Launching the new RPT – what’s in a name (survey question)?

Are you ready yet?

We are close… very close.. to the launch of RPT 3.0. We have achieved the one thing I doubted I was capable of – keeping it simple! RPT 3.0 has the same near-100% success rate as the old method, with the advantage of being lighting fast and so simple you can print the manual on the back of a postage stamp (almost). In case you missed it, the method is:

  1. Head -> heart -> gut
  2. Gut -> heart -> head

That’s it! That’s the recipe for 100% success simple, instant healings. No muscle testing, no “getting the words right,” no channelling energy or relying on invisible friends and helpers. We’ve got it down to 2 basic steps, grounded in what we call “coherence.”

The official launch of RPT 3.0 is in August 2010 when our new website and manuals etc are ready. However we are teaching the new material already, primarily at our Los Angeles Level 3 course in 3 weeks time. If you are interested in being at the cutting edge of science and healing research, contact me about availability in this course.

Over the next few weeks we are going to be updating all of our past students. I’m just editing videos and preparing materials. Some of the new info will be posted here, the rest on the practitioner forum at

A survey question

There’s just one thing I’ve been unsure about, and I’d like your input.  Would RPT by another name still smell as sweet? (yes, intended pun on my surname, sorry if it doesn’t translate into other languages.)

Does it make sense to keep the name “Reference Point Therapy”? I’ll give you the argument for and against.

Arguments for keeping “RPT”:

  • we’ve spent 12 months building the brand and name, a lot of people know about it;
  • it’s already recognised by various insurance companies and certification bodies such as massage associations etc;
  • Google searching “reference point therapy” gets almost 600,000 hits. I have no idea how this is possible (from zero a year ago), but it’s 3 times the number for any alternative healing modalities;
  • Reference Point Therapy is now a registered trademark in Australia and soon to be an international trademark; and
  • what the heck, I like it and haven’t come up with anything better.

Against “RPT”:

  • The term “earliest reference point” was really specific to our old ancestral regression method which we no longer do. IE I recently taught an entire series of RPT courses, Levels 1, 2 and 3 without actually using the words “reference points.”
  • Whilst most people have a positive view of RPT, I think that a lot of people do associate it with the slower method of the ancestral technique. The main negative feedback from 2009 was that it was still too hard and too in the head. We do want a clean break from that.
  • Due to mistakes I made right at the start of RPT, some people associate RPT with being “anti-Theta Healing” (the technique that I broke away from after concerns that it was quite dangerous). That was my own “stuff” and should not be associated with RPT which has no association with Theta, positive or negative.

I think my main concern is the second one – that people associate “Reference Point Therapy” with a relatively slow (compared to now) and “in the head” technique – albeit an extremely effective one. The new technique is so fast and simple and “in the gut.” My job is to communicate to the world that we now offer something totally new – not really related to the 2009 ancestral method.

What do you think?

What are your views? Do you think we can launch something totally new and just call it “the new RPT” or “RPT 3.0” or just “Reference Point Therapy”? Do we need to make a clean break with the past?

I’m curious to hear from you? As we prepare the to share the new work with you this week, what are your thoughts and associations on the name “Reference Point Therapy?”

Does it bother you to do a course called “Reference Point Therapy” that no longer has a lot to do with reference points?

Thanks for your thoughts!


June 7, 2010 in Thoughts For the Day

31 Responses

  1. Hi Simon/Evette

    My personal opition is that RPT should be kept as a brand name, just because it has now evolved into RPT 3 is of no matter. RPT is as you say over the past 12 months become a brand. I think I understand your against theories, but hey leave that where it is in the past. RPT or (Reference Point Therapy) has evolved and anyone who has taken the course and will be updated by the new material will (my personal thoughts) not think of it as relating to Ancestral because of course you are teaching RPT 3, therefore any new people will just associate RPT 3 as it is (coherance)work. I think over the past months as RPT has evolved with the brilliant work of both yourself and Evette, plus others makes this the right reference for me. Regardless if you change the name and re brand you have cut through to the new frontiers of healing par si. I know I have enjoyed the journey so far, and know that the journey to come will be truly inspiring for me and everyone else who has sought coherance!

    M x


  2. Without something else to compare it with, it’s a bit hard to say you should keep it or ditch it. Having said that, I really like the name Reference Point Therapy. It abbreviates nicely to RPT and doesn’t sound new-agey like “Theta Healing” or your first name “Healing That Really Works”. If you have any other ideas for names, we could do a comparison.

