The most common content strategy is essentially:

Publish useful things consistently and hope the right people find them.

That’s not exactly a strategy. It’s more of a production schedule spiked with optimism.

The problem isn’t the content itself. Most expertise-based businesses produce content that’s genuinely valuable. The …

Read more

Matt has been freelancing for three years. He’s a good writer, maybe even a great one at times, and he knows more about content marketing than most of the people who hire him. That’s part of the problem.

Clients come to Matt for words. They negotiate on price, ask for revisions, compare him to AI tools, and treat his work as a commodity. Matt kn…

Read more

There’s no such thing as free lunch traffic.

Every subscriber on your list got there because you spent something. It was either time creating content that earned organic discovery, money on paid promotion that drove direct response, or some combination of both.

The question isn’t whether to invest. It’s which form of investm…

Read more

In the early 1950s, Philip Morris had a problem.

New science showed that smoking was dangerous, and cigarette makers scrambled to offer filtered products, which people mistakenly believed were safer.

But filters created a second problem, because everyone assumed they were for women. Philip Morris had, in fact, been marketing a filtered cigarette to women since 1924.

The brand was Marlboro, and it featured the slogan “Mild as May.”

The Leo Burnett agency was hired to reposition Marlboro and filtered cigarettes in general, and firm founder Burnett made an unusual call. He didn’t address the health concerns. He didn’t mention the brand’s history as a “ladies’ cigarette” at all.

Instead, he amplified an identity so overwhelmingly masculine that the history and the health data both became irrelevant.

Enter the Marlboro Man… sea captains, weightlifters, war correspondents, construction workers, and eventually, that classic cowboy.

Within a year, Marlboro’s market share went from less than 1% to the fourth best-selling brand in the country. As they continued to gain traction, Philip Morris dropped every other manly archetype and let the cowboy ride alone for the next 45 years.

Nobody was buying Marlboro for the filtered cigarettes. They were buying a rugged, all-American-man identity. The cigarette was just how that identity was broadcast.

In 1965, Mick Jagger referenced this phenomenon with a single line in (I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction:

He can’t be a man because he doesn’t smoke the same cigarettes as me.

Jagger was almost certainly singing about Marlboro. The sarcasm works because the campaign had already succeeded so completely. Over the course of a decade, a brand of cigarettes had become shorthand for masculinity itself.

By 1972, Marlboro had ascended to the top of the tobacco industry. Not with features, benefits, or health claims. Identity.

People Like Us Buy Things Like This

Savvy marketers have tied products and services to personal identity for at least a century, because it works. In our consumerist culture, we are what we buy, and we buy what we are.

The internet has accelerated identity as the fundamental criteria for both how we present ourselves and how we choose. Decisions get made daily based on whether “people like us” do this thing or that, and that applies to every purchase — consumer or B2B — at every price point.

In the mass-market “Mad Men” days, “people like us” got drawn as broadly as possible. Marlboro’s ideal customer profile wasn’t even limited to “men who smoked,” because they were intentionally attracting new smokers on a regular basis, often at a young, impressionable age.

Now days, segments are more narrow than ever, and companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars trying to match the right identity to the right product. For example, Michelob Ultra invested heavily in becoming the choice for an “I run marathons and also want a beer” identity.

As solopreneurs, we obviously don’t have that kind of budget. But the smarter marketing approach gives you something more powerful than Philip Morris ever had.

You get your prospects to strongly identify with you as a person, before you ever make an offer to buy. In an age of technological alienation, that human connection is more valuable than it’s ever been.

Shared values, worldview, and identity give you an “unfair advantage” before you’ve even made a pitch. You become the only logical choice by making the right emotional connection.

Some small businesses succeed on this foundation alone, especially in client services. But you can go deeper by understanding identity at a structural level in your copy, your offers, and even your product/service design.

The Two Identity Roles You Must Understand

The “Leading” Expert has to unequivocally define who’s in the group and who’s not, right from the start. You do that by demonstrating your core values and stating a point of view that’s congruent with the prospect’s problem.

When it comes to the persuasive elements of your offer, you’ll want to amplify the desired identification and effectively transfer their shared identity with you onto your product or service. You do this by aligning your offer with the desired role the product or service helps the prospect play.

In other words, you help the prospect define themselves within their worldview. Your copy has to reflect the qualities they already see in themselves, or the ones they’re reaching for.

How do you do that? The first step is to understand two crucial identity roles.

1. Aspiration

With aspirational roles, the prospect wants to reach their ideal self or reinforce how they already see themselves in the context of the problem you solve. It’s the social status that comes from how people perceive them going forward, not the feature list.

These roles show up as self-designations: “intellectual,” “fashionable,” “pragmatic,” “progressive,” “accomplished,” “tech-savvy.” You hand these qualities back to the prospect to confirm that the purchase reinforces them or gets them there.

Take someone buying a Spanish course six months before a planned trip with friends to Medellín, Colombia. The features of the course involve the mechanics of quickly obtaining a certain proficiency in another language.

The benefits include being able to communicate with non-English-speaking people in over 20 countries where Spanish is the primary language, plus general benefits such as enhanced cognitive abilities, increased neuroplasticity in the brain, and a boost in memory and creativity.

But take it further and look more closely at the primary motivators: the surprise and admiration from co-travelers, the de facto group leadership that comes from being the one who can actually speak to people, the status of being “the multilingual one.”

Marlboro sold aspiration, too. Nobody buying their first pack in 1955 was already a cowboy. They were buying the chance to feel like one.

2. Achievement

Achievement roles aim to celebrate and reinforce a status that the prospect has already reached. Luxury items immediately come to mind, but there’s a much broader realm of achievement identities to account for.

Identity roles here include “successful business owner,” “college graduate,” “homeowner,” “attorney,” “executive,” “civic leader,” “patron of the arts,” or “philanthropist.” With achievement roles, you first establish the accomplishment as an exclusive baseline that allows them to enhance their status with your product or service.

The signal goes beyond “I can afford this,” and ascends to “I belong to this group.”

While aspirational identity is offered to the many, achievement identity is inherently defined by exclusivity. And it’s that natural gatekeeping that motivates the right prospects to raise their hand and claim their membership in the next level of the “club.”

Start With What They Already Believe

The Marlboro Man worked because Leo Burnett didn’t try to change anyone’s mind.

You’re never trying to change or ignore what your prospect believes, even when their belief works against you. A negative belief is an objection, and every copywriter knows objections get addressed, not buried.

