A Reply to Nat M. Zorach

Why Thoughtless Book Reviews Hurt Your Industry More Than Authors (And What Your Criticism Actually Reveals About You)

Here’s what I need to get out of my head today and this is more therapy for me than teaching, so if you’re not interested in why thoughtless online criticism destroys information sharing in our industry, skip to something else. But if you’ve ever poured your heart into creating content to help people only to have someone casually trash it without thinking, stay with me. Because what I’m about to respond to isn’t really about one bad review. It’s about a pattern of thoughtless behavior destroying our industry’s ability to share information and help each other improve.

I’m loving all of you humans out there. Did you know we’re almost to 60,000 subscribers on YouTube? That’s so freaking cool. But today I’ve got to respond to something that represents everything wrong with how we treat people who create content trying to help our industry. This was a review for The 10 Myths of CPM 2.0 out of five stars from someone named Nat M. Zorach. And you’re probably thinking “why mention this person’s name publicly?” I’m mentioning it because this person thought it was okay to give a two-star rating without any thought behind it. He’s totally at liberty to do that because that’s how Amazon works. But I want to paint a picture about what this kind of thoughtless criticism actually does.

This isn’t about defending my book the book stands on its own and hundreds of positive reviews prove it helps people. This is about cheap-seat criticism where people can trash others’ work without looking them in the face, without understanding the effort involved, without offering anything better themselves, and without realizing they’re hurting their own industry’s ability to improve. LinkedIn is safer you can block somebody. YouTube is the same you can mute them. Amazon is the best way to get written information out to people. But unfortunately, we have unthinking, ill-behaving people doing these things to hurt folks or just to be sloppy. This is sloppy classical management nonsense.

The Review’s Claims and Why Each Reveals Carelessness

Here’s the full review: “So I teach CPM and I have feelings about it. Overall this is a good read, but by the author’s own admission disappointingly late in the book, he’s not actually providing much by way of solutions, just critiques. The critiques are good which is why this gets three out of five stars [although he clicked two]. This is a self-published and apparently self-edited book that appears to have zero citations and few if any actual resolutions to the problems identified. There’s a major structural failure in that the author assumes that someone using CPM uses some sort of pure CPM. No one uses pure CPM. It is always hybridized with other methodologies because of its shortcomings. Also bummed that the voice reading is AI. What a world.”

Let me address these claims so you can see what careless criticism looks like.

Claim 1: “Not Providing Much by Way of Solutions, Just Critiques”

This is categorically untrue and reveals the reviewer didn’t do five seconds of research. We’ve written Takt Planning and Takt Time, Takt Steering and Control, and Elevating Pre-Construction Planning. Those are all the solutions. In addition to a full library of books, we have complete YouTube video series, Miro boards documenting systems, a free Takt Production System course online, and consulting services. There is no solution better documented than what we’ve provided. There’s never been anyone in construction with more comprehensive solutions better documented visually than what we offer much of it for free.

When this person says “he’s not providing solutions, just critiques”—that’s lazy criticism from someone who didn’t bother looking before claiming solutions don’t exist. The CPM critique book identifies the problems. The other books, videos, courses, and consulting provide the solutions. That’s intentional structure, not missing solutions.

Claim 2: “Self-Published and Apparently Self-Edited”

First: what’s wrong with self-published? We’re getting information out as a gift and the book is priced just to cover printing costs Amazon’s minimum. We’re not trying to make money; we’re trying to help the industry improve.

Second: “apparently self-edited” is interesting given the edit cost us $15,000 and we’ll see none of that back. I worked with multiple professional editors. It took many months and this book was condensed so beautifully it’s an art form. This is apparently hitting a nerve because this person teaches CPM and his job security is wrapped into defending it.

Claim 3: “Zero Citations”

Let me debunk the citations argument. When universities cite research papers, they’re often citing garbage. I’ve never read a construction research paper worth citing as superior to field reality. Even lean research papers studying Toyota are so confusing I have to get clarifications from the actual practitioners. Citations have nothing to do with whether content is valuable. Practical solutions from field implementation matter more than academic citations.

Claim 4: “Assumes Pure CPM”

This critique reveals the reviewer missed the point entirely. He says “no one uses pure CPM, it’s always hybridized because of its shortcomings.” When you modify CPM to avoid problems, you’re admitting the core system is broken. That’s exactly my argument. And when he admits “it’s always hybridized because of its shortcomings” he’s literally proving my point that CPM has fundamental problems.

Also: that’s not how owners, third-party consultants, arbitration experts, or lawyers use CPM. They take you exactly to the letter of the methodology in disputes. Claiming “nobody uses pure CPM” ignores contractual reality where pure CPM absolutely gets enforced when projects go wrong.

Claim 5: “AI Voice Reading”

Let me explain reality: Recording myself would cost $15,000 minimum, take six months to submit to Audible, three more months to publish, and wouldn’t stay current with updates. The book is read in a beautiful AI voice I love listening to better than I could record, and it’s constantly updated. This person would rather create bottlenecks preventing people from accessing information on their commute. Doesn’t care about accessibility. Would rather I waste time and money on something that can’t be updated.

