The Pain Papers
7/31/2001
The Pain Papers
Newsletter #3 - July 31, 2001
Copyright (c) 2001 Christopher K. O'Leary
————————————————————————————-
CONTENTS
————————————————————————————-
- Pain and Feedback Loops
- Proactive Product Development
- Mobile Speedpass
- Clutter and Pain
————————————————————————————-
THOUGHTS
————————————————————————————-
PAIN AND FEEDBACK LOOPS
I got into a discussion on the Fast Company Web site the other
day that I think is relevant to this conversation.
During this discussion, David Locke made the comment "Learning
occurs in the presence of feedback." This comment is along the
same lines as what I said in Pain Paper #1 about learning and
corporate leprosy. What I found really interesting about this
comment is that the mention of "feedback" made it clear to me
how The Power of Pain can draw upon Norbert Wiener's research
into Cybernetics and feedback.
Before I get too deep into this, let me first acquaint
you with what Wiener said about feedback. Wiener developed many
of his ideas during WWII (isn't it amazing how the pain of war
always seems to spur innovation). At that time he was part of a
team that was tasked with solving the problem of improving the
accuracy of anti-aircraft artillery. This led him to research
the development of an automatic fire control system and, during
the course of his research, Wiener came across the idea of
feedback.
As it turned out, others had learned that feedback was
one of the chief mechanisms that natural systems used to guide
their behavior. Wiener interpreted the essence of feedback as
meaning that "When we desire a motion to follow a given pattern
the difference between this pattern and the actually performed
motion is used as a new input to cause the part regulated to
move in such a way as to bring its motion closer to that given
by the pattern." (Cybernetics pp. 6-7). In other words, the
Basic Form of feedback provides information about the difference
(the delta) between the actual state and the desired state. It
gives the organism a sense of the "what".
However, the measurement of the delta and the "what" is
not the only key to a successful outcome. Many organisms (call
them Type I organisms) are able to perceive the existence of the
delta but are still unable to achieve their goals. Examples of
Type I organisms include moths and other insects that futilely
congregate around glass doors and windows, trying to reach the
light. Given their short lifespans, Type I organisms make it
clear that the use of just the Basic Form of feedback leads to a
fairly bleak existence.
What distinguishes more complex and more capable
organisms (call them Type II organisms) from their simpler
cousins is their ability to perceive or process a Rich Form of
feedback that includes the knowledge of the existence of the
delta as well as other information about the environment. Type
II organisms merge this Rich Form of feedback with a set of
alternate behaviors to produce a wider range of responses to any
situation. They have some sense of the "why". In some cases, the
combination of the Rich Form of feedback, and the resulting
sense of the "why", with a wide range of responses leads to
learning behavior.
So what does this have to do with anything besides
biological organisms?
Well, I would submit that many organizations look more
like Type I organisms than Type II organisms and for similar
reasons.
Type I organizations, like Type I organisms, see the
difference between what they have and what they want (it's as
plain as the difference between their Income Statement and their
Annual Plan), but are powerless to do anything different.
Instead, they try the same thing over and over again or resort
to artificial growth mechanisms like mergers and acquisitions.
While many reasons have been proposed for why this is
the case, I would submit that a large part of the problem is
that Type I organizations, like Type I organisms, are unable to
perceive or process the Rich Form of feedback. They are instead
forced to rely on just the Basic Form of feedback.
Why is the case?
Again, there are many reasons for this, but the short
answer can be summed up in one word...
Insulators.
Large organizations are full of layers, policies, and
procedures that may be essential to their effective operation
but also serve to insulate the higher, typically more important
parts of the organization from what is going on in the
marketplace. These insulators prevent the Rich Form of feedback
from percolating up the chain of command. Of course, pain is a
key component of the Rich Form of feedback.
Examples of insulators include hierarchies and chains
of command. They include reports. They include meetings.
More importantly, they include call centers (many of which are
outsourced) whose function is to answer questions in as short a
period of time as possible, not to monitor the pulse of the
marketplace. They also include focus groups, where the goal is
to answer the questions that are asked and where volunteered
information is not captured.
