I have now been in Tokyo for almost 24 hours. Well I suppose it’s actually 21 hours, with 10 of those asleep, but it’s still enough to form an impression! After an 11 hour flight we landed yesterday in the true Kemp tradition after dropping luggage at the hotel immediately headed for the heart of the city. I have come to love the dynamics of cities around the world and to appreciate the different cultures and nuances that make each place so unique. Inevitably the first stop was Tower Records and I have to say that the store lived fully up to its reputation. All music buffs know that Japanese CD pressings are the best in the world, but usually outside Japan I can only find certain titles. It’s like being shown a teaser trailer for a great movie rather than seeing the whole film. Well the 5 floor of Japanese CDs would be a delight for any collector and now Tower jumps into my all-time 5 great CD stores bumping Virgin in Paris (sorry France, but it’s no contest)

One of the many things that has already struck me is the excellent quality of service here that puts most of us in the UK to shame. I experienced the same shock in San Francisco in 1995 and was left reeling at how helpful people were there. If anything the Japanese (well those so far) have been quite extraordinary in being helpful. They really want to help the customer and I am pleased to confirm I have already parted with thousands of yen in the first shopping swoop.
As a vegetarian I did have some initial apprehension about eating in the city, but so far I have found only excellent food reminiscent of the best pan Asian food from New York and the take away snacks of rice have proved delightful. This morning we’ll have breakfast in the hotel with “fearless leader” Kimiko and then later this afternoon I’ll be starting the first PCW workshop with a full day to follow tomorrow. I’m really looking forward to this and I am already loving the Japanese style of buildings and efficiency.

Terms and Conditions & opt in and opt out boxes
I was recently asked to produce some copy for a website. In our initial discussion the client talked about the infamous “small print” that most people don’t read when signing up for a course or buying a product. This small print is literally often so small that you can hardly see it and of course what you don’t see you don’t act upon
Increasingly in this age of information technology, companies are seeking to not only “capture data” (obtain lists of customer information) but also sell this data on for profit. This is one of the many reasons why so many of us find our e-mail in boxes full of spam from companies we have never heard of! Often by not reading the small print we unwittingly give permission for our data to be sold to third parties.
 Here is a typical example in a training company’s terms and conditions where this occurs. Of course most people probably never read, because of course it’s in small print

"your personal information may be sold, traded or licensed to third parties (including third parties who may be located outside the European Economic Area) to enable them to send you details that they think will interest you."

In other words pretty much any information you submit to this company can be sold on to other businesses! Often companies will have a small opt out box on their online or hard copy forms and it’s sometimes really difficult to see what the implications of filling in or ignoring these boxes are.

In recent times there has also been a great deal of discussion about “short term loans” which in theory are given out for just 31 days to desperate individuals. The APR for such loans is staggering and of course many folks don’t read the small print on TV which shows unbelievable rates of interest. Wonga.com charge 4214% but of course claim that as these should only be for the short term they only mention that figure as it’s a legal requirement in the UK. Of course they are fully aware that many enquiring will be resorting to this solution as a last resort and inevitably borrow more and more from the lender. When the adverts appear on TV the actual information on the APR is of course only shown for a few seconds.

Guardian article from 2011 with some scary stats
In 2011 The Guardian ran an article on this exact subject. Here’s a brief excerpt which shows some pretty alarming stats
“It is the important small print setting out our contractual rights, but latest research reveals just 7% of Britons read the online terms and conditions when signing up for products and services. The research, commissioned by investment specialist Skandia, exposes how easy it is for people booking and paying for goods and services online to click the terms and conditions box without actually reading them in full. Nearly six in 10 (58%) adults said they would rather read an instruction manual or their utility or credit card bill than go through online terms, and more than one in 10 (12%) would rather read the phone book. Meanwhile, 43% of those who don't always read the terms and conditions say they are boring or difficult to understand. But by failing to check the small print they are in the dark about their rights, until something goes wrong. Just over a fifth (21%) of people surveyed said they had suffered as a result of ticking the terms and conditions box without having done their homework. One in 10 found themselves locked into a longer contract than expected because they signed up without reading the small print, and one in 20 lost money by not being able to cancel or amend hotel or holiday bookings.”

