#OwnIt: Special K for the Win

Have you seen the new Special K ad?  You can check it out right here.

When you're done, come back and I'll tell you why I think it's so awesome - and reflective of a broader trend in marketing (we'll get back to the changing face of marketing later).

There is absolutely nothing about cereal in this ad.  The ad's not about selling food - it's about selling the sensation of empowerment.  Instead of the traditional "I'm a hot model getting checked out by (other gender), eat this cereal and you can be just like me", what this ad says is "don't try to be some artificial Hollywood standard - be the best you you can be."  

Which involves more than cereal.  Look at the women in this video - are they leisurely eating a bowl of Special K while wearing white Lulu Lemon gear, looking like they haven't a card or rush in the world?  Nope - but then, how realistic is that, anyway?  Most people are hustling in the morning - to get to work, to get the kids ready for school, to do all these things simultaneously.  

In this way, most ads present false standards that people living real lives can't ever hope to realize - eat this cereal, turn into a model!  Buy this fitness video, be buff and turn heads in 20 days or your money back!

The intent of those more traditional ads is to project an image of perfection and tantalize the viewer with the notion that they can be just like that if they simply buy the product.  Which is of course isn't the case - health is a combination of factors, including diet and fitness, and it differs from person to person, lifestyle to lifestyle.

Instead of minimizing this truth and focusing strictly on their product and its values, what Special K's #OwnIt campaign does is present a more realistic view of women's health within their normal life context - starting with the relatable (97% of women have an "I hate my body" moment) and then throwing that inter voice of insecurity that so many ads speak to directly under the bus (tell that voice to shut up!).

What do we see then?  Not a series of women munching down on Special K, but embracing their lives, pursuing fitness activities and clearly feeling good about themselves doing so.  Larger woman dances, has a ball!  One-armed lady doing push-ups - how inspiring is that?  Then, women looking in the mirror and embracing who they are and what they can be.

There are only two images of people eating Special K in the whole ad:

- a woman in what looks like a gym, crunching on a bar after a workout 

- a admittedly idealized version of a middle-aged couple in a very comfortable house at what looks like the end of the day, with the woman sitting on a counter having a happy bowl of cereal (might want to close that fridge door, though - you're wasting energy)

The ad isn't about cereal - it's about a sense of empowerment.  

In real life, the less-than-model-perfect people will be drawn to what they see as perfect people subconsciously for the potential benefits (does perfection rub off through osmosis? If they get the hottest girl/guy in the room, maybe I can get the runner up?).  This isn't about empowerment - it's about relying on the power of others.

We're all drawn to things like humour and charm because they act like chocolate, or a hug - they make us feel good.  This isn't about empowerment - it's about externalizing happiness, the same way binge-eating or excessive drinking can be about externalizing the relief of depression or anxiety.

That's the kind of selling traditional ads capitalize on; they're not really trying to change our lives, they're trying to position their product as the life-changer.  Essentially, we're being told to become product wingmen, because proximity to or consumption of that product/service will make everything better.  We're shown a lifestyle, a look, and then told that product X is our ticket to that world.

Which of course isn't the way the real world works.

The #OwnIt campaign, however, isn't suggesting or even hinting that Special K is a world-changer, a ticket to the perfect body or perfect life.  In fact, the ad isn't about the cereal at all.  It's about perspective - and how when we change our perspective, we open up doors all on our own, without need of a magic key.

Very specifically, the ad targets women - a demographic that is still marginalized in the workplace, public life, on the street and especially in media, where the standard to which they are held is literally artificial.  It says to women - "We recognize that the standards out there - standards perpetuated by companies like us - are false, and harmful to you.  We want to change that.  We encourage you to challenge the status quo to disrupt what defines beauty.  We're on your side; we just happen to sell healthy cereal."

I'm not a woman, and I still felt good after watching that ad.  Like most people, I like seeing people overcome odds, build confidence and find success in their own way.  I get swept up in movements that empower change, just like a growing number of people.  I want to be part of that change.

I once designed a whole campaign called "What's Your Healthy?" around the idea of individual definitions of health and the notion of maximizing one's own potential rather than meeting false standardized expectations.  This concept ties in to a growing number of campaigns and initiatives that are tackling the status quo - redefining what it means to be mentally healthy, redefining what is socially acceptable in turns of ethnicity, sexuality, etc.