Philip Morris had one belief working in their favor. Men generally already believed that smoking was manly.

The attitude wasn’t created when the campaign began, because that’s a much more difficult task. Instead, it was recognized, and the entire campaign was designed to reinforce and amplify that attitude instead of arguing against the health data or the brand’s actual history.

Start with what people already believe. Then amplify the part of that belief that already works for you.

It’s Easier Than You Think

Using the Marlboro Man as an example may seem unfair, given that it’s one of the most iconic archetypes in advertising history. But it’s really pretty straightforward when you see the process.

It’s even easier when you’re highly in tune with your audience and exist within the same worldview as they do. Between 2007 and 2017, I created at least one new product every year, and they all succeeded without a single misfire. While I won’t say it didn’t take work, the answers were always right there in front of me thanks to my congruence with the audience.

People want to solve their problems. They want to buy from people they trust. And they want to become who they want to be or reinforce who they are with their purchases.

Marlboro didn’t sell cigarettes. It sold the image of a cowboy, and let smokers do the rest… buying into that identity every time they lit up.

What are you really selling?

Leave a comment

Keep going-

Brian

P.S. People trust and follow those they perceive as fundamentally similar to themselves. Not people they admire from a distance, but people who are “us.”

A “leading” expert is not the person with the best credentials or the foremost academic authority. You become a leading expert by being the person people want to follow.

Leading Expert Launchpad teaches you how to craft content and messages that do more than demonstrate your expertise. They connect with your intended audience in a highly profitable human way.

Get all the details here.

further: flashback

🎶 Blondie – Heart Of Glass, Parallel Lines, 1978 🎶

Blondie was part of New York’s punk and new wave scenes, subcultures that loathed disco. And yet, in 1978 Blondie did disco on their own terms with Heart of Glass and not only got away with it — they broke big and kept going. (YouTube)

further: sharing

Enjoy this issue? Please forward this email to friends or share by clicking below:

Share

Or you can earn access to Further Premium by recommending Further in general.

Grab your unique referral code here.

Thank you for sharing Further!

There’s a version of “building an audience” that feels productive but produces almost nothing of lasting value. Follower counts go up. Engagement metrics look encouraging. Content gets shared.

And yet when it comes time to sell something, or when the platform changes its rules, the audience that seemed so substantial turns out to be borrowed rather than built.

Social media followers are not your audience. They’re the platform’s audience. You have access to them on the platform’s terms, for as long as the platform finds it useful to give you that access. The moment your interests diverge from the platform’s revenue model, that access diminishes.

This is not a new insight. It’s the same lesson digital entrepreneurs learned the hard way when Facebook completed its bait-and-switch around 2010: They encouraged you to build an audience on the platform for free, then required you to pay to reach the audience you built.

The same thing happened on Twitter, LinkedIn, and YouTube. Every platform that offers free organic reach eventually monetizes that reach at the expense of the people who built it.

An email list is different in kind, not just degree. When someone gives you their email address, they’ve made a choice to receive communication from you directly, in their inbox, on their own schedule.

No algorithm decides whether they see your message. No platform policy determines your reach. No acquisition or pivot by a tech company affects your ability to communicate with the people who’ve chosen to hear from you.

The email list is the one audience asset you actually own. Everything else is a distribution channel that exists at someone else’s discretion.

The Traffic Problem

So email is king, but understanding that is only half the equation. The other half of the problem is what’s made building an email list genuinely difficult over the past several years.

Read more

On September 3, 2018, Nike put Colin Kaepernick’s face on an ad with these words underneath it:

Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything.

That’s either the bravest tagline in modern advertising history or a very expensive dare, depending on who you ask. A lot of people felt like answering.

Within hours, Nike customers were filming themselves burning their own shoes. A photo of a pair of destroyed Nike socks went viral. Even the President of the United States weighed in, which is not usually a marketing outcome brands are chasing.

By every visible signal, Nike had made a catastrophic call. Then the numbers came in.

Online sales jumped 31 percent over that Labor Day weekend, nearly double the increase from the year before. By the end of the quarter, revenue was up 10 percent, and North American sales were up 9 percent. When Nike reported those results in December, the stock jumped over 7 percent in a single day, even as most of the market fell.

The people burning their shoes were never Nike’s ideal customer. Nike didn’t lose them. They identified them, told them they didn’t belong, and let them go… for the purpose of connecting more strongly with the customers Nike valued.

That’s essentially the whole lesson. The only tragic aspect of this story is that Colin Kaepernick did sacrifice everything, even though he eventually sparked a movement years later as the murder of George Floyd brought things to a head.

Meanwhile, most business owners try desperately to avoid any situation resembling what Nike did on purpose. And they’re the ones making the mistake.

It doesn’t have to be political or involve social justice. Simply put, you have to stand firmly for something that’s relevant to the problem you solve.

The Paradox of Broad Appeal

Marketing is all about appealing to as many people as possible, right? It feels like math.

More potential clients equals more revenue. Say the safest possible version of your message, and you can’t offend anyone, which means you can’t lose anyone.

Except it works exactly the opposite of that.

Content created to offend no one connects with no one. A message engineered to be inoffensive to everyone is, by definition, engineered to be unremarkable to everyone.

You can’t stand for something in a way that matters to the people who need it most without simultaneously standing against something, in a way that some people really won’t like.

The wrong people not liking you isn’t a marketing failure. It’s the signal working correctly.

Everyone Needs a Villain

Marketing that actually moves people has a villain. Generally, the villain is not a person. Usually, it’s a concept, or the old way of doing things, or a status quo that’s failed the people you’re trying to reach.

When you have a villain, you almost always exclude or repel some people in order to connect with the people you’re after more strongly. Other times, you’re simply naming an “enemy” for your prospects to rally against.

In the first category, Apple ran perhaps the most famous example for four straight years. Justin Long as the cool, creative Mac. John Hodgman as the dorky, virus-prone PC.

Apple wasn’t trying to convince hardcore PC loyalists to switch, because people in that category were never going to. The campaign targeted the much larger group of people who didn’t yet have a strong preference and asked them a single question dressed up as a joke:

Which one of these guys is more like you?

By the end of the first year of the campaign, Apple had sold 1.6 million Macs and had grown sales by 39 percent. The PC nerd never actually had to lose the argument. He just had to make the choice obvious to the “swing buyers” Apple was after.

