Building A Multi-Million Dollar Business While Traveling The World
Scaling businesses requires dedication and skill, but it doesn't necessarily require being restricted to a single location. Global mobility, along with several other practices, can be one key to success in growing a brand. Here's how one might build a multi-million dollar business while traveling the world.
Visitors stroll through the grounds of Nezu Shrine during the annual Azalea Festival in Tokyo on ... More April 17, 2025. (Photo by Richard A. Brooks / AFP) (Photo by RICHARD A. BROOKS/AFP via Getty Images)
Digital platforms make reaching potential customers worldwide from an entrepreneur's home base easier, even on a relatively small budget. Eventually, traveling to conferences, client meetings, and potential markets becomes pivotal to growth and developing a well-rounded business strategy. Entrepreneurs who can visit various spots around the globe can attain a competitive edge in several ways.
Whether the destination is nearby or on the other side of the world, the benefits can include:
In addition to gaining a new perspective from the conversations and activities, each trip can be exciting and help reinforce a winning mindset.
Specifically, Parm Kals, CEO of Espy Agency, credits location independence with his ability to collaborate with high-profile individuals, musicians, and international companies seeking well-crafted and personalized digital marketing campaigns.
For instance, he uses his viral marketing expertise in the global music industry. This sector is projecting an 11.8% compound annual growth rate (CAGR) through 2030.
With over a decade of experience in social media and music marketing, he has helped expand their customer base and create trends for businesses in multiple industries without geographic limitations.
His journeys around the globe refine his vision and campaign strategies by engaging with business leaders and comprehending consumer needs firsthand in numerous markets.
Resilience and adaptability are two indispensable traits for entrepreneurial success in today's fast-paced environment. Market trends and customer expectations continuously change.
Drawing on his experience, Parm Kals suggests embracing setbacks as opportunities to grow and remaining committed to the vision when faced with obstacles. Moreover, it's vital to anticipate change instead of reacting to it to stay ahead of the curve.
'Entrepreneurship is about vision, resilience, and relentless pursuit,' says Kals. 'I built Espy Agency not just to follow trends but to shape the future of marketing.'
Parm Kals, CEO of Espy Agency
Commit to pushing boundaries that can inspire others to think bigger, act boldly, and aim higher. Inspirational, forward-thinking messaging helps people realize there is no limit to what can be achieved.
This success can also help connect and elevate brands more effectively on a global scale.
Inexperienced leaders and brand-new startups may flirt with burnout due to pursuing too much at once. Sustainable growth should be the core focus. This goal takes time, and learning how to balance ambition and patience is essential.
Picking the right team and careful planning also make achieving this goal easier and becoming resilient. Staying flexible is also important to remember.
Kals has learned the importance of prioritizing long-term goals over short-term wins. While the latter can seem critical to achieving initial success, unsustainable rapid expansion can impede refining processes and ensuring that each decision aligns with the company's vision.
Acting aggressively during the early stages is still important, as a hesitant or risk-averse mindset can have a greater impact than failure. To achieve goals, it is necessary to periodically step outside your comfort zone, embrace calculated risks, and trust your instincts.
Even when facing uncertainty, taking decisive action is an opportunity to learn or adapt.
Networking and market research help procure credible insights, enabling informed decisions about handling current administrative tasks and positioning for the future.
Social media is indispensable for shoppers and sellers. According to GRIN's 2024 Modern Consumer Survey, 74% of consumers are influenced by content on platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube when deciding what to purchase or listen to.
Millennials and Gen Z households increasingly gravitate toward social media and video product reviews to make informed decisions instead of relying on written content or going directly to a brand's website.
The same study indicates that 68% of shoppers have purchased products directly from social media apps. Regarding travel planning, a similar percentage of households chose a particular theme park or vacation destination because of social media recommendations.
In most instances, social channels are the primary way customers discover businesses.
Therefore, maintaining accounts in multiple digital communities allows us to engage with people from many backgrounds and run personalized, data-driven campaigns that target an audience with specific interests and purchase histories.
Social media influence extends beyond shopping decisions. As an additional statistic, viral songs can increase by over 500% within a week of trending on streaming platforms. This engagement helps artists push into the forefront with future releases.
Online platforms are a great way to promote items for sale. Social listening also gathers direct feedback and tracks mentions and discussions that traditional marketing practices cannot.
