I'd be careful equating money with "McDojo" (though that is where many of us tend to go). "McDojo" is a vague term - there is little real agreement on how to identify one. I think it best fits Justice Stewart's comment in Jacobellis v. Ohio: "I know it when I see it". The place I'd be most likely to call a McDojo around me is not huge. It's successful, but has been in the same small storefront for decades, so isn't that big. I think the training and abilities produced are laughable, but the students are happy. He's serving the desires of his market. The group I'd have thrown that epithet at back in my old hometown was more an early XMA-style dojo. They made more money, but they also produced better skills (though some of those skills aren't fighting skills). They, too, served their market well.
There are some really good examples of people managing to scale businesses started on personal branding. The Jack Canfield Company and the John Maxwell Company both stand on the name and reputation of their founders, and now train and certify coaches, trainers, etc., who use that brand to sell their services. I agree it's harder to do than when the brand isn't seen as a personal brand (Harv Eker branded his similar business as Peak Potentials, which made it easier to gradually replace himself in the day-to-day running).
i think that is totally different. both Jack and John are motivational speakers who write books, same as Anthony Robbins. Kiyosaki has branded seminars all over that is run by others. each of these guys ARE the product. where as Uechi - Ryu karate is the product and Aikido is the product.. this goes back to what i was saying before, it is difficult to get beyond that unless you create your own system. other wise Aikido is branded by the linage. oh its Satome Aikido,, its Saito aikido, Shioda or Tohei. in most cases the brand is already there. Villari karate, Cerio Karate, Morio Higaonna's IOGKF, Yamaguchi Goju-Kai, Gracie BJJ,,the list is endless. the brand, the name, the expectation is already there through the lineage. you cant put a brand on top of brand. if the marketing is to build up the "person",, first off your going to upset the establishment of the lineage. then its going to put the teacher in a serious position of questioning his credentials and his ability. the teacher would have to be really fricken good. otherwise the marketing is going to have the reverse effect and give you a bad reputation. everyone will be talking about you and your brand but not in a good way. you'll be sure to be flamed on the Bullshito sight.
Maxwell's product is his brand of leadership training (the motivational speaking is only him, AFAIK). That's a bit like Jeet Kun Do being Bruce Lee's product. It started out being backed mostly by his reputation, and his name is still probably a significant part of why some people get into the art. If he were alive, it would be easy to see how he could have several schools that he didn't teach at, except for some advanced classes, and the marketing would include something about all the instructors being "personally trained by Bruce Lee", which effectively scales his reputation.
I missed this - might have been replying when you edited. I agree entirely that it's not the same. For most of us, though, we don't have dreams of having 50 schools. So building a local reputation would be effective. We just need to be able to confer that reputation to some other instructors who can teach some of the classes, and perhaps open other schools for us.
I'd say that's true, but not necessarily of the chief instructor. When I returned to NGA after leaving for about a year, the school had changed hands, and I had no real opinion on any of the instructors then teaching (the previous CI had personally taught all of his classes). The days I wanted to attend were taught by an associate instructor (there were at least two others also teaching classes), and I trained under him until he left the school, and I trained directly under the CI. Later (after the school changed hands again), when I was an instructor there, there were three of us who taught classes regularly, besides the CI. We each had our classes we taught (so not just whoever showed up to teach), and our students tended to prefer their primary instructor over any of the others - usually including the CI. People want to come and train under the same person (or people, in some cases), but my experience has been that the CI only has slightly more draw than the other instructors (assuming they are all good instructors), and much of that is probably chalked up to rank and/or how much the other instructors refer and defer to the CI.
I'd say we all - even those looking for a good school - are looking for fun and enjoyment, as we define it. You make a good point. Perhaps part of our problem - those of us teaching for "serious" purposes (and we sometimes take ourselves too seriously) aren't projecting much fun. That's probably true of my marketing, and my classes actually then to be quite fun. Perhaps that's one reason why competition/sport schools seem to have better success at marketing: for people who want to compete, the "fun" is pretty clear.
Agreed, and not something I've ever put into my marketing. If you looked at my website, you'll see it's pretty serious on the front side (some more "personality" in some of the newer articles, but not much fun, even there). And that doesn't fully match the environment in my classes.