An example of creating a common enemy takes us back to the 1980s with the Noid, a red-suited creature whose entire purpose was to destroy your pizza before it arrived. He never won, and no one was on his side, because that wasn’t the point.

The Noid dimensionalized a real anxiety: slow delivery and cold pizza, a problem people already had but hadn’t put a name to. Domino’s gave that abstract threat a name, a face, and a catchphrase: Avoid the Noid.

Decades later, Allstate did the same thing with Mayhem, a character who personifies every disaster insurance exists to cover. Nobody wants to think about coverage until Mayhem gives catastrophe a face. And with him standing in the corner, grinning as the tree falls on the car, you understand why you’re paying for the policy.

When you want to stand for something, you should also name what you stand against. And if you end up repelling the wrong audience, that isn’t a side effect of otherwise good marketing; it’s the driving mechanism.

But people still resist. They hesitate to take a strong, clear position out of fear of “losing” someone.

Without that strong message and the resulting villain, though, your fear costs you the best part of the audience you could have not only kept, but also converted into customers and clients.

The Art of Standing for Something

You’ve likely caught on to the fact that you’re not really trying to be repellent. You don’t have to try to push some people away, as long as you actually stand for something.

So why do so many cling to the “safe” message? The one that doesn’t name an enemy, doesn’t ask anyone to pick a side, doesn’t risk negativity in the comment section. It’s tempting because it seems to protect your reach.

It doesn’t protect your reach. It cripples it.

Nike didn’t grow revenue and the stock price in 2018 because they found a way to please everyone. They grew because they were willing to lose customers who didn’t share their values, in exchange for becoming the unmistakable choice for those who would become even bigger fans because of that single ad.

Apple didn’t win over PC loyalists; the “Get a Mac” campaign made them despise Apple even more. But they also made an entire generation of swing users see exactly who they wanted to become, and who they didn’t. The aura of being the “cool” choice spilled over to the smartphone and tablet battles, just in time for Apple to become the largest company in the world for the first time in 2011.

The art of repellent marketing is simply marketing done right. It may be hard to accept at first, but when your messages start to hit with the right people, you’ll see it in action.

The key is to know who you’re repelling, and to do it on purpose. Then watch as everyone else slowly loses the people who matter most while trying not to lose anyone at all.

Leave a comment

Keep going-

Brian

P.S. Further Premium members are in the process of figuring out what they stand for, who their villain is, and how to build a movement around the people who identify with both thanks to Leading Expert Launchpad. Join us for the course and much more.

further: flashback

🎶 The Bottom Line – Big Audio Dynamite, This is Big Audio Dynamite, 1985 🎶

The first time I heard Big Audio Dynamite, it was The Bottom Line on an awesome mixtape someone made for me in early 1986. By the time I bought the cassette and heard E = MC² a month later I realized, “Hey, this is Mick Jones from The Clash!” Life was different before the internet, kids. (YouTube)

further: sharing

Enjoy this issue? Please forward this email to friends or share by clicking below:

Share

Or you can earn access to Further Premium by recommending Further in general.

Grab your unique referral code here.

Thank you for sharing Further!

The instinct to appeal to as many people as possible is almost universal among service providers building an audience. It feels like easy math: More potential clients equals more revenue. The problem is that it works in reverse.

When you try to appeal to everyone, you stand for nothing in particular. Content written to displeas…

Read more

Every expert carries it. The longer you’ve worked in your field, the more automatic your understanding becomes, and the harder it is to remember what the problem felt like before you knew how to solve it.

This creates some specific failures in thought leadership: Publishing content that’s technically accurate but emotionally disconnected. Assuming a level of understanding that the audience doesn’t have. Skipping over the feelings that make people care about solutions in the first place. And addressing the problem from the outside rather than from the perspective of someone who’s still living with it.

Your audience doesn’t experience their problem the way you understand it. They experience it as confusion, frustration, embarrassment, anxiety, or resignation. They don’t see the solution clearly yet. They may not even have the vocabulary to describe what’s wrong precisely. They just know something isn’t working, and they’re tired of it.

Read more

Most businesses define their audience by characteristics like age, income, job title, location, and industry. This information isn’t useless, just incomplete, because it describes who your audience is, not how they see the world. And how they see the world is what determines whether your content lands or disappears.

A worldview is a set of beliefs, values, and attitudes that shape how a person interprets everything they encounter.

Two people can be identical demographically and have completely different worldviews.

Two people can come from completely different backgrounds and share a worldview so completely that they feel immediate recognition when they encounter each other’s thinking.

Movements are organized around worldviews, not demographics. The people who joined Bitcoin early weren’t unified by age or income or geography. They were unified by a foundational set of beliefs about money, sovereignty, and institutional trust.

The people who turned Patagonia into a cult brand weren’t unified by occupation. They were unified by values about environmental responsibility and a particular relationship with the outdoors.

When you define your ideal audience by worldview rather than demographics, everything changes. You stop asking, “Who has this problem?” and start asking, “Who shares this belief?”

The first question leads to a market. The second leads to a movement.

Read more

Most people, when they hear “mission,” think of the two-sentence paragraph on an About page that nobody reads. That’s not what this lesson is about.

Mission, in the context of the Leading Expert Framework, is the why that underpins everything. Not what you constructed for marketing purposes, but the actual reason you do …

Read more

Most service providers position themselves as the hero.

They lead with credentials, accomplishments, years of experience, and notable clients. They build their websites around what they’ve done. Their content is about what they know. Their sales conversations are about what they can offer.

None of this is wrong, exactly. It’s just answering the wrong question.

The prospect isn’t asking, “What have you done?” They’re asking, “Do you understand what I’m dealing with?” And until that question is answered, every credential and case study lands in a void.

Read more

Three lessons in, you have the fundamentals.

You understand why unity is the highest form of influence, and why movements are how it operates at scale.

You know what kind of business you’re building and the marketing challenge that comes with it. You can’t advertise judgment, and you can’t content-market your way to trust, without something deeper underneath it.

And you have a clear sense of what a winning difference is and why claiming yours — naming it, stating it, making it visible — is the move that separates movement leaders from interchangeable service providers.

What you don’t have yet is the system that puts it all into practice.

That’s what this lesson delivers.

Read more

Most service providers try to win by being better.

Better credentials. More experience. Higher-quality deliverables. A longer track record.

