Subscribe now

Current Exchange Rate

Highly Valued

Self-authority
Discernment
Creative agency
Commercial intelligence
Reciprocal exchange

Frequently Extracted

Financial confidence
Interpretive authority
Emotional labor
Creative capacity
Future earnings

Local Customs

Travellers entering this territory may notice:

• Financial hesitation is frequently interpreted as fear.

• Psychological insight can become a prerequisite for commercial participation.

• The seller may profit regardless of whether the buyer achieves the promised outcome.

• Personal worth and market demand are often mistaken for the same thing.

• The cost of learning to earn can exceed the earnings themselves.

• A successful transaction does not establish that the customer needed what was sold.

Border Advisory

This territory is particularly hazardous to travellers who have mistaken their willingness to grow for evidence that they require repair. You may encounter persuasive invitations to invest in your future, overcome scarcity, and become the person capable of receiving what you desire.

Before surrendering your currency, examine the terms.

Sometimes the person interpreting your resistance has a financial interest in overcoming it.

Observation Log

The Price of Permission

They told us it was a money wound.

They told us, your money wound is connected to your father wound is connected to your worthiness is connected to your value is connected to your hip bone is connected to your thigh bone… you get the picture.

We were told that beneath our inability to earn what we wanted was a fundamental belief that we didn’t deserve it. That our businesses weren’t growing because we hadn’t learned to receive. That our prices were too low because we didn’t know our worth. That we were afraid of success, secretly committed to scarcity, or carrying some ancestral inheritance of financial shame.

And wouldn’t you know it? There was a program for that.

A coach. A mastermind. A nervous system reset. A six-month container with a payment plan.

We could pay someone to help us discover why we weren’t making enough money. Apparently, the first step toward financial liberation was another financial obligation.

How convenient.

The Business of Being Broken

I have grown increasingly skeptical of industries that require people to believe something is wrong with them before they can participate successfully. Or where the business is contingent on someone having “a problem” in the first place.

Particularly when the people making the diagnosis also happen to sell the treatment. And worse: those who buy are, more often than not, interested in preserving their own integrity, willingly accept accountability, and truly desire to take control of the results they are vested in.

The money wound is a marvelous little invention for this purpose. It is difficult to disprove, infinitely expandable, and sufficiently intimate that questioning it can be interpreted as further evidence of its existence.

You resist the price? Scarcity mindset.
You question the methodology? Trust issues.
You can’t afford the program? A receiving block.

You complete the program and your financial circumstances remain unchanged? There’s another layer to uncover.

The diagnosis survives every outcome.

Meanwhile, the practitioner gets paid.

I am not suggesting that our experiences with money have no psychological dimension. Of course they do. Money touches survival, identity, family, power, belonging, and the very real consequences of having too little of it. But somewhere along the way, an entire commercial language emerged that treats financial difficulty as evidence of an insufficiently healed person.

As though the market were a benevolent spiritual examiner, distributing revenue according to emotional maturity.

Have you met the people running this world?

Some of the wealthiest, most financially successful people on the planet are profoundly troubled individuals. Their businesses do not stop producing revenue because they have unresolved childhood experiences, dysfunctional relationships, or questionable motives.

In some cases, their dysfunction is part of what makes their business so profitable.

Martyrdom can be monetized. Insecurity can be monetized. Outrage, dependency, manufactured intimacy, and the perpetual promise of transformation can all be monetized.

Money has never required its agents to be healed.

It requires an exchange that someone is willing and able to make, within a structure capable of collecting payment.

So why are we telling people they must become psychologically worthy before they can earn it? And again, who’s deciding on the standard?

The Labor We Outsource to Ourselves

In The Labor We Outsource to the Customer, I explored the increasingly common practice of transferring the labor of a business onto the person purchasing its products and services.

The customer becomes responsible for navigating the system, resolving the friction, interpreting the instructions, and absorbing the consequences when something fails.

Now consider what happens when the product is personal transformation:

The cost to the customer “doubles.” Now, the customer is responsible for purchasing the program, implementing the methodology, regulating their expectations, maintaining their belief, overcoming their resistance, and producing the promised outcome.

If the outcome fails to materialize, the business has a ready explanation.

✔️ The customer wasn’t ready.

✔️ Didn’t do the work.

✔️ Wasn’t sufficiently committed.

