MR. TENDERNISM VS. FINAL DESTINATION SMOKEHOUSE (SHOULD INFLUENCE & IMPACT EQUAL EQUITY?)

Hey UN•THERAPIST,

We need your help UN•THERAPIZING something…

Should influence and impact equal equity?

We had a conversation centered around Mr. Walter Johnson, also known as "Mr. Tendernism,"  and what stood out about him wasn’t just the content; it was the connection we felt to him through our phone screens, the virality, and the way people showed up to the restaurant because of him.

But here’s the twist 👇🏾

He didn’t own the restaurant. So now the question becomes…

📌 If an employee becomes a driving force behind your business growth,  bringing attention, customers, and revenue, should that translate into ownership?

From the outside, it feels like a quick “yes," But from the inside, it’s not that simple.

📌 If you give equity to one, do you owe it to all?
📌 Where’s the line?
📌 Who decides when influence becomes ownership?

And on the flip side, as a creative, is that a conversation you should have up front? Or is virality too unpredictable to plan for?

Because here’s the real tension: when someone contributes in a major way, do you let them grow with you or risk losing them altogether?

If people came for him and he’s gone, what happens to the business?

Was it worth holding onto everything to potentially lose what helped you grow?

Or was the company right in protecting what they built?

Join us for another session of UN•THERAPY as we UN•THERAPIZE influence vs ownership, creative value vs compensation, and whether impact should ever translate into equity.

Connect with UN•THERAPY Podcast
Instagram: ⁠⁠@UntherapyPodcast⁠⁠
Facebook: ⁠⁠UN•THERAPY Podcast ⁠
YouTube: UN•THERAPY  Podcast
UN•THERAPY Facebook Group: 🎉 UN•THERA•PARTY (Official UN•THERAPY Podcast Group)