Podcasts about problem solution

[powerpresss] My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 175 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Bruce Dearling, patent attorney and partner at Hepworth Browne in the UK, and we talk about how non-technical features must be considered when assessing inventive step of patents at least according to recent decisions of the UK supreme court and the Unified Patent Court. Profile of Bruce Dearling UK Supreme Court Emotional Perception AI Limited UPC Abbot vs Sinocare But before we jump into this interesting interview, I have news for you: On May 20, 2026, the Swiss Federal Council adopted the fully revised Patent Ordinance, which will enter into force on January 1, 2027, together with the revised Patent Act. In the future, the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property will prepare a mandatory search report for each application; applicants can choose between a partially examined version and a full examination that assesses novelty and inventive step. The full examination costs an additional 300 Swiss francs, and renewal fees will increase by a total of eight percent over the 20-year term. On May 19, 2026, Asus entered into a licensing agreement with the Wi-Fi multimode patent pool managed by Sisvel, thereby ending all ongoing infringement proceedings. Sisvel bundles standard-essential patents in the pool from, among others, Atlantia, ETRI, and Mitsubishi Electric. On May 18, 2026, the UPC Local Chamber in Düsseldorf rejected Align Technology's application for a preliminary injunction against its Chinese competitor Angelalign. Angelalign may continue to sell its clear aligners within the UPC jurisdiction. Our partners Dirk Schulz, Ulrich Storz, and Wanze Zhang, together with Arnold Ruess, successfully represented Angelalign. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced midweek that, since October of last year, it has invalidated or is seeking to invalidate approximately 10,500 trademark applications and registrations in eleven administrative orders. Reasons include forged attorney signatures and the fabrication of non-existent filing requirements. This stems from ongoing abuse of the U.S. trademark system, primarily by non-U.S. applicants, which can lead to conflicts with validly registered trademarks for legitimate businesses. On May 12, 2026, the British Court of Appeal overturned a lower court decision that would have required Nokia to grant interim licenses for video coding patents. The court found that Nokia's license offer to the Taiwanese manufacturers Acer and Asus had already been made on RAND terms. In May, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a brief in the ongoing Corteva v. Inari litigation, expressing antitrust concerns regarding certain patent practices in the field of plant breeding. This marks the first time the agency has actively intervened in a biopharmaceutical patent dispute with implications for seed innovations. Episode 175 of the IP Fridays podcast was a conversation I will not forget quickly. My guest Bruce Dearling, partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK and a patent attorney for 36 years, took a case through every level of the British court system up to the Supreme Court and, in doing so, fundamentally changed patent law for AI inventions in the UK. The case is called Emotional Perception, and its effects reach well beyond British borders. Below I summarize the key points from our conversation. The full episode is available at IP Fridays. A. What Is the Emotional Perception Case About? The underlying invention concerns artificial neural networks. Specifically, it relates to a method of closing what is called the semantic gap at the output of a neural network. That sounds abstract, but the idea is straightforward: a neural network always produces an output that does not fully correspond to what a human would actually expect or feel. Closing that gap brings the system closer to human perception and human expectations. Bruce Dearling drafted this application himself and filed it at the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO). The Office rejected it as excluded subject matter, characterizing it as essentially a computer program as such. The legal basis for that rejection was the Aerotel decision from 2006. The case then went to the High Court, which found in favor of the applicant. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision. Then the UK Supreme Court stepped in and changed everything. B. The Aerotel Test and Its Flaws Since 2006, the Aerotel test had been the standard British method for assessing whether an invention falls within the excluded categories under patent law. It was a four-step approach: construe the claim, identify the actual contribution the invention makes to human knowledge, ask whether that contribution falls solely within excluded subject matter, and finally check whether the contribution is technical in nature. The problem Dearling described in our conversation is that Aerotel reverses the logical order of the analysis. You start with the contribution and only then ask about the exclusions under Article 52 EPC. The UK Supreme Court described Aerotel in its judgment as “unsound law” and overturned it. The EPO’s Technical Boards of Appeal had previously called Aerotel “disingenuous,” which at the time led to a public dispute between the British courts and the Boards. With the Emotional Perception ruling, that conflict has now been resolved in favor of harmonization with the EPO. C. What the UK Supreme Court Decided The Supreme Court made two central findings. First, the exclusion of computer programs “as such” is overcome as soon as a claim includes any piece of hardware. It does not matter whether that is a processor, a memory module, or any other component. The threshold is deliberately low. Dearling described this as the “any hardware” approach, which aligns fully with the EPO’s position following G1/19. Second, and in Dearling’s assessment the more important finding: when assessing inventive step, the invention must be considered as a whole. The Court introduced what it called an “intermediate step,” an analytical stage in which the interactions between all features of a claim are examined before the question of inventive step is addressed. Non-technical features cannot simply be struck out if they contribute to the overall technical effect of the invention. D. Inventive Step: The Intermediate Step This is the heart of the judgment. In EPO practice, Dearling said, it happens regularly that examiners strike through features they consider non-technical and thereby fail to assess the invention’s inventive step correctly. A recent Technical Board of Appeal decision, T 1249/22, already criticized this approach: a claim directed at a technical solution to a problem can be patentable even if the underlying problem is non-technical in nature. Dearling recalled a remark made by a Board of Appeal member at a hearing he attended years ago: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” That quote stayed with him because it names a structural problem that the intermediate step now addresses directly. The British method for assessing inventive step is the Pozzoli test, which differs from the EPO’s problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court explicitly retained Pozzoli because the problem-solution approach, in its view, is structurally infected with hindsight reasoning: you already know the invention, you work backwards to formulate an objective technical problem, and then you ask whether it would have been obvious for the skilled person to arrive at precisely that solution. Dearling sees this as a source of unfairness toward genuine inventions. E. Alignment with the Unified Patent Court In April 2025, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision in Abbott v. Sinocare (APP_000000901/2025, judgment of 17 April 2025). Dearling pointed out that this decision uses language and reasoning strikingly similar to the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling of February 2025. That is significant because the UPC is bound neither by UK courts nor by the EPO. The overlap suggests voluntary convergence. Dearling reported a conversation with a person close to the EPO, whom he did not name, who used the word “permissive” to describe the UK Supreme Court’s approach and indicated that the EPO might move toward it. Whether and how quickly that happens remains to be seen. What is clear is that the UPC, as the new European patent court, is setting its own standards, and the question of how to handle non-technical features in inventive step assessment is now being asked at multiple levels simultaneously. F. Implications for the EPO and Practice The EPO is not directly bound by the ruling. It is an administrative body, not a court. Dearling is nonetheless optimistic that change is coming. On one hand, external pressure is building: when the UK Supreme Court and the UPC articulate similar principles, convergence becomes hard to resist. On the other hand, Article 27.1 TRIPS requires all contracting states to make patents available in all fields of technology. Examiners routinely striking non-technical features from AI claims and rejecting them on that basis sits uncomfortably with that obligation. For the underlying application in the Emotional Perception case, the ruling has a pointed consequence. The Supreme Court did not grant the patent itself; it referred the matter back to the UKIPO for reconsideration under the intermediate step. The Office’s subsequent response was, in Dearling’s words, unconvincing. He suspects the Office is attempting to reintroduce the Aerotel test through the back door. As a last resort, he has not excluded a judicial review, a procedure that does not simply challenge the substantive decision but holds the Comptroller General of Patents to account for whether the Office is deliberately circumventing the Supreme Court’s direction on the intermediate step. That is, as Dearling put it, “a nuclear option,” but one he would not rule out if the evidence in the file already suggests the Office is in contempt of court. There is also an international dimension. Singapore’s Intellectual Property Office launched a public consultation shortly after the ruling, asking whether Singapore should adopt the Emotional Perception approach into national law. That is British soft power operating in real time within the Commonwealth. G. Three Takeaways for Patent Practitioners At the end of our conversation I asked Bruce Dearling to distill the most important practical points. His first takeaway: make sure the claim contains hardware. This applies not only to UK and European applications but is simply good drafting hygiene. Without hardware in the claim, the application remains exposed. The second takeaway concerns the description. Anyone filing an AI invention needs to explain clearly which function is achieved by which piece of hardware, circuit, or software. Not as boilerplate, but as a complete technical account that describes the real-world effects. Dearling’s experience is that practitioners who write the claim first and fill in the description afterward run into trouble. The third takeaway emerged from the conversation itself: how the EPO assesses inventive step for AI inventions is not a settled question. It is worth following the development of UPC case law and any shifts in EPO practice closely. Anyone advising on AI patent applications today needs to know these arguments. H. Conclusion The UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling is not a British footnote. It has declared the Aerotel test dead, introduced the intermediate step that brings non-technical features back into the inventive step analysis, and set off a convergence movement that is already visible at the UPC and still pending at the EPO. For everyone working in AI patent practice, whether in prosecution, examination, or counseling, this ruling is required reading. Rolf Claessen: Our interview guest on IP Fridays podcast is Bruce Dearling. He has been in the IP field and a patent attorney for 36 years and is partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK. Thank you very much for being on the podcast. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure, Rolf. Thank you for inviting me. Rolf Claessen: All right. We just met at the INTA annual meeting in London. And you talked about the UK Supreme Court case where you were involved. And the core questions were whether non-technical features would be considered when assessing inventive step of patents. Can you briefly summarize this case? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit more than that. It started — I actually wrote the case. And I prosecuted it through the patent office. The patent office rejected the case for being excluded subject matter. So pretty much the excluded subject matter provisions in the UK are nearly identical. They’re as near as practical to the language of the EPC, so those of the European Patent Office — Article 52.2. But again, they apply as such. The actual technology relates to artificial neural networks. And the invention related to a very clever way of what is termed closing the semantic gap at the output of the neural network. So that means that in a neural network, there is always a discrepancy between the output of the neural network in terms of what it’s telling you you should be thinking essentially, and what reality is. So if you can close the semantic gap, then you align the neural network or the artificial intelligence system to better reflect human knowledge or human reactions and human expectations. So that’s really what the invention is about. There’s no point in going into too much detail with it — that’s the way it is. It’s very clever. So the UKIPO rejected this because they said it was essentially a computer program excluded from patentability as such. And they used a decision which is called Aerotel, which has been around since 2006. And that decision has caused considerable consternation and tension between the EPO Technical Boards of Appeal and the UK courts. Aerotel was described as being essentially disingenuous by the EPO Technical Board of Appeal. And the UK courts pushed back and said, you don’t know what you’re talking about. So that’s where it fell apart. So that’s where they rejected it for essentially being a computer program as such, possibly with a bit of business methods thrown in as well. But let’s leave that for the time being. So the case then went to the High Court and at the High Court, we won. The judge said, actually, it’s not a computer program. Neural networks aren’t computers. They’re not programs themselves. There’s more to them than that. And the invention as claimed is not excluded from patentability as such. The UKIPO obviously weren’t very happy about that because they liked their Aerotel case and so they appealed it. And they appealed it on several grounds, including a new one, which was that it was a mathematical method. The Court of Appeal decided that the UKIPO was right and that we were wrong, so we lost the case. So we then went to the Supreme Court. Well, actually, they denied us an ability to go to the Supreme Court. The court said no appeal. We went — actually, no, I think there is a bigger issue here — because we realized, or I realized at that point, that the work that we were doing was much broader than this. It requires real consideration of what an invention is at a fundamental level. So not only exclusions, but how inventive step is applied. And these issues were built into the case from the very beginning. And they sort of — I wouldn’t say crept up on the court as we went through — but they became more and more prominent to the extent that ultimately, when we made an application to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court went, yeah, we’ve got some issues here. We want to hear the full arguments on why this is not excluded from patentability, why Aerotel is potentially bad and how we more or less try to align ourselves with the European Patent Office. So that’s essentially what happened. And the Supreme Court hearing was last July. It took them the thick end of eight months to come out with a decision, which was issued in early February, at which point the entire legal landscape in the UK changed because they said we were right. The Patent Office doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Aerotel is bad. It’s unsound. That’s what they described it as — unsound law. It needs to be removed and we’re going to harmonize with the European Patent Office. So before I — I’m just going on a bit of a rant here, standing on my soapbox telling you what you already know. But the Aerotel test essentially was — it was a four-step test, past tense. So you firstly had to construe the claim. That’s pretty straightforward. Then you actually had to identify the actual contribution. This is what they said — identify the contribution. Really in this aspect, you’re asking what, as a matter of substance rather than form, the inventor has added to human knowledge. So that’s what they said the contribution was. And then they said, the next step in Aerotel was to ask, well, does that contribution fall solely within the excluded subject matter field or realm? And then they said, well, if you get through that question, then you check the actual contribution or the alleged contribution to see whether it’s technical in nature. So that’s the Aerotel test as it was. And what the Supreme Court in their unanimous final decision said was that Aerotel at best jumbles up the order. It reverses the logical order of the analysis by starting with the contributions and then addressing the Article 52 exclusions. And then finally it goes back to what the technical nature of the invention is about. So they really went, no, we don’t like any of this stuff. It’s bad, it’s stupid, it puts the cart before the horse. So, in the intervening period between finding the case and actually seeing it progress all the way to the Supreme Court, we obviously had the G1/19 decision from the EPO Enlarged Board. And they basically said that they are going to validate any hardware as the approach. And that’s essentially what the UK also went with. The UK Supreme Court said we’re going to say that the threshold of patentability — or the exclusion to patentability — is simply overcome by the inclusion in a claim of any piece of hardware, whether it’s a processor or a piece of memory or whatever. It doesn’t matter. Any hardware makes the invention a technical invention. So it’s a really low threshold to consider. And they then went, well, actually, if we now align and harmonize with the European Patent Office sensibly, then we need to look at how we assess inventive step, which is the other thing that we raised with the Supreme Court. In fact, we probably raised it at other times and in all the other instances as well, but it came to a head at the Supreme Court. So the Supreme Court then also went a bit further and said, well, actually, whilst we do like the global approach to assessing inventive step for all fields of technology — whether it’s chemistry or biotech or electronics or software or AI — we use a test called Pozzoli. So that isn’t problem-solution. We don’t like problem-solution. We think it’s not codified in the European Patent Office. It’s just a mechanism that the EPO has come up with to try to objectively assess inventive step. We don’t particularly think that’s appropriate. We like our approach called Pozzoli. That’s it. So we’re going to say with Pozzoli, however, in order to actually understand — particularly in the context of mixed inventions having technical and non-technical features — it’s necessary for the examiner to undertake the so-called intermediate step, where you have to look at the interactions between features within a claim. The invention is defined by the claim. That’s what the act says. That’s what everyone understands. It’s the invention defined by the claim. So you look at the claim features and then you have to understand the interactions that take place. And even if they are between technical and non-technical features, if they bring about an overall technical effect when you consider the invention as a whole, then your claim should be good and you can assess it for classical inventive step. So that’s really where we’re at. There’s a lot to unpack there already. It’s probably a podcast in its own right, but that’s the positive history of where we’re at. And I can keep going if you wish me to for a second and talk about why I think this is — we’ll just contrast it quickly with the problem-solution approach at the EPO and COMVIK. So for inventions in the computer-implemented field, they use COMVIK and the problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court said, as I said, they don’t like problem-solution. I think the problem-solution issue is that it is also inherently pre-baked with hindsight because you have to look at the invention and then step back and exclude those features which are common. And then you formulate a problem based on the function that the claim achieves. And then you’re asking whether or not it would be obvious for a skilled person to arrive at the claimed invention, having been given that hindsight-developed problem. So COMVIK is not great by any means. And we know from a practical perspective that examiners are only too willing to look at a claim and simply line through features which they believe are non-technical, whereas they don’t actually look at the interaction of those features in the context of the claim as a whole. There is also a decision — very recent one actually, about a year ago — T 1249/22, where the Technical Board of Appeal told the examiners and the examining division, you cannot do this. It’s okay to have a claim directed towards an invention in a non-technical field, as long as the invention is directed to a technical solution of that problem. I think it’s paragraphs 11 and 12 or 10 of that decision that are worth looking at. But they’re saying that in all fields of technology, it doesn’t matter as long as the technical solution is about technology — therefore, you should be able to obtain a patent as long as there is a realistic and appropriate technical effect. Be careful actually, Bruce — I don’t mean technical contribution, I mean technical effect. There’s a reason for that distinction. Rolf Claessen: The non-technical features are nevertheless used to assess inventive step in the UK now after this decision, right? Bruce Dearling: Yes, that is the intermediate step. The decision says you must look at the invention as a whole. It’s the important thing. There are a couple of issues that arise out of this. The first one is that you have to provide context for the invention. The Supreme Court never provided any specific guidance about how we deal with the intermediate step or what the exact test is, which is in some respects fine. It seems to be fairly clear that you just have to engage your