(See http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/may/11/terms-conditions-small-print-big-problems)

License Agreements in self-help trainings
When people sign up for self-help trainings they are often not aware of the “license agreements” they are asked to sign as a condition of attendance. I fully understand and appreciate the provision of terms and conditions in any business, but in UK law all enforceable contracts have to be deemed “fair and reasonable” Of course the term “reasonable” can be open to all kinds of interpretations! My own view is that both parties should be equally protected and any contract should assist with making this possible. To my total amazement some such agreements in the self-help industry are ludicrously biased towards the training company as opposed to the customer. Here’s an example of this -

“All of the licensors obligations shall survive this expiration and shall continue in full force and effect”

In other words even if the training company terminates the agreement, the student’s obligations remain in place! Of course such wording would in my view never stand up to any actual legal scrutiny. Another sneaky strategy is to try and ensure that all clauses are viewed separately and if any single clause is deemed unfair and unenforceable then the other clauses are unaffected. If you Google “NLP license agreement” it makes for some very interesting reading. I think that this kind of behaviour is counterproductive as most agreements I have seen are so extreme that they wouldn’t stand up to legal scrutiny. Of course the field of NLP already has a history of legal actions which have done little to enhance its image among other professions. This is a shame because the actual tool kit can be extremely helpful in both business and therapy.

“Frankenstein agreements” and restaurant menus
Of course the idea of tying up potential customers in a legal mesh is not exclusive to the self-help industry. A number of years ago I almost signed a contract with a company before noticing that in the small print there were some quite outrageous stipulations. The owner of the company even referred perhaps rather unwisely to such paperwork as “Frankenstein agreements” and despite his enthusiasm for securing my services I politely declined to go into business. My own experience is that such characters who attempt such stipulations often exhibit bullying type behaviours.
Often people joke about “the small print” and anyone buying a magazine will often struggle to find the price, which is often in such small print that you need exceptional vision just to see it! Years ago a colleague and I took a well-known trainer out for dinner. My colleague insisted on taking him to a well-known Chinese restaurant in central London. When presented with the menus the text was literally 8 point size, barely readable! The waiter then suggested the chef cook something “special” for us…The bill came to a whopping £300 for a very average meal for four people and even for London this was pretty extreme.

Conclusion - caveat emptor…
Many of us don’t read the small print. Who reading this has ever read the full terms for ITunes before buying from that online resource? I like to assume that most companies behave responsibly and are fair with terms and conditions. However I have found that this is often really not the case. I think it’s important wherever possible to draw attention to the implications of reading any small print before signing any document. So remember the age old advice to customers - “caveat emptor” (Let the buyer beware)

I am about to start a series of Provocative Change Works events across the globe, starting in Japan next week. During trainings I always explain the meaning of the term “provocative” in the context of therapy and how it is also used to best effect in all kinds of other communication situations. Unfortunately the term “provocative” can be seen by some folks as either “an aggressive approach” or “a comedic approach”. Yes there can be humour in provocative exchanges, but the purpose of a provocative session is not to “try and be funny!” and certainly not to be aggressive with the client.

Provocative Change Works is inspired by Frank Farrelly’s Provocative Therapy and learning these PCW skills takes a great deal of skill and application. The challenge for me when running workshops is to find the right balance between demonstrations, explanation and group exercises and to ensure workshop attendees maintain the right manner when using these skills. Since I first met Frank Farrelly I have promoted both his work and my own PCW approach at every opportunity and departed from teaching classic NLP courses. This has led to setting up some great provocative online resources, but regardless of how much information I put out it seems that some folks just don’t get that provocative does not mean “aggressive” or “sarcastic!” Interestingly it’s usually those who have a CBT or NLP background who struggle most with this approach. I do have some sympathy for such folks though; I too was totally confused when I first attended a Frank workshop. Fortunately I had the good sense to appreciate that it would take more than a few days to grasp his work and many years later the investment in time and energy has truly paid off.  I have found that the PCW approach is far more dynamic and creative than what I was taught on my certificated NLP trainings from years ago! However these trainings really helped me figure out what Frank does and formulate my own PCW approach.

The Provocative Icon System I use in PCW and PT trainings is excellent in teaching the many different stances a practitioner can adopt to create client change. These icons represent 36 different potential stances and combinations of these stances are highly effective in provoking useful change. However it’s not enough to merely teach how to adopt these stances. The PCW practitioner needs to also have the manner of working with a client that Frank Farrelly describes “as if talking to an old friend” Despite all the talk of flexibility in workshops, this seems for many to be one of the biggest challenges. I have only seen a few people able to work effectively as provocative therapists and most of these have studied with Frank for many years. In 2006 I set up The Association for Provocative Therapy (AFPT) with Frank’s blessing and I am pleased that Dr Noni Höefner a Provocative therapist of 26 years standing is also a key promoter of AFPT standards in trainings. Noni is one of the smartest trainers I have met with superb flexibility and creative skills.