It's even happening in politics - while we still see old-school leaders positioning themselves as Alpha dogs and telling us to leave them in charge and just get out of the way, there is a growing movement towards citizen-engagement, social co-design and access to information and tools that empower everyone to have equal skin in the game.

Watch this ad by the Open Povernment partnership.

Done?  How do you feel?

Do you feel the same way you did after watching the #OwnIt ad?  Do you feel a tinge of excitement, a sense of opportunity and idealism?  If you're the target of an ad like this, what sensation does it leave you with?

What the marketers behind ads like this hope is that you are left feeling empowered, optimistic and inspired.  They want to make you feel like you - no matter who you are or where you come from - can stand on mountains.  You don't need them to do these things, any more than you needed your favourite teacher or coach to inspire you to be your best.

Just like that coach, or teacher, or mentor - you're going to remember them, aren't you?  

If the psychological imprinting intended by these ads work the way they're supposed to, you will begin to associate that sense of empowerment and optimism with the cereal (or the service, or the candidate).  

You will know that eating Special K is good for you, in that it provides good nutrients without detrimental sugar and whatnot, but you'll feel like you're getting a boost when you look a the box, like remembering the inspirational quote of that person who made a difference in your life.

In short, you're not buying the cereal for what it does for you - but what it reminds you is within your realm of possible, all on your own.

Here it is - the kicker, how marketing is changing and reflecting social change as a whole.

What business do companies like Apple have in supporting gay marriage?  They're supposed to be focused on selling products, right?  Sales is all about focusing on how your product is the best, most capable, the only one that can get the job done for a client, right?  That's what laissez-faire capitalism is all about; hard sales through self-promotion and then ABC closing the deal.  

There's no place in business for wading into social issues.

Just like politics is not the place to commit sociology.

Just like there's nothing wrong with the polling industry's methodology - it's the people who are the problem.

People seem to be forgetting the way the world works - top-down, assimilate-to-succeed, conservative family values, mass-standardization, sales through self-promotion, etc.  People need to succeed on society's terms and they need to find it within themselves to succeed - not count on external parties to hold their hand.  Right?

Yet more and more companies, parties, organizations and even movements are emphasizing empowerment of the individual, personalized definitions of beauty/success and diversity as a strength.  It's cool to be supportive; it's trendy to hack the system and its standards in favour of the individual.

Hence, companies supporting gay marriage, campaigns like black lives matter and MMIW, etc. Products essentially advertising for their target market, not to them.

And their markets - seniors, women, the LGBTQ community, millennials, etc. rewarding them for it.

See, the smart companies are applying new understanding of behavioural economics and societal trends to tweak their messaging and outreach to be less "push" and more "raise up", empowering their audiences to be co-creators of their brand through UGC.

Smart organizations are, in effect, empowering individuals to reach their maximum potential so as to contribute their maximum to the tranformative social change rocking our world.  

They've adapted to the times, evolved with their markets and are winning as a result.

What's the lesson in here for comms people and marketers?

People don't want to be sold to - they want to be engaged.

It's not about you, nor your product - it's about them.  Position yourself as part of their journey.

To succeed, help them succeed on their own terms - be part cheerleader, part teacher, and be clearly seen to embrace the social issues that matter to them.

The same lesson applies to business, HR and absolutely politics.

If you want to win, put your people first.  Don't focus on the hard-sell; focus on ownership.  It's not about you - it's about them.  

It's as simple as that.

And they will thank you for it in ways you can't begin to imagine.

A Wake-Up Call for Business and Politics

Recently, Bond Brand Loyalty, an agency that focuses on loyalty marketing specifically, released a report that found 29 per cent of consumers said they would not be loyal to a brand without its loyalty program.

This is no small thing, though guaranteed no small number of successful people will be deluding themselves that it is.

People are increasingly disengaged and disenfranchised, but that doesn't mean they're sheep.  On the whole, quite frankly, we're all getting a little tired of the pseudo-Machiavellian manipulations of media, politics and most other people who rely on us to pay their bills - especially as they are doing an increasingly poor job of it.

We have always been able to smell a fake a mile off - the problem is, there's not been much authenticity to choose from.  In fact, salesfolk have been attempting to fake authenticity or attack opponents instead of actually doing the harder work of design thinking their products, service and presentation.

That's all changing.

Don't tell me how good you are, or how bad your opponents are - show me.  Better yet, engage with us, make us agents of our own experience.  Create a Community of Engagement where we all have a bit of ownership, a chance at legacy.