gray matter — your neurons — to work out what is going on in the real world. And once you work out what’s going on in the real world, what the benefits are, then you look at whether or not the actual implementation of the invention fundamentally has a technical flavor to it, which is not just coding, not just simple coding, but it does something smarter. There’s a real technical impetus. There’s a technical effect. Now that actually brings me onto something I’ve postulated or said. I think the intermediate step will follow something like what I’ve termed the holistic character test, which essentially is: work out what’s going on in the real world. Then once you’ve worked out what’s actually being achieved, what the benefits are, what the invention’s concerned with, then you ask the question, how am I achieving it technically? And how is there a technical effect? How does the technical effect arise? That brings out a couple of issues. The first one is that it’s actually about the word “contribution” because it depends on how the word is used. So if you look at head note one in COMVIK, it uses the word “contribute” — how the non-technical feature contributes to the invention. So that’s an additive inclusive concept. The UK IPO historically, and arguably at the moment today whilst they’re trying to retrain their 400 examiners — which this has caused them to have to do — their idea of contribution is this backward-looking concept. So technical contribution and technical effect, I think — although we mix them up and interchange them — are distinct. Technical contribution: you’re looking backwards. Technical effect is what you look at when you look forward into what’s going on. So this is subtle — it’s really subtle, but it’s important. And once you realize that you are actually looking for the technical effects, then you’re on much safer ground. It’s much more objective in terms of the assessment. This might be somewhat contentious, because it’s the way I’m looking at this, but I’ve been working on this a long, long time and thinking about it for probably decades, worryingly so. So technical contribution and technical effects are probably not the same, where they are interchangeably used to mean the same thing within existing decisions. Rolf Claessen: And in the beginning you said, now that Aerotel is dead basically, it’s more harmonized with the EPO’s approach. But what I take from the discussion now is that maybe — especially in view of the problem-solution approach — it’s not fully harmonized with the EPO’s approach at the moment, right? Or did the UK Supreme Court get something wrong, or was that a desired outcome from your point of view that this is not so completely harmonized with the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Well, the EPO — the any-hardware solution is fully harmonized, no doubt. So it’s now a question of inventive step under Article 56 or Section 3 of the Act. The EPC nowhere mandates the use of problem-solution. And we know that there are many different ways of actually assessing inventive step, including the concrete elaboration test from last year and problem-of-invention approaches. So there are numerous ways of assessing inventive step. So the UK says, “Pozzoli — we like Pozzoli.” Interestingly, I had a discussion with someone I probably can’t mention. They’re saying that the UK approach may actually be more permissive now. It might even influence how the EPO operates. So they may move away from COMVIK towards more of a Pozzoli approach, which basically says this: You identify the notion of the skilled person — step one. You identify the common general knowledge of that skilled person — step one B. You identify the inventive concept of the claim in question, where you construe it if you can’t work out what it is. You then identify what the differences are. And then you ask the question, is it obvious to the skilled person, given knowledge of the common general knowledge? This is entirely not artificial because, as I said beforehand, when you look at problem-solution, you are formulating a problem by backtracking from what the claimed invention is to a situation where you say, well, these are the common features and I’m going to project a problem to try and solve. Now that is already tainted with hindsight reasoning. It’s not safe, it’s not thoroughly objective. There is an inherent problem with this which sees good inventions cast by the wayside. Although it’s a preferred mechanism, it’s not fully baked. There are situations where examiners are inherently lazy, or they just simply use something like the requirements specification argument, which is just factual. It just demonstrates that they can’t be bothered to actually argue it properly or think about what the invention is. Sorry to any examiners listening to this, but this is just my personal view, that sometimes there are problems. I’m reminded of a quote from an EPI hearing I was at a long time ago, where the Legal Board of Appeal member said: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” Now that one has stayed with me because you think — did someone just say that? And the answer is yes, they did. But it just goes to show that there is some tension between the TBA and the examining divisions, and they don’t always get it right. Rolf Claessen: So there might be a small difference now between the UKIPO’s future approach of assessing inventive step and the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, it might do. But the other interesting thing here — and thank you for pointing this out, I hadn’t entirely caught up with it, I’ve been traveling beforehand and I missed some of the UPC case law. So the UPC case law — in, was it — yeah, we talked about that. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. There was a decision in April, Abbott versus Sinocare. Bruce Dearling: Yeah, 901 of 2025. So a Court of Appeal decision from the UPC. It was APP_000000901, I believe, 2025. Decision 17th of April, hearing 27th of March. The UPC is not bound by — it’s a court. The European Patent Office is not a court, it’s an agency that administers and looks after the administrative rule of law. So the fact that this decision came out from the UK Supreme Court in February, and you see almost identical language used in the UPC decision, suggests that there is some alignment here, or some convergence in thought. Now, whilst the UPC decision also references G1/19 and uses problem-solution, there is enough — you’ve got to bear in mind that high-level courts do look at each other’s decisions. And this is really a question of influence and the desire to converge. So the fact that they’ve done this at this time is quite interesting. Again, I can’t quote someone directly from the EPO, although I would love to. They were saying — at a very high level — and they used the words “converge UPC practice towards UK Supreme Court practice on interpretation of the law.” So this may actually be happening in real time. Again, it would be wrong to actually refer to anyone by name, but it’s an observation that when I looked at the case, I can see why this is going ahead. And I can see why the judiciaries — they want to maintain independent judicial controls. They won’t reference the UK Supreme Court decision, not least because we’re not in the UPC. But if you look at the arguments in sections 106 and 107 of the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception decision and head note one, you go — wow, this is very close. Rolf Claessen: Very close and nearly identical wording. Yeah. And the UPC also now uses non-technical features for assessing inventive step. Is that a problem for the EPO that has historically been aggressive in throwing out non-technical features for inventive step analysis? Bruce Dearling: Well, I think they really need to get to the situation — I don’t know — this holistic character test that I’m sort of proposing, where you really have to think about what the invention is achieving, and then look at how it’s technically being achieved. And then if you look at that again in the context of that other decision I mentioned — T 1249/22 — it says something like, in the case of an invention that amounts to a technical implementation of a non-technical method, provided the non-technical method does not contribute to the technical character of the invention. The board validated the approach of identifying the non-technical method and then goes through and says it’s patentable. There are decisions like this which suggest that examining divisions have to give it a bit more thought, because the Technical Board will realize that to satisfy the WTO requirements — which pretty much everyone is bound by — Article 27.1 TRIPS, which requires that you protect all fields of technology. And that means whether it’s data processing or business methods, because business methods can be patentable so long as they are implemented on a technical basis. That essentially seems to be what T 1249/22 is saying, although it doesn’t explicitly say “allowing business methods.” The exclusion is only “as such.” So does this decision, in combination with the Supreme Court case and the movement of the UPC, say: well, actually, let’s look at this properly? It requires objective assessments, not just superficial “let’s strike through that feature because I don’t like it, it looks non-technical.” Rolf Claessen: So are you hopeful that the EPO is adjusting and will reshape their case law in view of the UPC decision and the UK Supreme Court decision? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit unfortunate that the corresponding UK case at the EPO was dropped by the applicants, because it was heading towards an examination hearing at the examining division. It would have gone to the TBA, and I’m sure it would then have gone from the TBA to the Enlarged Board. I’m pretty sure that’s the case. There is another case from the same client which will probably argue the same thing because the specs are almost identical. It’s just lagged in time. So is it going to change? I hope so, because I think the EPO have got it wrong — more often than not in this field. Well, maybe not more often than not — they get it wrong more times than they should do. Would I like to see it changed? Yes, I would, because I want the examiners to actually think about the technology as opposed to just — oh, it’s not — I don’t want to engage the gray matter. That serves no one. That doesn’t serve technology. That doesn’t serve industry. These patent rights are there for a reason. They are property rights. I’m referring to the award of the 2025 Nobel Prize for Economics — they are a core driver for society’s development. So the 2025 Nobel Prize was for something called creative destruction — the replacement of old technology with new — and it’s based on the patent paradigm. So all this stuff is coming to a head now. It’s just a question of how quickly the EPO actually catch up, and maybe they have something to catch up on. It’s just understanding that the examiners have to start to think. As I said, we’ve got the issues at the UKIPO where they’re going to have to retrain 400 examiners. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, right. Bruce Dearling: The Emotional Perception case wasn’t granted by the Supreme Court. They referred it back to the patent office for consideration under the intermediate step. So the patent office produced a response that I would describe as — I’d say arguably — not well reasoned, which I’ve filed the response to, which basically says you don’t really know what you’re talking about. What really worries me a bit is that I think they’re trying to introduce the Aerotel case through the back door. It’s backsliding. It’s a mechanism for trying to apply it in a different way or a different context, which would be wrong. I think they believe that the applicant will appeal this if they get a bad decision — they will appeal it back to the courts again via the High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court route. I say maybe not. I say maybe the client will file what they call a judicial review, which is a nuclear option. That’s when you actually hold the Comptroller General of Patents to account and get full discovery of whether or not there’s internal documentation showing that they are deliberately circumventing the direction of the Supreme Court on the intermediate step. This is basically holding them to account and saying: if you’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately, you are in contempt of the law. So judicial review is a really serious thing to do, but it’s certainly something I would not exclude from consideration. We’ll see what happens. It’s not saying we’re just going to go through the courts and make them decide on this. We’re going to say you’re wrong. And there’s already enough evidence in the files to suggest that they are probably in contempt of court and they’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately. They may not know any better at the moment — they need to be guided — but the consequences for them are potentially severe. Rolf Claessen: I have another question for you. You were the instructing attorney — do you think the decision was perfect? What argument that you made was the most underappreciated by the court? And where do you think the judgment got it wrong, or was it all perfect? Bruce Dearling: No, it got 90% or 95% correct. The intermediate step is right. That’s the most important thing in the decision — it’s the intermediate step. The any-hardware thing — that’s logical, that makes some sense — but if people say “if the any-hardware rule is the important bit,” no it isn’t. It’s the intermediate step. That’s the important thing. Where do they go wrong? I think they went wrong because — and you’ve got to bear in mind that unlike German courts, I’ve got to be careful about how I express this — generally, as I understand it, and correct me if I’m wrong, but the judiciary in Germany on patent cases are generally more technically able. They’re normally technically qualified. I look at the Supreme Court justices and the Court of Appeal justices — we had one who was a humanities undergrad, one was a chemist. Good luck with trying to argue complex artificial neural network technologies, which are difficult even for me to understand. And I’ve been working in the field. They’re hard to understand. They require real understanding, real appreciation. They could say, well, actually we don’t need to look at the technology — but frankly, if you’re looking at the statutes and exclusions to patentability and asking what a computer program is, then you need to understand what these technical terms really are. And if you can’t, then the judgment is potentially flawed. Their finding that the neural network is a computer program is, I think, technically obtuse. You know that the Singaporean government — the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore — released about six weeks ago a consultation note to the Singaporean profession and population, asking: is the Emotional Perception case right, and do we need to adopt it into Singaporean national law? So this is direct soft power from the UK Supreme Court changing Commonwealth legislation and statutes. We’ll see what happens. But from what I’ve seen of a draft response from the attorneys, they’re saying essentially: we agree any hardware is right, the intermediate step is right. The assessment of the neural network as a computer program is wrong, or it just doesn’t make any sense. And I’ve made the same comments before in SIPA, in the relevant round in March. There’s a disconnect. I mean, it’s like they equate a computer program with being able to be run on an analog computer. Now, an analog computer has no central processing unit. An analog computer just has resistors and transistors and capacitors. So if they’re saying that an analog computer can run a program — that’s essentially what they’re saying in part of the judgment. Where is the program in an analog computer? And if they’re saying it’s in the values of the resistors and the capacitors, then that has implications for any circuit we’ve got — it’s potentially a computer program — which is just madness, because it doesn’t sit well with the legislation and decisions we’ve looked at over the last 50 years. This is a real problem. It may be a storm in a teacup because you can overcome the objections by having any hardware, but it’s an argument they shouldn’t have been making. It seems to be abstract legal argumentation which has little credibility in my personal view, although it’s now law. It may be that someone can take that, have an argument with the Supreme Court, get them to fix this. The other thing is the EPO looks at a neural network as a mathematical method, and the UK now says it’s a computer program. Neither is right. The EPO is wrong as well. If you look at the actual decision which they regularly quote — the Vicom case — if you actually read the claim and look at the case, you see that it doesn’t make a huge amount of sense. A neural network has applied mathematics in it. It can be based on a computer program because it’s required to set up the learning objectives and the loss function. Mathematical processes — it tweaks the weighting factors of neurons over the course of the training epochs. But at the end of the day, if the function performed by the neural network is new and it’s directed towards a technical implementation which is technically relevant, then it shouldn’t fail for being a mathematical method. And I think the EPO guidelines actually say that. Even recommendations — the UK court said that a recommendation is not technical. Well, actually it is, because it’s data processing, and you’ve got to work out how does the data processing work to provide an improved recommendation? Again, it goes back to the T 1249/22 decision. There’s a whole raft of these things which are left not entirely resolved. There’s enough here to keep someone busy for a few more years. Rolf Claessen: Right. So I have a question for you now that we’ve talked about the decision of the UK Supreme Court and the UPC — the Unified Patent Court — with very, very similar wording. What do you say are the three most important takeaways for patent practitioners in the US, in Europe, in the UK, before the EPO? Are there any things that you really want patent practitioners to take away from our discussion here? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, okay. So first: make sure the claim has some structure in it. You need to have any hardware. That’s number one — in terms of claim drafting. In terms of the description, you really have to understand what the invention is about. And you’ve got to make sure that you explain what function is achieved by what piece of hardware, kit or software. And if you do that — don’t nickel-and-dime this by writing the claim first — I would suggest that you run into problems. You need to understand what the invention is about. And you need to make sure that the description is complete and full to describe the functionality and the effects that are achieved in the real world. And if you can do that, then you’re on a much sounder basis — much, much stronger. There’s a much stronger foundation for this. So that’s two things. Is there a third one? That’s me being a bit cheeky, but I suppose I know what’s going on. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, but maybe the third takeaway is that maybe the EPO will rethink the way — at least how AI inventions are assessed for inventive step. Bruce Dearling: Well, as I said to you before, it could be that that’s the case. I don’t want to repeat myself again. The word “permissive” was used in a conversation I had with respect to the UK Supreme Court approach. COMVIK fundamentally still breaks with me and has done for years, because the way it’s set up and the way it’s applied distorts fundamentally what the invention is about. And until such time as that distortion is removed, there is a problem of objectivity versus subjectivity. And I think that’s really what the EPO has to grapple with. It’s not an easy thing to deal with, but maybe there are things going on. Bruce Dearling: It’s not an easy thing to deal with. I don’t know who’s going to argue it. It would have been useful for me to still have the original case up and running at the EPO because these arguments would have been fleshed out. I’m pretty sure they would have been referred to the Enlarged Board. We would have got it resolved. So it’s whether or not I can now work this into the existing case to try and get the examining division to — well, they will refuse, I suspect. And then it’ll go to the TBA. And then the TBA will have to look at this, hopefully with the referrals to the Enlarged Board. And then that fixes the problem on a national and international basis. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. Let’s see. [Laughs] Bruce Dearling: No, we don’t know. I mean, you might have a different view. What do you think? Do you think COMVIK is fundamentally right or fundamentally wrong? Rolf Claessen: Well, I’m not so much into AI inventions. I’m a chemist and I usually deal with chemistry inventions. But from the discussion that we had, I think that the EPO might rethink their position. I don’t know. Let’s see. Let’s hope so. Bruce Dearling: Well, they liked it. They liked problem-solution. It’s been with us for 25 years. It suggests that it’s a compromise. It’s not mandated by the European Patent Convention — that’s the point. It’s something they think works. And these things only work until such time as someone comes along and says, actually, you’re wrong, and this is the reason. Rolf Claessen: Let’s see if they choose a different route at least for AI inventions. So Bruce, thank you very much for your insight and for talking about the case that you were involved in with the UK Supreme Court. Where could people reach you if they have more questions about this field — basically patents, AI protection in the UK and Europe — and if they want to ask you more questions about this case? Bruce Dearling: Sure. Through the Hepworth Brown website or my LinkedIn profile, I suppose. The Hepworth Brown website has an email link. I’m trying to post things on it as well to try and provide a bit more context. But if people have fundamental questions on this stuff, then I’m happy to try and answer them. I suppose that I can be considered to be quite knowledgeable in the area. Rolf Claessen: Right. Certainly more than I am. [Laughing] Bruce Dearling: So I was fortunate. As a consequence of the work I’m doing, I was appointed last year to the WIPO Standing Committee on Patents and Privacy. That was discussed for the issues of where WIPO goes and what the direction of the problems are that we have in high-tech areas. So there seems to be some degree of understanding that I might know what I’m talking about. I think I probably do. Rolf Claessen: Thank you, Bruce. Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure. Thank you very much, Rolf.