These things matter, but leading with them puts you in a comparison set with everyone else making the same claims. “Better” is a contest you’re always at risk of losing, because someone can always show up with more credentials, more years, more case studies.

Author Sally Hogshead put it simply: different is better than better.

But let me qualify that by saying we’re not talking about being different for its own sake. I mean different in a way that’s meaningful to a specific group of people, that resonates with a shared worldview, a shared frustration, and a shared belief about how things should work.

That kind of difference can’t be copied by adding a credential or undercutting on price. It lives in who you are and what you actually believe.

This is what I call the winning difference. Not the most impressive version of what already exists, but a genuinely distinct position that makes the right people feel like you’re the only person who really gets it.

What the Schlitz Story Actually Teaches

Hopkins didn’t invent anything. He also didn’t improve the beer. He found something true that no one had bothered to say, and he said it first.

Read more

“Services as software” is getting a lot of attention from venture capitalists right now, and it means two very different things depending on who’s using the phrase.

The VC version: Identify a service that runs on repeatable, rules-based tasks and replace the humans with AI. Autopilot. Little to no human judgment required. That’s a legitimate business category. It’s also not what you’re building.

What you’re building is the other version, which the VC firm Sequoia specifically carves out when it talks about management consulting: services where human judgment is a big part of the product. That is, the practice of applying expertise to a specific person’s or organization’s situation to improve their performance or help them achieve their objectives.

So swap “management consulting” in the previous paragraph for whatever your expertise actually is — coaching, strategy, creative direction, financial planning, organizational design — and the definition holds. If you’re being paid for your judgment, you’re in this category.

AI amplifies that kind of work. It doesn’t replace it. That’s the model Sovereign Startup Foundations established, and it’s the model this course builds on.

Read more

Most people who’ve spent time studying marketing know Cialdini’s six principles of influence: reciprocity, authority, social proof, liking, scarcity, and the combined elements of commitment and consistency. They’re a useful map of how persuasion works.

In 2016, Cialdini added a seventh. He called it unity, and he described it as the most powerful of all.

That’s a significant claim given the strength of the other six. So it’s worth understanding precisely what unity is, and why it sits above the rest.

Unity is not simply “liking” at a higher intensity. It’s categorically different.

The principle of liking is based on shared attributes: You like someone because you share a trait, a background, a preference, or a sense of humor. Similarity produces liking. That’s not to discount liking; it’s real, and it matters.

But unity operates on a different mechanism entirely.

Read more

Module 1 establishes the foundation: why this model works, what you’re actually building, and the complete framework you’ll use. No exercises yet. Just the conceptual grounding that makes the rest of the course land correctly.

Module 2 is about your people: who you’re leading, what they believe, what they’re afraid of, and what they need from someone in your position. This is the deep audience work most people skip, and skipping it is why most content doesn’t connect.

Module 3 is the platform: how you actually build an audience and attract clients. What works in the current environment, what’s a frustrating “treadmill,” and the infrastructure that turns your positioning into a business.

Module 4 is the offer: how to map the experience you create, structure what you sell, and build something that compounds over time rather than resets every month.

The capstone is your Leading Expert Blueprint, which is the working document you assemble from all four modules. You leave with a plan, not a collection of notes.

Join Further Premium today before the price rises to $295 later this month.

Back in 1982, development began on a very different kind of film.

For one thing, only three members of the over 20-member cast were professional actors (and one of them just barely). At times, the dialogue clearly demonstrated that lack of expertise.

In fact, most of the cast were musicians in real life. And while the tunes are definitely exceptional, this is no glorified music video. There’s a real story, with real stakes.

The film was called Purple Rain. And it helped launch its headliner, Prince Rogers Nelson, into that elite stratosphere known as superstardom.

During filming, director Albert Magnoli told Prince he needed one more song for a mid-movie montage that touched on the film’s core theme of recurring relational conflict. Prince delivered two finished tracks the very next day, one of which was called “When Doves Cry.”

Magnoli was delighted. Prince decided the song would also be the lead single.

There was just one all-too-familiar problem.

The record company didn’t like it. Not generally, and certainly not as the lead single that would play a huge role in whether the album and film opened big or not.

“You need to back me with Warner Brothers on this,” Prince told Magnoli. “They said they want me to make it a ‘real’ song.”

Magnoli had no reservations, stating unequivocally, “This is the song.”

You can almost understand why Warner Brothers executives were concerned. “When Doves Cry” is unconventional to say the least, with a stark, almost austere texture that nonetheless captures attention immediately.

Never mind that there’s no bassline, which was pretty nuts for a pop song in the 80s.

Here’s the twist. Prince later revealed that there was a bassline at first, but he decided that with it, the song was too conventional. So he took it out.

His goal was to release a song that sounded like nothing else that was on the radio. He succeeded in more ways than one.

“Nobody believed that this was going to be such a catalyst for the kind of success that it had,” author Alan Light said. “To be able to do something that experimental and that bold, and have it be that popular and connect that universally, it’s just unbelievable.”

The track that was written and recorded by Prince alone in an evening became his very first No. 1 single. It stayed at the top of the U.S. charts for five weeks, and also became a worldwide hit on its way to becoming the biggest single of 1984.

Even more impressive is the enduring recognition. Spin magazine ranked “When Doves Cry” the No. 6 song of all time. It occupies number 37 on Rolling Stone‘s list of the 500 Greatest Songs of All Time. The song is also included in The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame’s 500 Songs that Shaped Rock and Roll.

Not bad for an “unconventional” song that the record company hated. But the truth is, it happens that way more often than you’d think. And it’s not that unbelievable.

Different Is Better Than Better

Most expertise-based business owners try to win by being better.

Better credentials. More experience. Higher-quality deliverables. A longer track record.

All good things, but leading with them puts you in a comparison set with everyone else making the same claims. “Better” is a contest you’re always at risk of losing, because someone can always show up with more credentials, more years, or more case studies.

Author Sally Hogshead put it simply: Different is better than better.

But let me qualify that by saying we’re not talking about being different for its own sake. I mean different in a way that’s meaningful to a specific group of people, that resonates with a shared worldview, a shared frustration, and a shared belief about how things should work.

That kind of difference can’t be copied by adding a credential or undercutting on price. It lives in who you are and what you actually believe.

Exactly as with Prince and “When Doves Cry.” Unlike Warner Brothers, Prince understood that the audience could more than handle something they hadn’t heard before.

