Invention does not equal Innovation

Much effort, particularly by public bodies, is focused on invention, in the mistaken belief that by inventing, patenting, and just being first to do something new, will lead to some great outcome.

Not so.

It is a bit like supply side economics, make the rich richer, and some will trickle down to the less well off, not a great outcome there.  

Innovation is driven by different things, a perceived need in the market, an opportunity to improve something, two bits of existing technology combined in a different way, something from one market applied to another unrelated market, and many more. Invention is generally driven by curiosity more than anything else.

Don’t confuse the two, the technologies that have changed the world have largely been commercialised by entrepreneurs, or innovators who saw the opportunities, not by the inventors who conceived the technology.

Invention and innovation are not the same thing.

The art and science of sales

Few would dispute that Da Vinci was a great artist, he created great art and amazing innovations across several mediums, a creative genius. What is often missed is his technical skill, engineering, anatomy, and at a very basic level, his skill with a hammer, chisel and paintbrush.

Which came first, the art or the science? Probably neither, each nurtured the other. Da Vinci’s determination to reflect the body accurately in his paintings led him to risk his life and liberty by dissecting bodies  to get the anatomy exactly right.

How you may ask, does that relate to sales?

The most effective sales people I have seen do two things:

    1. The build relationships that last
    2. They close.

One without the other is of little use, the first produces no revenue, the second without the first produces only a one-off transaction, and wastes an opportunity for an ongoing commercial relationship.

This all takes expensive sales time, so increasingly automated marketing tools are being substituted for sales people, adding  to the science, but making the art all the more important, as nobody wants to be sold to by a digital robot, so the people need to understand when to intervene, and take control.

The two purposes of productive advertising

“Change behavior, before you try and change attitudes”.

These were the wise words delivered to me by Hugh McKay, 30 years ago, and I have never forgotten them, and am constantly reminded as I see people justify something they have done that is different, unexpected, or inconsistent.

Behavior is easier to change than attitudes, so get to the behavior first, then again, and slowly, attitudes will alter to accommodate the altered behavior.

Therefore if you want to have effective advertising, focus on which behaviors you want to change, and worry about attitude later, but generally, you need not worry, it will take care of itself.

People are the same as they were 50 years ago, 500 years ago, the things they own and want have changed absolutely, but what motivates people has not. Just look at the behavior that Shakespeare wrote about, greed, jealousy, love, ambition and  regret, they are still all with us.

The net is just like an electronic yellow pages. When you know you want something, you go to it to find the best buy, what meets your specs, etc, but you do not create demand in the yellow pages, similarly, you do not create demand on the net, the best you can do is generate awareness of your offer.

Make sure that the two fundamental purposes of advertising are not mixed.

The first is to create awareness,

The second is to create demand.

These two things are not the same, and the communication strategy used must be consistent with the potential of the medium and the manner of the message to achieve it.

 

Value is dependent on context.

Red Bull founder Deitrich Mateshitz  deliberately priced Red Bull, the fizzy, nasty tasting tonic imbibed by would be racing drivers, balloonists, and skateboarders because” it makes them fly,” at 4 times the price of a can of Coke, so no comparison would be drawn by consumers.

When you compare the price of a cup of coffee from a bottle of instant coffee, to a cup made from one of the new “pods” that are around, you are not comparing price, the first is a couple of cents, the latter closer to a dollar, you are comparing the cost of a coffee pod to the price of a coffee in the local café of $3.50, so 0.80 seems to be a pretty good price. Rory Sutherland uses this coffee metaphor beautifully to make the point. 

Similarly, a drink of water at home has little value, but try getting a drink when lost in the dessert, that’s when a cup of water really has a value.

To consumer marketers struggling with the commoditization of markets, and bricks and mortar retailers battling on line retailers, the key to success is to differentiate, to manage the context in which your product is seen, and to back the differentiation with absolute determination to ensure it remains relevant to consumers.

A question of journalism

Mitch Joel writes one of the more thoughtful blogs dealing with the changes in our digital environment, he seems to be able to articulate what others amongst us just feel as a vague itch.

In this post, from 2011, he considers the implications of us now all being publishers, what responsibilities do we undertake, and how can we do better? After all, 140 characters does not constitute an article of any real value.

Similar questions, and a number more,  were asked by   Mark Colvin, Colvinius on twitter, during his Andrew Olle lecture on Friday evening.

Essentially, the publishing environment has undergone a huge disruption, and there is more coming. How we deal with the changes, personally, socially, and economically impacts on every one of us, so it is worth some thought.

Colvin is a great Australian journo, wedded to the facts, yet able to mix the facts with a humanity that is all too rare, as he explains and reports. Thanks to the wonders of our new digital world, his thoughts can be shared, and re-shared, and we will all grow just a bit as a result.

Thanks Mark.