    I don’t think your list of againsts are that big a deal
    - the phrase “reference point” is still relevant even the modality has gone beyond simply looking for the earliest reference point. I actually think the phrase “reference point” neatly encapsulates the concept of dealing an issue at its origin and provides a point of distinction from other modalities that deal with issues at a level other than the origin
    - I agree with Monica – past students will catch up if they’re interested. If people found RPT 1.0 hard, it’s not because of the name, it’s because of the techniques
    - I think it’s probably more your name than RPT that people associate with “anti-theta healing” (but that’ll probably diminish as time goes by) so I don’t think you’ll get around that just by changing the modality’s name. A “Rose” by any other name would smell just as sweet (gee, I bet that’s the first time you’ve heard that one! :) )

    Just another some other points:
    - if you change the name every time you update the techniques, you’ll never have consistency
    - following from the above, if you were going to change the name, you’d probably have to use a generic sounding name that has no relationship to the modality so you don’t run the risk of it losing its relevance as the modality evolves (like the “Sedona Method”). But then that has its own problems
    - practitioners out there have probably built their businesses around the RPT brand so you’d be doing them a disservice (in terms of stationary, ads, business names, accrued goodwill etc.)

    Again, don’t underestimate the value of search engine traction, established backlinks etc. Having said that, are you sure you’re getting 600,000 hits a month from Google? That’s a huge number and I find that a bit hard to believe for something so new and which isn’t well known in the general population. According to Google’s keyword tool, it gets 1300 global searches per month. If you’re getting 600,000 hits per month (which is still huge), it’s not necessarily all from Google or from the phrase “reference point therapy”. The phrase “Simon Rose” gets 8100 global searches per month! There’s a couple of other Simon Roses (a BBC journalist and a Canadian author) in Wikipedia but the number 1 site in Google for the phrase “Simon Rose” is the RPT site!

    If you haven’t already done so, you could install the Google Analytics tool (free) which will show where your traffic’s coming from.


    Shane Marsh Reply:

    Actually, I think I know where you got the 600,000 figure from now – exact phrase matched pages. That’s still pretty good – looks like there’ a lot of practitioners out there putting the word out (although there are a lot of duplicate pages).


  3. Hi,
    I’m in favour of keeping RPT. I agree with lots of the points made above.
    So many more people are set to find out about this that have no association at all with the earlier method or of any ties (or non-ties) with theta that I don’t think that needs to be a consideration. There is recognition out there, though, and I do think we should keep building on that.
    “RPT” will simply come to mean the thing that we do and almost become a word and a feeling in itself rather than a set of initials. “Reference Point Therapy” will hardly be used any more because humans are lazy with their mouths unless there’s food involved. People will occasionally ask but mostly not really care overmuch about the answer and instantly forget.
    Also, “slow” is a relative term. It was pretty quick really. We should be proud of the rapid development of this and own it. There’s nothing that needs to be left behind.
    Sue x


  4. when you find the name that feels right in your whole beigness, you can choose to change the name. the name only points toward what its named after. as E. Tolle puts it: “the word honey is not honey.” and it seems like you guys have enough on your plate for the moment.
    keep up the good work :)



  5. I think the development has been interesting, and good to hear that it seems to continue to be coming along! I actually had been thinking, in the back of my head, for the last week- about sending a msg/post about my concern about the name RPT, but not in terms of the two terms of the three you mention, but rather with “therapy”…. I’d like to propose that the question of whether the term Therapy should be changed/removed from association.

    In terms of Ref Pt… I agree with the thoughts above in regards to “the earliest pt of origin” (which I also have a “problem” with- as implies a literal sense of Time-Travel, and is quite different from, the “underlying tone” / foundational context-basis, or something like that… is the idea to bring up a “memory” (which may or may not be “true”) as a vision/gestalt-encounter or is the idea to access a tone / aspect of the mind/energy through using a handle-concept? -this isn’t so much a concern I’d have with the name (as Ref Pt name seems to refer to either one of those, but in terms of presentation/teaching?)

    lastly- Theta healing reference (to use ref pt in a different way, ala association, which has been used on this blog recently as well) … I don’t know if that is implied in the name, perhaps in the “group’s” associations (as mentioned above), but I sensed, and continue to sense, a strong umm energetic-association (in both senses of that word) of some of this group with that Theta-vib (which has a very controlling- do this now- sense, as well as a distant-detachment/cold feel to it)… which to be clear I’m not saying is related to the Theta-tech nor to the group-people that teach/practice that, just what I have felt “show up” when those that use it/are attuned to it speak of it (reference it).


  6. Gut Point Therapy is a Good point :) or maybe Core Point.. you know there is a book about the intestinals..
    Gut is a second brain in the body and it has all the roots of the emotions and thoughts. So your discovery is very important, I think these changes in RPT is really serious and need to change the name. The name should point the changes of core/gut area.


