In the very recent past there were two related threads deleted. That got me thinking.

In the age of Google it is foolish to allude to a 2009 concert tour, one that never took place. The use of the phrase plays exclusively ... implies a lot while actually saying nothing.

We've all seen one man businesses online where the web site refers to the individual in question as the CEO or President of that company. Your bullshitometer starts going off and you just roll your eyes.

My wife once dated a guy who had his own one man business which was called his last name followed by the word Group. This is done all the time ... and I find it, at the very least, amusing; amusing in the sense that shining the light of day on it is something I can not not do.

We read about an award winning so-and-so but never learn about the actual award. We read about ... our business, our employees, but you really know it's just one person. There's nothing wrong with a one man business, I'm a one man business and there's really more of one man than any substantive business.

Is all this self aggrandizing, deliberate deception, or just a white lie and is done 'cause every one else does it?

I think it's mostly an inevitable bit of osmosis - one person starts doing it, then before long, nearly everyone is doing the same in the race to "keep up".

Case in point - any press releases sent out about awards. The award is always "prestigious", even if it's some two-bit Buggins-turn gong handed out by some obscure trade association.

It's got so inevitable that reporters appear to have been hypnotised into parroting it in their subsequent stories. Personally, as a sub, it's a word that immediately goes unless we're talking about the Oscars, Grammys or Baftas.

A similarly devalued example is "state of the art", which, rather like "hi tech" a few years ago, now apparently means anything with an electrical plug attached.

Hi Dave,
I have run a "One Man Business" for 18 years.
Through out the years I have run into plenty of CEOs, CFOs, and other corporate mangement types. The only qualification for such a title seems to be that they bought a cell phone or launched a web site.

Many want you to believe they run with the Big Boys and can cut a deal with HP or Walmart. Things like 3 piece suits, fancy titles and snazzy web sites complete the illusion, make that delusion. Most of these guys fade into the sunset, as the real players are rolling their eyes also.
I simply refer to myself as "Owner".

-Karl

BTW Totally agree with Dave's Law

Interesting thread. I'll have my people get back to you on it.

The one-man brand is lower on the evolutionary scale than the one-man band.

Everyone in consulting knows that employees are hired as needed as sub contractors based on contracts. In construction this is accepted and publically known and usually part of a bid. In other fields it's more fluid.

More experienced consultants know how to create a web site and create 'paper' partnerships with others to list some credible staff members with experience or minority status for funding purposes.

To Karl's point I can't count the number of VPs of Business Relationships I've met that are salaried at 30K with a hyper- aggressive commission plan and a cell phone with ear piece.

As to why people do the one-man brand web sites it's because they are too cheap to hire a branding consultant for one week to give them the do's and don'ts of successful business websites.

First laugh of the day. Thanks!

I think that it depends on the situation.

Around here there are a lot of guys who run businesses that use quite a few people to do the actual (whatever it is that they do) but only takes one man to plan, attend meetings, and get rolling. When the actual event or gig happens, he hires in the people that he needs. I'm particularly thinking of a corporate media services company here (because you mentioned "_____ Group" and that was this "company" name), that used to compete with all the big A/V companies. Some of them, like CB,I, had over 100 employees... but they would still hire in the odd camera man or director or extra high rigger. So what is the difference between a company that has 100 employees, or has only one, when they both employ outside workers anyway? If the end customer gets the job that he needs.... and if you think about it, the "one man" guy can hire an 'expert' in this that or the other thing, while the owner of a larger business is going to use whatever guy he employs who may or may not be able to fake his way through the job. (for example, the job uses a Kurtzweil, but your employee is only familiar with programming a Roland.... you send him rather than pay a guy who knows Kurtzweil. The one man shop can hire a guy who knows Kurtzweil, since he has to hire from outside anyway).

