Many in marketing are making decisions based on psychological assumptions that don't hold up. Why would we do this? It is not stemming from carelessness, but rather myths spread faster than corrections. You and I have both seen the compelling story get a million shares while the replication failure gets twelve at best. What's that? You'd like specific examples of less credible psychological reasoning we rely on to inform some of our decisions. My pleasure.

Imagine that time when the brief needed a direction or the budget needed to be locked in, and somewhere between the deadline and the room full of people waiting on you, a decision gets made only because making it feels like moving forward and provides a sense of relief. It could turn out to be right, but leaving it to chance is a tactical error predicated on a faulty strategy.

We're living through an era saturated with empathy, or at least, the performance of it, where organizations champion psychological safety, leaders demonstrate vulnerability, and entire frameworks are built around understanding feelings. Yet for all this empathetic effort, people seem more entrenched in their positions than ever. That seems odd. Or is it?

This may just be what happens when empathy becomes unproductive, and the goals shift from understanding to validation and clarity to comfort. When we elevate the mere expression of concern over the harder work of actually moving something forward, we end up with a dynamic in which society prizes victimhood and avoids accountability, in which being understood matters more than being challenged.

Most organizational charts lie about how marketing works through clean boxes and reporting lines, but they hide the real question of where marketing ends and everything else begins. The answer matters because unclear boundaries create confusion and conflict that masquerade as strategy disagreements:

• Sales complains marketing doesn't deliver leads.
• Marketing complains sales don't follow the narrative.
• Product says marketing overpromises.
• Strategy says marketing doesn't understand the market.

Personality conflicts? Maybe a fraction, but they're symptoms of undefined decision rights and a misunderstanding about marketing being the translation layer between strategic intent and market reality. How so?

That is probably obvious.

But asking open follow-up questions is one of the easiest ways to uncover deeper insights about how your marketing campaigns resonate with your target audience. Of course, the principal difficulty with them is coming up with the questions themselves in the moment. I've shared a range of questions that are widely applicable across many marketing research conversations.

Despite the beliefs of some psychologists and promises of Martech vendors, nothing related to human psychology and behavior is absolutely quantifiable. Nothing. But we live in an era of attribution models, conversion funnels, and predictive analytics, complete with dashboards that promise precision and a clear course of action. This mathematical certainty is largely an illusion because we human beings aren't equations. We're messy, contradictory, and influenced by thousands of unmeasurable variables, including the fight someone had that morning, the song in their head, the memory triggered by your brand color, and the cultural context they bring to your message.

Anchor beliefs are convictions that remain fixed even when faced with contradictory evidence, and we all have them. Strong beliefs shouldn't be wishy-washy and flip completely based on moderate counter-evidence, they should adjust somewhat. When they don't budge at all, it's worth asking yourself, "If this belief were false, would I want to know?" While these beliefs aren't necessarily wrong, and many are accurate, the problem is that they are held as if indisputable truths rather than hypotheses open to revision.