Changing the Formula
Changing The Formula
Whether we always acknowledge it or not, we all suffer from having fixed views on a wide range of topics. We ‘intuitively’ arrive at the logical answer, do a bit of unconscious mental gymnastics to backfill cherry-picked details to suit that narrative…and justify our bombproof conclusion. This is a bad habit.
We have to accept that this involves a frightening absence of critical thinking.
We’re all guilty of unhealthy reasoning at times. And that can become a dangerous habit.
But we can be cured.
In an effort to retrain yourself to think differently, I can highly recommend catching up with Matthew Syed’s ‘Sideways’ series on Radio 4 (via BBC Sounds).
One particular episode, ‘Originality Armageddon’ (first broadcast on 23 June 2021), really caught my imagination.
‘Sideways’ is, by design, an exploration of how we could (and indeed should) be more curious about received wisdoms and tunnel-vision thinking, and how we can learn to revisit conventional thought processes and try to see the world slightly differently.
And then make it work to our advantage.
This episode in particular focused on the premise that we are all doomed to unoriginality, and to think that our ‘original’ ideas are almost inevitably not as original as we would like to think.
It addresses the dilemma of perceived plagiarism – where different people, using broadly the same sources, can easily come to disturbingly similar conclusions. This is a truism we all too easily choose to ignore.
The fact is that coincidences are not really coincidences at all. In truth they are the opposite - almost unavoidable. But that’s not the end of the story.
Retrain your brain
Let’s start by thinking about those commodities/products/brands that offer essentially the same thing – whether that be cars, golf clubs or lipstick.
They all have the same function, so what is the real point of demarcation? Arguably it could be a range of ‘usual suspect’ factors -temporary or claimed points of difference can include: price, availability, ease of use, styling, sophistication, colour, packaging, durability, etc.
But when it comes down to it, it’s really only about one thing…PERCEPTION.
This is where Matthew Syed’s clinical analysis really begins to make sense.
His idea is to focus on how we manage all of the inputs - how we dissemble, interpret, and reframe them to create a demonstrably different/better output. This is something that clients can struggle with because they are either too close to the problem to see it, or (more likely) too partisan to want to break ranks.
That’s where an external/neutral entity like a brand consultancy can act as a force for good, a positive agent provocateur.
Even if adopting this different approach only elicits one small point of difference, it could be that that small point of difference (and how you present it) could be the hook that elevates you from the pack.
It will change how you are perceived, and that’s such a valuable thing (in every sense).
It’s what all the great brands do – more correctly it’s what they almost certainly did in the past, and is very likely the thing that made them famous in the first place.
So by following the Sideways rationale, if you convince yourself to process and reframe the input information differently, you might just find a unique set of outputs that give you a commercial advantage.
That’s the good sort of plagiarism – take the same sources and decide to interpret them differently.
Like taking the ideas proposed in a radio Podcast about unoriginality, and reframing them as a lesson in how to improve your brand marketing and profitability.
See what I did there?