But don't tell us that you are the only vehicle for our success or our salvation, especially if you're a Political Party.  We know you're all human and are seeing, in 48FPS, you're flaws up close and personal.  Try to hide, try do deflect, but we've seen that movie before, too.

Fake doesn't work and, as we become increasingly connected in social murmuration, we are rejecting it collectively.  Be real, add value, be committed and have a purpose larger than your own gain.  That's the future of success.

The truth will set you free.

Why Cars Should Be Considered Hes

I'm not saying we would be better off without an auto industry.  But we would certainly be better off without taxing our own industries every year to pay off Detroit's extortionists.

The Harper Government is not fond of unions.  They block growth, demand the world and generally impede success through aggressive obstinance - right?

The auto industry, clearly, is a different matter.  They simply do a good job of selling their value to the Canadian economy.  Squeaky wheels and grease, so to speak.

This sounds oddly familiar:

"The women don't come as often to complain.  The men do, so my experience is a little different in that I do think that more men put a fuss up about money than women."  - John Tory

The auto industry is subsidized beyond it's actual contributions to the economy, because they put up more of a fuss about money.  They complain, they threaten, they spend time, effort and money advocating for themselves - and as such, get more.

But is this overall a good thing for the Canadian economy?  Are we greasing the wheels at the expense of our economic chassis?  By heavily investing in traditional manufacturing, are Canadian governments impeding our national ability to innovate and growth into new opportunities?

Well, no - because if those new opportunities were so great and bountiful, clearly someone would be aggressively selling them to the laissez-faire purse string holders.  These innovators, social and otherwise, would be aggressively pitching, attending fundraisers, golfing and otherwise strategically hobknobbing with our socio-economic influencers.  That's the way the capitalist system works, right?

"More women need to invest the time in any capacity available to them to strengthen their relationships with colleagues."

By doing things like going out for drinks after work, weekend golf tourneys, all that kind of thing.

Which is kind of hard to do if you have kids.

It's sad how many competent, even excellent women I know in fields ranging from community consultations to government relations who are almost apologetic when they get pregnant, because they know it's going to place a burden on their employers.

Worse still is knowing how many working mothers (who don't make enough to afford nannies) simply can't go drinking after work or play golf on the weekends, because it's just accepted that they're primary caregivers - even when they are full-time employed.

To sum up, women who take responsibility for both work and family are punished because they aren't pushing themselves while men who take the time to sell themselves get the raise and the corner office.

Conversely, men who "act maternally" by taking responsibility for family and firm, putting the interests of both before self are marginalized.  They aren't man enough, you see - they don't complain enough or drink enough or go to the links enough.

I laugh when I hear people like Michael Hlinka talk about how employers reward value as a matter of principle.  We've got a very primitive notion of what value is.

But so what as along as the economy keeps rolling as it always has, I suppose...

Winged Victory: How Do You Get The Job You Want?

Little Evan loves Lego.  He also apparently has very supportive/technologically skilled parents.

Evan's adding value to his experience, creating an experience for others and creating one hell of a proof-in-the-pudding CV for himself.

There's been talk about a Wonder Woman film/show for ages.  Nobody seems able to get it off the ground.  People like Rileah aren't waiting for a studio to act now - they're making what the world wants all on their ownsome.  The audiences are following.

What's the lesson, here?  Set the example you would like to see.  Know what you love, think what you'd like to do.

And just do it.

Context Marketing and Microtargeting

Political micro targeting is a variant of this theme - though really, it kinda ignores the "context" part.

 

People focus more on what they want than what they need; nothing special about this, it's just biology.  Our body sends us signals indicating feelings that we have to interpret as Requests For Action; we may want a burger because we're in the mood, but what we need may be iron.  It's the external flavour bits worked into the product that give us a narrower craving, which of course is a result of product design and marketing.

 

Same with politics.  We may want to hear strictly about what politics has to do with what we feel is directly relevant to us - say, crime and punishment policy.  What we need, though, is to have the proper context - what are the cognitive determinants of criminal behaviour?  How does social development impact that process?

 

When we have blinders on, someone behind us gets to dictate our direction.  Add context and you get better choices.

 

Being the one who provides context - who is able to marry both wants and needs - now that's adding value. 

 

And value sells. 

 

 

Context Marketing Is Newest Social Media Buzz

August 30, 2013 by Jayme Soulati

 

When you put a noun in front of “marketing,” you get a new trend, #RockHot topic and buzzword. I’ve said that in a blog post or two. It was bound to happen sooner or later – content marketing is being dethroned. Instead of content, insert “consumer.”