YouTube ads veteran Brett Curry (OMG Commerce) and TikTok Shop expert Jordan West (Social Commerce Club) went back and forth live on what's actually moving the needle for D2C brands right now — and some of their takes are going to sting. Most brands are still treating Google spend as a given, measuring YouTube with click-based attribution that was never built for it, and ignoring a TikTok Shop launch strategy that flips the creator dynamic entirely.Inside the episode:The YouTube Shorts formula that's working in 2026 — why Brett reversed his position, and the 4 things a video must have (including minimum length) before you waste money testing itThe Blitz methodology explained — how Social Commerce Club seeds hundreds of creators in a 24–48 hour window to manufacture momentum and make big creators come to you instead of the other way aroundWhy Jordan thinks most Google spend is a non-incremental tax — and the channel hierarchy he'd use for every D2C brand over $10MThe TikTok Shop–to–Shopify halo effect — the data Jordan's team is seeing that almost nobody is talking about yet"My brand is too premium for TikTok Shop" — Jordan's reframe on why that objection is almost always wrong, and what to ask insteadSponsored by OMG Commerce - go to (https://www.omgcommerce.com/contact) and request your FREE strategy session today!Chapters:[0:00] Introduction: Brett Curry & Jordan West Swap Podcasts[1:09] Why YouTube CPMs Are the Most Underpriced in the Industry[5:00] What's Working on YouTube Shorts: The Framework for Winning Creative[7:57] TikTok Shop Deep Dive: Jordan's Obsession with Demand Generation[10:01] Like, Know, and Trust: Why YouTube Is the Ultimate Brand-Building Platform[11:28] Ad Break: OMG Commerce Omnichannel Growth[12:37] The Blitz Methodology: How Social Commerce Club Concentrates Creator Signal[16:46] Moments vs. Blitzes Explained: Definitions and How They Drive Momentum[19:42] How Far Can Brands Actually Scale on YouTube?[21:53] Why MTA Tools Underreport YouTube: The Case for Incrementality Testing[22:58] The Problem with Multi-Touch Attribution: Jordan's New Halo Tracking Concept[25:17] Incrementality Explained with a Retail Store Analogy[28:43] Rapid Fire YouTube Questions: Mashup Creatives and Repurposing Creator Content[30:53] YouTube Targeting Strategy: Why You Still Need to Feed the Algorithm Signal[32:22] Which Brands Should Be on YouTube But Aren't?[33:09] Hot Take: The Right Ad Spend Hierarchy for D2C Brands[34:43] YouTube vs. Meta by Product Type: Apparel, Problem-Solution, and Omnichannel[37:15] If TV Works, YouTube Should Work: The CTV and Linear TV Connection[38:10] Is Your Brand Too Premium for TikTok Shop? Jordan's Answer[39:42] Why TikTok Shop Is a Fundamentally Different Beast Than TikTok Ads[41:05] Wrap-Up: Where to Find Brett and JordanConnect With Brett:LinkedIn: / thebrettcurryYouTube: / @omgcommerceWebsite: https://www.omgcommerce.com/Request a Free Strategy Session: https://www.omgcommerce.com/contactRelevant Links: Jordan's LinkedIn: jordan-west-marketer/ ‍Past guests on eCommerce Evolution include Ezra Firestone, Steve Chou, Drew Sanocki, Jacques Spitzer, Jeremy Horowitz, Ryan Moran, Sean Frank, Andrew Youderian, Ryan McKenzie, Joseph Wilkins, Cody Wittick, Miki Agrawal, Justin Brooke, Nish Samantray, Kurt Elster, John Parkes, Chris Mercer, Rabah Rahil, Bear Handlon, JC Hite, Frederick Vallaeys, Preston Rutherford, Anthony Mink, Bill D'Allessandro, Stephane Colleu, Jeff Oxford, Bryan Porter and more