And typically around here the jazz groups aren't really groups. If Bill books the gig, it's the "Bill Trio" and Bill calls George and Fred. If Fred books the gig, it's "Freds Foursome", and he calls Bill and Charlie and George. etc etc.

From the outside it may look like self agrandizement. And it could be that. But for some competent small operators who can't generate enough business to maintain a full staff full time, it may just be good business.

Consider the client for a moment. The client likes dealing with the boss. He likes thinking that he has the inside track. But he also likes to assume that there is a vast network of drones slaving away to accomplish his needs. It gives him comfort.

And sometimes it is just a matter of 'things change'. Welcome Home Studios started out as me, recording me in my living room. It grew, and morphed into "Bills Bedroom Studios", an in joke among those who recorded there.

But it slowly grew to the point where it got it's own 'house', and a handful of almost regular employees. Until I got tired of spending my time doing paperwork instead of recording, while others got to have all the fun. Then I stopped taking new work, and only serviced old employees. Back to a one man operation.

Finally left the studio entirely, but I still go by Bill@WelomeHomeStudios.com; because that is how so many people know me. (shrug...)

So, at the heart of it I am always a little suspicious of one man operations. But if I stop and think about it for a minute, -I- have been "That Guy" at times, myself. And I feel that my basic independence over the years has helped me to do a better job for my customers than I would have had I just taken some straight path. It has forced me to learn and grow, and allowed me the freedom to make quick decisions and react in a way that larger entities were unable to handle.

a lot to think about, and a bigger question than it appeared.

To answer the question, it could be all of the above.

Depending on the type of business (sole proprietorship or Limited Liability Company (LLC), an individual may not want to tie it directly to their name especially if they are concerned with legal action.

As far as titles go, I think Aidan hit on it. People follow "industry standards". So, if the flavor of the month is owner, CEO, CFO or HAW (Head A** Wipe), folks will run with it.

Entertainers work under their given name or at least the one they made up.

Otherwise, I imagine it would be hard to book a job in Vegas under the birth name Tom Jones.

However, putting Group, CEO or HAW on the end, potential clients automatically know you're not that guy.

I ran a sole propreitorship business for years, doing various forms of electronic service. When I began doing contract instruction, due to the increased risk of lawsuits (not only because of the field, but also just that lawsuits are commonly filed nowadays compared to earlier), I wanted some legal protection of my own personal assets (home particularly). At the time, the only two structures that provided that legal protection were LLC and Corporation. LLC was fairly new then, so I went with Corporation.

Different states have different laws regarding just how many people minimum can start a corporation, and what their legal titles must be. My first corporation was in Virginia - at the time their requirement minimum was President and Corporate Secretary. We chose to make my wife President of the company, and I became the Corporate Secretary. I STILL sign any legal document, including checks, as Corporate Secretary, although that is not my chosen title for day-to-day running the company. In the US, there are benefits to having a woman-owned (or certain minorities owned) corporation.

Legally, I cannot really call myself "owner," although my wife and I each own 50% of the corporation - doing so would "pierce the corporate veil," which is the legal term for doing something hat allows all the liability to pass through to me personally just like if I was still running a sole proprietorship.

My "title" printed on business cards and on my web site is "C.O.O" (chief operations officer) - which is approximately equal to General Manager. Like several have mentioned, I'm pretty much a one-man operation day to day, sub-contracting (when possible - hiring if needed) temporary help as needed. I make no effort to confuse or deceive in this - but it is pretty much a business necessity in our legal climate.

I could hire full-time employees and build the business to a point to keep them generating enough revenue to draw my own compensation - but at age 68, I'm not really interested in doing that. The business is part-time, I don't want to have clients that depend on me for 24/7 operations (I don't turn them down, just set the rate high enough that no one has accepted it yet - if someone does, I'll either sub it out for part of the revenue or hire if there is enough of it, and still make enough out of it to smile).