Consumer is king and content is queen.

We bloggers and content marketers are the royal subjects to none other than the king. In this case, that’s the consumer, our community, our followers, engagers, lurkers, subscribers, and readers.

It is our inherent duty to deliver relevant and remarkable content our king can use. When a consumer shares and comments on the content you create, then you’ve done your duty. You can remain in the monarchy.

I bet you’ve gotten bored with the “content is king” mantra, too. So, it was no surprise that “context” has become the latest trend on the ‘sphere.

What Is Context Marketing?

I am a HubSpot user; aiming for that digital marketing certificate to put a label on my educational investment this year. When you do inbound marketing, you first must know your buyer persona. Who is most likely to purchase your services or product? What are the demographics around them?

With that knowledge, you begin to feed appropriate content that matters to your prospects. Give them what they need at their doorstep.

• Use RSS feeds to deliver relevant blog posts.

• Build your email marketing list and develop solid content in newsletters.

• Engage at a higher level with even higher level professional content.

• Become the authority for your audience with remarkability.

You’re likely already doing context marketing. Now, you just need to be aware of its cognitive definition.

Give consumers what they need, in the best place at the right time.

Are you already using context marketing?

 

This article “Context Marketing Is Newest Social Media Buzz” first appeared on Soulati

Political Sales - Know Your Audience

 

In selling, the character trait of patience is at least as important as, and probably more important than, chutzpah. Customers are more likely to buy from people who have the ability to listen and to empathize than from people who are obsessed with closing a deal.

 

You can see politics as competition - destroying your opposition - or you can see it as sales.  You can agitate voters into voting against, but only in the absence of meaning.  What earns the people's trust, though, isn't knowing what you stand against, but what you stand for. 

 

Naturally, people want to know you stand for them.  Voters are always more likely to buy from and come back to the Party that listens to and empathizes with them.

Protest Canada: Conservative Wins Lead to People on the Streets (UPDATED)

But (book war alert!) as I recently argued in my own tome, Fight The Right, on one point Ibbitson and Bricker are absolutely right: Long-term, conservatives are generally getting better at winning elections, and progressive candidates are generally faring worse.

I am by no means a political expert, nor am I anywhere as steeped in political trends as legitimate political pundits - so don't just take my word; please share your thoughts as well.

Caveat established, here goes - I completely agree that conservative politics is winning in Canada.  The people pushing the fear and security buttons, whatever their political brand, are tacking right and easily putting their message on bumper-stickers and in the hearts and minds of voters.  I think there's a good reason for this, but not the one political operatives think; it's not strictly that Conservatives are superior to progressives in campaign terms.  It's that the methodology being favoured by political teams from across the spectrum favours reactive (Conservative) responses.

Powerful leaders.  Repetition.  Emotion-trigger messaging.  Attack ads.  Repetition.  Sound bites.  Did I say repetition?  All these things appeal to the rapid-response, rote-learning part of our brain, inciting reactionary behaviour.  By using these tools, progressives are essentially sending support to the Conservative brand.  Or, alternatively, they are becoming increasingly conservative in their own methodology, aping the opponents they would fight against (which is why knowing yourself is so vital to long-term success).

There are consequences to this approach.  To keep messaging, repetition and fear consistent, you have to instill a certain kind of culture within political Parties.  This means message discipline, carrot-and-stick motivation and, of course, everyone's gotta hold the line no matter what their conscious tells them.  Those unwilling or unable to play the Game of Thrones gets kicked to the curb, left without a partisan roof to stand under.  Coordination and power are increasingly reduced to fewer hands, with rank-and-file Members of a Party becoming spokespeople and pawns, not players.  As no one Leader can keep all the balls in the air at once and when you don't trust your rank-and-file not to mess up on the circled-wagon presentation, power then finds its way into the hands of back-room people who are accountable to individuals, not constituencies.

Politics is less about policy and more about marketing - and using, to an increasing degree, the same kinds of tools as sole-purpose marketeers.  These tools don't come cheap; brand-management never does, whether it's an ad campaign for a movie or a peacock's tail. 

Think about that for a second - how many Social Conservatives are so dead-set against publicly-delivered services that they'll spend thousands supporting partisan campaigns?  Same holds true for left-leaning folk who spend big bucks telling government to spend more on social services - dollars that could, technically, go to front-line charities.  Across the board, how many constituency groups spend big on advertising in competition with Parties or legislation they don't like?  If all of this money were spent on service delivery, how many of the problems we're paying to complain about could we address, reduce, perhaps even solve?

