The article completly ignores the fact the goods that were sold are highly addictive and quick to build tolerance these combined properties are very rare and really helped the syndicate success.
Elasticity of demand. I was just reading a piece about mental models and how having one or two is like the old hammer nail problem. I think this article suffers of that a bit along with generalising to a set of principles anyone can agree with.
What works when your product becomes a life or death necessity to people will be much different than what works else where.
Run your business like a business that sells your product. If you're selling cocaine, you should probably run it like a drug lord. If enterprise software, run it like an enterprise software company.
Maybe there's a case again what I'm saying with disruption but let's be honest: running dental practice like an actual drug lord will probably get you struck off.
An example: "Run your business like a cockroach. You're the head: work to make it run without your presence."
A template: "Run your business like a <type>. <insert positive attribute generalised from type>"
The article as well completely ignores the fact that the Medellín Cartel has had a "strategic partner". Interestingly, the name of that partner is often connected with drugs. It is the CIA (no... not the Cocaine Importing Agency but the Central Intelligence Agency):
Really, the article is filled with claim that are just wrong on their face.
> "Create a Need"
Ridiculous. Only in moron anti-drug adds do drug dealers "push" on users. While there's a bit of innovation like all businesses, most of drug dealing is fulfilling a need others won't fill.
> "Embrace Risk"
Another ridiculous claim. Drug dealing starts out extremely dangerous and almost all the dealers' strategies are about reducing risk - high security, disposable underlings, etc. A few dealers might "embrace risk" but once they've done all the "hard work" of reducing risk by being ordinary paranoid drug-dealers.
Moreover, it fails to mention important bullet points.
-- Establish a patron.
Most drug dealers operate by corrupt authorities on one level or another turning a blind eye. With so much money involved, the temptation is constant.
-- Eliminate the competition.
This is a well known and important tactic.
And with these two points added, we see dealers operate with the tactics of other monopolistic businesses - Hollywood or Microsoft in the 90s. Within that framework, they are businesses and make ordinary business decisions as well as decisions about who they need to kill to keep the racket going (and the degree of need to kill varies from area to area).
A more profitable black market model is the gangster business model, where your only inventory is tools of intimidation for extortion of the market. Since you never need to manufacture or handle the product and just demand a tax you avoid all the pitfalls of regulatory authorities closing your business (possession/criminal conspiracy to traffic) and just need to be concerned with recruiting staff to help you intimidate instead of building a complex supply chain and network of sales associates. The US border criminal groups perfected this model sitting on all the major border crossings and demanding any drug smugglers give them a percentage to cross through their territory. Could title that article, 'Run Your Business Like a Patent Troll' or 'Run Your Business Like a Government'.
Here this model is usually practiced by taking over existing lines. Find a popular dial-a-dope line and just kick down the door and take control of it, insisting all drivers pay you 30% of sales in exchange for protection from other extortion startups.
Seriously, I feel like you could just as easily write an article comparing drug lords to poorly run companies -- like not betting your life and that of your family on a hugely risky venture. Don't nearly all drug lords flame out in a pretty short amount of time...?
I'll never forget a cartoon in the back of a research magazine before the internet where there were two scientists in lab coats with their beakers on the bench, and over the intercom the boss says "Hey you all down in R&D, get off your butts and invent something habit-forming!"
Anyway, it is so important where to draw the line when it comes to ruthlessness, or whether it should ever be a consideration.
This could be said of registered pharma as well as unlicensed cartels.
With greed you can only divide the spoils, and therefore almost always returns less than anticipated.
You're going to have to do the opposite to maximize your chances of returning more than anticipated.
However you can see the author is pointing out some structural and marketing observations and not advocating cartelism or gangsterism.
I don't think you have to look at drug dealers to know most of the items on that list... good product, the need for innovation, and ultimately the goal of making money are all somewhat common sense in the business world.
Articles like this are why people view the tech industry as predatory and out of touch. No, we should not try to emulate an industry that operates by making a product so addictive that it becomes self-destructive. Reading comments that buy into this crap makes me ashamed to be a part of this industry.
TLDR: Starting a business is hard and entrepreneurs must be persistent in order to succeed. Also, businesses that involve international, vertically integrated supply chains resemble each other in several obvious ways.