One benefit in dealing with a one-man company - that one person has to do very good work - or else the company goes down the tubes. If you are an individual musician that is a side-man, you are pretty much a one-man company - you may not think of it that way - but you are selling your product - your ability to function as a certain part of a group at an above minimum required competency.

I think that it also does not take long to separate the men from the boys. Look at the number of 'studios' out there. EVERYBODY owns a 'studio'. Doesn't take long to figure out what they can and cannot do. Sometimes you don't have to go there, sometimes you do. Sometimes you need to hear their work. But most often, you can read their jive, and that will tell you right off the bat, and looking at picture of the rooms can be very revealing.

So someone can CALL himself anything that he wants to, but not long after he starts, if he is any good then people will speak of him with respect or at least curiosity. If he sucks, people will pretty much just raise their eyes or say something like, "oh... him....."

my buddy Dan, when he opened his cabinet shop, didn't know quite what to put on the various forms and such that sk your title. Finally, he hit upon the answer, and has used it for 35 years. He puts "BOSS".

My one man business card:

For my self-designed and self-maintained website:
Klonk Here

+1 on what MoodyBluesKeys said, plus one more thing I don't think anyone has mentioned. In many industries, people don't take one man operations seriously. My business was electronic engineering - primarily in flight simulation - and my customers were all major airlines, so it behooved me to present as substantial a front as possible. Once I established myself as a vendor, it became less important, but for getting a foot in the door, bigger is better.

There's nothing wrong with puffery in self-promotion so long as it's not deceptive to the point of harm.

Isn't this what you do as a struggling musician in order to get gigs -- overplay the importance/attendance of former gigs? Or as a worker trying to get a better job -- to "polish" up one's resume to make previous positions look like adequate prep for the job you want? Or when you selectively recount former relationships when you meet a woman you want to date?

Everyone does it all the time, and as long as it's not outright lying or a con game, it's fairly harmless. Everyone wants to improve their lives, and everyone knows that brutal honesty can be more detrimental than helpful.

It's for this reason that I disagree with the notion that "image isn't important". It's not everything, of course, but it goes a long way towards attracting the kind of relationships, jobs, and clientele you know will improve those aspects of your life. You just need to be able to live up to that image given the opportunity -- or fake it really, really well until you can!

Man, what I wouldn't do for one of those..

Lots of good points made, already; the conclusion: It depends.

CA, like many states, allows one-person corporations and LLCs. For tax and/or risk avoidance reasons, many businesses benefit from incorporating or inLLCing. That one person owner of the corp carries the titles of president, secretary, and treasurer. On some documents (licenses, contracts, leases, etc), those titles may have to be included. In such cases, it may be purely a "smart" business approach.

That doesn't mean every conversation, letter, biz card and web site has to throw these terms at you.

I work in the construction field and I've come to the conclusion that the larger the "boss"'s truck the smaller the operation.

I "suffer" from the opposite problem - I have been a self-employed piano tuner/tech for over 20 years.

99% of my new work is gained through recommendation, but as a 'reference', I have my name in the Yellow pages/Yell.com.

I can't even begin to imagine how many times over the years I've received letters addressed to 'the Manager/Managing Director' etc, etc.....

or phone calls asking if they could speak to 'the person in charge of PR/accounts' etc, etc.....

It's a pain in the a** - and this is when I'm trying to keep my one-man business just that.

I wouldn't like to think what it might be like if I tried to 'market' myself as some big company !!!

Self-flattery and hyperbole and "maximization" in marketing are so commonplace as to be requisite, which is certainly a shame. Who ever thought modesty, humility and circumspection would be activism?

There are ethical lines here, and most of these sins are of exaggeration, not fabrication. In Academia there is the phenomenon of grade inflation, wherein students, collectively, inform the institution that because we pay you $50,000 a year, the caprice of your vain, half-committed and self-involved faculty is NOT going to cost us opportunities and earning power down the road; therefore, "B" is now average or slightly below...and it worked, even at Yale.