✔️ Still had a wound.

A remarkable arrangement, really. The business can collect revenue while assigning responsibility for the result almost entirely on the person who paid.

And because the customer has been taught to interpret their difficulties as evidence of personal inadequacy, they may never think to question the transaction itself.

Instead, they purchase another explanation.

This is how the labor of becoming financially successful can be converted into a recurring expense, with no guarantee that the purchased expertise addresses the actual problem.

Perhaps the offer is poorly positioned.

Perhaps the intended customer has no interest in buying it.

Perhaps the business has no effective distribution.

Perhaps the cost of acquiring customers exceeds the revenue those customers produce.

Perhaps the economy is difficult, the timing is wrong, or the entrepreneur is attempting to sustain an enterprise that requires more labor than one body can reasonably provide.

These are ordinary business questions. And all of them are pointing to a wound you “already possess,” on the premise that your inner child is running the show just below your awareness at all times.

What about the power you hold that no one else can see because they’re too busy reducing you to your wounds? And who decides it’s a fault, anyway?

What Does It Cost to Make Money?

Have you ever noticed what happens when you begin organizing your life around a financial goal?

Suddenly, the pursuit of money begins requiring money.

You need a website. A platform. A brand. Software subscriptions. Professional photographs. A sales funnel. Better equipment. Marketing support. A payment processor. A business mentor who can help you afford the business mentor.

Then there’s the labor.

The hours spent learning how to sell, packaging what you know, translating your instincts into deliverables, and convincing strangers that the thing you have created is worth purchasing.

Some of these investments are necessary. Some are useful. Others exist because we have inherited an increasingly elaborate picture of what a legitimate business is supposed to look like.

And somewhere inside that picture, we begin losing sight of the original activity that made us want to participate.

The writing.

The conversation.

The art.

The gathering.

The peculiar pleasure of discovering something useful and placing it into the world.

What began as an expression of intelligence becomes an administrative operation designed to finance its own continuation.

This is where I begin asking a different question.

Not simply how much money an activity generates.

What does it cost the organism to generate it?

What happens to the body when every creative impulse must justify itself through a financial projection?

What happens to curiosity when it is required to become an offer?

What happens to relationships when every encounter becomes a possible customer acquisition?

And what happens to the quality of our work when we spend more energy manufacturing demand than practicing the thing we actually do?

There are businesses whose financial success depends upon these arrangements.

But there are also people whose most valuable contributions emerge under entirely different conditions.

Which brings us to the rather inconvenient possibility that the method we have been taught to use to make money may be consuming the very intelligence we hoped to monetize.

The Currency We Were Already Producing

I have experienced wealth in arrangements that would look positively absurd on a conventional business plan.

An exchange of care that becomes access to a beautiful place.

Travel that introduces new relationships, invitations, opportunities, and sometimes compensation.

A conversation that produces a collaboration neither participant could have predicted.

Even bankruptcy can reveal something about the distinction between money and wealth. A financial structure can collapse without extinguishing the intelligence, relationships, abilities, and future possibilities of the person who once occupied it.

None of this makes financial obligations imaginary.

Bills still arrive. Resources still have costs. Money remains a remarkably useful medium of exchange.

I am interested in something more expansive than pretending otherwise.

I want to understand the currencies we generate before anyone assigns them a price.

Attention. Trust. Skill. Imagination. Access. Hospitality. Discernment. Relationship. Time.

Not every one of these currencies should be monetized. Not every exchange requires a sale. And not every contribution needs to be translated into a number to become consequential.

Our bodies participate in economies long before we open a bank account.

They produce intelligence through sensation, movement, memory, perception, and interaction with their environments.

They recognize opportunities that may not yet have a market category.

They form relationships whose value cannot be forecast.

They create because something has captured their interest, not because a payment has been authorized.

And I wonder how much of that intelligence becomes inaccessible when we insist that money must arrive before we permit ourselves to use it.

How much of our creative capacity is spent negotiating permission to create?

The $400 Walk in the Park: A Thought Experiment

Suppose I decide that spending an afternoon walking through the woods with me is worth $400.

I believe in the value of my presence. I know the quality of my attention. I understand what can happen when two people enter a conversation without distraction.

Wonderful.

But my belief does not create a customer.

Someone must want that experience, recognize its value, have the means to purchase it, and consider the exchange worthwhile.

