Category Archives: Unusual Mind

Unusual Mind articles.

Steam

Image

It’s common for an organization that’s running out of steam to try and get it back. Less common is the ability to discover what to do to get it back.

The usual attempt to regain steam is to store and evaluate data that not only suggests, but “proves,” what to do. This effort is flawed because data, and the “proof” it advocates, are past happenings, and knowing what has happened in the past is irrelevant to knowing what can happen in the future. No organization would ever run out of steam if this was untrue.

Organizations run out of steam when the people running them stipulate that a course of action will be considered only if it is proven to achieve a predetermined, predictable, result. This tyranny of proof is literally unfortunate in that it destroys existing fortunes. Happily, the tyranny of proof can be avoided. The key is to acknowledge the proper meaning of intelligence.

It’s very common (and very wrong) to think of intelligence as an ability to store, recall, and evaluate data. Of course the ability to store, recall, and evaluate data is impressive. We reward it in schools and on game shows. But storing, recalling, and evaluating data are retrospective acts, and retrospection is incapable of depicting what can happen in the future. This is not merely an academic statement.

Most organizations are well staffed with individuals capable of storing, recalling, and evaluating data. These folks can explain, in exquisite detail, why an organization is running (or has run) out of steam. Few can predict the event before it occurs, and none can offer proof of what will prevent it.

To transcend the tyranny of proof, intelligence must be held to a standard that begins where retrospection ends. We call this standard of intelligence Unusual Mind — the talent to achieve success in the absence of, and sometimes in opposition to, proof. Unusual Minds seek to answer a single question: What will it take to change the mind of a customer, voter, or philanthropist?

This is a scary question because one possible answer is that nothing is capable of occasioning such a change. In such circumstances the best thing to do is stop trying and save resources for another day. Happily, circumstances are not usually so dire. Most seemingly immutable situations are nothing more than myopia. The cure is to look beyond existing messages, products, candidates, and causes.

For instance, it is probably impossible to topple Heinz from the top of the market by offering a competitive brand of ketchup. But Heinz’s dominance of the ketchup market does not make it impossible for a different condiment to supplant ketchup.

Also, most products, campaigns, and causes run out of steam gradually. There is usually time to react. Sadly, it is precisely during times of decline that proof’s translucency is most pernicious.

The Unusual Mind is different. The Unusual Mind accepts that the existing state of affairs (that which is proven) is incapable of uncovering what must change in order to acquire, reacquire, and importantly, maintain success.

Whereas the tyranny of proof dictates that a course of action can be seriously considered only if it is proven to achieve a predetermined, predictable result, the Unusual Mind accepts that it’s impossible to prove the future. This distinction is not hypothetical, it’s real.

It’s trivially easy to recall any number of once great organizations that gradually declined to a point of obscurity. We won’t reveal our list in order to keep from appearing as though we stacked the deck in favor of our next two questions.

Do you believe organizations are ignorant of their decline? Do you believe proof of decline mitigates decline? Of course not. Organizations decline because no one knows what to do to reverse or avoid the decline! If you take one single thought from this article it should be this: The fact that an organization stands in a place of dominance today, does not prove, or even suggest, the potential to maintain that position.

There are only three elements that generate success, and every organization is in direct control of two of them. The first element is the product, service, candidate, or cause on offer. The second element is/are the message(s) used to promote the product, service, candidate, or cause. The third element, the public’s reaction, is a direct result of the first two.

It is only by attempting to parlay with patrons through the development of products, candidates, causes, and their attendant messages, that proof can emerge. The attempt comes first, the proof comes second. The tyranny of proof demands the exact opposite order.

The tyranny of proof is not merely opposite from the intelligence of an Unusual Mind, it is often directly opposed to Unusual Mind intelligence. Worse yet, the opposition is, in some respect, correct. There are always aspects of the current environment that can be demonstrated to have some value. This does not, in any way, prove, or even suggest, future value.