And title inflation. I once sat at table in the offices a major (albeit failing) US investment company, explaining along with my colleagues how we were going to make their website "really pop..." heh... and I swear there were at least 12 27-year-old Vice Presidents in attendance. Crazy.

Dave H.,

Seems like a trivial thing to get worked up over. I'm guessing you're not losing sleep over it, but really anything short of that level of irritation is too much in my opinion.

What would you suggest a person do if they started a 3-person company called Smith & Associates and then after a while the associates left leaving just Smith? Should he then have to change the name of the company? Also, really, even a one-man business requires the involvement of others (usually other companies that he pays), so even on a technicality standpoint, it doesn't bother me. What if it's a husband-wife team? Do they get to be Parker & Associates? Or should it be Parker & Associate?

With the number of small businesses out there these days, the title CEO always needs to be looked at critically. Quite honestly, the one-man CEOs often understand the totality of their business more than a blue-chip CEO does anyway (though not always, which is why not all small businesses make it).

If I saw your card, not knowing anything about you, I would assume it was a small operation, anyway.
I don't see this as deceit, unless you don't actually HAVE any recording equipment! LOL
If you can get the job done, and do good quality work at a reasonable price in a reasonable time frame, that's all that matters. You gave the customer his money's worth.
You might even be able to devote more time to an individual customer than a big studio with a thousand clients... though that's a big assumption on my part... correct me if I'm wrong... LOL!

I went back and read my initial post. I thought it an interesting topic and one that others would find interesting as well.

It takes all kinds - those who over represent themselves by calling their one man business .... Group to those at the complete opposite end of the spectrum who have no identity whatsoever.





Well said!

I just HATE this obsession people have with titles. People have way too much to prove. I know that as a musician with a regular outlet for expression, most of us don't feel the need for self-flattery or bullshitting to try and impress others in our day to day lives.

When people ask what do I do for a living, I tell them simply I'm a musician. The inevitable follow up question is "Do you have an album?" Which is like asking an actor if he's written a script. Yeah, I could have my own album (I don't btw), but if I did I wouldn't necessarily be making money off of it. If anything it would have likely cost me time & money to produce it and get it mastered, etc.

People just don't understand the freelance part of being a player. Picking up gigs with different bands, artists, musicals, studio work, jingles, etc. They automatically think you need to be part of a band like Green Day to actually be making a living.

People probably ask "do you have an album" out of friendly interest. They might even want to buy it!

Yes, there are definitely people out there who make a living as freelancers or members of an orchestra, and/or teaching.

But it's not realistic to expect people who never played for a living what it's like. How much do most of us know about the realities of being a professional football player or stockbroker?

Yep I suppose it's sometimes easy to forget that folks who aren't involved in your own 'world' -be it music or anything else-

often ask the most basic questions.

If someone asks if you've got a record out, then you should take it as a compliment really .


It's better than the one I've had numerous times when I tell people I'm a piano tuner......

"I thought you had to be blind to do that?" ! ! !

.

LOL! That's a good one!

This goes well beyond titles or descriptions associated with one-man businesses. I think part of it starts with the way "career counselors" advise you to promote your strong points in certain ways on your resume to get employers' attention. Typically this involves over use of the word "Managed", and other similarities. They try to get you to use key words anywhere you can to get attention.

It goes both ways. I got a call from a recruiter recently for a "Sales Manager" position. I've been in Industrial Technical Sales for 13 years and am very happy where I am, but I thought, well a promotion to manager, I should at least check it out. The more questions I asked, the more I realized, it was just another sales job. "Well you wouldn't be managing people, you'd be managing the accounts". OK, never mind.

I think the key in any case, no matter what it is, in this day and age, you have to ask a lot of questions and make sure you fully understand with whom you are working.

Haha, I just had lunch a couple of weeks ago with an old coworker who is now President of surname-group, the surname being his own. I asked and he actually has zero employees.

It is sort of like the royal we.