A lesson to be learned is that execution is more important than content. You could listen to 1,000 people deliver that joke and it's likely no one would do it as well as Norm.

The process of explaining something is very valuable. As a science fiction writer, when I tell someone a summary of a story I wrote, I can read in their expression or verbal "uh huhs" what's drawing them in and what's distraction from the heart of the matter.

As a business owner, the same process applies. I describe to them what I'm doing, and I can see the evaluation process at work in their face as to whether they get the value I'm trying to create or not. (Or put another way, if the value I'm explaining is actually valuable or not.)

In both cases, I may do nothing and let it fall the way the cards may and then hear their feedback, OR I may make adjustments in real-time as I read the listeners body language and use that as cues to feedback into my value proposition (visit my biz, read my story).

Comedians are masters at finding the heart of a dialog and adjusting (like jazz musicians) what they say to maximize the effect.

I'm really confused by some of the comments in this thread. People think the comedian - you know, the one telling the joke - is somehow supposed to be the entrepreneur. (edit: and now, thanks to a response to this comment, I realise that the author of the blog post thinks so too.)

He's not.

The person representing the entrepreneur in this parable is the show host, or the audience. The comedian is playing the role of the potential customer.

The lesson is to listen to the customer, because sometimes there's a huge payoff that can't be obtained in any other way.

That's the lesson I took away from this - anything else doesn't seem to make sense, but if you have a different opinion, I'm listening.

Edit - so I took away a completely different lesson.

You read the article wrong. The comedian represents the entrepreneur.

"Watching the joke, you can see Norm adjust based on what is resonating with the audience (you know, like moth names). You can't figure out what matters and course-correct if you rush through your pitch as a monologue"

You're right. After going back and re-reading, that's what the author of the article is saying. So now I simply think he's got a really bad example, and is drawing the wrong lesson.

There are several lessons to learn, and to my way of thinking, it's all completely screwed, and I've learned something else.

Above all - be clear.

I'll just chime in and say I quite like your reading of it and think it's a great point.

Regarding my intent: that video is the example to zoom in on the uncomfortable feeling of allowing someone to misunderstand you while you get to where you're going (which in the comedian's case is the punchline, the entrepreneur's case is better customer understanding).

To be fair, the first paragraph after the video is pretty straight forward and very clear as to the point.

That being said, your interpretation of the video is an equally interesting look.

I think in general this is a good lesson for founders in all aspects.

Shutup for a bit and listen. You might like what you hear, or at least learn something.

Good point -- it is hard not to want to punch the person in the face when they say something that seems so wrong, but letting them roll can be a good thing. Depending on how often they get a chance to talk to someone who has started a business, the learning experience may actually be very important for them, and you.

The genius of Norm MacDonald as a performer is he doesn't let himself care what the audience thinks, and this gives him the confidence to act the way he does. Unfortunately, making people laugh and getting people to give you money are two very different things.

It's the same: successfully giving them the goods and service they want (laughs, a cool website, a web API). Being able to identify what interests them during a conversation is a master skill.

Let me say it another way: if you have a great business idea, tell everyone you can find about it and learn from their reactions/questions what's working in your pitch and not working.

True, the are different, but both require confidence in what you're selling, whether it's a joke or product.

Yes, but investors are known for making quick judgements on teams, they don't have to sit through your presentation if you lose their attention. pg has written that he sometimes makes up his mind in YC interviews within the first minute. The audience in a late night studio has nowhere to go.

The article:

1. Demonstrate that tact is important with a seemingly elaborate joke.

2. Recommend that you use the same tact when talking with clients/investors.

implicitly:

3. Assume that your clients/investors are equally good listeners.

This is where it gets hard.

You can certainly benefit from being a good talker (the inverse of #3), but the broader point I was [trying to] make is more about your own ability to listen rather than the customer's.

When you tell someone your idea the first time, chances are high that they will misunderstand you. When that happens, founders' first impulse is to correct them. But you can get a lot of value by allowing that uncomfortable misunderstanding to linger for a bit while you listen.

(edited to clarify some verb ownership and improve sentence pacing)

I agree with you. I just wanted to point out something you wrote yourself in your second note:

"In some situations, you won't have a chance to correct mis-understandings."

I think this is more important than to be in footnote. Its worth to listen patiently where you can expect to be listened to patiently. [1] Otherwise you should take initiative and perhaps politely interrupt and say something to distract from the misunderstanding. Arguing with customers is almost always a disaster.

[1]: Although you might want to know what the customer thinks even if you are sure you aren't making a sale. (edit: slight clarification note)

There's a lot of truth to this.

If someone misunderstands me -- be it in a pitch, a presentation, or a discussion -- then I assume the blame. Either my point is muddy, or my delivery of that point is unclear. That's on me.

While that isn't always true, it's a good rule of thumb by which to operate. Always assume you're being unclear, rather than that your audience just doesn't "get it." Be humble and be open to course correction. And pay very close attention if everyone misunderstands you in roughly the same way; that's usually a leading indicator of some fundamental flaw in your pitch.

I thought the post was going to be about how start up founders are like moths and how most investors are podiatrists with a light on. Then it didn't make any sense to me. Maybe I'm getting old or something

wow this is a great insight....never thought of it like that..I often make the mistake of correcting people when they point out flaws!

Feel free to correct them once they stop talking, but let them get their initial braindump out of the way first. It's auditory gold!