How to test problem-solution fit for startups in 2026.Part 2/6 of the Bae HQ IncuBaetor. To do the assignments and full programme: ⁠https://www.thebaehq.com/incubaetor⁠Bae HQ's IncuBaetor is our programme for first-time founders new to the startup world.The goal is to help you to test your idea with structure & feedback. Starting a startup can be scary and you'll gain confidence in your path through the IncuBaetor.All of the workshop content is available online!The primary reason to take part in the IncuBaetor is to gain direct feedback through assignments.❤️ Join the community: ⁠http://thebaehq.com/join⁠

Relapse and Relapse Prevention for Overeating Featuring Dr. Angela Krumm On today's podcast, we proudly feature an old friend, Dr. Angela Krumm, on the topic of relapse prevention for habits and addictions. This is certainly a top of incredible importance, since all treatments for all habits and addictions seem to have extremely high relapse rates. Anything we could do to reduce that would be a major contribution. Angela was on our Feeling Good Podcast #270 on Nov 29, 2021 describing some TEAM CBT methods she'd developed to deal with her own weight gain. In podcast #270 she taught listeners how to set process goals, instead of outcome focused goals. She then taught about the Triple Paradox, Habit Addiction Log, Devil's Advocate technique, and the Problem-Solution log. In that first episode she explained that this was a difficult time in her life: her father had died, and she'd also experienced a traumatic fall which caused a concussion. So she fell off being careful about her diet, and one day was shocked that she could not recognize herself—due to weight gain--in a photo, and was on the fast track to Type II Diabetes. As a result, she utilized many of the TEAM CBT techniques and slowly, but surely, lost weight and kept it off for multiple years. She explains that she was "solid for a long time, but have to confess, with shame, that I eventually relapsed because I got over-confident. I'd been tracking what I ate, which was an important key for me, and stopped keeping up with it consistently, thinking I didn't really need to anymore." We reviewed the kinds of tempting thoughts she'd had (and still has, of course, at times), when she feels tempted by her favorites: things like delicious brownies, red wine, and other sweet treats.  She has tempting thoughts such as: I deserve to take a break from tracking what I eat. I deserve a treat—I've had a hard day. It's silly to be so rigid. I deserve to eat whatever I want. Spontaneity is one of my core values! During the podcast, we illustrated the Devil's Advocate Technique (DAT), which is powerful and a lot of fun, but sometimes trickier than it looks. When Angela gave a "good" but not "huge" response to one of these tempting thoughts, I automatically suggested a role-reversal. Rhonda immediately and rightly reminded us that we never do role-reversals when people are stuck during the Devil's Advocate. Instead, we paradox the person and sit with open hands. Rhonda modeled this beautifully and it worked like a charm. Angela had a sudden about face and blew the tempting thought out of the water immediately. We made three teaching points on DAT. Don't give in to the urge to "help." This will have the opposite effect of keeping the patient stuck. Realize that if you're a therapist, and your patient cannot convincingly defeat all the temping thoughts in the office, the likelihood that they can defeat them when they're at home is 0%. So, the DAT is both a powerful technique to boost motivation with tools you can use when tempted, but it is also a powerful test of motivation. Remember to Sit with Open Hands if your patients cannot convincingly defeat their tempting thoughts. Angela shared that she now realizes that the main reason for her relapse was that she had skipped relapse prevention. This is the danger of being your own therapist, sometimes you make the mistake of cutting corners or getting overly confident. She asked to return to the podcast today to talk about that important mistake and help others prevent that mistake in the future. She wants us to emphasize the important of Relapse Prevention for all habits and addictions. When Angela mentioned that she'd relapsed in her eating to a therapist who was just learning TEAM-CBT, the therapist seemed shocked and asked, "Oh, does this mean that the techniques we're learning don't actually work?" This is such a great (but naïve and common) question, because we always emphasize that all patients—in fact all human beings—will relapse after recovery from depression, anxiety, a relationship conflict, or a habit / addiction. That's why it's so important to tell patients about relapse before discharge from therapy, and do a brief but intensive relapse prevention intervention. We reviewed several of the Relapse Prevention techniques, including the Problem Solution List and the Relapse Prevention Daily Mood Log, using and recording the Externalization of Voices. When you do this step with a patient, ask them to imagine the future moment in time when they have relapsed. It's important to capture the thoughts that will lead them to give up and quit using the techniques. Often, these are hopeless thoughts about the usefulness of the techniques or their ability to remain in recovery. If these thoughts are left unchecked, they will spiral the person into a deeper and more lengthy relapse. If they can predict the thoughts ahead of time and generate powerful rebuttals to use in that moment, then their first moment of relapse can be turned around quickly! We listed several of Angela's predicted negative thoughts during her relapse: I should not have let this happen. 100% I'm not strong enough. 60% It's just too hard to start tracking and logging what I eat again. 65% It will be too painful to have to track and see what I've eaten. 60% This isn't fair. It should be so hard to be healthy! 70% Screw it. I should just accept this and give up! 40% Podcast listeners will judge me because I have gained weight again. 10% We practiced challenging those thoughts with the Externalization of Voices, and Rhonda summarize several of the strategies that can be the most helpful: Self-Defense The Acceptance Paradox. The Counter-Attack Technique A combination of two or three Angela summarized three important take home messages from today's podcast. Always prepare a Relapse Daily Mood Log ahead of time, anticipating what you will be telling yourself when you relapse Challenge those thoughts with EOV and record that role-play so you can listen to it in the future when tempted. After you have lost sufficient weight, make a plan to continue your healthier eating after the acute phase. Do NOT make the common mistake of thinking, "Oh, I've achieved my goal of losing 30 pounds (or whatever), so now I'm done, and can go back to my normal eating habits and patterns again." Thank you for listening today! Angela, Rhonda, and David

Some ads catch attention instantly. Others struggle because the message isn't clear enough to speak to a real problem.Welcome back to Gym Marketing Made Simple, the show that helps boutique gyms communicate more clearly, attract the right members, and make marketing feel less overwhelming.Episode HighlightsThis episode breaks down how problem-solution copywriting helps gyms connect with people who are actually ready to join. Blake explains Facebook's new AI features, how to write for different customer avatars, and why clear language outperforms clever wording every time.Episode OutlineProblem-solution copy connects better than feature-focused messages.Facebook's new AI systems target people based on readiness to buy.Each avatar needs copy tailored exactly to their problem.Write copy in multiple formats to see what performs well.Specific headlines stop the scroll more effectively than broad ones.Clear, simple wording lowers cost per lead.Spending 3× the client value in month one gives Facebook enough room to optimize.Position the gym as the guide, not the hero.Strong CTAs help people take the next step without confusion.Small wording changes can make a big impact on performance.Episode Chapters00:00 Intro00:34 Writing Copy that Sells02:58 Understanding Avatars and Targeting04:36 Attention-Grabbing Headlines06:55 Testing and Refining Copy12:44 Positioning the Gym as a Guide13:32 Psychological Impact of CopyCall to ActionIf this conversation helps, share the episode with a coach or gym owner who could use clearer, easier messaging.Supporting Information