Other side of this coin - when it becomes about picking winners and losers instead of strengthening the whole, the politicians do the same thing - they look for winning coalitions and design policy for political wins with voter blocks likey to support them.  This means partisanship trumps policy, a no-no so far as proper political ethics goes.  In a hyper-competitive environment, though, you have no choice - you need the points to win, but the process by which those points are gained leaves a Party vulnerable, driving bad behaviour underground.  Only there is no underground anymore, as robocalls, "political truths" and Project Apple are teaching us.

Simple, repetitive, reactionary, fear-based messaging can't work for progressives because progress, by its very nature, is about adaptation, foresight and optimism.  You can't out-conservative a conservative and hope for a progressive outcome - to think otherwise is Einstein's definition of insanity.

Besides, there's another consequence to the conservative approach of bread-and-circus messaging and don't-look-behind-the-curtain governance; when you tell people that their interests are under threat and they don't have faith that anyone is representing them, they take to the streets to raise their own voice under their own brand.

 

Ontario's teacher protests are one example of this.  Idle No More is another.  So is Occupy.  Tightly controlled internal politics might produce greater partisan wins, but on a shrinking electoral platform.  Voters are losing faith in the power of their votes and instead are relying on the power of protests.  Right-wing pundits in the media can call protesters whiners, the overly-privileged or whatever they want, but the fact remains - the more governments tighten their grip, the more citizens fall through their fingers.  We're also getting an increase in civic engagement groups that are attracting high-profile support.  The people of influence who want a chance to be heard for who they are, not what Party they represent, are headed to venues like Why Should I Care where the people, not the pundits, are aggregating.  It's a political gravity thing. 

So, what's the solution to this political pickle facing progressives?  It's actually not that hard - instead of using modern tools to out-Tory the Tories, use those same tools in a progressive way; to foster dialogue, to promote rational optimism and to make policy cool and fun.  Instead of using political karate against your opponents, try judo instead.  If you want people to believe you're about moving forward in a together-like fashion, prove it through example.

Kathleen Wynne has quickly demonstrated talent at this modern-day progressive approach.  She will be under the constant temptation to hit back in the mode of her competition, but to do so is a trap.  True progressives won't give in to belittling their opposition, whether it's across the aisle, in a stakeholder group or a member of their own Party.  They will own leadership by demonstrating leadership, which is about inspiring everyone to follow, not throwing your weak under the bus.  Doing so only makes it easier for your opponents to roll over your whole brand.

Lead by example.  If you put winning ahead of accomplishing, that's the example you set.  That's what you'll get from the populace; not social democracy, but individual competition and resulting civil strife.  The former approach manifests itself at the ballot box; the former on the streets.

Of course, this is just my humble opinion, informed neither by decades of slugging it out in the confines of political trenches nor a mountain of data about voting trends (or protest trends).  I don't learn by using the same tools that have worked for generations.  I learn by using the same interactions that have worked forever - I listen, I observe, I ask and then I ponder.  All the inconsequentials the really successful people are simply too busy to bother with.  Unlike them, I make no headlines - however, the issues I care about do seem to be cropping up in a growing number of places.

Now it's your turn to share what you think.  Does simplistic, reactionary political marketing support conservative wins and lead to popular protests, not popular votes?  If not, why not? 

Your ideas will always be welcome here, though respectful commentary is encouraged.  After all, that's why this blog exists in the first place - to establish a commons where communication (not messaging) can happen, understanding be reached and shared solutions be developed.  It's what we do, as it were.

Perhaps there's an example in this for politics, too.

UPDATE 23/11/13: Pictures are worth 1,000 words.  Actions, of course, are priceless.

The Apple Bites Back: Gay Marriage, the Free Market and Social Evolution

Apple is among 60 companies filing a brief with the US Supreme Court in support of gay marriage nationwide. The iPhone maker will argue that gay marriage bans in 41 states are a detriment to workplace morale, harm employees and undermine recruiting, according to Bloomberg.

 

 

Workplace morale, of course, impacts productivity and innovation.  So do does diversity - the more perspectives you can bring to the table, the more ideas you'll have to make magic with.  You don't attract diverse recruits by stigmatizing entire demographics - in the war for talent, brogrammers will be the losers. 