  7. I say stick with RPT.
    Mainly because of the recognition factor. How long will it take to build up the same recognition again? Who knows… but why bother?
    What’s in a name anyway?
    The biggest band EVER were called the Beatles; the best computers are called Apples; the biggest selling drink – coca cola!
    RPT has a good ‘ring’ to it, and reference points ARE still relevant:
    Ok, so we focus on associations now, but those associations are also connected to reference points:
    “Your reference point for survival/safety is falsely associated with…”
    And i do still use the earliest reference point / origin technique sometimes too…

    Stick to RPT please – in time the theta connexion will be forgotten.


  8. Jørgen Mæhre

    I’m in favor of changing the name. When I was in Anaheim, I felt that the technique would change to something different than “Reference Point” therapy in a matter of months. I feel now that the name “Reference Point Therapy” represents something outdated. What you’re talking about in the animations and the newest articles is not RPT to me.

    I’m not saying that the old RPT technique was very slow or didn’t work (hell, it probably saved my life). But – the new technique is faster, easier, more “aeordynamic” so to speak. While RPT was similar to the development from a Benz Velo 1894 model (older healing techniques that didn’t work very well – clients often needed to “clear” issues over and over again) to, say, a Toyota Corolla (a technique that worked very well, easy to master – but there was still something “missing”) – the new technique is more like a Porche (although not that expensive). And I do belive it will continue to become faster and better. What I’m trying, with my somewhat exaggerated analogy, is to express how I think & feel about this: The new technique is still a car (healing technique somewhat similar to the original RPT :p), but it’s also very different from what it originally was.

    I can rant on, but the new Coherence-focused technique doesn’t smell or feel like the old trauma-focused RPT (to me, at least). Thus I think it’s better to change it’s name.

    I’m not totally against RPT keeping it’s name either, but I’m more inclined to support a new name for the technique. “Start off with a clean slate” and all that…. :)

    BTW: if I google-search Reference Point Therapy I get over 4 170 000 results. If I use the advanced search settings and set it to search the sentence “Reference Point Therapy” i get 23 900 results – and that search is probably more valid – as all the links link to RPT-related pages. The former results however link to pages that mentions “reference point” “reference” “point” “therapy” “still point therapy” etc, so I’m not sure if your statement about the Google-search is valid.


  9. Hi Simon. Just to say I’m loving all this new info that you are sharing and wish I could make one of the RPT 3 courses this year – here’s putting it out there!

    With regard to changing the name, here’s my penny’s worth. I think it should remain as it is. I completely agree with some of the previous comments about branding, recognition etc. plus search engine recognition. Having previously run an internet business I have learned from experience that it is hard to build and even harder to rebuild.

    Plus, us therapists do spend a LOT of hard earned money on literature, advertising etc which would all need to be changed. I accept this could be done gradually but is a consideration. Then there is the insurance aspect – getting the changes accepted & integrated by the insurance companies. Maybe I’m creating a problem where there isn’t one but this seems to be a potentially important aspect.

    And, on a purely personal level, I like the name RPT.

    I hope these comments help.

    Dawn H x


  10. STICK with RPT is my points!


  11. I think the RPT name sucks. ;-) It implies that we, and the clients, are broken and need to be fixed with therapy. I think that that is wrong on so many levels, and attending my first RPT course the name was one of my chief concerns with it.


    simonrose Reply:

    hi Geir
    thanks for your comment.
    I’m a little confused by your reply. It’s not that I disagree, it’s more that I need to ask this: “what can you call it that doesn’t have that implication?”

    I mean every form of treatment has some synonym for treatment: “healing,” “therapy,” “counselling”… even “neuro linguistic programming” must imply to you that your mind needs reprogramming. The Reconection implies (actually states) that you are disconnected. The Journey implies that healing is a long Journey (that method can be). I’m wracking my brains and the best one I can think of is Matrix Energetics. It’s a really awesome name, but it hasn’t really taken off as a modality because I don’t think it’s obvious to people that it’s a healing technique (it does other things too I think).

    My point is Geir, whatever we call it, it’s going to end in something like “Technique” “therapy” or similar so that people know what it is. So please do offer suggestions but whatever name we use, it’s going to end in a descriptive noun so that people searching for help know that it is help. (and I agree that we are not broken, but many of healing clients might THINK they are broken before the practitioner shows them that they are whole.)

    The only one I really dislike is “… Healing” because to me Healing really implies that people are sick and need healing. Like you said about being broken.

    To me, “Therapy” does not mean broken. I have a different mental association. I would love to hear other people’s views on the “Therapy” part, not just the “Reference Point” bit which is what I addressed in the article.

    thanks for your valuable contribution to this discussion.



    Geir Reply:

    Well, I`m not really proficient in the RPT technique and do not have all the details, but I thought a bit about it and I come to the idea that you seem to have found what you wanted, something simple enough to put on a stamp.

    Why not use that, and call it Head Heart Gut Theory. Or something. Head heart gut Theory is neither a technique nor a healing modality nor therapy, it is just a theory that f you take certain steps, certain results will follow. It`s just a theory.


  12. My perspective is that of someone who has never taken an RPT class, so perhaps my view is a bit less myopic. The average person who will Google RPT within the next year likely will have NO idea what the original “reference point” was all about…and quite frankly will not care. They probably will be attracted to “instant healing”; who wouldn’t find that a reason to click the link?

    And, further, why couldn’t reference point be reframed to refer to the “tone” that underlies the need/reason for this “therapy”. My impression is that this is somewhat of a tempest in a teapot. If you, Simon, are happy with the name and are intuitively guided to retain it, why indulge in any further mental machinations to the contrary? The content, rather than the label, is the reason why people seek out various therapies/techniques. Your content is stellar and requires no “sweeter” name, in my opinion.


  13. Hi Simon,
    one of my favourite old sayings is”if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.
    However, having said that,i’ll contradict myself by stating the obvious:You named this modality after a time Reference Point Therapy because you found that Evette & yourself were using those words often.So in that vain,what words are you both using to descibe what your doing now?
    My opinion is so long as you keep the word”healing”out of its title because that word has been used so much its lost all meaning & sounds obnoxious(personal opinion),& maintain a legitimate,uninsulting(to anybodies intellegence) overtone to this work,any name change that does it justice will do.
    I realise i come back to the beginning,not having stated this or that,but rather this & that.
    As you know,you already have the answer.Food for thought!My 2 cents worth!!


  14. RPT is fine.

    I mean, if you have to change the name every time there’s a breakthrough… ;)
    Even though you’ve had the breakthroughs. Even though there aren’t any more brea,throughs, right? Or is that when the breakthroughs come?

    If you’d like, call it RPT: _ , RPT/ _ , RPT 3 (don’t need the .0), etc. to distinguish it.

    However, I’d say if you’re going to rename it (anyway), do it now, and not later.


  15. Hi Simon,

    I would say keep the original because end of the day there will be on going changes and probably other quicker methods will come along in time.
    At least we all stick together and you carry on updating what is new for the practitioners and teachers. Together we will make the method grow. This is the new generation of healing, let it just keep developing, let the changes just come as it is meant to be. It is already obvious that this technique moves with time.


  16. I’d like a new name. I never remember this name. It just doesn’t stick especially not the initials.

    Also its different now to what it was at its first launch.

    Having said that, its the content that matters so i won’t mind if you keep it.


  17. Hi Simon and Evette, I hope you are both very well!

    I sat the course with you mid last year, this was when the technique was called ‘healing that really works.’ I remember thinking (god that name is daggy! I mean…) that you should change the name to reference point therapy, it seemed so obvious to me that this name just fit.

    I had a quick glance at your website earlier this year and was absolutely wrapped that you changed the name to this. REFERENCE POINT THERAPY IS INTRIGUING, INTERESTING AND PROFESSIONAL, all the things that draw me to a business/website, and I feel it’s bound to appeal to a wide demographic. I imagine it is also quite unappealing to anyone looking for something ‘fluffy,’ ‘new age’ or strictly ‘feel good.’ It sounds quite scientific which is always a bonus (even if it does just earn you brownie points with intellectuals and geophysics students) and makes the business feel trustworthy and credible.

    Healing modalities seem to be constantly improving, changing and evolving (good ones anyway) and I feel that’s what people really want. It keeps things interesting and shows real commitment on the creator/developers part. I honestly think that it is actually more confusing to keep changing the name than to keep changing/improving the modality, if you keep the same name past students and clients will find it much easier to track you down, it will probably make past students feel much more comfortable about updating their knowledge (rather than learning a whole new modality with a whole new name) and it will probably make repeat clients feel much more comfortable having another session (they know it’s good, they know what to expect).

    I think it’s unnecessary to give the modality different numbers to say what version you are offering. I don’t think you need to abbreviate the name to RPT either, but it’s nice that you can.

    I’m sure that you will have many different opinions on this topic (and already do) so here’s something to think about. I remembered reference point therapy before it was even the name of this technique, and it stuck with me (and I really liked it).