ULTIMATE Weight Loss Guide - https://youtu.be/auY3sWd2s2o?feature=sharedWomen's Health Secrets - https://youtu.be/-QVy20-ahTo?feature=sharedCheck out BeerBiceps SkillHouse's YouTube 1O1 Course - https://youtube.beerbicepsskillhouse.in/youtube-101Share your guest suggestions hereMail - connect@beerbiceps.comLink - https://forms.gle/aoMHY9EE3Cg3Tqdx9BeerBiceps SkillHouse को Social Media पर Follow करे :-YouTube : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2-Y36TqZ5MH6N1cWpmsBRQ Instagram : https://www.instagram.com/beerbiceps_skillhouseWebsite : https://beerbicepsskillhouse.inFor any other queries EMAIL: support@beerbicepsskillhouse.comIn case of any payment-related issues, kindly write to support@tagmango.comLevel Supermind - Mind Performance App को Download करिए यहाँ से

Hi, wir sind Marc & Dave, zwei Unternehmer nach Gründung, Scaleup und EXIT. Wir wollen Wissen und Emotionen weitergeben und treffen uns regelmässig zum virtuellen Ping Pong. Wie damals beim Tischtennis im eigenen Startup

In today's episode:Bill Maher learns that Trump isn't evil, at least not all timeDonald Trump's obvious and overwhelming mandate is put on display again at the UFCThe media preaches chaos in attempt to create the feeling of destabilization and the resistance to changeDelusional globalists fret about "end times fascism" in the Guardian - is there reason to be concerned?NATO buys Palantir AI defense technologyMark Zuckerberg goes to trial with the FTC over the Meta monopolyNvidia moves manufacturing to the USDesperate Housewives in SpaceJeff Bezos shoots his girlfriend into space but cannot stick his own landing.Connect with Be Reasonable: https://linktr.ee/imyourmoderatorLinks, articles, ideas - follow the info stream at t.me/veryreasonableHear the show when it's released. Become a paid subscriber at imyourmoderator.substack.comVisit the show's sponsors:Diversify your assets into Bitcoin: https://partner.river.com/reasonableDiversify your assets into precious metals: reasonablegold.comJoin the new information infrastructure - get Starlink: https://www.starlink.com/residential?referral=RC-1975306-67744-74Other ways to support the work:ko-fi.com/imyourmoderatorDonate btc via coinbase: 3MEh9J5sRvMfkWd4EWczrFr1iP3DBMcKk5Make life more comfortable: mypillow.com/reasonableMerch site:https://cancelcouture.myspreadshop.com/https://cancelcouture.comFollow the podcast info stream: t.me/veryreasonableYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@imyourmoderatorOther social platforms: Truth Social, Gab, Rumble, or Gettr - @imyourmoderator Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/be-reasonable-with-your-moderator-chris-paul. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Update 2.0 : Problem Solution loop by Paarth Singh

Is your leadership suffering because you're focused on the wrong thing? Discover why trying to "solve problems" is definitely holding you back.In this episode, we uncover the two most misused words in leadership: PROBLEM + SOLUTION. As a physician leader, understanding the difference between a PROBLEM and a DILEMMA is critical for your success. Learn why 99% of the challenges you face aren't problems at all, and how shifting your approach will unlock your team's full potential and streamline your leadership.~~ Learn the key difference between problems and dilemmas, and why 99% of leadership challenges are dilemmas.~~ Discover how to quickly identify dilemmas and stop trying to solve things that have no solution.~~ Explore how to quickly organize your team to address dilemmas with effective strategies, leading to much better outcomes.~~ I will even show you that the patient's Problem List is NOT a List of Problems!Don't miss this episode—listen now to learn how changing your mindset from “problem solving” to “strategy building” can revolutionize your leadership and improve team performance!USE THIS LINK to subscribe to our show wherever you get your podcasts: https://link.chtbl.com/afG_dWHmTakeaways: The term 'problem' is misused 99% of the time; it rarely represents the true nature of a challenge. Effective physician leadership in healthcare requires recognizing that dilemmas exist rather than problems. Using the correct terminology helps leaders focus on strategies instead of simple solutions. Identifying dilemmas involves understanding the complexities of ongoing challenges in healthcare. Burnout and staffing issues are examples of dilemmas needing strategic approaches, not one-time fixes. A leader's ability to guide their team hinges on reframing problems into manageable strategies. ~~~~~~~~~Explore physician leadership tools and strategies to stop physician burnout, enhance physician wellness and give you the power of personal influence in the C-Suite. All the tools you need to play your role in leading the charge to wellness - at three levels - for you, your teams and your entire organization.

JOIN OUR VIP TRIBE with me and Dr Jack Kunkel for 90 minutes each week! DianeKazer.com/VIP BECOME A PATIENT DianeKazer.com/CALL GET YOUR FREE PARASITE CLEANSE DianeKazer.com/FREEPARASITECLEANSE MY FAVORITE SOLUTIONS DianeKazer.com/CELLCORE DANGERS OF STATINS https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16998865/ Welcome to Warrior Wednesday and we invite you to join us live today for our CHI Podcast where Dr Jack Kunkel and I host this power-packed episode at 10am PT / 1pm ET. And today, we're going multi-layered…not that you expect anything different from me! And this time we're going deep into the layers of CONNECTION. In a world where connection is everything -literally we need CONNECTION to survive and ultimately thrive - we must get to the bottom of just how disconnected you truly are. You see, all symptoms of disconnection show up in the ultimate trinity - PHYSICAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL and SPIRITUAL. If you're disconnected anywhere, it has a domino effect in each area of your life. So today, we're unraveling the layers of CONNECTION and HOW we may become DISCONNECTED through: Parasites Toxins Beauty Toxins & Injectables Medications, Implants and other Big P-HARMA (Dis)Solutions (Learn the most common 5 that the majority of Americans are using regularly) All of these things are a total DISABILITY and DEACTIVATION of your own body's defenses. Does this at all resemble what's happening with our military? PSYCHOLOGICAL Relationships Life Experiences And my favorite foundational topic: The 10 Prison Bars of Programming (until you innerstand THIS, it will be nearly impossible to resolve the Root Causes of your Ailments) PSYCHOLOGICAL Relationships Life Experiences And my favorite foundational topic: The 10 Prison Bars of Programming (until you innerstand THIS, it will be nearly impossible to resolve the Root Causes of your Ailments) So join us as we peel back the layers of this very large onion. Tune in today, share this episode and get ready for information to learn how EVERYTHING in our society has, and is, intended to disconnect us from our physical health, our relationships, our abundance and our connection to God. And once we SHOW you how, why and where you're disconnected, get ready to receive the SOLUTIONS in our VIP Tribe call directly following our podcast at 10:30am PT / 1:30pm ET. Not a member of our VIP Tribe yet? Then what are you waiting for? Join us here and mark your calendars for our weekly VIP Tribe call, aka the REMEDY hour for your Physical, Psychological and Spiritual Health. WE COVER -->THE CONNECTION QUIZ -->How Parasites and ALL toxins Disconnect Us Physically, Psychologically and Spiritually --> Exactly how parasites directly target and attack our connective tissue…and since our entire body is comprised of connective tissue, how any disconnection can quickly take its toll on you -->The Domino Effect of Disconnection and Exactly How It Unravels -->Directly following our live podcast, we hop into our VIP Tribe call to deep dive on HOW to address these disconnections through simple and approachable remedies. -->We'll show you Our #1 protocols to rebuild and reconnect ALL of your parts physically, emotionally and spiritually -->The spiritual and psychological practices we have found to nicely dovetail with physical reconnection - and how you must embody the ultimate trio of connection - MIND, BODY & SOUL to experience truth health and wellness -->Join our VIP Tribe Today for $1! DianeKazer.com/VIP Drop your questions and comments for us in the chat as we're live!

Go here to join our 3 Keys IELTS Online Course to get a score increase guarantee In a Problem Solution essay, do you have to put your opinion in there? What kind of opinions is the Examiner looking for? Find out the answers to these and other Task 2 questions on today's show. Want to learn more from All Ears English? Listen to the Business English Podcast with Aubrey, Michelle, and Lindsay. Learn formal, semi-formal, and informal English for global business. Listen to the All Ears English Podcast to join thousands of daily listeners. We focus on Connection NOT Perfection! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Check out Cory's Youtube:https://www.youtube.com/@CoryNatureIsTheAnswerJoin this channel to get access to perks:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu93zN6Q_ygmzRcIa8elTTw/joinMissy Hill Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/missy.hill.372Missy Hill Instagram:https://www.instagram.com/missy.hill.372/Missy Email: HillNightVision@gmail.com   Crystal Kern Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/crystal.kern.9Crystal Kern Instagram:https://www.instagram.com/flower_medicine/❤support the podcast https://paypal.me/typicalskepticmediacashapp $kalil1121 venmo @robert-kalilor buy me a coffee at https://buymeacoffee.com/typicalskeptic

Subscribe to DTC Newsletter - https://dtcnews.link/signup Hello and welcome to the DTC Podcast! Today, we're diving deep into a topic that's crucial for maximizing your digital marketing efforts: landing pages. Our guests, Aves and Jocelyn from Pilothouse, share their insights on why landing pages are a game-changer for any DTC brand looking to boost conversion rates. Key Insights: Landing Pages vs. PDPs: Understand the significant benefits of using landing pages over product detail pages. Optimization and Testing: Learn how continuous testing can lead to the most optimized landing pages. Warp Drive Tool: Discover how PilotHouse's proprietary tool enhances landing page performance without disrupting ad campaigns. Why You Should Listen: Get actionable tips on creating high-converting landing pages. Learn about the importance of aligning ad angles with landing page content. Discover the strategic advantage of using Pilothouse's Warp Drive tool. By the end of this episode, you'll have a clear understanding of how to leverage landing pages to enhance your DTC marketing strategy. Timestamps: 0:00 - Introduction to Mastermind Events and DTC Podcast 2:30 - Overview of the Victoria, BC Mastermind Event 4:00 - Importance of Custom Landing Pages in E-commerce 6:15 - Real-Life Success Stories: Drew Archeolo from Victory Gear 8:45 - How to Make About Pages Shoppable 11:00 - The Role of Landing Pages in Ad Campaigns 13:30 - Effective Use of Landing Pages for Promo Campaigns 15:00 - Problem Agitation vs. Problem Solution in Ads and Landing Pages 17:15 - Evergreen Ads and Landing Pages for Q4 Prep 19:30 - Tips for Beginners: Turning About Pages into Sales Pages 22:00 - The Power of Founder's Story on Landing Pages 24:15 - Technical Elements of High-Performing Landing Pages 26:30 - Enhancing Pages with Personalization and Dynamic Content 28:00 - Case Study: Jewelry Brand Success with Custom Landing Pages 30:00 - The Second Step Optimization with Warp Drive 32:00 - Conclusion and Call to Action Hashtags: #Ecommerce #LandingPages #DTC #DigitalMarketing #ConversionOptimization #EcommerceSuccess #MarketingTips #PilotHouse #SEO #AdCampaigns #MastermindEvents #FoundersStory #Shopify #OnlineSales #CustomerJourney Subscribe to DTC Newsletter - https://dtcnews.link/signup Advertise on DTC - https://dtcnews.link/advertise Work with Pilothouse - https://dtcnews.link/pilothouse Follow us on Instagram & Twitter - @dtcnewsletter Watch this interview on YouTube - https://dtcnews.link/video