This is what I call the winning difference. Not the most impressive version of what already exists, but a genuinely distinct position that makes the right people feel like you’re the only person who really gets it.

Sadly, most people and certainly most businesses are more like Warner Brothers than Prince. They default to the conventional approach and prefer to conform to the norm, even as they repeatedly see that the “next big thing” always goes against the status quo.

When it comes to Prince, you might say this anecdote isn’t relevant to you. He was a musical genius, so many people think he was an exception to “the rules.”

While his prodigious songwriting talent and amazing proficiency as a multi-instrumentalist are not in dispute, it’s not Prince’s credentials that made the difference.

Prince chose to be unconventional for another reason. And that was his values.

Values Are Your Foundation

Prince didn’t want to sound like anything else on the radio. He valued that, because it meshed with one of his core values… innovation.

But he also knew that being different led to success. After all, he’d been doing things differently his entire career. And he knew the right people became fans when they encountered what was different about him and his music.

A winning difference does the same thing with your prospects. It doesn’t just describe what you do. It gives people a signal they can act on because it connects to something both you and they value.

This is why positioning that’s built on genuine values outlasts claims about expertise or features. Claims can be countered. Features can be matched.

But values, when they’re authentically yours and clearly expressed, create a kind of recognition in the right people that’s almost instantaneous. These people don’t have to be convinced, because they already believe.

They were just waiting for someone to say it clearly… without that distracting bassline of conformity.

Leave a comment

Keep going-

Brian

P.S. If you’re ready to find the winning difference for your own solo business, check out Sovereign Startup Foundations. Your unique wiring, your unique expertise, your unique purpose, all wrapped up with AI-augmentation that allows you to do more… as only you can do it.

further: flashback

🎶 Big Country – In A Big Country, The Crossing, 1983 🎶

We’ve left Scotland today on a train for Amsterdam, so it’s only fitting to crank up In a Big Country. Contrary to what many think, there are no bagpipes in this song… the band managed to tune their guitars to sound like them. As for the video, the Scottish Highlands really are that amazing, but what’s in the box? (YouTube)

further: sharing

Enjoy this issue? Please forward this email to friends or share by clicking below:

Share

Or you can earn access to Further Premium by recommending Further in general.

Grab your unique referral code here.

Thank you for sharing Further!

We’re having another Q&A session this coming Monday to discuss Sovereign Startup Foundations. Questions, comments, and general insights welcome.

There’s also a chat thread to ask those questions and start discussions. You can find that here.

The session will happen Monday, June 29, 2006 at noon EST / 9am Pacific / 5pm UK.

That’s my final day in …

Read more

Last week in The Protein Pendulum, we saw the crucial macronutrient go from Victorian obsession to wartime ration to low-fat-era afterthought. Now the science has caught up, and unsurprisingly, it turns out the truth is more nuanced than any of those swings suggested.

Three things in particular matter more than most people realize:

• Not all protein is the same,

• Our muscles get more difficult to feed as we age, and

• Scientific debate over protein took a detour through longevity research that nearly led us off another cliff.

Understanding all three will change how you think about what’s on your plate.

You Can’t Just Go By What’s on the Label

Not all protein is created equal. Let’s ignore the tribalism that surrounds this topic and talk solely about the science:

Plant proteins are significantly less bioavailable than animal proteins.

Bioavailability basically means, “How much of this protein can your body actually use?” In short, animal proteins — meat, eggs, dairy, seafood — are about 93% digestible, meaning your body can break them down and use nearly all of the protein in them. Plant proteins in their whole-food form are around 80% digestible, and that’s being generous, because grains and nuts are often closer to 70%.

Why the discrepancy?

There are 20 amino acids your body requires and only 11 that it makes itself. The remaining nine are called essential amino acids (EAAs), and they’re called essential because you must get them through your diet.

Your body needs all nine EAAs in adequate amounts to build muscle. If you’re short on even one, the whole assembly line stalls. Plant proteins often lack or are low in certain EAAs. For instance, grains are typically low in lysine, legumes in methionine and cysteine.

And plants also contain what scientists politely call “antinutritional factors,” compounds like lectins, trypsin inhibitors, and phytates that actively interfere with protein digestion and absorption. These are the plant’s natural defense mechanisms. Animals run from predators; plants deploy biochemistry.

Effective for their survival, less great for you.

Humans have traditionally worked around this through soaking, cooking, and fermenting. Modern protein isolation also helps: this is why soy protein isolate is more bioavailable than whole soybeans, and why pea or rice protein powders can approach the digestibility of animal proteins.

But your handful of trail mix or smear of almond butter? Not even close to what the nutrition label suggests you’re getting.

The Leucine Factor

Here’s where we need to talk about an important subset of EAAs called branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs). Of the nine essential amino acids, three have a branched molecular structure: leucine, isoleucine, and valine. And leucine is the prime ignition switch for muscle protein synthesis.

Leucine activates something called the mTOR (short for “mechanistic target of rapamycin”) pathway — think of it as your body’s muscle-building control switch. When leucine levels hit a certain threshold in your bloodstream, mTOR fires up and signals your muscles to start synthesizing new protein. The simple equation is mTOR on = muscles building.

Without sufficient leucine, it doesn’t matter how much total protein you eat; you’re not effectively triggering the cascade that builds and maintains muscle.

Animal proteins are leucine-rich and protein-dense. A four-ounce serving of chicken delivers about 2.5 grams of leucine and clears the mTOR trigger at around 185 calories.

Plant proteins tell a different story. A cup of lentils, already a substantial serving at 230 calories, gets you to only 1.3 grams of leucine, roughly half the threshold. To actually hit 2.5 grams from lentils alone, you’d need close to two cups at nearly 460 calories. Peanut butter is worse: At 0.5 grams of leucine per two tablespoons, you’d need nearly ten tablespoons — about 950 calories — in one meal.

So Why Not Just Supplement It?

This is why the supplement industry has built a multi-million-dollar empire around BCAA powders. People figured out that leucine matters, so why not just take leucine?

I’ll tell you why.

Because taking BCAAs or leucine by itself is useless for building muscle. You need all nine essential amino acids present together, in the right ratios, for muscle protein synthesis to actually happen. Leucine may be the ignition key, but you still need all the other amino acids to fuel the car.

Taking isolated BCAAs doesn’t do that. In fact, some research suggests it might actually make things worse — triggering muscle protein breakdown to scavenge the other amino acids needed for synthesis.