The plain fact is that proof is subordinate to the existing convictions of patrons. The only question when it comes to acquiring or reacquiring success is: Do current offerings, and their attendant messages, parlay with the existing convictions of customers, voters, and philanthropists?

The fact that proof is subordinate to the convictions of customers, voters, and philanthropists can be an uncomfortable realization. But discomfort does not imply inaccuracy, or dismiss reality. The only way to harness the steam that powers success it is to elevate the intelligence of an Unusual Mind above the tyranny of proof.

Steam
March 3, 2014 by Bob Manna & Matt Manna
Version: 6AF9901D(R01) • Mar 3, 2014
Photo © nikkytok — Fotolia.com

Download
Steam (PDF)

Related
Article – Bad News
Article – Changing The Game
Article – Hut, Hut … Hut
Article – Marketing's Greatest Conviction
Article – Persuasive Resolutions
Article – Projection vs. Prediction
Article – Seeing Clearly
Article – Success Is Built On Frameworks, Not Rules
Article – The Invention Of The Birthday Machine
Article – The Weed Eater

The Marketplace of Abundance

Image

There was a time when customers purchased a new product for the explicit purpose of determining merit. Those days are gone. Customers no longer pay attention to products, services, candidates, or causes because they are new.

The effect of this change on product introductions is calamitous. Here’s how Martin Lindström described it in his New York Times best selling book, Buyology.

“In 2005, corporations spent more than $7.3 billion on market research in the United States alone. In 2007, that figure rose to $12 billion. And that doesn’t even include the additional expenses involved in marketing an actual product – the packaging and the displays, TV commercials, online banner ads, celebrity endorsements, and billboards – which carry a $117 billion annual price tag in America alone. But if these strategies still work, then why do eight out of ten new product launches fail within the first three months?”

The answer to Lindström’s question is abundance. A Marketplace Of Abundance exists today, and it requires appropriate strategies.

Abundance means there are more meritorious products, services, candidates, and causes than people need, want, or care to consider. The reason abundance exists is because most new products, services, candidates, and causes are substantially similar versions of those which already exist. This trait is a direct result of the process we call replication.

Replication is a paint by numbers attempt to institutionalize success. It assumes success can be duplicated or extended by transferring the merit of an existing product into a new product.

Regrettably, pre-existing merit lacks the impact necessary to capture or shift attention from one product to another. From the public’s perspective (and from your perspective too) their is no reason to pay attention to a new product, service, candidate, or cause that is substantially similar to one already in existence.

This is not to say merit doesn’t count. Merit does count, and products without merit are that much less likely to succeed. But merit is not enough to persuade customers to try new products and neither (according to Lindström) is $117 billion dollars worth of marketing.

One reason merit and money cannot stem an 80% failure rate is that a replicated product cannot be demonstrated to be the first of its kind. Therefore, promoting a replicated product is restricted to differentiation. Words and phrases like “better,” “improved,” “faster acting,” “longer lasting,” and “tastes better” are ubiquitous to this style of promotion.

Sadly, in The Marketplace Of Abundance there are more meritorious, substantially similar products, services, candidates, and causes than people need, want, or care to differentiate. This condition cannot be circumvented by adding to it. It makes one think that Albert Einstein had The Marketplace Of Abundance in mind when he famously defined insanity as, “Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

Data collection and analysis won’t stop the insanity either. The purpose of data collection is to quantize behavior and present such as fact(s) suitable for analysis. The purpose of data analysis is to align (quantized behavior) facts in such a way as to reveal insight about future behavior.

It is true that properly aligned facts tend to interpret themselves. But it’s equally true that facts can only be properly aligned after the behavior they represent has occurred. Put bluntly, behavior is as behavior does, not as it has done. If it was the other way round, if behavior could be determined before it occurred, there would be no innovation, no creativity, and no change! Of course change happens…

As we write this article Nokia & Blackberry (both data rich companies) are loosing marketshare to the iPhone at an alarming rate.