Danny Matthews is a branding expert with a big vision to solve the world's biggest problems with creative design and brand strategy. Among his accolades he has been featured in the Huffington Post, BBC Radio, the FSB's First Voice and has shared a stage with Facebook and Google. In 2019, Danny founded Short Story Ventures, a Venture Studio that helps early-stage founders build a fundable startup brand, gain traction and get to market successfully. Check out ⁠⁠Inside Seaweed Newsletter⁠⁠! Just one short email per month, no spam and you can cancel at any time. If you'd like to give it a try, head over to ⁠⁠insideseaweed.com ⁠⁠ Timestamps: 00:00:00 - Intro 00:01:11 - Setting the Scene: Building a Fundable Brand 00:01:26 - What is a Fundable Brand? 00:03:00 - Key Considerations in Setting Up a Brand 00:04:00 - The Concept of Pitching 00:05:00 - Effective Networking Pitches 00:08:00 - Example of an Introductory Pitch 00:10:00 - The BIO Framework: Brand, Investor, Origin Story 00:12:00 - Crafting an Investor Story 00:13:00 - Crafting a Brand Story 00:14:00 - Neuroscience of Buying Decisions 00:17:00 - Common Pitfalls in Building a Brand 00:19:00 - Importance of Obsessing Over the Problem 00:21:00 - Problem-Solution Fit vs. Product-Market Fit 00:23:00 - Traction: Data Plus a Promise 00:24:00 - Guidelines for Crafting the Right Story 00:26:00 - Storytelling Framework: Hero, Problem, Guide 00:28:00 - Real-Life Example: Cold Water Thermometer 00:31:00 - Role of Sustainability in Product Development 00:33:00 - Insights from the Mushroom Industry 00:36:00 - Tactical Advice for Brand Building 00:38:00 - Closing Remarks and Contact InformationUseful Links: Danny Matthews on LinkedIn, Instagram and Twitter Short Story Venture: Website Get in touch Inside Seaweed's host Fed DeGobbi on ⁠⁠LinkedIn⁠⁠, ⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠, Instagram or by emailing him directly at fed@insideseaweed.com - Please send in your feedback: what do you want to hear more or less of? Any suggestions? Would love to hear what you think!

In this clip of Annie's conversation with Tyrus, he talks the solutions to the DEI initiative.

Ultimate Problem Solution Loop by Paarth singh --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/thisisspirituality/message

Berk Temuroğlu goes into corporate managers adopting a founder mindset (and vice versa), the importance of integrating the problem/solution cycle into your communications, and including risk in the ROI calculation. Berk, being that he has one foot in the startup world and another foot in the corporate world, points out that startup founders have, in recent years, become pretty good at describing the problem, but that this skill is all too often lacking in the corporate world these days. In his words, we tend to "fall in love" with our solution so much that we neglect to give adequate time to the description of the problem. Also, the way you frame the problem will change according to the audience. It's the same problem, but framed differently. You are basically, as Berk says, a movie director.              

Egypt is the Problem/Solution - recorded on Dec. 5th

In this episode, we dive deep into the world of "Nano Tools," the game-changing 3-minute brain hacks crafted by Audrey Lawrence. Hosted by Larry Playton, this captivating show explores how these concise tools align perfectly with the inner workings of our brains. Discover the enchanting world of Nano Tools, the very secrets utilized by top-tier institutions worldwide. These bite-sized gems pack a punch, offering built-in solutions that swiftly remove obstacles and propel you toward your goals. Our brains are wired for quick wins, and Nano Tools deliver precisely that. With transformative insights and actionable plans at your fingertips, you'll effortlessly conquer challenges and accelerate your personal growth journey. Join the thriving Goal Smasher community and immerse yourself in a realm of pragmatic solutions. Rewrite your life story using science-backed techniques, and watch as you achieve your goals with newfound ease. Don't miss out on this empowering podcast that unveils the keys to success, one step at a time. Subscribe now to "Unlocking Your Potential with Nano Tools: The Goal Smasher Show" and gain exclusive access to life-changing Nano Tools. Stay updated with our newsletter, follow us on social media, and explore free resources at Audreylawrence.org. Together, let's unleash your potential and become an unstoppable force! Keywords: Nano Tools, Goal Smasher, Potential, 3-Minute Brain Hacks, Audrey Lawrence, TED Talks, Personal Growth, Transformative Insights, Overcoming Obstacles, Science-Backed Techniques, Problem-Solution, Empowering, Dynamic Show, Goal Achievement, Success, Continuous Improvement.

Join AJ Davis, a conversion rate optimization specialist, as she discusses the crucial role of research in business and its connection to goals, problems, and solutions. Learn about the importance of qualitative and quantitative skills in CRO and explore different research methods and approaches. Discover the value of customer surveys, usability studies, and customer interviews in gaining insights and understanding pain points. Hear AJ's unique tactic of using the sales team as a proxy for customers and uncover the significance of contextual research. Dive into the world of optimizing conversion rates and solving customer problems through thoughtful and targeted research.

There has been a brewing border tension between India and China since the 1950s. Both sides have a border problem. They need to solve the border issue. ASAP. I have in this episode described the problem and proposed a solution. #India#China#BorderThank you for listening... let there be peace. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

MWH 395 : Harnessing the Power of Social Proof in the Problem-Solution-Benefit Framework In this second part of 2-part episode Problem-Solution-Benefit Framework in your copywriting, we explore the concept of social proof and its role in boosting your marketing efforts for your business. Discover the power of social proof in building trust and credibility with your audience, and learn how to leverage it to attract ideal clients and increase conversions. If you're ready to take your marketing strategy to the next level, this episode is a must-listen! (Check the first part “Episode 1: Master The Problem-Solution-Benefit In Your Copywriting” here.) LISTEN NOW Listen to this episode to learn: Understanding the concept of social proof. The role of social proof in building trust and credibility. Examples of success stories and client testimonials. How to create compelling case studies. Implementing social proof in your sales pages, emails, and post. Actionable steps to ignite your marketing efforts with social proof. Join me as we delve into the world of social proof and show you how to harness its power within the Problem-Solution=Benefit framework. Discover why it is a game-changer in attracting clients and increasing conversions, and learn how to effectively incorporate it into your marketing strategy, and get ready to take your business to new heights! Until next week, stay happy in your hustle. CONNECT WITH ME Web: www.tracyharris.coFacebook: @mumswithhustleInstagram: @mumswithhustleTwitter: @MumsWithHustleMums With Hustle® Podcast Community By Tracy Harris: @mumswithhustle LOVE THE MUMS WITH HUSTLE PODCAST? Okay, mama! I'm going to give it to you straight, 'cause you know that's what I'm about. Podcast reviews are super important to iTunes and the more reviews we receive the more likely iTunes will reward us with better reach. I want to reach more hustling mamas that can add extreme value to our kick-ass tribe. Help a sister, out? I already love you forever, but I'd be extremely grateful if you would review me on iTunes! If you've loved this podcast, never miss another one! All you have to do is SUBSCRIBE to the Mums With Hustle Podcast on iTunes.

In this episode, we unfurl the power of "Nano Tools," revolutionary 3-minute brain hacks by Audrey Lawrence. Hosted by Larry Playton, this dynamic show delves into how these concise solutions are a perfect fit for our brain's functioning. Discover the magic of Nano Tools used by the best institutions in the world. These bite-sized bits of information with built-in solutions that remove obstacles and propel you forward. Our brains are wired for quick wins, and these transformative insights provide just that, creating actionable plans to overcome challenges and accelerate your growth. Join the Goal Smasher Nation and immerse yourself in a world of practical solutions. Rewrite your story with science-backed techniques and achieve your goals with ease. Don't miss this empowering podcast that unlocks the secret to success one step at a time. Subscribe now to the Goal Smasher Podcast and gain access to life-changing Nano Tools. Read the newsletter, follow us on social media, and discover free resources at Audreylawrence.org. Together, let's unlock your potential and become unstoppable! Keywords: Nano Tools, Goal Smasher, Goals, Unleashing Potential, 3-Minute Brain Hack, Audrey Lawrence, TED Talks, Personal Growth, Transformative Insights, Overcome Obstacles, Science-backed Techniques, Problem-Solution, Empowering, Dynamic Show, Goal Achievement, Success, Continuous Improvement.

Burn The Ships - Ignite Your Commitment for Success In this powerful episode of the GoalSmasher Podcast, hosted by Larry Playton, we unfurl the dynamic concept of "Burn The Ships" from the book "Goal Smasher" by Audrey Lawrence. Get ready for a 3-minute brain hack that will revolutionize your approach to success! Join us as we delve into the remarkable story of Hernán Cortés, the legendary conqueror who set sail for Mexico in 1519 with a daring vision for claiming new lands. Discover why he made a bold decision to burn his ships upon arrival, sending a powerful message of unwavering commitment and determination. Learn how this "burn the ships" mentality can be a game-changer in your personal growth journey and team leadership. Did you know that commitment also has a profound impact on your brain? We'll explore the science behind commitment and how it enhances focus, courage, and risk-taking, propelling you towards your audacious goals. Are you ready to embrace the "burn the ships" mindset and cut ties with doubt, procrastination, and limiting beliefs? By doing so, you'll fully embrace the unknown, ignite your determination, and step into the realm of history-makers. Tune in to this transformative episode and equip yourself with the tools to rewrite your story, overcome obstacles, and unleash your full potential. Don't miss out on joining the Goal Smasher Nation, reading the newsletter, following us on social media, and subscribing for free resources at Audreylawrence.org. Keywords: Nano tools, Goal Smasher, Goals, Unleashing Potential, 3-Minute Brain Hack, Audrey Lawrence, TED Talks, Personal Growth, Transformative Insights, Overcome Obstacles, Science-backed Techniques, Problem-Solution, Empowering, Dynamic Show, Goal Achievement, Commitment, Courage, Risk-Taking, Leadership, Success.

MWH 394 : Master The Problem-Solution-Benefit Framework In Your Copywriting In this part 1 of 2-part episodes of the Mums With Hustle Podcast, we dive into the Problem-Solution-Benefit framework, a powerful tool for mastering copywriting. We explore how this framework can help you effectively communicate the value of your offerings to your audience, leading to increased conversions and business growth. LISTEN NOW Listen to this episode to learn: Introduction to the problem-solution-benefit framework How to identify the problem your audience is facing Presenting your solution and highlighting its benefits Real-world examples and case studies Tips for implementing the framework in your marketing strategy The power of effective copywriting in driving business growth Tune in to learn the key components of the framework and how to apply it to your own marketing strategy! Mastering the Problem-Solution-Benefit Framework is a game-changer. This will help you write compelling copy that resonates with your audience and drives results. Join us as we break down the key elements of this framework and guide you through its implementation. Get ready to transform your marketing efforts and see real results, CONNECT WITH ME Web: www.tracyharris.coFacebook: @mumswithhustleInstagram: @mumswithhustleTwitter: @MumsWithHustleMums With Hustle® Podcast Community By Tracy Harris: @mumswithhustle LOVE THE MUMS WITH HUSTLE PODCAST? Okay, mama! I'm going to give it to you straight, 'cause you know that's what I'm about. Podcast reviews are super important to iTunes and the more reviews we receive the more likely iTunes will reward us with better reach. I want to reach more hustling mamas that can add extreme value to our kick-ass tribe. Help a sister, out? I already love you forever, but I'd be extremely grateful if you would review me on iTunes! If you've loved this podcast, never miss another one! All you have to do is SUBSCRIBE to the Mums With Hustle Podcast on iTunes.