I can spend months convincing myself that I deserve $400 for a walk in the park.

I can pay someone to help me feel confident charging it.

I can design an exquisite sales page, build a payment portal, and announce that anyone who hesitates simply isn’t ready to invest in themselves.

And after all that effort, I may have constructed a remarkably expensive way to take a walk.

Or I could discover that the people who value my presence most are interested in an entirely different arrangement.

Perhaps they want me to visit their business and observe how it operates.

Perhaps they want to host me for several days while we investigate a project.

Perhaps they have resources, relationships, or opportunities that make a different kind of exchange possible.

Perhaps the walk is simply a walk, and the actual paid engagement emerges elsewhere.

The question was never whether I was worthy of receiving $400.

The question was whether the proposed exchange made sense.

And no amount of psychological healing can relieve us of the responsibility to investigate that.

This does not mean abandoning monetary compensation.

Quite the opposite.

It means becoming more precise about what we sell, what we give, what we exchange, and what we refuse to surrender.

A business still needs revenue. A person still needs material support. Generosity without boundaries can become another form of extraction.

But none of these requirements establish money as the supreme authority over the conditions of creation.

The Price of Permission

Here is the contract I believe many of us have been sold:

• First, accept that your inability to produce the desired financial outcome reflects something unresolved within you.

• Second, purchase the expertise necessary to identify and repair that unresolved condition.

• Third, adopt a model of business that translates your gifts into sufficiently marketable products.

• Fourth, continue investing until the model produces the promised financial result.

And if it doesn’t?

Return to the beginning.

There is always another wound.

Another block.

Another version of yourself who must be constructed before you can finally participate.

I find this arrangement revolting.

Particularly because it is so often sold to people who are already struggling to afford the lives they want to live.

People who have been told that their desire for freedom is evidence of their potential, only to discover that freedom apparently requires an endless series of paid initiations.

People whose creativity has become collateral for somebody else’s revenue model.

People who have mistaken a lack of commercial traction for a defect in their character.

I want to ask them something.

What would you create if money were no longer responsible for giving you permission?

Not what would you give away.

Not how would you survive without getting paid.

Not how could you pretend your material needs no longer exist.

What would you actually make?

Who would you spend time with?

Where would you go?

What would you investigate?

What might become possible if you stopped forcing every expression of your intelligence through the same commercial doorway?

And once you could see those possibilities clearly, which of them would you deliberately build a business around?

Because the purpose of discovering your personal currencies is not to escape the monetary economy.

It is to enter that economy with a better understanding of what you possess, what you produce, and what participation actually costs.

The Queen’s Gambit: Chess Economics

In chess, the most valuable piece is not necessarily the one that captures the most pieces.

Its value depends upon its position, its available movements, the relationships between pieces, and the possibilities those relationships create.

A powerful piece in the wrong position may accomplish very little.

A seemingly insignificant move may alter the entire board.

I think wealth behaves similarly.

We have been taught to count what we accumulate, while paying considerably less attention to where we stand.

What opportunities become available through our relationships?

What forms of work are unusually natural to us?

Where does our presence create value without requiring extraordinary force?

Which exchanges strengthen our capacity to participate again tomorrow?

And which opportunities, however lucrative, demand a price we are unwilling to pay?

There are people who will earn extraordinary amounts of money by making compromises I have no interest in making.

Good for their bank accounts.

But I refuse to interpret my unwillingness to occupy those positions as evidence that I am wounded.

Sometimes the difference between two people’s earnings is market access. Sometimes it is capital, timing, luck, or skill.

And sometimes it is the price one person is willing to pay that another is not.

Exploring that distinction does not require a diagnosis.

A Different Contract

I believe money belongs in the hands of people with extraordinary imagination, sound judgment, and the desire to make something useful of their resources.

I also believe those people should be paid well.

Not because they have finally healed enough to deserve it.

Because they can participate in valuable exchanges, negotiate favorable terms, build viable enterprises, and create conditions in which their work can continue.

That requires commercial intelligence.

It requires understanding the difference between an audience and a customer, an invitation and an offer, generosity and obligation, revenue and wealth.

It requires knowing when to charge, when to exchange, when to give, and when to walk away.

It may also require examining our relationship with money. There is nothing inherently wrong with that inquiry.