The Protein Tax

One more thing the label doesn’t tell you: Protein is the most metabolically expensive macronutrient to process. Your body burns 20–30% of protein’s calories just digesting, absorbing, and converting it, compared to 5–10% for carbohydrates and a mere 0–3% for fat. Eat 100 calories of protein, and your body immediately spends 25 of those calories just dealing with it.

This is called the thermic effect of food. Your body resists burning protein for energy because protein is primarily a building material, not fuel. Think enzymes, hormones, antibodies, muscle tissue, collagen. These are jobs only amino acids can do. The metabolic inefficiency is your body’s way of protecting a precious resource.

And, bonus!, it also means higher-protein diets carry a built-in caloric discount — which is one reason they consistently outperform lower-protein diets for body composition, even when total calories are matched.

Why Older Muscles Get “Hard of Hearing”

If you’re over 40, we need to have a conversation about what’s happening behind the scenes with your muscles. It’s called anabolic resistance, and it’s one of the primary reasons we lose muscle mass as we age — a phenomenon so common it has a name: age-related sarcopenia.

Here’s how muscle protein synthesis normally works: You eat protein. Your blood amino acid levels rise. This triggers the mTOR pathway we talked about earlier. Your muscles receive that signal and ramp up protein synthesis for a few hours.

Young, healthy muscles are exquisitely sensitive to this signal. Feed them even modest amounts of protein — say, 20 grams — and they respond robustly. You remember those days, right?

But somewhere around your 40s, this system (like everything else, it seems) starts to break down. Your muscles become resistant to the anabolic (muscle-building) signals from protein intake. It’s not that they can’t respond; it’s that they require a much stronger signal to get the same response.

And just how much might shock you. Research shows that to achieve the same muscle protein synthesis response, older adults need about 68% more protein per meal than younger adults.

Where a 25-year-old might max out their muscle-building response with 20–25 grams of high-quality protein, a 65-year-old needs closer to 40 grams to hit the same peak. And even then, the peak might not be quite as high, and it doesn’t last as long.

What Causes Anabolic Resistance?

Researchers aren’t entirely sure, but several factors seem to play a role:

• Chronic low-grade inflammation, which increases with age (researchers call it “inflammaging”), interferes with the signaling pathways that control protein synthesis. Your muscles are trying to build, but inflammatory signals are jamming the communication.

• Your gut and liver start hoarding amino acids as you age, extracting more of them before they can reach your muscles — like your digestive system has become a greedy toll collector.

• Insulin resistance means your muscles become less responsive to insulin, which doesn’t just affect blood sugar. It also affects how well amino acids are delivered to muscle tissue.

• Inactivity. Studies show that even young adults develop anabolic resistance after just 10 days of muscle disuse. Each bout of inactivity makes the problem worse — which might explain a lot about the aging trajectory for most people.

Muscle: The Organ of Longevity

Failure to give both the signal and the fuel to grow is what causes muscle loss. And the loss is insidious. You don’t wake up one day and notice you’ve lost 20 pounds of muscle.

Instead, you lose about 8% of your muscle mass per decade after 40, accelerating to 15% per decade after 70. It’s so gradual that you adjust to it, compensate for it, until one day you realize you can’t open the pickle jar.

Muscle loss isn’t just cosmetic or even only about strength. Muscle is metabolically active tissue — your body’s largest site for glucose disposal, crucial for metabolic health. Less muscle means worse blood sugar control, more insulin resistance, and a higher risk of diabetes.

Muscle also serves as a protein reserve during illness; when you’re sick or injured, your body cannibalizes muscle to get amino acids for healing and immune function. Less muscle means less reserve capacity to handle health crises.

And the mortality data are unambiguous: Muscle mass predicts longevity. Low muscle mass in older adults is associated with higher all-cause mortality. Stated another way, the muscle mass you have in your 60s and 70s is directly related to how long you’ll live and how well you’ll live those years.

Can You Fight Back?

The good news is that anabolic resistance isn’t completely inevitable. Two things can fight it:

Higher protein intake. You can overcome your muscles’ resistance by hitting them with a stronger signal: 30–40 gram servings instead of the 15–20 grams that might have sufficed when you were younger. And it needs to be a high-quality, leucine-rich protein to maximally trigger the mTOR pathway.

Resistance training. Nothing (and I mean nothing) overcomes anabolic resistance like lifting heavy things. Resistance exercise doesn’t just build muscle through mechanical stress; it also makes your muscles more sensitive to the anabolic signal from protein for at least 24–48 hours afterward. It’s like turning up the volume on your muscles’ ability to hear the protein signal.

The combination is synergistic. Resistance training plus adequate protein intake can maintain, and even build, muscle mass in older adults at rates that approach what younger people achieve. But muscle growth only happens when your body has both a reason to build and the materials to do it. That’s why training and sufficient protein intake go hand in hand.

Even the Smartest People in the Room Got It Wrong

For the past decade or so, a faction of the wellness world has been quietly terrified of protein. The reasoning centered on mTOR. If mTOR drives cellular growth, and uncontrolled growth is associated with cancer and accelerated aging, and protein is one of the most potent mTOR activators… then the conclusion seemed obvious: Eat less protein, suppress mTOR, live longer.

Harvard’s David Sinclair became one of the most visible advocates of this approach. He went vegetarian. He restricted protein. In interviews, he’d point to mouse studies showing that chronically suppressing mTOR extended lifespan and applied the same logic to humans. The biohacking podcosphere amplified that viewpoint enthusiastically.

The problem was that those mice lived in highly controlled lab environments. They weren’t cold, they weren’t running from predators, they weren’t having sex, and they weren’t doing anything that required muscle. Later studies in primates showed mixed results at best.

And in humans? There is zero evidence that chronically suppressing mTOR through protein restriction extends lifespan. Zero.

There’s also a rather glaring flaw in the anti-protein mTOR logic that metabolic researcher Dr. Ben Bikman has pointed out: Insulin activates mTOR at least as much as leucine does, and possibly more. So if you’re worried about mTOR and you’re cutting protein, what are you eating instead?

Unless you’re going full dietary fat, you’re eating carbohydrates. And carbohydrates spike insulin. Amino acids from a protein-rich meal clear your bloodstream in about 45 minutes. Insulin from a high-carb meal can stay elevated for hours. If mTOR suppression is actually your goal, a bagel is objectively worse than a ribeye.