Strategize Like a Boss In this episode of the GoalSmasher Podcast, your three-minute brain hack to success, we delve into the dynamic topic of "The Power of Strategy." Hosted by Larry Playton, we take you on a captivating journey through the pages of the book "Goal Smasher" by Audrey Lawrence to reveal the secrets of strategic thinking. Unfurl the true potential of your goals as we deep dive into the world of strategy – more than just a plan, it's a powerful tool that equips you to overcome any challenge that comes your way. Imagine having a playbook filled with countless ideas and solutions to outsmart the competition and tackle obstacles head-on. Our brain science insights will show you how strategy boosts your brainpower, creating new neural connections, and igniting your problem-solving prowess. Strategizing is not about having a crystal ball, but about having multiple options in your toolkit to adapt to any situation. Ready to build up your strategic arsenal? We present three practical ways to get started. Don't miss out on the opportunity to elevate your thinking and transform your approach to success! Subscribe now and be part of the Goal Smasher Nation. Read the book, follow us on social media, and subscribe to our inspiring newsletter for exclusive resources at Audreylawrence.org. Keywords: Nano tools, Goal Smasher, Goals, Unleashing Potential, 3-Minute Brain Hack, Audrey Lawrence, TED Talks, Personal Growth, Transformative Insights, Overcome Obstacles, Science-backed Techniques, Problem-Solution, Empowering, Dynamic Show, Goal Achievement, Success, Transformation, Strategy, Strategic Thinking, Brainpower, Playbook, Sun Tzu.

Britt and Tiff discuss how to present diagnosis information to patients in a clear and educational way with the problem-solution-problem approach (aka the Oreo cookie). Your patients don't have to be scared by “problems,” but it is important to give them the right information in a manageable way — this episode dives into that, including the right pieces you need to have in place. Episode resources: Reach out to Tiff and Britt: hello@thedentalateam.com  Subscribe to The Dental A-Team podcast Become Dental A-Team Platinum! Review the podcast

Welcome BACK! We talk being for real with self. Being true to self. Enjoy life. Follow us: @Boeknowzz @cuttap54 --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/zoeview-podcast/message

Tome CEO Keith Peiris joins Jason to demo Tome's AI-powered text-to-presentation platform (10:25). They discuss concerns about the pace of AI and the prevalence of 10x engineers (35:55), before Velocity Growth's Jen Bryan breaks down how to get started with paid ads (47:19). (0:00) Jason kicks off the show  (2:013) Tome CEO Keith Peiris joins Jason  (5:27) Creating a pitch deck with Tome (8:48) Microsoft for Startups Founders Hub - Apply in 5 minutes for six figures in discounts at http://aka.ms/thisweekinstartups (10:25) Tome Demo (23:10) Clumio - Start a free backup, or sign up for a demo at https://clumio.com/twist (24:28) Datasets and What the future holds (28:18) Integrating AI elements into Tome's platform (29:51) Deploying capital responsibly  (31:53) Acquiring talent (34:36) Mercury - Apply in minutes and get up to $5M in FDIC insurance at https://mercury.com  (35:55) Concerns about the pace of AI (44:12) The prevalence of the 10x engineer (47:19) Velocity Growth's Jen Bryan on getting started with paid advertising (48:29) What is advertising? (50:15) Problem / Solution fit (53:12) See competitor ads (54:44) Building custom audiences FOLLOW Keith: https://twitter.com/keithpeiris FOLLOW Jen: https://twitter.com/JenBryan_ FOLLOW Jason: https://linktr.ee/calacanis Subscribe to our YouTube to watch all full episodes: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkkhmBWfS7pILYIk0izkc3A?sub_confirmation=1 FOUNDERS! Subscribe to the Founder University podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/founder-university/id1648407190

How well do you understand the pain points of your clients? Can you really tap into their true motivations to help them achieve their fitness goals?  Corrie-Beth Lipowski joins us to share her insights on how to "Sell the Heaven" and unlock the full potential of your clients. As a sports nutrition specialist and co-founder of Pure Physique, Corrie-Beth is an expert in sustainable, transformational fitness, nutrition, and mindset programs.  In this episode, we talk about how you can use sensory language and visualization techniques to help your clients achieve their desired outcomes. You'll learn how to understand the true pain points and motivations of your clients with the first sales call so you can tailor solutions to help them overcome obstacles and unlock their full potential. We go in-depth into the importance of understanding the true pain and motivations of your clients, and the steps you as a fitness business owner can take to help your clients achieve their fitness goals. We talk about the "Sell the Heaven" process – using sensory language and visualization techniques to help clients visualize their desired outcomes and build a strong emotional connection to them – and we also discuss how you can qualify clients for long-term fit, helping you ensure that they stay committed to their fitness goals, and more. Give your business a boost with success strategies and coaching straight from HIT Business experts For the complete show notes, links, and resources - Click Here

In this episode, we hear from Jen Bryan (Velocity Growth), who walks us through how to get started with Paid Acquisition. You'll learn: How to find & create custom audiences that you can use for ad targeting How to create engaging and relevant ads Where to find your competitor's ads & see what works well for them Learn more from Jen on Twitter: https://twitter.com/JenBryan_ 1:30 What is advertising? 3:20 Problem / Solution fit 6:26 See competitor ads 7:45 Building custom audiences

  This tutorial discusses how to write problem-solution essays in IELTS Writing Task 2. A “problem and solution” essay, as its name suggests, proposes a problem to you and asks you to suggest a solution or solutions to it. It may also ask about the causes of the problem or the effects which the problem […] The post Problem Solution Essays in IELTS Writing Task 2 appeared first on IELTS Podcast.

THANK YOU GOD .PROBLEM =SOLUTION

In a financial system driven by debt, inflation, and taxes, how are you supposed to get ahead when every aspect of the system is designed to take your money? And now we're dealing with a recession, too! It's gonna take some different thinking and positioning, but there IS something you can do to turn the tables in your favor like no other time in our lives. Stay tuned and hear how to position yourself so that this rigged financial system actually helps you get wealthy! BUT BEFORE THAT, Matt lists the top 10 cities where housing markets are crashing the fastest. Are you ready? Let's go! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Let's face it: we're navigating uncharted waters when it comes to the job search these days. So much has changed, and I am seeing clients struggle to be successful in their job search. I thought I would present this information in a Problem/Solution format – what's tripping job seekers up and my recommendations for how to address.  The Interview Process Problem: Candidates are faced with video interviews, virtual interviews, phone interviews, and in-person interviews. I have clients who've gone through as many as 10 rounds of interviews – only to be passed over for an internal candidate. Solution: Preparation! It is so important to practice your responses to questions like “tell me about yourself” and behavioral interview questions. Not with a friend or family member, but rather a professional such as an interview coach (of which I am one). Also – practice with the technology you'll be using ahead of time if possible. Ask the interviewer what the platform will be if you aren't sure. Nothing detracts from your professionalism right off the bat like futzing with your tech or not being able to conduct the interview at all. Finally – Ask! What type of interview will this be, who can I expect to be in the interview, what else should I know? KNOWLEDGE IS POWER.  Is this Job Remote, In-House, or Virtual?  Problem: Some job announcements will tell you this; others don't. For my clients who have a specific requirement (for most, it is to work remotely), they don't always know whether the job they are applying for is a fit in this regard. Solution: Apply anyway, if it is a job you are extremely excited about and feel well qualified (notice I didn't say 100% qualified – my rule of thumb is at least 75%-80%). It is quite possible that there is room for negotiation with this once they are excited about hiring you. If you DO end up needing to negotiate this aspect, plan out three reasons why you want to work remotely or in a hybrid arrangement. Make sure the reasons you state speak to the benefit to the organization, rather than your personal reasons (they don't care that Fido gets separation anxiety).  Why is it Taking So Long?  Problem: Job searches in general are taking longer than candidates expect – and the timeline from application to receiving a job offer is taking longer, as well. Solution: The answer here is a mindset shift because you have arbitrarily decided how long this process should take…and it's taking longer than that. You can't compare your job search or hiring timeline to anyone else's – so patience is key. Make sure you aren't making the delays and protracted timelines mean anything about you, your marketability, or the job market.  Job Boards are STILL Broken Problem: Clients are coming to me because the way they've always gotten jobs in the past – via job boards – isn't yielding the results they were expecting. They need to do things differently…they just don't know how. Solution: Networking, of course, is the solution to job boards. I've talked about this extensively on the podcast, including my +1 approach. Step 1: Identify 10-12 companies that are ideal matches with your non-negotiables Step 2: Identify people you know who work in those companies and/or know the decision maker Step 3: Meet with those people, either virtually or in person – and have a specific ask Step 4: Provide as much value as you give Step 5: Follow-up and follow-through Step 6: Lather, rinse, repeat For the +1 Approach: Step 1: Apply only to jobs online that you are extremely interested in and at least 75% qualified for Step 2: Leverage your network to have someone put in a good word for you, make an introduction, or otherwise advocate on your behalf Step 3: If step 2 fails, PROFESSIONAL STALKING  Is My Resume Even Making It Through the Company's System?  Problem: If you haven't had your resume written by a qualified resume professional, you may be submitting a document that can't be properly read by the Applicant Tracking System (ATS). Solution: I provide my clients with two versions of their resume: one I call the “pretty” version that is fully formatted, and one for ATS upload. In addition to the ATS not being able to read things like bullets (unless they are found on your computer keyboard), tables, text boxes, and underlining, the ATS needs to be able to find certain information in certain places. -Use standard resume headings, such as Education and Professional Experience -Spell out words and use the acronyms, such as Bachelor of Science and BS -Review the job description for keywords that aren't already present in your resume, and include them if applicable -Don't keyword stuff -Don't stack jobs -Translate your job titles, if needed Finally, reach out to the employer whenever possible to verify they have received your materials. It's easy to experience a glitch, forget to hit the send button, or otherwise cancel out your application.  Are you in the wrong job that chips away at you every day? The CareerSpring document and coaching program will help you find a job that uses your zone of genius, recognizes your value, and pays you what you're worth.  If you're ready to take your job search to the next level by working with a highly experienced professional with a track record of client success, schedule a complimentary consult to learn more:  https://calendly.com/lesaedwards/zoom-meetings2   