Of course, there will be those who argue that letting gays into the institution of marriage will reduce the morale of those who are there now.  It's the same argument, essentially, that was given to keep women from voting and to keep black folk at the back of the bus. 

There are always those who wish to conserve traditions in social stasis - on the Rogers Adoption Bell Curve, these folk are known as laggards.  They don't understand why we aren't investing in more horses and bayonets, deny the demise of the longsheet and feel a sense of nostalgia for the horse and buggy.

Of course, you can't stop the tides of time from flowing - progress is inevitable and to survive, one must adapt.  You might prefer the typewriter, but your kids are digital natives.  Similarly, you might take issue with your kid dating someone of a different ethnicity, but they won't have that problem.  I suppose you could isolate yourself and your family behind a firewall; the Ottoman Empire tried to, as did feudal Japan.  There's a lesson in that.

 

 

The best part is, the supposed bastions of traditionalists conservatives - the free market, free speech, etc - are actually speeding up the trend.  Marketing is all about turning wants into needs and endearing one's product to customers - forward-thinking companies like Target are always trying to expand into new markets. 

If you are national in your scope, you don't mind upsetting a vocally conservative minority who will boycott your iProduct because you support gays - everyone else will buy even more of your stuff in support of your noble purpose AND quality of your product. 

Do conservative movements precede periods of inclusive social change, increased diversity and all that hopey changey stuff?  Call it societal brushfire - or better yet, creative destruction.

If history teaches anything, perhaps it's this: once you take a bite out of the Apple, there's simply no going back - you can only move forward, together.

 

 

 UPDATE DEC 31 2013:  Rumours abound that George Clooney is gay.  He's not going to deny such rumours, coming out with false horror at the accusation - why should he?  To shout out "those are lies!" will only fuel the speculation and offend some of his audience.  Instead, he uses such rumours as opportunities to address the fallacy of homophobia.  The intrigue (and attention) keeps coming and he endears himself to a broader audience.

Social justice as brand-building.  That's smart.

Where the Magic Happens

Ooh, I kinda like this:



Promotion & Information

 

Your consumers will initially be attracted by the packaging of your product but, to keep their attention, it has to provide value. If your product requires instructions for use, the packaging can be an ideal place for those instructions. Use the space wisely to tell consumers how your product will benefit them, while providing directions for use.

The Conscious Society: Branding Tomorrow

"Integration means communicating a consistent identity from message to message, and medium to medium, and (more importantly) delivering consistently on that identity. It requires not only the identification of a powerful, unifying strategy and compelling voice for your brand, but the discipline to roll it into every aspect of your organization—from advertising to sales, customer service to customer relationship management programs (and beyond). It’s not for the faint of heart."

Funny thing - you can only reach that level of commitment, forsight and passion if you do so consciously.

Thinking First: Political Marketing, the Marketplace of Ideas and Engaging Citizens

"At its very essence, political marketing relies on the most rudimentary principle of communications: knowing your audience and tailoring your product as required."

 Part of accomplishing this is creating a market place of ideas and keeping a bead on the traffic flow. Facebook, polling, comment cards, etc amass data and feed into this. So do aggegrates and next-gen social/policy networks like the ORION Network. 

These marketplaces are also providing opportunity for idea sharing and new audiences but to attract attention, providers need to be spectacular.  How do you really ensure you stand out in a crowd and engage potential audiences in the right way?  By understanding how engagement works in the first place.

That means, directly stimulating positive physical responses in the crowd; you're looking to nudge things like oxytocin levels and positive neurotransmitter connections, ie dopamine.  to accomplish this you first have to understand how the brain perceives and responds to stimulus. Hence, neuro-marketing and NLP, even the renewed focus on mental health with hints at proactive approaches.

To understanding this stuff, you have to think about it; much of cognitive function is counter-intuitive.  The more you think anything through, in all it's variables, the harder it becomes to fall back on reactive responses. 

It's a brave, exciting new world.

How Your Brain Completes The Picture:

Raiendg tihs? Tath’s cfaootunibaln ta paly.

If you didn't recognize word #3, ask yourself; if it was a word you were familiar with, would you have?

Connecting what we see - what we sense - with what we know and feel is patterning, relationship-building.  It comes in many forms.

Look at romantic relationships as an example; how many of them fail because one partner assumes they put in more effort than the other?  Or taken another way - how many relationships succeed because one partner overestimates the contributions of the other?

And how does this relate to politics and the robo-call scandal?

Isn't the mind a wonderful thing?