“No…” I smiled, wondering if she would persist.

“Would you like to become one?”

“Not really.” Then, of course, I got curious. “How many people say yes?”

“Almost no one,” she said. “But I’m supposed to ask.”

No surprise there. Loyalty programs, once something of a novelty, don’t actually work. Consumers are smart enough to know that they’ll wind up with too much SPAM and a weekly newsletter they don’t want to read. Yet companies love to push them.

Here’s the tip: real customer loyalty has nothing to do with a program. If the experience or product is great (think The Apple Store), then we’re in. That’s it – no discounts, freebies or plastic cards necessary.

My son’s first baseball game was more exciting than expected. After spending the first four innings watching a back-and-forth struggle, one of his favorite players hit a grand slam – the giant home run that changes the outcome of a game.

Not surprisingly, the media coverage that evening focused almost exclusively on this particular moment in the game. Apparently, the little things that occurred earlier in the contest weren’t as fun to talk about.

But sports teams that rely on the home run cannot win over the long term. Neither can entrepreneurs and business owners.

That sure hasn’t stopped them from trying. Companies love to develop business plans that are little more than a series of attempted home runs. And while occasionally someone hits one, this approach doesn’t lead to sustainable growth.

A better strategy is to concentrate on hitting singles. It may be less exciting, but think about it this way: if you try for home runs and miss, you’ve accomplished nothing. Modest wins, on the other hand, mean that you’re always growing. And over time, steady growth will transform even the smallest of firms into a powerhouse.

Which is a lot better than the occasional big inning.

While I agree that it matters who you know, that doesn’t mean the goal should be to have thousands of online friends. Quantity alone doesn’t mean that you’re truly connected.

Here’s a thought: make your network smaller. Then take that network and focus on making it tighter. Do this by reaching out to people more frequently (about them, not you) and connecting them to others.

This approach takes time, but it’s the best way I know to build a real network.

Like most entrepreneurs, I believe in thinking big. But there is a difference between a naïve entrepreneur and one that is relentlessly positive for the right reasons. Positive has a well-thought out plan. Positive knows when to tweak that plan in order to deal with inevitable setbacks. Positive balances wishful thinking with reality. 

Naïve doesn’t. Naïve uses optimism to mask reality. And optimism is not enough to achieve the impossible.   

If you’re a goal-oriented person and regularly push your limits, no doubt that you regularly run into obstacles. When you do, make sure that you know the difference between Naïve and Positive. 

One often leads to very unexpected outcomes.

Brad Pitt, on the other hand, looks like a leading man. Every budding star wants to be just like him. That way they’ll get the parts written for Brad Pitt. Very few come to Hollywood looking for Paul Giamatti roles.

Actors are reluctant to pursue a niche.

This sounds a lot like any other business. While many companies go after the Brad Pitt markets, smart firms chase the niche. Here’s the thing – with so many pursuing the obvious markets, there are a lot more opportunities for others to dominate the less obvious ones.

I’d bet on Paul Giamatti every single time.

That’s ridiculous. 

Great success stories usually begin with “no one thought it would work.” They never start with “they copied something that’s been done before.” If that were true, weekend karaoke singers who could carry a tune would make it big.       

It’s not enough to imitate what’s already been done. Not anymore. The world changes too fast for that to work.   

Why then, do so many people push old ideas and tactics that are largely ineffective? They’re familiar with them. And the more familiar you are with something, the less risky it seems.  

It doesn’t matter if you’re writing a book or building a sales team – you shouldn’t strive to do it the same way it’s been done before. Which means you’ll need to stay away from publishers that are looking for the next Harry Potter. Or you’ll have to persuade your manager that direct mail, cold calling, and banner ads will not lead to meaningful sales growth. 

Looking for foolproof? Don’t bother. The best path to success is to create your own.

But something else has been troubling me.

The employment trends will eventually improve. That much I’m sure about. But I’m not as certain that the expectations of employees will change as well. From what I’ve seen so far, I think that’s unlikely.

When I talk with job seekers (passive or active), one theme is nearly always a constant – job security. For some reason, people are hoping that someone else (the company) will take responsibility for their future. Even worse, many think that they’ll be able to find this safety with a large organization.

I assure you that will not happen.

Think about it – large companies are no longer the backbone of our economy. Stability can’t exist within an organization that will eliminate jobs to make a quarterly number. It can’t exist when a company is bought or sold, or when it fails to recognize a change in the market and fails. So if you work for a big firm, job security doesn’t exist.

The good news is that when the economy turns, small companies will lead most (if not all) of the growth in new jobs. Large companies won’t. Guaranteed.

Want even better news? A lot of the jobs at small companies are more interesting and have a greater impact on the lives of others (including yours). Oh, and stability, you ask? Yep, that too.

Which direction you choose is up to you. But seems to me the safer bet is pretty obvious.