Even Sinclair has since acknowledged the nuance: His 80-year-old father eats protein and lifts weights three days a week. Sinclair now talks about “cycling” mTOR — on after meals and training, off during fasting and sleep — rather than keeping it suppressed around the clock. Which is, conveniently, exactly what happens when you eat adequate protein, do resistance training, and don’t graze constantly.

The mTOR panic was a classic case of extrapolating too far from animal models and forgetting to ask the most important question: Longevity for what? To sit still and barely eat?

The goal isn’t to be a frail, protein-deprived centenarian who made it to 100 but spent the last 20 years unable to get out of a chair. The goal is healthspan, which means living independently, functionally, and vigorously for as long as possible.

And for that, you need muscle.

This Isn’t Hype Train 2.0

If the OG protein hype train crashed and burned, and we’ve been undereating protein for 80 years, how do we know we’re not just overcorrecting again? Is the current protein craze just the new version of putting “fat-free” on gummy bears in the ’90s?

Look, I’m as skeptical as you are. We grew up watching corporations turn every nutritional factoid into a marketing bonanza. Remember when Sunny D pretended to be orange juice? When we were told Snackwell’s cookies were healthy because they were low-fat?

You might have noticed that the global wellness-industrial complex has absolutely jumped on the protein bandwagon. Walk through any grocery store, and you’ll find protein chips, protein ice cream, protein pasta, and protein coffee creamer. There’s even protein water and protein Pop-Tarts.

Let that last one sink in.

Here’s what makes this current trend different: The underlying science is actually solid. It isn’t based on one cherry-picked study or a diet messiah’s podcast. Multiple independent research teams using different methodologies across different populations all arrive at the same conclusion: We need more protein than the 1940s wartime rations suggested, and we need even more as we age.

That doesn’t mean every protein-fortified product is worth your money. Most of it is overpriced nonsense designed to separate you from your cash while you feel virtuous about “optimizing your nutrition.”

The difference between good science and marketing? Good science gives you actionable information about actual food. Marketing tries to sell you $8 protein water when you could just eat an egg.

But the core message that says protein intake matters more than we thought, particularly for maintaining muscle mass as we age, is legit. Eighty years of getting it wrong is long enough.

So here’s the TL;DR for last week and today:

• The RDA is way too low: 0.8 g/kg was designed in 1941 to prevent wartime malnutrition, but middle-aged you is not trying to barely survive. You’re trying to thrive, dammit! by maintaining muscle, metabolic health, and independence as you age.

• How much do we need: The Goldilocks range is 1.2–1.6 grams per kilogram (0.54–0.73 g/lb) of ideal body weight daily. Over 50 or very active? Aim for the high end. That’s roughly 80–110 grams for a 150-pound person, 100–130 grams for 180 pounds.

• When do we need it: Spread it across three meals, about 30–40 grams each. This keeps muscle protein synthesis running throughout the day and works against anabolic resistance as you age.

• What kind: Get your MEDS: meat, eggs, dairy, seafood. Each meal should hit roughly 2.5–3 grams of leucine to trigger mTOR (about 4 ounces of meat, 3 large eggs, or 1.5 cups Greek yogurt). Eat the protein first in each meal for maximum satiety. Plant-based? Aim for 1.6–2.0 g/kg, combine sources for bioavailability, prioritize soy and legumes, and consider a protein powder to close the gap.

• What to skip: Protein water. Protein chips. Protein-fortified cereal. Any overpriced wellness product with “protein” on the label. Just eat actual food whenever you can.

• One more thing: Lift heavy things 2–3 times per week. Protein without resistance training is like buying lumber and never building the house.

Leave a comment

Keep going-

Samantha (and Brian)

further: flashback

🎶 Prince and the Revolution - Mountains, Parade, 1986 🎶

Everyone loves Kiss from Prince’s final album with The Revolution, but second single Mountains is brilliant as well. Yes, that’s Jerome from The Time in the video, who was Prince’s sidekick in Under the Cherry Moon. (YouTube)

further: sharing

Enjoy this issue? Please forward this email to friends or share by clicking below:

Share

Or you can earn access to Further Premium by recommending Further in general.

Grab your unique referral code here.

Thank you for sharing Further!

Enough with the business for a bit. Today we’ll explore a fundamental aspect of making sure we’re stronger for longer as we age. For that I’m turning the mic over to my better half, Samantha Clark. ~ Brian

Remember when fat was going to kill us all? When we were pouring skim milk on our Special K and wondering why we were ravenous an hour later?

Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we’ve been equally wrong about protein.

Like, by a lot.

For decades, the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) told us we need 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight. For a 150-pound person, that’s about 54 grams a day. To put that in perspective, that’s roughly one large chicken breast. Or three eggs and a heaping cup of Greek yogurt.

For the entire day.

But now we are in a literal protein pandemonium. And if you’re confused by the violent swing to protein-infused everything — and more than a little skeptical of the marketing — you’re not alone.

My purpose here is to give some historical context to our current macronutrient frenzy before addressing the evidentiary basis for the claims that you’re not getting enough. And just maybe convince you that the protein hype of today isn’t hype at all.

The 1940s Called. They Want Their Science Back

Let’s talk about where the RDA came from.

It was 1941. Hitler was invading Russia, Citizen Kane just hit theaters, and the U.S. government was trying to figure out how to feed troops and ration food during World War II. They needed a baseline and landed on:

What’s the absolute minimum nutrition people need to not get sick?

Enter the Food and Nutrition Board, tasked by the National Defense Advisory Commission with creating standards for food relief efforts for both the military and civilians facing rationing. Let’s be clear on what this committee was not. It was not formed to determine how people could thrive well into their later years. Nor was it concerned with helping people gain and maintain muscle mass. Instead, the question before this committee was, “What keeps people from malnutrition while we’re at war?”

The answer came from a methodology called nitrogen balance studies. Here’s how that works. Protein is the only macronutrient that contains nitrogen. So, researchers measured how much protein nitrogen the study subjects consumed versus how much they excreted in their urine, feces, sweat, hair, and nails.

When inputs equaled outputs, that is, when they were not losing more nitrogen than they were taking in, they had reached “nitrogen equilibrium.” And that level became the protein RDA.

The problem is that this method literally measures the point at which you stop wasting away. It’s designed to prevent deficiency, not optimize function. It’s like measuring the minimum amount of sleep you need to not crash your car, rather than the amount you need to actually feel good and perform well.