What This Review Actually Reveals

I think this review is the epitome of what’s wrong with our culture: thoughtless arrogance that doesn’t appreciate people creating content to help. This person teaches CPM, so he’s financially incentivized to defend it. His significance is wrapped up in CPM being valid. When someone comprehensively critiques CPM and offers better alternatives, the defensive reaction is to trash the critique without engaging arguments.

I would love for this person to start publishing and see what it’s like to give something to the world at minimal cost, then have this response from somebody sloppy and selfish. I’ve never given a bad rating on anybody’s work ever. It doesn’t help. It’s not kind. And if you are going to rate somebody, do it with logical thinking, not defensive protection of your professional identity.

Two Types of Critics Worth Understanding

• Thoughtful critics who engage: Read completely, understand arguments, identify specific weaknesses with reasoning, offer better alternatives, acknowledge what works while critiquing what doesn’t. These critics are valuable because they improve understanding.
• Thoughtless critics defending identity: Have professional incentives to defend what’s being critiqued, skim content looking for attacks, ignore comprehensive solutions documented elsewhere, rate poorly to hurt information spread. These critics are noise defending significance.

This review falls clearly into the second category. Someone threatened by CPM critique, responding defensively without engaging arguments, making factually wrong claims that five seconds of research would disprove.

Why Cheap-Seat Criticism Hurts Your Industry

Here’s what people don’t understand: you’re not hurting the author as much as your industry’s ability to share information. When someone spends $15,000 on editing, prices books at minimum cost, creates comprehensive free resources, and offers solutions documented better than anyone and you trash that work thoughtlessly you’re discouraging others from creating content.

Why would anyone invest time and money helping the industry if the response is careless criticism from people defending outdated systems? The answer is: they won’t. And the industry stays stuck with expensive academic books nobody reads, outdated systems nobody improves, and scarcity of practical guidance. Your thoughtless two-star review doesn’t just hurt one book’s rating. It hurts the entire ecosystem of knowledge sharing in construction.

A Challenge for Content Consumers

If you consume books, videos, courses, or content people create to help the industry: appreciate the effort even when you disagree. Recognize self-published affordable content is a gift. Understand comprehensive solutions across multiple formats show commitment. Acknowledge AI narration enables accessibility rather than complaining it’s not traditionally recorded.

And if you’re going to criticize, do it thoughtfully: engage with actual arguments, research whether solutions exist before claiming they don’t, acknowledge strengths while identifying weaknesses, rate based on content quality not identity protection. Good faith criticism improves content. Bad faith criticism reveals insecurity defending outdated systems.

Resources for Implementation

The solutions this reviewer claimed don’t exist are documented comprehensively: Takt Planning and Takt Time book, Takt Steering and Control book, Elevating Pre-Construction Planning book, free Takt Production System course online, complete YouTube video series, Miro board documentation, and consulting services. All created at significant cost, offered at minimal or no price, trying to help the industry. Judge for yourself.

Building Industries That Appreciate Helpful Content

This connects to everything we teach at Elevate Construction about respect for people. When someone invests $15,000 in editing, prices books at printing cost, creates free resources, and documents solutions better than anyone and you trash that work to defend your professional identity you’re revealing classical management thinking where protecting significance matters more than helping the industry improve.

The reviewer is right about one thing: what a world. What a world where people creating helpful content get punished by cheap-seat critics contributing nothing better themselves. But here’s what gives me hope: 60,000 YouTube subscribers who appreciate the content. Hundreds of positive book reviews from people the content helped. Companies implementing successfully. The thoughtless critics are noise. The grateful learners are signal. Focus on signal. Keep creating content helping people. Ignore noise defending outdated systems.

Like I said, this is therapy more than teaching. We’ve got to move away from thoughtless criticism that hurts people creating content to help. But if that’s how you want to interact with the universe, by all means continue. If you ever want to debate substantively, I’m ready. And if you want to provide solutions yourself instead of criticizing everyone else’s, why don’t you publish something? Until then, the solutions are documented for anyone who actually wants to learn instead of defend their professional identity.

On we go.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why respond to one negative review publicly?

Because it represents a pattern hurting information sharing across the industry. Addressing specific claims shows what careless criticism looks like and why it damages knowledge ecosystems more than individual authors.

Don’t negative reviews help improve content?

Thoughtful criticism helps. This review made factually wrong claims about missing solutions, ignored comprehensive documentation, and rated poorly to defend professional identity teaching CPM, not to improve the book.

What’s wrong with requiring academic citations?

Nothing when they add value. But construction research papers are often disconnected from field reality. Practical solutions from implementation matter more than citations to other academic papers.

Why use AI narration instead of recording yourself?

AI costs a fraction, enables constant updates, makes content accessible faster, and sounds better. Bottlenecking accessibility to satisfy traditional preferences hurts people more than helps.

How should people provide helpful criticism?

Engage with actual arguments, research comprehensively before claiming things don’t exist, acknowledge strengths while identifying weaknesses, rate based on content quality not identity protection, offer better alternatives if claiming current ones are insufficient.