Many years ago, Andrea Grimes at the Dallas Observer wrote “$30,000 Millionaires: Douchebags in the Mist,”  a hilarious but sad piece about young men chasing the trappings of wealth rather than wealth itself.

In the essay, Grimes identifies the financial extravagance of the protagonists—primarily young men—as status-seeking behavior designed to impress women. (Spoiler alert: she is not impressed.) It’s easy to laugh at this kind of stuff. But I think the real mistake isn’t signaling wealth, but rather signaling wealth without having it. Signaling isn’t bad, in my view—it’s necessary. Conversely, if you do have the real thing, but don’t show it, you’re as backwards as the $30,000 millionaires in the Observer article.

This piece is about understanding why.

Style vs. Substance, or Signaling vs. Substance?

First off, there’s a difference between having the thing, and appearing like we have the thing.

As the Dallas Observer piece illustrates, being wealthy is not the same thing as appearing wealthy. We all know people who lead a lifestyle that displays the trappings of wealth—fancy clothes and gadgets, expensive vacations, physical assets like homes and cars with negative carry—but are deeply in debt and barely covering expenses. And people who are wealthy don’t necessarily flaunt it. There may be people in your social circle who are deca-millionaires and you would have no idea based on their home, clothes or car.

This phenomenon isn’t limited to money. For me, it’s most apparent in education. Education and knowledge in today’s society are nearly free. Books are extremely cheap (or free at the library), and between AI, Wikipedia, Google, and YouTube, you can learn just about anything you want at the cost of an Internet subscription. In many fields, the most knowledgeable people do not necessarily have any credentials (does Bill Gates have an MBA, or any degree for that matter?) And yet people are willing to shell out huge sums of money for degrees, certifications, seminars, and other types of credentials (and often times don’t appear to care much about the knowledge itself).

Is It Wrong to Show Off?

In my view, any time we take an action—whether constructive or destructive—we are responding to some kind of internal need.

In the Grimes article, the young men have a desire to attract mates and undertake actions that they believe will help them in this regard. To the extent that women are interested in men that are financially stable, the trappings of wealth are a proxy for judging whether or not a man is financially stable. So the rented-Lamborghini guys in the article are just behaving logically based on the information or experience that they have.

The same is true for educational credentials. People who pursue degrees and certifications often want to signal value and competence to a potential employer or client, who uses the degree/certification as a proxy for whether or not the person has actual ability. These people are often seeking financial security, and the way to do that is to obtain better employment. These folks may also desire the knowledge or ability itself, and may believe that a reputable institution can do a better job of educating them than they can do on their own.

Whatever the need is, whether it’s attracting romantic partners (the reproductive drive), getting a better job (safety and security in the form of money), or simply status and prestige (being respected by others feels good), I don’t judge any of these as wrong or bad. I don’t even view the strategy as bad, necessarily.

It just misses 50% of the equation.

The Other 50%

When I think about this question of style vs. substance, the analogy for me is having great marketing vs. having a great product. Cars and degrees are marketing. Wealth and knowledge are the product.

Cars and degrees are not bad things! Marketing is very powerful. There are many examples of companies becoming successful with great marketing despite having mediocre products (i.e., the $30,000 millionaire stuff would have stopped completely if those guys never got a date).

By contrast, having wealth or knowledge itself is like having a great product. Great products provide great value. In the case of wealth, the value is usually security and freedom. In the case of knowledge, there is obvious value in using expertise to solve real-world problems for other people, and at least for me, there’s a sense of satisfaction in finally understanding how something works.

The problem with great products, by themselves, is that without marketing, nobody will ever find out about them. For example, whatever system you use to manage your calendar and appointments, there is probably a better system someone out there has built that you have never heard of. Or if I am the world’s foremost expert on the Federal Reserve’s overnight reverse repo facility, and nobody knows who I am, then nobody can benefit from my knowledge and equally importantly, I can’t get paid for my knowledge either.

Here's the point of this essay.

Many of us have good qualities that we are reluctant to promote to the world. For example, I think my notes are pretty great but I put 95% of my energy into writing them, and only 5% into promoting them. Experienced newsletter authors say that the energy investment needs to be 50-50 between writing and marketing in order for it to really take off. If I put more energy into self-promotion, as the 27-year-olds in Dallas do, that does not automatically mean I am cosplaying as a rich person. This is a case where I have (or at least I believe I have) real value underneath—so a great product underneath the marketing.

Signaling—cosplaying as a rich person—isn’t inherently bad. It’s just incomplete. We have to have the real thing, and have the courage to show it.

So ask yourself: where are you holding back from marketing real value, because you are afraid it will look fake?

Exercise

Journal on the following or discuss with a friend.

1)      Noticing

When I reflect on promoting myself, or when I see others engaging in self-promotion, what judgments come up?

Do I feel contempt, and respond with mockery as the author of the Dallas Observer piece did?

Do I feel shame or embarrassment? Or does nothing come up at all?

2)      Getting to 100

To be successful, we require both product and marketing. Each represents 50% of the equation and together they get to 100%.

Of the two, which do I feel that I lack more?

If I wish to attract a mate that values financial stability, do I lack the financial stability itself or am I failing to telegraph that I also value financial stability and lead my life accordingly?

If I wish to advance my career, do I lack the expertise necessary for advancement, or am I failing to inform the world that I have valuable expertise?

3)      Action

What the smallest action I can take to address whichever one of the two—product or marketing—is lacking?

For me, it’s marketing. That’s why I have CTAs sprinkled throughout my essays now, and I’m posting blurbs on LinkedIn. And if you like my pieces, consider forwarding them to someone who might benefit 😊