So what can you do about it? How do you deal with insulators?
The obvious answer is to flatten your organization and
get rid of the insulators. If you cannot get rid of the
insulators, then you can develop mechanisms to route the Rich
Form of feedback around the insulators. People like Sam Walton
recognized this phenomenon and got around it by personally
visiting each store to get a sense of what is going on in the
marketplace. Other companies use secret shoppers to monitor the
real experience of their customers. You can also push
responsibility down to lower layers of the organization where
they can perceive and are empowered to act upon pain.
What do you do or would you do to route around the
insulators in your organization?
————————————————————————————-
RANTS AND RAVES
————————————————————————————-
PROACTIVE PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
You know, one thing that really bugs me is that so much of the
current definition of sales and marketing seems to be about
selling existing products. The conventional role of sales and
marketing is to take an existing product and figure out how to
sell it. This is done by matching the pain that a product
addresses with holes in the marketplace. However, this can be a
long and tedious process.
It's like putting a dress on a bear. You may be able to make the
bear look nice, but you will never forget that what you have is
a bear in a dress.
In my mind, the process should be reversed. Sales and
marketing should be about identifying holes in the market and
then guiding the product development organization in the
creation of products that fit that hole.
This customer-driven model would appear to be much more
efficient. So what is holding it back? I think it's the lack of
techniques that can tell companies what pain exists in the
marketplace.
MOBILE SPEEDPASS
I was watching the Cubs/Cardinals game on Saturday. One thing
that I noticed was the huge number of ads touting the Mobil
Speedpass. This is a device that lets you link a wand-like
device to your credit card to make paying at the pump easier.
The Speedpass has been around for 5 years or so and
has, as far as I can tell, been largely unsuccessful. I say this
because heavy advertising is often a sign of lack of success.
What's the problem?
In my mind, the problem is that the Speedpass does not
solve enough pain. While the Speedpass may be better than using
a credit card to pay at the pump, it isn't enough of an advance
to be worth the extra effort (and to overcome the perceived
risk). If paying at the pump is 10X better than going inside the
gas station to pay (which it would seem to be, given its rapid
adoption), then the Speedpass is maybe 11X better than going
inside the gas station to pay. The problem, of course, is that
the Speedpass is only 1X better than paying at the pump (which
is now ubiquitous), and that generally isn't enough of an
advantage to make it worth it. Gasoline is also a fairly
commoditized good and (in these days of higher prices) price
often matters more than brand.
————————————————————————————-
COMPANIES TO START AND PRODUCTS TO BUILD
————————————————————————————-
CLUTTER AND PAIN
Like most families, ours is constantly fighting a running battle
with clutter. It seems that no matter how much we try, things
just seem to accumulate. We have tried a number of things over
the year and, while a few have worked for some period of time,
we always seem to backslide.
The latest, and most effective to date, solution came
from an Oprah book called "Clear You Clutter With Feng Shui."
This book bases its ideas on the Chinese practice of Feng Shui.
While these ideas helped us for several months, we relapsed soon
after moving. The problem is that, while cleanliness and lack of
clutter make a good ideal, they tend to slip down in the list of
priorities.
A recent discovery in our new house has given me an
idea for a more permanent solution that can help my family and
others.
We have recently discovered that our house is occupied,
in addition to ourselves, by some number (likely 100+) of Brown
Recluse Spiders. If you are not familiar with Brown Recluse
Spiders, let me tell that they are one of only six species of
venomous spiders in the United States. Their bite is usually
severe and occasionally fatal. In an adult, the venom of a Brown
Recluse Spider is highly necrotic and will cause ulcerating
wounds of up to 10 inches in diameter.
The interesting thing is that, since we have discovered the
existence of our 8-legged roommates, the house has never been
cleaner. Brown Recluse Spiders are attracted to cluttered
spaces. As a result, we have had to clean our entire house from
top to bottom and will have to continue to do so in order to
keep them from returning.
This gives me an idea. The idea is to create a kit that
will help people rid their lives and homes of clutter - and keep
them that way.