But we can investigate our patterns without assuming that every financial obstacle originates in the “original sin” of psychological damage.

And we can develop our capacity to earn without purchasing permission to exist as we already are.

You do not carry money wounds any stronger, by definition, than the people who run this world.

Your financial circumstances are not a reliable measure of your character.

And your body does not need to be declared sufficiently healed before its intelligence becomes useful.

So before you buy another program promising to repair your ability to receive, I would encourage you to investigate what you are already producing.

What moves through your life?

What do people seek you out for?

Which exchanges leave you more resourced, and which ones leave you depleted?

Where is your intelligence already creating value?

And who, exactly, is getting paid for it?

Perhaps the most expensive thing you have ever purchased is the belief that someone else must authorize your participation.

Your money wound is someone else’s business model.

You are allowed to stop buying it.

If you’re interested in investigating your personal currencies, the exchanges already operating in your life, and how to build an economy that supports rather than consumes your creative capacity, let’s talk.

There is more than one way to become wealthy. And not every valuable move begins with money.

Field Notes

Dominant Question

Who benefits when financial difficulty is interpreted as a defect in the individual rather than a condition worthy of investigation?

Gift Carried Forward

The authority to investigate our own currencies, negotiate our participation, and determine which exchanges deserve our resources.

Shadow Left Behind

The belief that financial success is evidence of personal healing, or that financial difficulty reveals a deficiency of character.

Present-Day Echoes

Where have we confused the cost of becoming commercially legible with the actual value of what we produce?

Contemporary Sightings

You may encounter this valuation model today in:

• High-ticket coaching and mastermind programs
• Financial manifestation and abundance courses
• Personal development sales funnels
• Business mentorship and certification programs
• Spiritual entrepreneurship communities
• Premium wellness and transformation services
• Any commercial environment where questioning the purchase is treated as evidence that the purchase is necessary

Leave a comment

RETURN TO THE PREVIOUS TERRITORY:

The distance between what we meant to give and what someone actually received.

INVESTIGATE YOUR OWN CURRENCY PORTFOLIO:

What are you already producing that the monetary economy has taught you to overlook?

Where is value accumulating? Where is it being extracted? Which exchanges support the continuation of your work, and which require you to spend more than you receive?

If you’re interested in investigating the personal currencies already circulating through your life, let’s talk.

The expedition begins with what you already possess.

Subscribe now

Current Exchange Rate

Highly Valued
• Anticipation
• Legibility
• Trust
• Consideration
• Human coherence

Frequently Externalized
• Navigation
• Interpretation
• Uncertainty
• Risk
• Compensatory labor

Local Customs

Travellers entering this territory may notice:

• A functioning component does not guarantee a coherent experience.
• Money is rarely the only currency changing hands.
• Participation and compensation are not the same kind of labor.
• Hospitality often appears before the customer does.
• Some of the smallest frictions reveal the largest architecture.

Border Advisory

Modern travellers are accustomed to judging whether a business works.

That question may not survive entry.

Watch instead for what the human being must supply to make the experience cohere—and whether that effort properly belongs to them.

A business can work without working for the human being inside it.

Observation Log

For those of you who have been around for a minute, what follows will grant you a deeper look at the structure underlying what I have been tinkering with and turning over the last few weeks. And for anyone new here, you’ll get a summary of the full spectrum of this phenomenon as it would appear perhaps in your own life.

I don’t particularly care whether the pizza was four stars or five.
It’s the moment I couldn’t figure out where to stand that I’m still thinking about.

Or how the employee had to explain why the seasonal flavor they were advertising wasn’t actually available.
Or when we were successfully greeted, seated and given chips—and then somehow disappeared from the operational consciousness of the business for forty-plus minutes.
Or the workshop where the materials were there, the people were lovely, and somehow the home-cooked meal felt more thoughtfully composed than the workshop we’d actually come for.

These are tiny things.

But I’ve realized I have an unusually difficult time not noticing them.

And more importantly, I notice how they relate:

The website changes what I expect from the room.
The room changes what I expect from the service.
The price changes what I expect from the experience.
The signage changes what I expect to be available.

A business can have excellent individual components and still leave the customer performing the invisible labor required to make them cohere.

Once I started noticing it in small transactions, I began seeing it in much larger ones.

