The talk yesterday went well (South County Chamber of Commerce). It was the first public talk on the intro to the Natural Professional.

One thing I hadn’t expected–and that was great information–was feedback on the name. There were some retired folks in the audience, so I was conscious of providing options that they could apply to themselves.

When I introduced the Natural Professional name, I also shared, “you might have another name for it, one client uses ‘Flowing Woman.’” I saw that that got a vigorous head nodding from one woman.

My only concern is this: Is someone engages in the program, how does their choosing another name effect their engagement? 1:1 is fine, I can use whatever name they prefer.

But the beauty of having one term is that it embodies various concepts, ideas, and goals. The question that arises then is: Will someone still relate as strongly to the material if the code name is different? Will Flowing Woman still get the most out of an article written for the Natural Professional?

Hmm, just answered that on my own. When going over the first written book chapter with Lance, he actually noticed that the term wasn’t in there at all. (We put it in once–no need to over do it!) When I’m talking to the person (even in writing) You is used, not a self-descriptor title like Natural Professional.

Think I’ll also ask Flowing Woman client what she thinks about that. She’s been a huge supporter of this work (one of my huge encouragements to write the book, “I want it all in one place!” she’s been saying) and will surely have useful feedback on the divergent name issue.

: : : : : : : : : :
Photo credit:
Microphone
Originally uploaded by hiddedevries