Why is it, we often arrive at trivial results?
OK. It's the majestic "We" used here. I should assume you don't generate "trivial" solutions very often.
But courtesy aside and back to the initial question:
In my world, all too often, solutions are built on our own assumptions about how things are, what the problem is, what could help, etc. They simply have to. So we get to our solutions by thinking. In a way our brains simply produce it ... yes within themselves, somehow.
And you know what - actually, this can be a quite valuable capacity of our brains. Senior strategists & consultants are valued exactly for this ability: to have hypotheses built on what they heard and know plus their basic assumptions about how things 'usually' work. The ability to start somewhere to get somewhere. At McKinsey they call this "hypothesis lead thinking". Which basically means: turn the intuitively "right" process around and don't go out researching in order to get your 'findings', but have the hypotheses first. Scientists work the same way, too. They don't just "go out and research". They try to test hypotheses that they came up before - based on their and other scientists' assumptions and beliefs.
Having said that, we still have to realize that - in contrast to what McKinsey or scientists do - we have creativity, newness and distinctiveness as at least major criteria for our output. This is the very reason why "triviality" seems to be something to be avoided. Scientists and McKinsey worry most about how true their thinking is. We also should be worried about that, but in addition to that we strive for a thinking that is different.
So how can we avoid thinking the same (maybe wrong) things we and others usually think - even without conducting exploratory research? I want to offer you a technique that came to my mind recently. It's not really tested yet but it's tempting to write it down.
The technique is called The Assumptions Quicksand or less frightening: Assumptions Questioned.
The idea: to use the fact that our thinking might be based on wrong and often commonly shared assumptions to our advantage. It works like this:
1) CONSTRUCT: Write down what you think about the task and possible solution. (Possible structure: What's the problem here? What should be our main objective? Why? How could we get there?)
2a) DECONSTRUCT I: Assume that every minute piece of meaning in this short text is wrong and write down as many possible alternatives to as possible.
2b) DECONSTRUCT II: Do it again. But go deeper : write down the very basic assumptions your initial statements were built on. (Ask yourself: What are the "truths" that make this statement plausible? Then deconstruct them.) Again: for each of the basic assumptions state as many possible alternative assumptions & derived hypotheses as possible.
3) RECONSTRUCT: Condense the alternatives to build 4-5 truly different, plausible but intriguing strategic stories.
4) Go talk to someone who can pull you out of the quicksand again.
An example how this might work:
1) Initial strategic story: "The client wants to rejuvenate the brand with the new ad campaign in order to appeal to younger target groups. We should try to keep the existing brand essence but express it in a more youthful, modern way. Let's ask ourselves what is un-modern and un-youthful in their today's communications and reverse that."
2a) Now, it doesn't matter if the above is right or smart etc. Or if our alternative statements will be. We just begin deconstructing each of the bits and pieces. Here just some possible, very obvious deconstructions and alternative constructs:
- "Yes, it's about appealing to younger target groups, but it's maybe not about an ad campaign, it's about making them try the product they have forgotten. How might we do that?"
- "Or maybe it is not about younger people but about recruiting new users among brand rejectors. Younger people being just on sub-group. Why do people reject the brand?"
- "It's not about rejecting the brand, it's about rejecting the whole product category. Why do people reject the category?..."
- "We shouldn't just keep the the brand essence but develop it further. E.g. we could find it's emotional benefit that also appeals to younger people / or brand rejectors."
- "Yes, we could go for rejuvenation based on existing brand essence but we shouldn't analyze what's un-modern, un-youthful in their communication. Instead we should analyze how other now youthful brands mastered rejuvenation."
- etc. etc. etc.
2b) And now, we question the yet unquestioned, the most plausible:
- "Maybe it's not the client who wants all this but it's his boss, instead. The client himself actually would like to keep it all as it is. Can we satisfy both?"
- "What if it's not about the brand at all. It's about the overall portfolio they have with this brand playing a certain role in it. What role might that be?"
- "There's the underlying assumption that advertising should be about expressing some sort of brand essence. But maybe we shouldn't express anything, but just reprogram some of the brand rejectors' behaviors?"
- "I seem to believe that 'old' is 'bad', but is it? Why is it? Is it? ..."
3) Now we try to build alternative (now even more hypothetical, but less trivial) strategic stories. E.g.:
- "The client wants to get new customers. I believe the brand should recruit new target groups who reject the whole product category. Rejectors happen to be younger, but it's not age but their disposable income that restricts them. We should reframe category usage as being absolutely worth the money. How could we do that?"
4) Having some of those strategic stories - go and talk to someone.
5) Oh, sorry, there is no 5. We are not with McKinsey, are we?
So what do you think? It seems like a too open mind game. It's also not quite there yet in terms of rules and formats. But it might have the power to make you cling less to your preconceptions thus open up space for a less trivial thinking. At least I hope so.