Courage, Grasshopper.
By David MacGregor,
Creativity is a game of risk. Nothing great is accomplished without risk.
One of the most common reasons that flaccid ideas emerge into the world is because the inventor (and I use the term in its loosest sense) never asked:
Is this good enough? How can I make it better?
There used to be an advertising agency called Chiat Day. It has gone. Absorbed into what is now TBWA. Chiat Day were legendary for their work–including the launch of the Apple Mac and Nike. Jay Chiat was an inspirational leader of the agency. Like most inspirational leaders he had some mottos, my favourite was:
Good enough isn’t good enough.
When we create we put something personal on the line–machines can’t create. Nor can organisations. I am happy to debate the latter point with you, but my view is that the people in organisations come up with ideas. The people in the company who mediate between customers and creators or creators and producers within the organisation represent the interests of all. Ultimately the entity can assume credit and bank the profits–but it is always individuals who originate ideas. So we risk our egos taking a knock when we reveal our ideas.
But what is the alternative? To keep them to ourselves?
Not likely.
To get them done we have to expose them the cold hard light of scrutiny.
And who knows - collaboration might just make things better.
IP Paradox #1:
Patent Law seeks to promote economic activity by granting exclusion rights to inventors. Anti-trust law seeks to promote economic activity by denying the very same rights
The Idea Companion - Clever Copyrights, tremendous trademarks & Peerless patents by Johnny Acton
Comments
nzproducer
create it, release it, work out the bugs as you go and capitalise on your innovation. The only perfectionists I’ve ever meet tend to bill by the hour…
David
Thanks for the comment.
I have to clarify.
There is no such thing as perfection.
There will always be another version.
The true question is - did I do the best I can with the resources (time, money, knowledge etc) I had available?
The point I also make is that, before committing to sign-off on any project we have to be open to improvement within the time frame.
Let's not kid ourselves. MOST dud products don't get a second chance. You and I rarely give a second chance to a product, brand or service after a bad experience - especially in categories where there is no shortage of choice (i.e.most of them).
I went to a meeting hosted by Microsoft before Christmas addressed in person by their Global CEO Steve Ballmer. He mentioned that, in the beginning, the software they released didn't really work well (the same is true for Oracle - if you get the chance read the bio of Larry Ellison: What's the difference between God and Larry Ellison?* ). If Microsoft were to attempt to launch in todays market - Let's just say the MacOS had become the default standard - and assume they had equivalent resources to when they began, then they wouldn't last 10 minutes.
The world has moved on significantly. Competitors can take the essence of a good idea, badly executed and serve the market need with a better alternative at blinding speed. Who want's to be a lab rat for competitors?
As a footnote, there is an adage in advertising that goes something like:
"Why is there never enough time to do it right - yet always enough time to do it again."
And, as a footnote to the footnote: We have just signed off the proofs for issue two of Idealog and I am happy to report that it was made in less time, used less money and is much better than our launch magazine.
Number 1 was a prototype for number two, number two for number three…
*God doesn't think He's Larry Ellison
Anonymous comments on this post are disabled. Please sign up to post a new comment.