The Current State of the Field

Fast forward to the 21st century. We can now conduct nitrogen balance studies with far greater precision than wartime researchers could. And we have newer methods with intimidating names like “indicator amino acid oxidation” (IAAO), which — instead of just tracking nitrogen in and out — measures how the human body actually uses specific amino acids at different protein-intake levels.

It’s like switching out a vintage wristwatch for an atomic clock.

Here’s what these newer methods consistently show: When researchers re-analyze the same old nitrogen balance data using better statistical methods, protein requirements come out 16% higher than the current RDA. When they use IAAO methods, requirements are 55% higher.

We’re talking about needing 50% more protein at baseline than the RDA.

Multiple studies using IAAO methodology across different populations — young adults, older adults, pregnant women, children, athletes — all show the same thing: The RDA is way too low. In fact, the RDA appears to be an outlier on the low end compared with every other approach to measuring protein needs.

So if the RDA is out, what’s the new number? The research converges on 1.2 to 1.6 grams per kilogram of body weight as optimal for adults. That’s 50–100% more than the RDA. For our hypothetical 150-pound person, we’re talking 80–110 grams daily instead of 54.

Why Did It Take So Long?

Here’s something that applies far beyond the topic of nutrition: Official standards don’t just codify scientific findings; they ossify the cultural assumptions of the era in which they were created. The 1941 RDA was a reflection of wartime’s scarcity thinking, limited methodologies, and a “minimum viable human” approach to nutrition.

But once those standards got etched into institutional practice, the predictable happened: People and institutions whose careers were built on those standards had a stake in defending them. Admitting the foundation was flawed meant questioning decades of dietary advice, rewriting nutrition curricula, and awkwardly explaining to millions of people that the number on the cereal box was wrong.

So as time passes, the evidence evolves and assumptions get challenged, but the official number stays frozen in 1941. The RDA for protein hasn’t meaningfully changed in over 80 years not because the science supports the old number, but because changing it requires institutional willpower that is only now starting to emerge.

But if you think the current (and overdue) emphasis on protein is a new-fangled thing, sit tight. We’ve actually been through this all before.

When “Most Important” Became “Eat All of It”

The word “protein” comes from the Greek “proteios,” meaning “of the first rank” or “primary.” Dutch chemist Gerardus Johannes Mulder coined it in 1838 when scientists of the era believed they’d discovered the most essential component of nutrition.

And while they weren’t entirely wrong, they did a very human thing and completely overshot the runway.

The First Time We Took the Focus on Protein Too Far

After the discovery of the protein macronutrient, the 19th century became the golden age of protein worship. In 1877, German physiologist Carl von Voit declared that a working man needed 118 grams of protein daily — a number that came from his observations of what Bavarian laborers ate, then blessing it as optimal.

His student Max Rubner took it further, ranking foods by their protein content as if it were the only metric that mattered. “Flesh makes flesh” became the rallying cry of an era convinced that protein was the master nutrient, the one ring to rule them all.

And then came the backlash.

The “flesh makes flesh” doctrine led to some spectacularly bad ideas. Arctic explorers and frontier settlers learned the hard way that trying to survive on lean game alone causes death even with a full stomach. The condition is called “rabbit starvation” or “mal de caribou” by northern Indigenous peoples, who’d seen it happen to desperate Europeans more than once. The Inuit knew how to avoid it, which is why they prized fat-rich seal and whale over lean caribou.

So, what happens during rabbit starvation? Our bodies prefer fat and carbs for fuel because they break down cleanly into energy — we even store them for lean times.

But protein is different. Burning amino acids for energy releases ammonia, a toxin your liver normally clears via the urea cycle. When a lean person (say, an Arctic explorer) continually eats protein alone, ammonia accumulates faster than the urea cycle can clear it. In days to weeks, the liver and kidneys become overloaded with this toxic byproduct, and victims suffer nausea, diarrhea, headaches, fatigue, and eventually death… despite being technically “fed.”

Explorer Vilhjalmur Stefansson documented this extensively after spending years with the Inuit in the early 1900s. He noted that experienced Arctic hunters would sometimes throw away rabbit meat entirely during lean times.

In fact, he was so intrigued by what he’d seen that in 1928 he checked himself into the metabolic ward of New York’s Bellevue Hospital and deliberately induced rabbit starvation by eating only lean meat with the fat removed. Symptoms appeared within days. When fat was added back in, he recovered.

His experiment confirmed what the Inuit had known: The body needs something in addition to protein to actually burn for fuel. As for the upper limit when you don’t have fat reserves to fall back on, it’s about 35% of total calories — a ceiling that rises and falls with how much you’re eating overall.

So, Then We Swung the Other Way

By the early 20th century, the pendulum had already reached its far end. The protein obsession gave way to vitamin mania (when scurvy and pellagra were the scary diseases), then calorie counting, and then the great fat panic of the late 20th century.

Each era convinced itself it had found THE thing to fear or worship.

Protein quietly slipped into the background, nominally “important” but certainly not a priority. With the RDA already locked in at the wartime bare minimum, protein was already sidelined. The war on dietary fat through the ’70s and ’80s finished the job, and carbohydrates won by default.

As a result, bread, cereal, rice, and pasta occupied the entire base of the 1992 pyramid, with 6–11 servings daily. The most protein-dense foods got one undifferentiated tier shared with dairy and a modest 2–3-serving maximum that was intended as a ceiling, not a floor. Fats got a tiny triangle at the very tip, with instructions to essentially disappear.

We went from “protein is everything” to “you get plenty of protein from grains and vegetables” without ever stopping to ask what “enough” actually meant.

Next week, we’ll dive into what we now know, and what that means in practice:

• Why you can’t trust labels

• The Leucine Factor

• The truth about supplements

• The Protein Tax

• Why older muscles get “hard of hearing”

• How to fight back at midlife

Keep going-

Samantha (and Brian)

Leave a comment

further: flashback

🎶 Anthrax & Public Enemy - Bring The Noise, Attack of the Killer B's, 1991 🎶

The greatest rap/metal mashup is either Linkin Park & Jay-Z with Points Of Authority/99 Problems/One Step Closer, or Anthrax & Public Enemy doing Bring The Noise. I can’t decide, it’s up to you. (YouTube)

further: sharing

Enjoy this issue? Please forward this email to friends or share by clicking below:

Share

Or you can earn access to Further Premium by recommending Further in general.

Grab your unique referral code here.

Thank you for sharing Further!