"Nobody is as one imagines", how so? In other words, when we look at someone or something, it is not really what one thinks or feels it to be.
In life we learn to develop in society through a game of realities and appearances determined by the level of confidence we have to show ourselves as we really are depending on the space in which we operate.
Learning this can only be achieved through trial and error. This determines how a person should behave depending on the expectations that are had regarding what can be achieved in a certain space and what is expected of the person by their peers.
So, when we have a person in front of us and we relate to them, is it true or fiction? How many times has it happened to us that we have a very positive first impression of a person and as we get to know them, we become disappointed because it is not what we expected.
It has happened to me many times. It is normal for a person to try to show their best side, their best qualities and highlight their best attributes; the problem begins when these characteristics do not coincide with its essence and an emotional shock occurs due to the incongruity of expectations with the reality experienced.
The same happens in the corporate sphere. Many companies worry about their façade, the packaging of the product or service, and when the client or user tries it, there is no immediate rejection because they moderately evaluate the quality and the results, immediately putting the company to the test to determine if in future occasions it can get to approve the company or brand.
The phrase that today constitutes the title of this piece, "Nobody is as one imagines it," I heard in a Mexican television series where the protagonist used it to sentence that the person with whom the plot of That moment should be given more opportunities and not prosecute her a priori, "give her another chance" in order to determine in the medium term what the person is really like and then proceed to apply a certain behavior on the part of the protagonist.
Although the public image tries to strategically manage the impact of verbal and non-verbal stimuli when we meet a character, company or brand, the process of building credibility and trust is that, a process, to which entities, leaders, entrepreneurs, public figures and brands are not willing to follow up because they believe that it requires a lot of money and shows few results.
And it is not like that.
I assure you that a new or positioned company thinks about the product launch, the marketing plan, the advertising, etc. And when the product or service has already impacted a certain audience that it was able to capture and wants to increase its market, it contemplates the improvements it can make to its sales strategy and not to its stimulation strategy, to its corporate public image strategy. which is a mistake in the 21st century.
How much longer will it take for the industrial, agricultural, commercial and financial sectors of Latin American countries to realize that the institutional bet is not on improving their marketing or advertising, but on seriously considering the implementation of a public image master plan that emotionally stimulate audiences?
In my professional opinion, if audiences are ever more rapidly changing, why don't companies and leaders adopt that pace?
Every day I come across shops, restaurants, vendors in general who do not know how to approach the customer, do not know how to manage audience dissatisfaction, vendors who do not even know their selling image, companies that do not have their corporate identity defined, etc.
I assure you that when they close the cash, the institutional feeling that remains is that what was done during the day was what could be sold and that better days will come. This erratic sales behavior is resolved by public image.
Thus, the public image generates the strategies so that the company or character is as the client imagines it… sustained over time…
