instead of 2025. The federal government helped with funding.

 

We have perhaps the world’s largest supply of natural gas which burns twice as cleanly as coal and 34% cleaner than oil. Wind and solar are great, non-depleting and non-polluting but they are intermittent, so they lack 100% reliability. Natural gas is generally used as a backup. However, there is a hold on building natural gas pipelines in the US, particularly in the Northeast. We, as much of Europe, have dodged an energy bullet this year with a mild winter (to date) in the East but next year may be different. Natural gas has been described as a “bridge between fossil fuels and renewables.” Why not build the bridge (gas pipelines) where they do a great deal of good over the next 20 years?

 

Years ago, I thought that the US government would attack the energy issue as they did in World War II with rationing and the Manhattan project. It has not happened perhaps because of strong lobbying by fossil fuel producers. Putting solar panels on all new government buildings, and offering stronger tax incentives for renewables and electric vehicles for citizens would be a great start.

 

Also, many of the carbon neutral plans do not discuss improvements in technology. Again, souped up incentives for battery development, charging stations for personal vehicles that worked quickly, transmitting electricity over longer distances are all discussed but could turn the corner or help slow down climate change.

 

There is also the global human element that does not get enough attention. We seem to be getting more erratic weather patterns with more droughts, high temperatures and freak storms. This is affecting people. As the Colorado river recedes, do you really want to retire to Tucson or other low rain areas?

 

Ever hear of Lampedusa Island, Italy? Probably not. It is a geographical oddity as it is an Italian island that is 80 miles from North Africa but 130 south of Sicily. In recent years, thousands of desperate people leave Libya, Syria, Eritrea, and some west Africa nations in search of a better and/or safer life. The little island cannot handle them and the Italian government, already struggling financially, cannot absorb all the visitors to Lampedusa plus other refugee entry points. Italy is not alone. Many are trying to get access to Spain and parts of eastern Europe and Turkey.

 

Yet, global warming appears to be responsible for the long-term drought in western Africa in particular. Once rich farmland is turning to wasteland and farmers cannot afford fertilizer in many cases. Many millions may have to move north or starve in the years ahead. This is a major humanitarian crisis in the making. Private charities can help people landing in tiny Lampedusa but if it runs into millions of people, Europe cannot absorb the refugees nor afford to feed them.

 

So, yes, I worry about climate change. The US seems hideously naïve about not expanding natural gas usage and Europe faces problems ahead far beyond Vladimir Putin’s energy shutoff after his Ukrainian invasion. Like it or not, anyone reading this will likely still be using some fossil fuels their entire lifetime unless there is some surprising breakthrough with hydrogen-based fuel or battery technology.

 

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com

 

 

What Worries Me in 2023--Part II

 

The topic for this post is demographic shifts in the western world. It may not sound exciting, but it is a major, if not THE major economic and social threat facing developed countries over the next 30 years.

 

Historically, the United States has always had a growing population. We were, after all, a nation of immigrants and people came from all over but largely western Europe. Even military conflicts such as the Civil War did not slow population growth much as immigration picked up the slack of young men perishing In the conflict. To maintain a level population, the “average” woman in a society needs to have 2.1 children. That is usually referred to as zero population growth or ZPG. Today, the US stands at about 1.85. So, if we do not have immigrants coming to America, our population will decline.

 

The situation in western Europe is far more serious for two reasons:

 

1)  The fertility rate is not 2.1 but hovering around 1.4. The Nordic nations and France weigh in at approximately 1.8 but Italy and eastern Europe in the 1.2 range.

 

2)  Unlike the US which has a safety net, European nations have what is known as “the provider state” which provides universal health care, low-cost higher education, and often moderate pensions for the entire population.

 

 

So, Europe is in a bind. People are living longer (due to universal health care and perhaps less stress?), but entitlements are very large via American standards. Yet, as the population ages, those still working will have a huge burden to take care of their older citizens as there will be relatively fewer of them to pay the entitlement bills. And, relative to the US, their tax rates are significantly higher.

 

If you look at individual countries, it gets scary. Take Italy, for example.  A few independent studies have said that in order to maintain present services and transfer payments, in less than 20 years, the retirement age will have to be at 77 years old PLUS 2.2 million immigrants will have to settle in Italy  ANNUALLY and work to cover current entitlement programs. Is that going to happen? I doubt very strongly that such a course of action would be politically viable. France tried to raise the retirement age a few years ago as did Greece and both ideas died quickly as the incumbent political leaders faced a massive revolt.

 

Another great example is Spain. In 1970, the then largely Catholic country had a fertility rate of 3.9 with only Ireland having a higher one at that time in all of Europe. Today, it is approximately 1.1. How is Spain going to keep their welfare state intact? After 2008, when they tried austerity to cover budget shortfalls, the government fell after massive protests.

 

So, a declining birth or fertility rate has huge consequences for public expenditure especially when most people have had a provider state covering basic needs. By the way, Japan has a far older population than western Europe and is now facing similar problems including getting young people to become farmers.

 

Okay, if you have stayed with me this far, how does this relate to the United States? Plenty.

 

At the current rate of spend, Medicare is projected to go broke by 2028 and Social Security, as we know it, will dry up somewhere between 2034-35. Social Security would be an easy fix. Raise the retirement age for FULL benefits a couple of years and increase the tax cap above the rate of inflation (currently, only the first $160,200 is taxed) for high income earners. Right now, if someone makes $10 million per year in earned income only the first $160,200 is subject to Social Security taxes. So, taxing Social Security benefits for the affluent and wealthy would help to keep the system solvent longer along with raising the cap for contributions to the fund.  Medicare is much more complicated and is in more urgent need of reform. Such actions could save both entitlements but not many members of Congress would have the political courage to do something meaningful.

 

Separately, we need to bring in more immigrants to cover our employment needs and continue to provide funds to keep Social Security and Medicare viable. This is a tinderbox issue as many Americans do not want to face economic and demographic reality or are simply racists.

 

Why, you might ask, should someone my age care about this issue? Well, I have children and grandchildren and plan to be around in 2035. 

 

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com or leave a message on the blog.