Changing trends and customer expectations can require established businesses to innovate to remain competitive or diversify income streams to unlock potential. Successful re-branding can increase average revenue by 10% to 20% within the first year.
This strategy can involve the following actions:
Depending on the circumstances, your current products may be outdated due to new technology or the evolving needs of existing customers. The market may also be saturated, eliminating your competitive advantage and the ability to earn sustainable profits.
Many businesses also adopting AI to automate and improve various administrative and production processes. This emerging technology can make it easier to analyze data, plan campaigns, and pivot sooner.
Another possibility is to start a loyalty program that rewards frequent customers and encourages others to engage more with your company. McKinsey states that this initiative can increase satisfaction and engagement by 30% and acquire more shoppers.
Implementing several of these actions can increase brand recognition which helps retain long-term customers and attract new prospects.
The Edelman Trust Barometer reports that 88% of consumers desire authenticity when comparing brands. They are more likely to support individuals and businesses who stay true to their core mission, even when adjusting to changing market conditions.
Shoppers have many choices and winning trust is crucial for long-term success. Identifying with their culture helps establish a relationship. Next, provide quality and value with each interaction to increase the likelihood of repeat customers and referrals within their network.
Consistency, transparency, and genuinely caring about customers also help build trust.
Several components help any business thrive and better serve its customers. Listening to feedback, understanding their values, and innovating with a multi-year vision is an excellent foundation when trying to build a multi-million dollar business. Digital communication and travel also play a part in forming authentic relationships with a promising future.
Related Articles:
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
Federal Disaster Tax Breaks Are Big, But Which Declarations Count?
TOPSHOT - A home burns during the Palisades Fire in Pacific Palisades, California, on January 8, ... More 2025. At least five people have been killed in wildfires rampaging around Los Angeles, officials said on January 8, with firefighters overwhelmed by the speed and ferocity of multiple blazes. (Photo by AGUSTIN PAULLIER / AFP) (Photo by AGUSTIN PAULLIER/AFP via Getty Images) Disaster victims get big tax benefits from federal disaster declarations. In fact, it can make your wildfire settlement tax free. As such, you might logically assume that it is always 100% whether your particular disaster gets the helpful federal nod from FEMA. But in the case of wildfires, is it always so clear? The tax law defines a Federally declared disaster as 'any disaster subsequently determined by the President of the United States to warrant assistance by the Federal Government under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act,' commonly known as the Stafford Act. It has three principal types of disaster relief declarations for wildfires: Only two wildfires appear to have obtained their FEMA disaster declarations as Declared Emergencies since 2019, the 2020 Oregon Wildfires (designated EM-3542-OR) and the 2021 California Caldor Fire (designated EM-3571-CA). Declared Emergencies are less common for wildfires, perhaps because there is a separate avenue for wildfires, Fire Management Assistance Declarations under Section 420 of the Stafford Act. Some wildfires are given Major Disaster Declarations, including the recent 2025 LA fires. Historically, so were the 2015 California Butte Fires (DR-4240-CA), the 2017 North Bay Fires (DR-4344-CA), and 2018 Woolsey Fire and Camp Fire (DR-4407-CA). Major Disaster Declarations qualify victims for the widest scope of direct federal assistance through FEMA via Any wildfire with a Major Disaster Declaration clearly qualifies as a Federally declared disaster for tax purposes. Section 1.165-11(b)(1) of the IRS Regulations says a Federally declared disaster 'includes both a major disaster declared under Section 401 of the Stafford Act and an emergency declared under section 501 of the Stafford Act.' These two types of declarations are specifically included within the definition of a Federally declared disaster for tax purposes. How about the third category? Section 1.165-11(b)(1) is silent about Fire Management Assistance Declarations, the third major type of declaration for wildfires. But the statutory language suggests that a Federally declared disaster means any declaration under the Stafford Act. Plainly, Section 420's Fire Management Assistance Declarations are federal relief so seem to be covered. Fire Management Assistance Declarations usually do not provide or authorize the same scope of direct federal assistance to wildfire victims as Major Disaster Declarations. However, Section 165(i)(5) of the tax code only requires that the disaster be determined by the President to 'warrant assistance by the Federal Government' under the Stafford Act. Providing money, equipment, supplies, and FEMA personnel to a State or local government to assist in wildfire containment and recovery efforts appears to fall within the definition of 'assistance by the Federal Government' under the Stafford Act. Many recent major wildfires received disaster declarations under Section 420's Fire Management Assistance provisions. The LA fires in 2025, including in Pacific Palisades were not originally Major Disaster