Neal Schofield - Problem - Solution Analysis by Northwest Church Christ

Mars entering Pisces is the transit we will discuss today. This transit helps you to complete what needs to be completed effectively. Do you have places where you need to tie up loose ends? This is the time to help you do that.  Try to normalize, express with structure how you are feeling. At times you simply need to simply express yourself for understanding and not for problem analysis or solution.  Problem Understanding can be powerful in conversation and relationships. There is not always a need for Problem Solution. Try to be transparent and vulnerable and understand why someone does what they do and not solve the issue.    Good Risings is a mindset. Join Colin Bedell for a daily dose of Astrology. Presented By: Cavalry Audio.  Producers: Jason Seagraves & Margot Carmichael.    Audio Editing: Revision Sound. Music: Gramoscope Music.  Show Notes by: Brett Burris Executive Producers: Colin Bedell, Dana Brunetti & Keegan Rosenberger.  Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com You can now search all of the Good Risings episodes on Fathom.fm/GoodRisings! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Naby Mariyam is Founder and CEO of Insuretech Startup Coverhero. Coverhero's mission is to deliver relevant, hyperpersonalised coverage in moments that matter to Millenials lifestyle. We call this moment based coverage for lifestyle and wellbeing. Coverhero is one of the most innovative insurtechs in Australia and New Zealand to watch for in 2018. Coverhero was part of the Qantas Avro Accelerator program. Coverhero was one of the 15 start-ups that got on first ever Tech Crunch start-up Battlefield In Australia. Naby Has 20 years of experience in research, Education, Management consulting and start-ups in the last 5 years. She Represented Australia at the G20 Young Entrepreneurs Summit in Berlin 2017. She is an advocate for Diversity of thought in technology and women in leadership. Highlights from the Show The idea for Coverhero was born out of a claim experience Naby had that did not go well, and left her looking for how to bring Insurance in the modern world The original idea was a recommendation engine, but in 2018, Naby went around the world to talk to insurers, reinsurers, VCs, etc to learn more and be sure what they were building would really solve a real problem Naby's background is from academia as a social scientist researcher, so she used her training to structure how she handled all of these conversations – 200-300 of them globally – using something called Grounded Theory She realized she had a solution, but didn't know what the problem was, so there was no Problem Solution fit She understood the consumer problems, understood the Big Tech trends, but didn't understand the issues within the Insurance industry itself, making it hard to figure out how to solve the overall issues The result was Coverhero's first product, Hustle, which solved a major financial insecurity issue for self-employed people in just 30 seconds They launched in 2020 in Beta, but the pandemic happened, and things didn't work as planned That meant they had to rethink their distribution strategy and channel This clarified what Coverhero is - a platform that embeds insurance across any other platform at the point of sale to empower the platform economy for personal lines of insurance (e.g. income protection, life insurance, home insurance, etc) They seek to put users in the middle so they can find the products they need, when they need them They have big announcements around Hustle in late 2021, and just made some around their smart home API, Luchi This has all come through a lot of iteration and evolution of the idea behind Coverhero as they've learned, tested and grown Rather than being about a specific product or product set, it's about how the intersection of Marketing Technology and Financial Technology can meet people's needs They realized through trying different products, you can't put a Bandaid on things that need re-engineering, so they had to start from scratch Naby sees it like dating, where when you have what people want, you don't have to try to find success Many of the products they had been thinking about would require huge marketing spend to drive demand, which they didn't want to do Once they had the ability to enable insurance sales in other platforms, the platforms approached them, offering low-cost acquisition where there was unmet demand instead of having to drive it They're building a global, universal API to democratize insurance, but not every market is ready for that as not every market is the same in terms of maturity of the gig economy, platform economy, creator economy, passion economy, etc. The platforms themselves are quite mature in Naby's eyes, as are the ways people use them; a major variability in each geography, though, is the regulatory framework Without solving for the needs of the buyer, the seller and the regulator, you won't succeed The shift toward self-employment, which MasterCard sees hitting 50% of all employment globally by 2023, was a trend Naby thinks was already in motion before COVID, but it was sped up Big Tech has allowed people to start a business and go to market in days Social Media allows people to create a following and market what they're doing These things remove barriers to entry and success As more people are self-employed, they need to become more financially and business literate because they can't rely on the corporate HR function at their job anymore, but many resources are coming to market to help with this Special thanks to Duck Creek Technologies and the Conversations on the Creek podcast for sponsoring this episode. Learn more and get the podcast at duckcreek.com/podcast. Follow the podcast at future-of-insurance.com/podcast for more details and other episodes. Music courtesy of UPbeat Music, available to stream on Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon Music and Google Play. Just search for "UPbeat Music"

This episode is also available as a blog post: https://muslimtantramantra.wordpress.com/2021/03/02/love-relationship-problem-solution/

This episode is also available as a blog post: https://muslimtantramantra.wordpress.com/2021/03/02/love-problem-solution-maulana/

Acts 6:1-7 The Rock Christian Fellowship Newark NJ

Jason Rathje: "Anybody can be an innovator--any Airmen can innovate, but it does have to be connected to outcomes. That's the separation between what innovation theater might be and what I would consider true innovation within the process." Maj. Jason Rathje is AFWERX's AFVentures Director, where he implements novel initiatives to mature and transition "dual-use" technology ventures by building relationships between commercial solution-providers and Air Force problem-owners to scale successful problem-solution matches. Prior to this, he spent three years researching the intersection of entrepreneurship, innovation, and national security in Stanford's Management Science & Engineering Department, specializing in technology entrepreneurship strategies. He specifically studied the effect of government partnerships, both as an investor and customer, on basic research through commercialization. During this episode, Jason joins our hosts Kinsley "TRIGGER" Jordan and Daniel Hulter discuss economic theory regarding innovation, bridging the valley of death through incentive alignment, and how the investment arm of the Air Force is working with startups to further their capabilities. Resources Mentioned: - AFWERX Office Hours: https://www.afwerx.af.mil/office-hours.html If you enjoy the show, we'd love for you to review The DisruptiveAF Podcasts on Apple Podcasts! This helps us reach new people who would love to hear from our guests every week. Plus, we love to hear your thoughts on the show! For more about the podcast, visit https://www.afwerx.af.mil/podcast.html Follow AFWERX: Twitter: twitter.com/afwerx Instagram: instagram.com/afwerx Facebook: facebook.com/afwerx

Day 2 of the 7-day Immersion to take Your Digital Product from Concept to Consistent Revenue. Learn how to conceptualize, create, and launch your first or next Digital Product Experience in 7 days. Listen in to all 7 days to learn how to: Discover how to make your bold ideas fit within the customer context with conversion messaging and emotional positioning like Airbnb Develop an experiment like Jeff Bezos to create a high-value product. Create a modern step-by-step process and marketing funnel for your core customer Learn how to use customer experience to create and maintain market leadership Join me on Instagram Join me in Facebook Community Sign-up for the Workbook

Just a lil Part 2 of the last episode. Examine the tl of the system and tell me they gaf about you. They'll give you the problem and sell you the solution. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/Melanatedhigh/message

Josh Bezoni is a level up from almost every other entrepreneur. The proof is that he not only created a new business from scratch but he hit $100 million in sales in the first 12 months of the company's existence. Ryan has long been advocating a system to build a company to $10 million - but Josh has raised the bar big time. The steps he took to build his company seem intuitive at first glance but Josh applied them at a level that improved the normal results by a factor of 10. On this episode you're going to hear Josh's story of how he built his company quickly and has navigated the rapid climb to success. Find someone who has done what you want to do and create value in their life. One of the things Josh Bezoni did to build his business quickly from the ground up was to build significant trust relationships all along the way. In every interaction he was concerned with how he could add value to the life of the person he was interacting with. He did this for two reasons: #1 - He wanted to be a true asset to them and their goals. #2 - He wanted that relationship to be an asset to him when and if the time came for him to call in a favor or two. His fundamental philosophy was to find the people who had done what he wanted to do and add value to their lives. You can hear how he developed that philosophy and how he implemented it on this episode. How Josh Bezoni rented a list from a different niche to launch his first product. It seems like an outdated approach to launching a products but Josh Bezoni tapped his professional network and borrowed their email lists to launch the first product of his new company. It was an old school approach but it worked powerfully. In his first day of sales he brought in $40,000 in sales. You can hear how Josh built a network of relationships that made that approach possible and how he leveraged the success of that initial push to scale the company rapidly - it's all on this episode. Josh Bezoni: Once you learn this one skill you can sell anything online. As Josh Bezoni began to build his first business he knew that the success of the business would depend greatly on the sales copy that was used for each promotion and product. He began to study copywriting and became very adept at implementing a very simple formula: Problem - Solution. On this episode Josh shares a handful of incredible books he read to build his copywriting muscles and tells why it's true that the skill of copywriting will enable you to sell anything online and build the business you desire. It's all a part of this great conversation. The best indicator of future success is past performance. To build a company to $100 million in sales within 12 months it takes teamwork on a level beyond what most people can conceive. That means a team of quality people has to be assembled. Think “The Avengers” in a business context. Josh Bezoni approached the task of hiring A players for his quickly growing company the way he approaches most challenges: He began to study the subject. Using what he learned in his reading and applying it alongside some pretty novel approaches such as company ownership options, charitable giving, and more, Josh was able to enlist the help of top level producers in their respective skills to scale the company rapidly. Want to know more? Josh gives many of the steps he took on this episode of Freedom Fast Lane. Outline Of This Great Episode [0:06] Who is Josh Bezoni? Ryan's introduction of his success and journey. [2:17] The first business Josh started and how it enabled him to pivot and grow more. [7:01] The strategy Josh followed to get his first product off the ground. [13:26] How Josh has built his sales processes. [17:36] The transition from an ebook company to a much more successful venture. [21:59] Using an existing audience, affiliates, and great business connections. [24:41] The practical aspects Josh had to deal with while the growth was happening. [32:59] How Josh was able to hire rock star talent quickly. [34:51] The challenge of not taking the profits so more talent can be hired. [37:53] Why most entrepreneurs don't know how to hire and how Josh learned the skill. [41:03] The overall business strategy for getting to $100 million in 12 months. [44:34] The most expensive mistake Josh made on the way to success. [47:14] The small team of 3 Josh led in his first business: How it was structured and the roles each person played. [49:08] How Josh was able to grow to $100 million while remaining VIRTUAL instead of physical. [52:36] Why people want to work for and buy from companies that are doing good in the world. Action Steps From This Episode FOR GREATER SUCCESS: Don't shortcut the hiring process. It takes time to do it right but the returns on the time invested are astronomical. Study how to do it right and don't cut corners. FOR GETTING STARTED: Start building trust relationships now. Seek out those who are already doing what you want to do and add value to their lives. Once you are on their radar opportunities open up to you in ways you never knew were possible.   Connect With Today's guest: JOSH BEZONI Website: www.JoshBezoni.com On Twitter On Facebook On LinkedIn Resources Mentioned On This Episode www.FreedomFastLane.com/million www.ClickBank.com BOOK: Magic Words BOOK: How To Make Millions With Your Ideas BOOK: The Ultimate Sales Letter BOOK: Maximum Money in Minimum Time BOOK: Tested Advertising Methods BOOK: Topgrading BOOK: Who: The Method of Hiring Connect With Freedom Fast Lane Website: www.FreedomFastLane.com On Youtube On Facebook On Twitter On Google Plus On LinkedIn On Instagram Subscribe to Freedom Fast Lane Subscribe to the Freedom Fast Lane Podcast with Ryan Daniel Moran