Tom Leu

Hard truth: People are self-centered more than they’re not.

Everyone’s favorite subject is themselves; whether they admit it or not. **Think about it: you’re thinking about you and yours, much more than anyone or anything else, the majority of the time. Your day, your job, your money, your family, your friends, your food, your plans, your life…

It’s not negative. It’s normal. It’s survival. You have to think about these things to take care of the business of your life. To survive…

And as such, each and every person is therefore in the “sales” business.

And knowing this, and acting on this, gives you a huge advantage socially and professionally. It’s a core principle of Communichology™ that I write and speak on often.

Those who are truly successful at marketing, promoting, and persuading others understand one key distinction:

Whatever you do or produce has to make people feel something about themselves to get them to respond.

Be it hope or fear, it’s the feelings tied to their emotions that people actually “buy” (literally or figuratively).

Your offering (a product, service, or yourself) must move them emotionally first, before it will move them behaviorally.

Your offering must communicate something that is about them and for them.

If it’s about you or someone else, they’ll care less. They’ll get bored and move on. So if they believe it’s about them, they’ll stay tuned-in and interested.

Most people are most interested in that which relates to them and theirs. To fill their needs by increasing their pleasure and by reducing their pain. To discover ways to better their lives by enhancing what’s already good and/or by improving what’s not-so-good.

**All of life’s pursuits, passions, progress, and problems involve people endlessly searching for ways to fill these needs.

So you “make it” by filling a need and making it feel like it’s about them, not you.

Make someone feel and you’ve now made a fan.

To do this, you must…

Present the universal so that it’s perceived as personal.

Then they will pay attention. Then they will respond.

Which is what you want. Which is also what you need.

Because this isn’t about them. It’s actually about you.

It’s for you:

  • …to use
  • …to do
  • …what you need to do
  • …to feel the way
  • …you want to feel
  • …about you.

It’s a win-win.

And then it comes full circle, and then cycle begins again…

Stay tuned-in…

Click HERE for info on my Communichology course.

Get my articles and exclusive content with science-based insights to shiFt your communication from adequate to ass-kicking!


7 thoughts on “Three-Sixty-Self

  1. Is it really a win for you, to derive feeling way you want to feel about you, from the attention and response of others? In the 7 Habits of Unhappy People you said “Needing inordinate amounts of acceptance and validation from others indicates that you haven’t yet given it to yourself.” And in CwT#5 you suggested that this need is all born from insecurity in one form or another. You also suggested that this kind of validation is temporary and fleeting. I would agree with that. Let’s say you do get people to pay attention and respond to you. That’s great. But then what? Where do you go from there? More people? Greater response? Where does it end? Would it EVER be enough?

    It seems to me that, instead of devoting so much time and energy into “selling yourself” to others to get that response you think you need, perhaps that time could be better spent investigating how to not need that response in the first place. I know that in CwT you said that this is not how it works, that everything is a test, pass or fail, but…. how is that not the all-or-nothing thinking from 7 Habits? (the most dangerous mindset of all…)

    Yes, it’s simple but not easy, and/or easier said than done, all that. But I have to believe that it CAN be done. In 7 Habits you defined the problem: needing validation from others. And in CwT you suggested the solution: the ability to transcend the need to prove one’s worthiness. However, I would argue that it’s not the ability but the WILLINGNESS to transcend. You recently addressed the important difference between the two. I think it applies here. Or maybe it’s just semantics again. I don’t know. But it just seems to me that if the “selling yourself” angle hasn’t worked out too well for you so far, if you aren’t happy with the results, maybe it’s time to at least consider the possibility that there might be a [better] way.

    Or not.

  2. This post is primarily about marketing a product or a service. Not necessarily about marketing oneself. Although I suppose it could be argued both ways. Successful marketing isn’t morbid; it’s human nature. Though some could argue that human nature is morbid at times. Some [thinkers] also want to read too far into an argument of this nature making it about what is good and/or bad, or about transcending the explicit meaning and attaching an implicit meaning. And that’s OK. But this piece was simply saying that in order to get a response from someone about anything, the “thing” in question has to induce some sort of emotional feeling or reaction from the recipients. If that’s true, then I apparently was successful in marketing this to you.

    Smile and be happy! I am 🙂

  3. Hahaha, your clever. I won’t deny I am a thinker who places meaning into all things. Marketing has always seemed to be a form/structure we can live without. I prefer to induce responce through sincerity but thats not for everyone or every situation. Some need to be (tricked) into doing whats best but who knows what that is? Thats the dilema with mastery of the marketing skill.

    So yes you were succesful and I am smiling and happy so it is win/win after all

  4. Also if there is ever a quiz on the material covered in your web sight can I be on Sara’s team =)

  5. @Tom: You could sell ice to the residents of Antarctica. You really could.

    @mai: LOL! I always want you on my team. You had me at flaccid lettuce =) And if you keep coming back to this site you’ll get hooked too. I’ll send you links to some of the really good posts. (disclaimer: but of course, they’re ALL good…)

    And I’m with you on the marketing thing. It carries with it an inherent absence of honesty and that just seems wrong to me. Sincerity seems like a much better approach. And I know that my view could be seen by others as naïve or idealistic. But that’s OK. Tom recently said to me that there are no right or wrong answers when it comes to this stuff, only different ideas. Everyone teaches everyone else. And I think it’s all a matter of persepctive too. It’s like… remember when we had that conversation about the ‘overachiever’ label, and how the people who call us overachievers are usually the type we’d call slackers? It’s been my experience that those who see me as naïve and idealistic are usually the type that I would see as jaded and cynical. It’s all in how you look at it; it’s all about finding your own path. So if the sincerity approach works for you, then definitely do that.

    And we need to get ourselves back to the P soon! I gots to get me some more hottie platterz.

  6. Great points all around!

    Here’s one more:

    Though hardly naive, but arguably idealistic…

    [sincerity is marketing too]

    just another approach…

    I’m sincerely convinced. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *