“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize” – Voltaire

It’s always funny when you see two people arguing on a news channel about some problem that needs to be fixed. Both sides will claim, not only that their viewpoint is the only reasonable one, but that the solution is simple, obvious, and easily achieved.

But contrary to what pundits say, most things in life are complicated. Nuance, environment, and the details surrounding each individual case not only make the solution harder to find, but often are the very things that determine what is in fact the right solution.

The quote above is a great example. Voltaire was one of the great thinkers of what came to be called the Enlightenment. When we see that quote, we begin to think about the time in which he lived, how he fought for freedom of the press and against censorship, and the audience toward whom those words were likely aimed. And because he was a respected intellectual, we might even think about how those words could apply to us today. Because we respect the source, we almost naturally respect the quote.

The problem is that the quote isn’t actually from Voltaire. It is regularly misattributed to him but was in fact said by Kevin Alfred Strom – a neo-Nazi and pedophile.

The quote suddenly takes on an entirely different (and more horrifying) angle, doesn’t it?

Why does this matter?

Because context is everything. But some people, especially when it benefits them, will try to say otherwise.

I see this with unfortunate frequency in some small businesses. Some salespeople – hoping to close a sale – will market to or accept customers that they are not fully equipped to handle. They will try to tell you that the particular details of your situation do not change anything and that all businesses/jobs in their industry are more or less the same.

And to some extent that is certainly true – it is not as if they are changing from electrical work to dentistry. But in some situations, the “minor” details can make monumental differences. Here are a few examples of what my clients have run across just in the past few months:

• An attorney wrote a contract for a client for a type of transaction the attorney was not particularly familiar with. While the contract was by and large correct, it omitted some key provisions that should have been included.
• An insurance agent recommended and sold policy to a business client who was in an industry the agent did not understand. It was discovered later that the policy contained protection for things the client did not need, but also had major gaps in protection coverage for the very things he did
• A real estate agent took on a listing in an adjacent town where she normally did not get listings. Based on her recommendation the client purchased a house to flip. But when the work was done, there was zero buying interest in the house. It took an extra twelve months to sell and ended up selling for $100,000 less than the agent originally estimated.

As another real-life example: I work closely with internet marketers and eCommerce businesses and because of that run into this every time I pick up a new client. The previous accountants had no concept of how their business functioned. So the accountants gave them advice that was meant for brick and mortar businesses – which is just simply not how online businesses operate. So the advice was dead wrong. Every. Single. Time.

In most instances, it pays to work with people who understand, not just the broad strokes of a situation, but the intricacies of it.

And that requires discernment on our part. Oftentimes salespeople “don’t know what they don’t know” – and thereby are not fully aware of the gaps in their knowledge or the product they are providing. And the ones that do may not be willing to divulge that to the client and lose the sale.

So we need to be cautious, do our own research, and work with true specialists whenever possible. It’s one of the best ways to protect ourselves.

Any accounting, business, or tax advice contained in this communication, including attachments and enclosures, is not intended as a thorough, in-depth analysis of specific issues, nor a substitute for a formal opinion, nor is it sufficient to avoid tax-related penalties.