Interacting with investors Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Interacting with investors - Essay Example A business plan may be so nice and interesting, but too long for an investor to go through it. It leads to a rejection, not because it was a wrong plan, but simply because the investor never read it. Going through about 40 pages of just one business plan and they are hundreds of them is not only time-consuming, but also boring. Just as Selke puts it, it is important to write a brief email summarizing the whole business plan and very brief. The email should, however, be convincing and appealing trying to show the investor why he should put his money in the particular business and not any other business plans. One should never give up even after getting a rejection on whatever he thought was the best business plan. He should leave the door open by a friendly ending since the investors may call back in future for consideration. It is true that some rejections could be frustrating, but in business, one has to control the emotions and know that it takes endurance to succeed in business. W hen one throws insults at the investor because he rejected his business plan, the business suffers finally. The way to attract an investor is by writing a brief appealing and convincing email concerning the business plan and always leaving the door open even after getting a rejection. The email should not sound like the person is only interested in the investor’s money but has the desire to be part of the company. It is important to ask for feedback if nothing is coming forth and never give up even after several rejections.

COMPARATIVE SOCIALQ&A2 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

COMPARATIVE SOCIALQ&A2 - Essay Example Concrete applications of the concept, though, are noticeably vague and varied. Consequently, there is little agreement over the definition of the concept, and it is exceptionally simple for sociologists to be discussing at cross objectives since they depend on various, and commonly understood, ideas of social structure. This unusual condition, that one of the core concepts of the discipline is strikingly misinterpreted, is obvious from the definitions of social structure in key dictionaries of sociology. Social structure is basically defined by sociologists as â€Å"a term loosely applied to any recurring pattern of social behaviour; or, more specifically, to the ordered interrelationships between the different elements of a social system or society† (Lopez & Scott 2000: 1). Having provided this obviously broad description, the dictionary immediately confirms: â€Å"However, there is no generally agreed meaning, and attempts at providing succinct definitions have proved singularly successful† (Lopez & Scott 2000: 1). Nevertheless, social structure should be understood as a network of social relationships among various groups of people, as well as a set of collective relations that unite people together. These binding relationships organise the activities of the individuals so attached as well as their purposes and opportunities for fulfilling them. The notion of a social agency indicates the fact that individuals behave with purpose in their socially controlled settings to realise their socially organised interests. In the duration of their purposive quests individuals modify the structures that unite them (Nadel 1957). It is important to understand social structure for the reason that there is no existing community devoid of social structure, and a human community will be impossible without culture. Humanity’s social structures are significantly more unpredictable than those of other genus, yet not as