One of the main challenges for therapists and practitioners watching a provocative session for the first time is accepting that it is very different to NLP, Hypnosis or other types of therapy. The client in the session has an experience that is very different to those who are observing the session. Sometimes well-meaning observers want to “rescue the client” rather than allowing the process to unfold so the client can process the interaction in their own time. This can produce some quite interesting scenarios in trainings where groups find that they have also had their preexisting ideas about communication seriously challenged. A PCW practitioner seeks to provoke new insights for the client and this is always done in a conversational manner. In order to achieve this, the practitioner needs to pay close attention to the client’s responses and while maintaining his or her own excellent state control.  Many new to this kind of approach find this very difficult and if the client shows any kind of emotion the therapist often immediately backs off or tries to placate the client, not realizing that this is often not the most useful strategy. In my experience many clients have had decades of tea and sympathy, psychoanalysis and counseling none of which has been especially useful. This is not to say that these approaches have no merit but rather, not provoking any real change in the client leaves the client in the problem state. Some talk therapy approaches even insist that a practitioner should refrain from influencing the client at all! Many such enthusiasts treat therapeutic situations like an academic discussion, which is fine, but often not especially useful for the client. Provocative Change Works is a conversational jargon free way of working. This absence of jargon in my opinion makes for a more honest and natural communication and my experience is that clients find they need far less session time to resolve their issues.

I have noticed that the obsession with “quick fixes” “fast phobia cures” in the personal change market has increasingly created a level of expectation for both therapists and clients that is in my view both unhelpful and unrealistic. I have blogged about this previously and of course I am accused of “attacking X approach” which of course is not the case at all. I am simply pointing out that it you over hype expectations then ultimately no claims are seen as credible. Developing the skills needed to provoke useful change for a client requires the practitioner to be able to improvise on the fly and to have an extensive range of verbal and non-verbal responses. I rarely see practitioners, trainers and therapists who can demonstrate this ability and this is a far cry from the academic, logical, digital and analytical approaches that are often found in some approaches. I have also noticed that some people have started to add the term “provocative” to their therapeutic descriptions with little awareness or regard to Farrelly’s work. I receive all kinds of communications about how to become a provocative therapist and many enquirers are disappointed that they can’t get a weekend certificate to add to their existing certifications! This week I had an enquiry by e-mail asking if you could become a provocative therapist by reading Frank’s original book!

The new revised PCW site – www.provocativechangeworks.com has a wealth of information on PCW in articles and videos. In many ways PCW and PT are the polar opposite in approach to many traditional talk therapy approaches. In many instances talk therapy approaches are conducted in such a disassociated manner that the sessions become little more than role playing scenarios in which either therapist or client believe that anything useful will occur. That is not to say that these approaches have no value. However I suspect that the success with these approaches is more due to the therapist’s manner than the actual techniques used.

I have personally used the Provocative Change Works approach with over 3000 clients and have found this approach to be the most effective method to help with client change. Most who study with me can learn the provocative stances, but those who really become proficient in this approach have a great sense of humour, don’t take themselves too seriously and have a genuine care for helping others. I always make it clear that PCW is not the only way to produce excellent client results but my interest in any model of communication is in what you can do with it, rather than any academic style study. There seems to be many who agree with this sentiment and I have never been busier either with trainings or with seeing private clients in my UK clinics.
 The full schedule for 2012 international PCW training events can be found at http://www.nickkemptraining.com/calendar.php and this May I will be running a skills development day for previous workshop attendees who want to explore PCW in greater

In the 1980s I first learned about sales when working in the recruitment sector. This was (and this is) a really pressured work environment where recruitment consultants were expected to attract and develop new clients within weeks of starting in their new role and often with poor or no training whatsoever.

Over the years I learned a great deal from making mistakes as well as attending all kinds of communication style courses. From 2004 to 2008 I ran NLP training courses in the UK before deciding to instead focus on my own business trainings and Provocative Change Works approach to communication.

When I think about sales I’m always mindful that in order to influence others you first have to get their attention in order to be “on the radar” I make mental notes of anything that grabs my attention whether this is a newspaper ad, an e-mail, a music jingle, a TV ad or a communication in any other medium. “Difference dictates” and you are either “different” or seen to be the same as everybody and everything else. “Different” doesn’t necessarily mean being good, some individuals attract unwelcome attention which in extreme instances can really damage or destroy a brand.

