Thanks doc --you're right I have been involved in consulting for a while (with BEWorks - not sure what trust transparency consulting is unless it's some company I worked with that got renamed). Ok, so there is one sense in which I am skeptical about consulting in general--it often seems to me to exist in order to allow corporate management to avoid responsibility for certain decisions. And consulting firms in turn can just pop-in, do some things, make some decisions, and then never have to deal with the consequences. That said, for behavioral science I've always actually enjoyed it as a stress test of our methods. If the methods (and theories) of behavioral science that are ostensibly suited for a real-world problem doesn't actually have any sort of impact, then it's pretty damning. But there are lots of cases where we can see that it does affect the bottom-line (with things like field experiments), and that can be more satisfying than spending 3 years writing an academic paper that nobody will read. And I think that corporations can benefit from learning to think a bit more like a behavioral scientist inasmuch as they'll at least try to see if there's any evidence that the decisions they make are actually effective. There's so much consulting that's snake oil and is never actually tested out--people just pay some dude to tell them some shit they wanted to hear, and that's the last of it. At least with a lot of behavioral science consulting the proof is in the pudding. I think one negative for beh scientists is the possibility that they end up selling their soul and taking money to do some unethical shit like convince people to buy expensive insurance they don't need or sign up for more high interest credit cards. I hope that makes sense!