At the pizza restaurant, the branding, smell and visual environment had already created an expectation before I’d ordered anything. But there was no obvious queue. The beverage selection seemed strangely narrow relative to both the aesthetic promise and the likely clientele. When we finished eating, I couldn’t determine whether we were expected to clear our own table. Assuming we were, doing so required carrying everything back through an ambiguously organized dining room.

None of this made the restaurant bad.

It made me work.

No, not very hard, and no, this is not labor anyone would reasonably complain about. It is merely a succession of tiny decisions the business has declined—or forgotten—to make on the customer’s behalf.

Every unanswered question transfers a microscopic amount of organizational labor across the counter. Most of us simply perform it.

And then we call the experience “fine.”

At a chocolate shop, I encountered the same phenomenon.

A sign advertised a seasonal flavor. I asked to sample it.

“Well, yes, we have it. It’s the seasonal flavor. But we don’t actually have it. Like, we usually have it, but not right now.”

The employee wasn’t failing. She was performing the labor required to reconcile the business’s own contradictory information.

The sign promised one reality.
Inventory presented another.
The employee translated between them.
I interpreted the translation.

All because nobody had removed a simple countertop sign.

We often to think improving an experience means adding something.

Sometimes improvement is removing the sign.

Subscribe now

I’ve experienced the inverse problem, too.

Once, at a restaurant, I was greeted, seated on the patio and given chips and salsa. And then nobody came back.

We ate the chips. We waited.

Eventually, after approximately half an hour without drinks, silverware or a server, we got up and left.

Nobody noticed.

Somewhere between those successful actions, responsibility disappeared. The system contained functioning components and still completely failed the human beings moving between them.

Here’s where I realized the limitations of measuring businesses component by component. Every component can report success while the human being carrying the experience quietly absorbs whatever fell between them.

And sometimes what falls between them is considerably more consequential than a missing server.

Recently I brought several women from my community to an Art of Tea workshop.

I had understood the invitation to mean that we would enter an intimate garden-apothecary environment, learn something about the craft of tea, practice it, and leave having crossed some small threshold of competence.

Instead, the experience amounted to little more than abstract finger-painting.

My sensitivity here probably comes from teaching pottery.

Someone can enter a pottery workshop knowing absolutely nothing about clay. A few hours later, she doesn’t need to be a potter… but she can hold a bowl. Instruction becomes action becomes object becomes memory.

People don’t necessarily need an impressive outcome. They need a legible one.

I started becoming suspicious of the way we calculate what a customer has actually paid. The women who attended that workshop did not merely exchange an admission price. They exchanged time, travel, attention, preparation, trust. Perhaps childcare. And because I’d invited them, I’d put some of my own social capital on the table, too.

But money is the currency businesses find easiest to count.

Once I started looking at transactions this way, some considerably less charming examples became visible.

So here’s the real tea:

Seasons ago, I entered a high-ticket coaching relationship.

Financial growth was central to the work. My finances were discussed in relation to what I should accomplish, what I could earn, and what the investment would supposedly help make possible. But the actual condition of my finances was not meaningfully incorporated into the intake process before I entered the agreement.

At the time, I was in the process of bankruptcy.

I want to be precise about this because precision matters here: I do not blame the coach for my bankruptcy. I made my own financial decisions. I signed the agreement. I retain responsibility for what I agreed to.

What I couldn’t reconcile was this:

What was the business designed to do when information emerged suggesting that its financial arrangement was no longer sustainable for the person it purported to help?

As new information about my bankruptcy status changed my ability to satisfy the existing fee schedule, I communicated what was happening and asked to renegotiate it. By then, I had already fallen outside the terms of the payment agreement. I raised the possibility that I should remove myself from participation until we could establish terms I could actually honor. What I encountered wasn’t curiosity about the changed conditions.

It was the contract.

The agreement designed to protect the business had become more durable than the circumstances of the human being inside it.

Eventually, I left.

Later came attempts to collect the remaining balance, including one communication involving an attorney’s office. I’m deliberately not litigating here whether that balance was legally enforceable. That’s a different question, and not the point of this demonstration.

What I’m pointing to is the original architecture.

Because the problem did not begin when I could no longer satisfy the agreement.

It began much earlier, when we were deciding what my hesitation meant.

During the closing conversation, I felt the instinct to speak with my husband before making the investment.

That instinct was treated as an objection to overcome. And I allowed it to be overcome.

Again: my decision.

But later, inside the coaching itself, I encountered versions of the same sales philosophy I had experienced in onboarding.

Hesitation could be reframed as fear.
Concern could become scarcity.
Failure to invest could become self-sabotage.
Financial reluctance could become evidence that someone was insufficiently committed to the future she claimed to desire.

None of these interpretations is necessarily false. Fear can prevent us from making good decisions. Scarcity can distort our perception. We often do sabotage the futures we say we want.

But there is another possibility:
Sometimes hesitation is information.
Sometimes the alarm is functioning correctly.
And sometimes “I cannot responsibly afford this” is a financial fact.

The danger begins when a framework becomes so authoritative that it can interpret almost any evidence against the desired decision as further evidence for it.

If I hesitate, I am afraid.
If I object, I am resistant.
If I cannot afford it, I am thinking from scarcity.
If I want to consult someone I trust, I am surrendering my authority.

The framework becomes remarkably difficult to contradict because contradiction itself can be absorbed as proof.

I was also encouraged by the promise that I could generate enough money very quickly to compensate for a substantial portion of what I owed.

I couldn’t.

And it gets weirder.

Because once financial pressure, personal development and identity become entangled, “I cannot responsibly afford this” can begin to sound suspiciously like a failure of belief, integrity or courage.

A financial fact becomes a psychological diagnosis.

And now the client has been assigned another form of labor:

She must determine whether the alarm she feels is wisdom or pathology.

I’m particularly sensitive to this because I’ve survived relationships in which emotional, mental, physical and financial power were not always used cleanly.

I have worked hard not to let those experiences turn openness into cynicism. I still want to trust people. I still want to risk. I still want to enter rooms without assuming that everyone inside them intends to exploit me. It took this experience for me to realize that my willingness is a valuable currency.

And I’ve become considerably more aware of what businesses do with the trust people bring them. Especially businesses that trade explicitly in transformation.

If you sell pizza, the ethical stakes of confusing me about a trash can are fairly low.

If you sell financial growth, psychological transformation, healing, leadership, business development, recovery, confidence, intimacy, spiritual development or personal power, vulnerability may be part of the material you are working with. That changes the standard.

The fact that someone signed something cannot be the only evidence that the transaction served them.

The fact that a sale converted cannot tell us whether it should have.

A completed sale is not proof of a well-made decision.

And a legally defensible business model is not necessarily a humane one.

Two inches beyond legally defensible, we encounter everyone’s favorite buzzword: optimized, and my skin starts to crawl.

Optimization requires a variable, of course. Usually something we can count: conversion, revenue, retention, efficiency. And all of those numbers can improve while the condition of the human being on the other side of them deteriorates. Not because they’re useless, just that metrics rarely capture the whole transaction.

A business can reduce labor internally by transferring it externally. Sometimes that means making the customer navigate or interpret what the business hasn’t made clear. At higher stakes, it can mean transferring financial risk, emotional regulation or strain into the customer’s relationships.

Even the responsibility for determining whether the service is harming the person purchasing it.

But see, the cost did not disappear, it changed currencies. And changed hands.

Which leaves me with a question considerably larger than customer service:

What does your business require the client to absorb in order for your business model to work?

I’ve started thinking that high-ticket may have considerably less to do with expensive materials or “optimization” than with how much has already been considered on your behalf.

Someone making the next step obvious without requiring you to ask what happens next. Nothing particularly extravagant, just a small piece of labor that meant we both understood the assignment.

This is also why I don’t think hospitality is synonymous with friendliness.

Hospitality can be embedded into an intake form, a payment schedule, a cancellation policy, a handoff between employees, the removal of a sign that shouldn’t still be hanging there.

Each of these marks a decision about what the business will carry and what it will leave for the person moving through it.

And I don’t think the goal is to make the client do nothing. A workshop participant should participate. A transformation client should have responsibilities. A customer may still need to choose, learn, practice or ask questions.

Sometimes that labor is precisely where the value lives. For me, the useful distinction is between participation and compensation.

Am I doing this work because it belongs to the experience? Or am I doing it because the business didn’t?

A person learning pottery should have to touch the clay. She shouldn’t have to figure out whether anyone intended to teach her what to do with it. Good social architecture doesn’t necessarily eliminate effort. It becomes more deliberate about whose effort belongs where.