One school of thought is that “all publicity is good publicity” and the latest Jeremy Clarkson scenario is a good example of seeking publicity to promote a product, but if the product is not linked to the outburst or stunt, then the impact can be anything but positive. A great brand can be destroyed with one misplaced comment or sales initiative as Gerald Ratner once discovered. He successfully wiped £500 million from the value of his company with one speech in 1991.

He said: "We also do cut-glass sherry decanters complete with six glasses on a silver-plated tray that your butler can serve you drinks on, all for £4.95. People say, 'How can you sell this for such a low price?' I say, because it's total crap."

The key to attracting attention is creating the “What’s in it for me?” factor. Sounds pretty basic doesn’t it? After all classic sales trainings band on endlessly about features and benefits. However many brands don’t present the WIIFM factor at the core of their sales or marketing initiatives. In extreme cases the language used and the style of communication creates a negative or confusing image.

A recent example is for a service that prides itself on assisting clients to make clear choices. So with that message in mind, the brand name “Confused.com” is probably the worst possible term they could have chosen!

When I train sales staff who work primarily on the phone, I teach them that in the very first sentence they have to achieve two key tasks. These are to introduce who they are and then give the other party a reason to listen to them, or the WIIFM factor. I remain amazed at the poor quality of many calls I receive where the person ringing sounds disinterested or simply rambles without any regard or consideration that they are essentially interrupting my day as I have not requested the call!

One you have a clients attention and have created the WIIFM factor for the client, you absolutely have to deliver on what you promise. Sounds pretty basic? Well not in my experience! Often companies take clients for granted and that’s why they lose them to competitors. Personally once someone supplies me with a great service they have my business for life, almost totally regardless of the cost which of course is not measured purely in financial terms.
www.nickkemptraining.com

(Originally published for http://www.sales-evaluation.com)

Recently I spotted a viral campaign where the video clip stated “All Cancers can be cured in a few weeks” At first I actually thought it must be a spoof, but on watching I realised that it was essentially an advert for an alternative therapy approach to working with this disease. I have no problem with alternative medicine and have used homeopathy, diet and accupucunture for over three decades with great results. My issue is that any wild seeping statements that over promises results are both reckless and irresponsible to say the least. The clip was enthusiastically posted on a number of social networks. Many posters then claimed that any criticism of this clip was “ being negative” perhaps not appreciating that there is a fine balance between offering hope to people who are in genuine distress with this disease and creating a huge expectation about what is possible within weeks. I have no idea whether “ALL cancers can be cured within weeks”, but my issue is with how this is being communicated and I’m sure that if these claims stand up to scrutiny then the therapist will be world famous in no time and probably win the Nobel Peace Prize for contributions to human well-being. I am all for providing good information and over the years have set up a number of websites offering free information on my work, Frank Farrelly’s work and NLP perspectives from many different schools of NLP.  I think discussion and debate is useful and I also think it’s healthy to agree to disagree, but not to mislead.

Recently I once again mentioned on my Facebook account that IMO some ad copy I saw online I  found quite funny. To my surprise this personal observation provoked some actual outrage with one person commented that I was “shitting on the small guy!” As far as I can tell none of the people I was referring to are especially “small” and on reading this I had the wonderful image of Warwick Davis from the recent “Life’s too Short” TV series (see trailer below), which also made me laugh out loud even more. I assume that the “shitting reference” was a negative comment relating to “criticizing the small guy” at least I hope it was not meant to be taken literally! I mentioned this feedback to a professional colleague who stated “But surely you are also essentially the small guy in that you don’t employ anyone, do all your own marketing and have run all your own event for years often even setting up and carting around the world your own equipment” All of this is true and the point I was making was that all too often in my opinion in this day and age some people decide to set themselves up as experts with little or no experience in what they are selling. Linkedin profiles are often massaged and altered so it seems that person X has been a marketing expert for years, whereas they in fact have adopted this new persona which is the latest in a long line of online identities. Everyone has to start out from scratch and I have always been happy to both give and receive advice, but my issue is with one of misrepresentation which in some instances verges on fraud. As for the issue of making comments, I have always agreed with Voltaire on this when he said

“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.”

My beef is about massively overhyped promises made by many who often claim to be “language experts” and therefore should really know better…

As an example I have been interested in music for many years. I’m an “ok guitarist” and a much better player in recent years for having regular lessons with Martin Simpson who is an established international musician. I have also for over a decade created my own music for my own products and sold thousands of hypnosis CDs which were produced by me with music from myself either created through live playing or with samples. Some of my music has been used on the BBC and also in recent years “My Amersham” an award winning short was shown on Channel 4. I don’t however advertise or think of myself as a professional musician or producer as this would in my opinion be “a bit of a stretch” I may fool a few people and in the short term make some additional income, but in my opinion this would be an example of misrepresentation for commercial gain. In the world of NLP and personal development this kind of exaggeration is quite commonplace and those who engage in such behaviours really don’t like having this kind of activity pointed out. It seems that many such folks are constantly reinventing themselves and websites change on a weekly basis. It seems to me an obsession with status and ever more hyped claims are made with little or no regard to the “service that is actually delivered”

Many have adopted the “instant success, anything is possible” belief and wild statements with huge promises are made (which are mostly for short term financial gain), with little or no regard to building a long term viable business. These claims become ever more ludicrous in these tougher economic times. In the case of cancer victims many such individuals are quite vulnerable and desperate for any kind of cure. In marketing advice and get rich quick initiatives “secrets” are always promised but of course always at a price tag. Of course any business has the right to charge for their services, but often what is advertised is not even remotely “the truth and the whole truth” but often quite the opposite. I don’t believe “anything is possible” but I do believe that many things are possible with application and development of skills.

This style of business is in my opinion essentially pretty lazy and there are countless examples of this kind of spin and here are a few typical examples of how this kind of statement appears online -

“I Sold X Million pounds worth of products” – check did the person personally sell this amount of products or were they a presenter for an established business concern that sold these products?

“Person X is an expert in Facebook” – an expert? Now ask what exactly does that mean and how many years has this person worked in this “niche” capacity?

“Never before has there been a product so perfectly poised and has received such accolades and viral enthusiasm…”“Never before, never?” I’m also not sure about “the viral enthusiasm” but I can vouch for an affiliate’s enthusiasm for using other people’s videos without permission to push this product. On two occasions in as many weeks I had to explain to one of the affiliates that using videos of my own interviews and NLP demonstrations without permission was unprofessional. I never received the courtesy of a reply to my polite request, but the videos were pulled within days of the complaint! I think it’s highly possible that I am not the only person who has had material hijacked in this way…

“Company X is the UK and Europe's leading centre for learning”Wow! Sounds impressive, but (please forgive the use of the Meta Model) “according to whom?”

I understand that the purpose of marketing is to attract attention, but often claims become more and more exaggerated to the point of pure daftness. Trainers and professional therapists should in my opinion have a duty of care not to make wild and misleading claims and of course if something sounds too good to be true it probably is too  good to be true. We can agree and agree to disagree on issues and once again discussion is useful, but misrepresentation only creates a bad image for everyone. Many see NLP in particular as a get rich quick scheme and quickly discover that the reality is very different. NLP “trainers and practitioners” become “success coaches” and then through lack of “success” in any real measurable sense, often return to paid employment.

If all this sounds a bit depressing lets remember that as Ian Drury would say there are “reasons to be cheerful!” The recent publication of “Innovations in NLP” brought together a host of different trainers and practitioners with very different ideas. I’m not a fan of all the articles, but I think it’s great that a group of diverse minds have cooperated to create this book. All the proceeds from the book go to the NLP Research and Recognition Project, which is my opinion certainly a worthwhile cause. In the USA Steve and Connirae Andreas continue to promote trainings which bring together different trainers with different ideas, so workshop attendees experience a very different type of training. In the UK I am presenting the Provocative Change Works material to a number of different NLP training schools interested in creating skilled based thought provoking trainings for their students, rather than “colour by numbers” style trainings. Last year working with Pete Windridge–France for his son’s charity was truly inspiring. Richard Bolstad is doing some excellent work in bringing the truth of some world disasters to public attention and providing some genuine and useful help to people in real distress. I have noticed internationally that workshop attendees are more interested in real learning and the era of entertainment style events passed off as learning experiences seems to have come to an end. Technology is also improving at an amazing rate, which allows the opportunity for better and faster communication of ideas. All these initiatives in my view show a generosity of spirit, an attitude of sharing and an absence of ludicrously exaggerated claims.  Exaggeration to that degree makes for great comedy, but not IMO for smart marketing.