My working name is "Clear Your Clutter with Brown
Recluse Spiders".
This is a great idea because it addresses the big
problem with clutter - the fact that it is a nice-to-have but
not a must-have. The problem is that there isn't that much pain
associated with clutter. My idea is to develop a kit that will
make clutter reduction a must-have by linking clutter with pain.
Since Brown Recluse Spiders are attracted to clutter, people
will be forced (as much as you can) to deal with their clutter
issues. If they do not manage their clutter, then they or their
loved ones will experience physical pain.
I already have several prototypes in place, and am
trying to figure out how to package the idea. The first option
is the explicit route - make it clear that the kit contains
Brown Recluse Spiders and explain what they can do. The second
option is the stealth approach. Sell the kit as "Guaranteed to
clean up you clutter and keep it gone." My thought is to
instruct people to first place the "Magic Box" (containing live
Brown Recluse Spiders, which can hibernate for up to 12 months,
so there is no shelf life problem) in a dark location. They will
then read the user's manual which will read something like
"Congratulations, your house is now infested with Brown Recluse
Spiders. If you do not keep you house continuously clear of
clutter, you risk serious injury or death."...
Now, before you call the police on me, let me tell that
I am in fact kidding - although the part about my house
containing Brown Recluse Spiders is true. What I am trying to do
is point out the difference between ideals and pain. Cleanliness
is a good ideal, but for most of us an ideal is not incredibly
motivational. So many ideals remain just that because they are
never associated with source of pain. If you have a product that
is based around an ideal, then you will need to work to find a
pain to build it around.
So where has pain turned an ideal into reality for you?
I'd love to hear your examples.
————————————————————————————-
PLUGS
————————————————————————————-
I am always on the lookout for new and different ideas about
Marketing. I have found that https://www.marketingprofs.com is
one excellent place to learn about the latest ideas in marketing
new products and services.
————————————————————————————-
READER COMMENTS
————————————————————————————-
Lyle B. Hojberg-Clarke of https://www.mooloo.com writes...
"Using pain as either a motivation or a tactic, I can not for
the life of me see why Ordinary People would buy my product. Or
for that matter, any other form of entertainment in particular.
Entertainment in general, yes, but not one medium over another.
Off the top of your head, is there some aspect of pain that I am
missing? Or is entertainment a Pet Rock?"
At the core, I think the answer is "No". Entertainment
itself is not a Pet Rock. Anyone who has ever worked too hard
can tell you that the statement "All work and no play makes Jack
a dull boy" is true.
That said, it's hard to tell because the world of
entertainment is so full of Pet Rocks. However, I believe that
entertainment is a necessity. People need to be entertained and
will actively seek out forms of entertainment.
The opportunity for people who understand the
importance of pain is to look for sources of pain in the current
forms of entertainment. Are they too expensive? Are they too
cheap? Are they too generic? Are they too homogeneous?
In your case, you may be able to position existing
products as over-produced and least-common-denominator. People
will look for new and different solutions. They will also look
for the chance to express themselves and not just read
mass-market publications. I think that in the next few years we
will see a backlash against mass media and the homogenization of
everything. You might be able to ride that trend (which at its
core has some degree of pain).
————————————————————————————-
I received this interesting comment the other day from Pascal
Clerotte...
"I agree with what you wrote in 'No pain, no Ideas'.
As a matter of fact, Bertold BRECHT did find the perfect way to
describe that, and long before the meme theory!
'Some ideas are of a structuring nature. The kind of ideas that
orders other ideas. Their behavior could be compared to civil
servants. Created originally to serve the community, they soon
dominate it (...). Taking advantage of contradictions, they
become masters. To do so, they stick to powerful people, not to
useful people. (...) Some ideas have no other use that to
proclaim an eternal Kingdom. They prove day and night that this
Kingdom is part of nature and thus cannot be changed. Sometimes,
when those ideas get worn out, we replace them with newer
therefore more operating ones. They still represent the old
kingdom, but describe it with new words.'"
|