Perhaps that’s what I’ve been reaching for when I use the word hospitality: evidence that someone considered your presence before requiring it.

We can analyze reviews, conversion rates, websites, traffic, copy, workflows, customer behavior, inventory and enormous quantities of feedback at scales no individual person could reasonably process.

Still, there remains entire segments of activity that are harder to track, and they range from things that are too small to make complaints about, all the way through assuming more risk than the provider. And they aren’t necessarily problems that become visible by examining any single component more closely.

Their meaning exists partly in relationship to one another.

Sometimes you have to inhabit an experience long enough to notice what its composition is asking a human being to do. And the person who built it may be uniquely disadvantaged in seeing some of that.

Not because she knows too little about her business.

Because she knows too much.

She already knows which door to use and what happens next. Familiarity has made the intended experience almost impossible for her to unknow.

I don’t imagine that my experience represents some objective human experience. I am one person, arriving with my own history, expectations, body, knowledge and blind spots.

But that is also the point.

I can arrive from the outside and ask whether what you intended to give survived the journey between your understanding and mine.

I’m not interested in evaluating a business from the position of an critic, more than in endorsing that passage between intention and reception. I want the person on the other side considered with the same care I would want extended to my friend, my mother, my grandmother, a stranger, or a child. Not because all of those people would experience the business the way I do. They wouldn’t.

Because none of them should have to already understand the business in order to receive what the business intended to give them.

For years, my work has moved between creative direction, production, art, writing, gatherings and helping other people’s ideas become tangible. From the outside, these can look like different kinds of work. From inside them, I keep doing much the same thing.

I pay attention to what someone intends to make possible, and then to what happens when another person actually encounters it.

Somewhere between the idea and the encounter, the thing being offered either arrives intact—or begins getting lost in translation.

I notice that passage.

Not because I know more about the business than the person who built it. Usually, the opposite is true.

They know the business.

I don’t.

And for a brief period, not knowing is useful. I can encounter what was made before familiarity teaches me how to compensate for it.

Increasingly, I think this is one of the throughlines of my work.

My attention follows what happens when an idea leaves the person who made it and enters a world she can no longer entirely control. What survives the translation? What becomes clearer? What gets distorted?

What requires the recipient to finish making sense of it?

And what arrives more beautifully than anyone planned?

At some point it occurred to me that this might actually be useful to someone else.

For now, I’m calling it the Client Experience Assessment.

The premise is somewhat unusual: A business commissions me to become its customer.

I enter without first being taught how everything is supposed to work—before familiarity teaches me how to compensate for any of it.

Then I report back.

Where did I have to compensate for something the business hadn’t made clear?
Where did intention and experience diverge?
And what is already working so beautifully that I wouldn’t touch it?

Because optimization is not automatically improvement.

Sometimes the strange, inefficient, handmade or generous little thing someone is preparing to eliminate is precisely the thing making the experience human.

There is also something unusually valuable about arriving only once.

A first encounter is a perishable kind of information. Once someone explains where to stand, which door to use, what the language means, why the sign is wrong, how the process works or why “we’ve always done it this way,” I cannot completely unknow it.

The businesses appearing in my public field notes remain anonymous because they haven’t commissioned an assessment. Those stories demonstrate how I pay attention, what the encounters teach me, and are not intended to parade public critiques for dramatic effect.

The findings belong to the business that commissions them.

I suspect some of the most expensive problems in our economy are hiding inside the difference between a business that works—

and a business that works for the human being inside it.

COMMISSION AN ASSESSMENT →

Field Notes

Dominant Question
Who is doing the work required for this experience to work?

Gift Carried Forward
The recognition that consideration can be designed before a person ever arrives.

Shadow Left Behind
The assumption that a successful transaction proves a successful experience.

Present-Day Echoes
Where are costs being transferred simply because they are difficult to measure?

Contemporary Sightings

You may encounter this exchange today in:

• Restaurants and retail
• Workshops and events
• Coaching and consulting
• Healthcare and wellness
• Hospitality and tourism
• Digital platforms and subscription services
• Any system where the customer quietly learns how to compensate for the system

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Continue Your Travels

Expedition 01

Client Experience Assessment

COMMISSION AN ASSESSMENT →