Declarations, but Federal Management Assistance Declarations. However, on the day after they were granted relief under The Fire Management Assistance provisions of Section 420, they were then also the subject of a Major Disaster Declaration under Section 401. This supplemental disaster declaration is important for victims for non-tax reasons, but the Fire Management Assistance Declaration was arguably already sufficient to qualify the fire as a Federally declared disaster for tax purposes. Many wildfires remain disasters declared only under Section 420's Fire Management Assistance relief provisions without a Major Disaster Declaration, and this is arguably enough to unlock the tax benefits. Fire Management Assistance relief under Section 420 of the Stafford Act appears to often be granted for wildfires for the same purpose that a Declared Emergency declaration would be used outside of the wildfire context. There have only been two wildfires nationwide that have been identified as Declared Emergencies since 2019, compared to 305 fires that received a Fire Management Assistance Declaration. There are differences between the two types of declarations. However, both are usually granted to help state and local governments deal with emerging disasters that need to be contained, or to help with rescuing and immediate medical treatment of victims. The regulations under Section 165 of the tax code suggest that Declared Emergencies under Section 501 of the Stafford Act are considered Federally declared disasters for tax purposes, regardless of whether they later result in a Major Disaster Declaration. It would be unusual if similar federal assistance usually provided in the wildfire context, and also under the Stafford Act, would not be treated similarly as a Declared Emergency for income tax purposes. Some devastating wildfires are not designated as disasters by FEMA under any provisions of the Stafford Act. For example, the Mountain View Fire of 2020 burned for nearly a month, consuming nearly 21,000 acres in California, destroying 80 buildings (damaging many more) and killing at least one person. This fire was not large enough for FEMA to consider it outside of the combined capability of the California state and local governments and relief organizations to address without federal involvement. Therefore, the Mountain View Fire was designated by California as a state disaster, but not a federal disaster by FEMA. A disaster declaration by a state is NOT sufficient to qualify a disaster as a Federally declared disaster for federal tax purposes. It is easy to get confused, but no state-declared disaster that is not a federally declared disaster has a disaster description and designation on the FEMA website. There is no FEMA disaster declaration page for the 2020 Mountain View Fire, under the EM, DR, or FM prefixes. For state-declared disasters that are not Federally declared disaster, the main federal recognition of the disaster is not by FEMA. The SBA way offer relief, but that is not sufficient to make a state-declared disaster a Federally declared disaster for income tax purposes.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Hopes rise as US and China hold second day of trade talks
The United States and China began a second day of trade talks on Tuesday, seeking to shore up a shaky tariff truce in a bitter row deepened by export curbs. The gathering of key officials from the world's two biggest economies began Monday in London, after an earlier round of talks in Geneva last month. Stock markets wavered as investors hoped the talks will bring some much-needed calm on trading floors and ease tensions between the economic superpowers. A US Treasury spokesman told AFP on Tuesday the "talks resumed earlier this" morning. One of US President Donald Trump's top advisers said he expected "a big, strong handshake" at the end of the talks in the historic Lancaster House, operated by the UK foreign ministry. Trump told reporters at the White House on Monday: "We are doing well with China. China's not easy. "I'm only getting good reports." The agenda is expected to be dominated by exports of rare earth minerals used in a wide range of things including smartphones, electric vehicle batteries and green technology. "In Geneva, we had agreed to lower tariffs on them, and they had agreed to release the magnets and rare earths that we need throughout the economy," Trump's top economic adviser, Kevin Hassett, told CNBC on Monday. But even though Beijing was releasing some supplies, "it was going a lot slower than some companies believed was optimal", he added. Still, he said he expected "a big, strong handshake" at the end of the talks. "Our expectation is that after the handshake, any export controls from the US will be eased, and the rare earths will be released in volume," Hassett added. He also said the Trump administration might be willing to ease some recent curbs on tech exports. - Concessions? - Tensions between Washington and Beijing have heightened since Trump took office in January, with both countries engaging in a tariffs war hiking duties on each other's exports to three figures -- an effective trade embargo. The Geneva pact to cool tensions temporarily brought new US tariffs on Chinese goods down from 145 percent to 30 percent, and Chinese countermeasures from 125 percent to 10 percent. But Trump recently said China had "totally violated" the deal. "Investors are willing to grab on to any positive trade headline right now, as this is keeping hopes of a rally alive," said Kathleen Brooks, research director at trading group XTB. Ipek Ozkardeskaya, senior analyst at the Swissquote Bank, said that although there had been "no