    Just one more thing, there’s something to be said for that snowballing effect that happens when enough people like something and spread the word. Often that initial stage of getting the name out there takes some time, but once enough people click on the site and know the name, the snowball really takes off. You can start again, sure, but I think there’s value in that momentum.

    Hope this has been of some help to you,

    Lots of fun and laughter,

    Rose (aka Naru)


  18. Jørgen Mæhre

    BTW: I just remebered another reason why I support a new name for RPT. When I mention Reference Point Therapy to people, they all intuitivly thinks its a physical type of therapy – like a type of acupuncture or trigger point therapy.


    simonrose Reply:

    you know, I only get this from our Norweigan people. I think in English that association is different. When someone mentions therapy or “seeing my therapist” it is almost always an emotional technique.
    Maybe we need to look at a new name in Norweigan?



    Jørgen Mæhre Reply:

    Perhaps a new Norwegian name would be good :) And we can’t use the slogan “Instant healings, lasting results” either (if we did, we would break the law). So we have to figure something out


    simonrose Reply:

    If you and Azaris can help translate the website then we will have in Norweigan.

    The slogan can be changed easily. I think the problem (legally) is the word healings, and to be honest we don’t technically do “healings” anyway. So perhaps translate this into norweigan: “Instant Transformation, lasting results.” Something like: umiddelbar transformasjon, varige resultater

    I am confident that’s legal in Norway.

    With the new website (coming August) it should be easy enough to customise it for each teacher or country.


    Jørgen Mæhre Reply:

    I’ll talk with Azaris about it.
    Transformasjon instead of healings/helbredelser could work. I got to look it up. (just looked it up, and the use of “transformasjon” would be a kind of “grey zone” issue). We have two lawyers in our “team” (azaris included) so we’ll find a soulution.

    The problem with “varige resultater” is that we need some science to back it up (or at least we should have some valid proof that the results actually lasts).

    I do have a great deal of spare time this summer, so perhaps I’ll look into translating the webpage. I’ll contact you when I know if I have time.

  19. Hi Simon and everyone

    I have only just completed RPT part 1 and I have spoken to a number of people already about what it can do. I believe it doesn’t matter really what it’s called because if you mention the title to someone ie “You would love this new and exciting energy work I am offering called RPT”, you will then still need to describe it to whoever you are talking to and if you are talking to someone whom you feel would benefit from your services, you will be chosing the words in your description that you know/hope will press the right buttons for them to encourage them to come along and clear their stuff. I vote for keeping the name RPT as you will undo all the great work you have done over the past year and may lose credibility.. The key is to practise your ‘advert’ so when you are talking to potential clients you can describe what you can do for them in an accurate and succinct way based on what you think they will be able to relate to. Your unthought through description may turn them off rather than the title that they won’t remember anyway.


  20. Hi Simon/Evette,

    How about this:

    1. Keep the name… and …
    2. Re-frame the meaning as: This therapy is the reference point (or yardstick) against which other (competing?) therapies must be measured on performance efficiency outcomes satisfaction etc…

    Looking forward to the updates and refinements you mention above.



    simonrose Reply:

    very wise, thanks


  21. Simon/Evette
    In relation to using the word Therapy, and not Healing.

    I suggest “therapy” is retained and references to “healing” be omitted
    “Therapy” implies you are improving your self-hood, moving away from fear.

    “Healing” implies that the therapy process (whatever the process may be) has been taken to completion and a permanent state (one-ness?) is completely present.

    Defining RPT as a self-development system (correct view I think) sits well with “therapy”
    Whether or not someone gets to a “Healed” state is probably outside the scope of RPT and all other modes of therapy.


  22. That is a wonderfully hiuorials story Simon! And there is a profoundly deep lesson in it. And it seems to be right on time as always. As I am facing some fears at the moment, which are very real to me, and I totally forgot to clear them but concentrating on problem solving instead. It never fails to amaze me how the right clues are coming to us when we really need them and are ready to accept.Thank you.


  23. Dear Simon,Thank you for sharing this fascinating video. I have never taken an RPT class before, and a lot of the work seems to require intuition and a clear awareness of emotion. I have a general question about working on myself. Do you have any advice on how to get out of the head and in touch with deeper feelings? I think you mentioned elsewhere that you would sometimes spend a whole hour with a client getting them out of their head if need be. I was curious as to what sort of techniques you use to achieve this.Many thanksPaul[]


Leave a Reply


Using Gravatars in the comments - get your own and be recognized!

XHTML: These are some of the tags you can use: <a href=""> <b> <blockquote> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>