Comments on: Risk, creativity and innovation part 2

By: @hotlotto

@hotlotto — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 13:12:29 +0000

I am with Mats. I did work for one organization that encouraged experimentation.
Yes, the experiments were for low budget, low profile projects. But when they were successful, it was easier to make a case for expanding on them for bigger budget, higher profile projects.
I saw a couple of these experiments work their way into becoming the foundation of the company’s largest, highest profile projects. But it didn’t happen overnight.

By: Leon

Leon — Tue, 26 May 2009 00:48:01 +0000

Good points. Thanks.

By: Mats

Mats — Tue, 26 May 2009 00:32:21 +0000

I think the basic problem is that communications/media planning is (at least) a three-dimensional problem (how many, how often, how much/well) measured with a two-dimensional yeardstick (how many, how well). In other words, too much focus is on the quantity of media/contacts and not enough on the quality of media/contacts. And add to this the further complication caused by the fact that each communication challenge is different and therefore means different priorities between the three dimensions.
I have often used Edward de Bono’s thinking on analysis and innovation, which basically is: “You can analyze your way to a problem, but you can’t analyze your way to a solution. A real solution requires creativity, experience, intuition etc. With this, you can develop any number of possible solutions – and now you can analyze them for their respective potential for success, as well as what the risks and critical success factors might be.”
One solution to the risk issue is to treat it as an investment in learning. One solution could be to apply an 80/20 principle – 80% in “safe” (i.e. traditional) media and 20% in “exploration” (or learning). Another solution is the “competitor envy” – i.e. “how would you feel if the competition tried this?”. Neither are scientific approaches but are more based on persuasive psychology – so good luck!

By: Leon

Leon — Thu, 21 May 2009 19:44:58 +0000

Thanks for sharing the links.
You’re right that people are ultimately irrational, and that’s probably why some campaigns work while others fail miserably.
Hopefully research into the irrational side of human decision making will provide us with the answers.
As for now, “the answer is 42″.

By: eskimon

eskimon — Thu, 21 May 2009 05:55:10 +0000

Great stuff – I wholeheartedly agree with your analysis.
As an industry, we seem to be embracing metrics and tools that offer *any* answer, regardless of whether that answer actually helps.
One problem is that we keep forgetting that people are inherently irrational. People’s actions are all heavily influenced by emotion, and emotion isn’t easily quantifiable or predictable.
Attempting to model and predict that emotion only makes things worse, because the emotions of the analyst influence the subsequent conclusions (as this article highlights)
I won’t pretend to have any answers, but I’m confident they will be more about psychology than maths