breakthrough" it seemed "the first day of the second round of negotiations reportedly went relatively well". "Rumours are circulating that the US may be willing to make concessions on tech exports in exchange for China easing restrictions on rare earth metal exports," she said. Rare earth shipments from China to the US have slowed since the tariff war was triggered by Trump's so-called "Liberation Day" announcements, according to Brooks. The US leader slapped sweeping levies of 10 percent on friend and foe alike, and threatened steeper rates on dozens of economies. The tariffs have already had a sharp effect, with official figures from Beijing showing Chinese exports to the United States in May plunged by 12.7 percent. China is also in talks with other trading partners -- including Japan and South Korea -- to try to build a united front to counter Trump's tariffs. Chinese leader Xi Jinping on Tuesday urged South Korea's new President Lee Jae-myung to work with Beijing to uphold free trade to ensure "the stability and smooth functioning of global and regional industrial and supply chains." "A healthy, stable, and continuously deepening China–South Korea relationship aligns with the trend of the times," Xi said in a phone call, according to the Xinhua news agency. Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng is heading the team in London, which included Commerce Minister Wang Wentao and China International Trade Representative Li Chenggang. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer are leading the US delegation. bur-jkb/aks/lth
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
The History, and Significance, of the 50th G7 Summit
Flags from Canada, France, German, Italy, Japan, The United Kingdom, and The United States. Credit - Streetoncamara—Getty Images On June 15, President Donald Trump and world leaders from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom will meet in Kananaskis, Canada for the annual Group of Seven (G7) Meeting. The 2025 G7 Summit will be an important opportunity for leaders of key Western democracies to resolve current trade issues, establish cooperative strategies for managing the rapid development of technologies such as AI, and address rising tensions with China and Russia. For instance, the Europeans see the meeting as a test of whether the U.S. is serious about putting more pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin by lowering the G7 ceiling price for buying Russian oil from $60 per barrel to $50. This G7 meeting will be the 50th meeting of this kind. The first occurred in 1975 in Rambouillet, France. Back then, it was then known as the G6 meeting. Canada was invited a year later. I remember the Rambouillet Summit vividly, because I was fortunate enough to be there. As Kissinger's then 32-year-old economic advisor, I joined the Rambouillet Meeting as the notetaker and advisor to President Gerald Ford. Having now participated in many Summits, I have come to recognize their value. They seldom produce big breakthroughs, but they can reduce friction, forge common understandings, and set the direction towards progress which larger and more unwieldy institutions cannot. But due to the changing global order—specifically, the economic rise of China and countries from the Global South—some have come to question the relevance of the G7 Summit. Here's what the first meetings can teach us about the importance of the G7 meeting ahead and about the G7 as an institution: The Group was designed to unify, and develop common strategies among, the leaders of these countries to address formidable economic problems they faced at the time. For instance, each was recovering then from the 1973 OPEC oil embargo aimed at Western nations that had supported Israel in the 1973 War. They were also adjusting to the recent collapse of the Bretton Woods Monetary System, which saw the U.S. cease convertibility of the dollar into gold and impose a 10% tariff as leverage to compel other industrialized countries to reduce America's trade deficit. (This came to be known as 'the Nixon Shock,' and was a source of considerable friction between the U.S. and its allies.) At the time, most of these countries were suffering from extremely high inflation coupled with low growth and high unemployment—otherwise known as, "stagflation." The West also was in the midst of the Cold War with the Soviet Union. In April,1973, finance ministers of the U.S., UK, France and what was still West Germany began a series of private meetings in the White House Library to discuss remedies to these problems. Shortly after, Japan was added to what came to be known as 'the Library Group'. George Shultz, then U.S. Treasury Secretary, was the American member. In mid-1975, French President Valerie Giscard d'Estaing, who had formerly been finance minister and thus attended these meetings, suggested that the heads of State of Library Group countries meet to discuss these issues. It was to be strictly an Economic Summit to avoid any possible overlap with NATO. He quickly received support from German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, Germany's former finance minister, and President Ford. The basic premise was that given the seriousness of the issues at hand, the heads of State themselves needed to work out a coordinated strategy. Besides, given that most of the leaders were largely unfamiliar with one another, a meeting would cultivate a spirit of trust and collaboration. Giscard volunteered a 14th Century Castle, Château de Rambouillet, in a small country town about an hour southwest of Paris, as the meeting place. He and Schmidt proposed that only the leaders themselves participate at the Summit. However, other countries (including the U.S.) thought leaders should be accompanied by their Foreign and Finance ministers. This idea was briefly met with resistance from France and Germany, but they soon accepted. The next point of contention was who else should be invited; Italy's Prime Minister Aldo Moro made a passionate case that he was fighting off a rise in pressure from the Italian Communist Party, and that his exclusion would demonstrate lack of Western support. His urgent pleas carried the day, and he was invited. The U.S. urged the French to invite Canada, but Giscard drew the line at that—although the following year, when the U.S. hosted the event, Ford unilaterally invited Prime Pierre Minister Trudeau. Another point of contention was notetakers. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was adamant that there be a U.S. notetaker—as there was at all other Presidential meetings at home and abroad. The French resisted this because they felt it further enlarged, and this compromised the intimacy of, the meeting. But the U.S. had an ally across the channel. The British had a practice that the Cabinet Secretary, at the time the highly respected John Hunt, took notes at all cabinet meetings and Prime Minister Wilson insisted that he do so at this meeting as well. The French ultimately agreed that countries could have their notetakers. Since I was Kissinger's economic advisor and had done a lot of the planning and policy papers for the Summit, I was designated to accompany Ford as notetaker. Our presence ultimately became an asset: the leaders, having originally decided that there would be no communique, then decided on a "declaration." Because we had notes on and participated in all the sessions, Hunt and I were asked to help draft the final declaration. There was no formal agenda, although the top-of-mind issues were clear. Each country had a very small delegation of four of five members. So this turned out to be the highly effective and informal affair that Giscard and Schmidt wanted. While no breakthroughs were predicted or expected, the leaders reached a consensus in several areas to increase currency stability, restore growth without triggering new inflation, and reduce trade barriers. This meeting, at the time, was considered a one-off affair. There was no expectation that it would become an annual event. However, the following year, Ford and his advisors decided that another Summit should take place and sent out invitations to his counterparts—including to Canada. Over time, the organization also began to discuss political issues, in addition to economic issues. Fifty years later, the major issues facing leaders have changed dramatically and the world faces a very different global power structure. Notedly, the dramatic rise of China and the growing role of India and other countries from the Global South. Many believe that the rise of new global players has diminished the G7's significance. But even with these changes, the G7 countries together still have considerable influence. That is, if G7 members can work together, settle their trade differences, and exercise unified leadership on key international issues. Among those international issues are responding to China's formidable economic rise, Russia's cyber and militaristic agressions, and the heightening tech race. Given the intense strategic rivalry between the U.S. and China, leaders will undoubtedly discuss how G7 countries can individually and collectively address the deepening rifts between the world's democracies and the rising authoritarian world. Leaders will likely discuss ways to collectively resist Beijing's practices in areas such as trade, cyber attacks, and supply chain interruptions. They will also likely discuss potential areas of convergence such as addressing climate change and restoring scientific and medical research collaboration. A highly aggressive Russia, which has launched a devastatingly harsh and lethal war in Ukraine, will also pose a continuing challenge to G7 members. The issue of tightening sanctions on Russia is bound to be a major topic. By demonstrating resolution on this issue, and political unity domestically and with one another and other like-minded countries, more decisive pressure can be applied to the Kremlin. And then there is the technology revolution. Though advancements in AI, quantum computing, digital commerce, biosciences, and drones have changed virtually every facet of our lives since the G7 first met, international regulations have failed to keep up. One possible approach is to establish a series of small expert G7 groups to monitor developments in a few of these areas, create an outline of common regulatory norms and guard rails, foster exchanges among experts, enable their regulators to learn from each other, and provide a venue for national leaders to connect. As the T7 Canada Communique, a document put together by the Canadian Centre for International Governance Innovation put it, "One of the most powerful contributions the G7 can make to the trajectory of transformational technologies is to unlock, organize and secure information that supports decision making, coordination, and regulatory capacity." The G7 Semiconductor Points of Contact Group is a good contemporary prototype. Establishing similar groups for quantum computing and other transformative technologies would be a productive next step. In our current era of change, there are too few organizations with the capacity to address the challenges we face. But the G7 countries can. That is, if they summon the political will, mobilize their nations' internal strengths, and demonstrate the needed unity to play this role. Contact us at letters@