Netflix has just begun to recover market capitalization lost as a result of a “big data” driven decision to split their DVD rental business from their video streaming business.

And JC Penny has done away with both their Sales and their sales as a result of a newly installed data driven marketing program. (At least JC Penny’s commercials have succeeded in elevating Ellen DeGeneres’ celebrity.)

Expensive marketing campaigns and extensive data analysis cannot circumvent The Marketplace Of Abundance. To do so, replication must be replaced with the ability to comprehend the basic and invariable meaning of something before it becomes apparent to others. This requires the talent of an Unusual Mind.

George Ballas put his Unusual Mind to use when he came up with the Weed Eater. We did too when we created the Clear Vue mail sorter system.

Happily, Unusual Mind talent can be developed. That’s good because it will become increasingly indispensable as ever more costly marketing methods and increased levels of data analyses continue to prove futile.

The Marketplace Of Abundance
June 20, 2012 by Bob Manna & Matt Manna
Version: 00544504(R05) • Feb 5, 2014
Photo © soleg – Fotolia.com

Download
The Marketplace Of Abundance (PDF)

Related
Article – Changing The Game
Article – Impact
Article – Marketing's Greatest Conviction
Article – On Replication
Article – Persuasive Resolutions
Article – Projection vs. Prediction
Article – Seeing Clearly
Article – Steam
Article – The Weed Eater

Seeing Clearly

Image

Alfred North Whitehead was an English mathematician noted for saying, “It requires a very unusual mind to undertake an analysis of the obvious.” Whitehead made this comment in connection to a method of thinking called Analytic Philosophy. The thesis of this method of thinking is that the solution to a problem will become obvious once the basic and invariable meaning of the problem is uncovered. (…)

We accept that you might find it strange to find an opening paragraph about analytic philosophy in a Manna Groups article. We believe you will soon see its relevance. We begin with a question from the remittance processing industry. What is the basic and invariable function of mail sorter bins?

A word of caution, while there is no doubt that the sorting of mail is a necessary duty of mail sorter bins, you should reconsider if you think the basic and invariable function of mail sorter bins is to sort mail.

Before we reveal the answer please allow us to offer a little background.

For years, the authors of this article were members of an ownership team that operated a business developing and selling products exclusively to the transaction processing industry. The strategy behind all product development in that organization was to uncover the basic and invariable function of the products we brought to market. In short, the success of the organization was dependent upon the talent to find answers to questions just like the one posed above. What is the basic and invariable function of a mail sorter?

Our answer to that question led to the introduction of a product that changed the remittance processing industry. This product’s merit was so obvious that it literally “sold itself,” even to remittance centers that already had mail sorter bins.

Our answer: the basic and invariable function of a mail sorter is to be able to see the mail once it has been sorted. The idea that sorting mail is trivial compared to the significance of seeing mail after it has been sorted, literally made our next step clear.

Never loose an envelope again with the Clear Vue mail sorter system!

We developed a transparent mail sorter constructed from the material used at ice hockey rinks. We called it the Clear Vue mail sorter system. Our tag line for promoting the product, “Never loose an envelope again with the Clear Vue mail sorter system!”

The success of the Clear Vue was instant and widespread. After a single installation, articles about, and pictures of, the product appeared in trade magazines. Consultants mentioned the product to their customers, and those customers spread the word to others. In short, the product went viral.

In one case insurance rates were lowered because footstools were no longer needed to see into the bin’s top row. In other cases the product’s glistening appearance became a “high tech” selling point for a process that was traditionally seen as otherwise. In every case, visibility lowered the chance of missing processing deadlines.

Now you see why we elected to begin this article with Whitehead’s quote. It concisely reveals the foundation of successful product development. Basic and invariable function becomes apparent once (and only if) one undertakes to analyze the obvious.

Nowadays it seems trivially apparent that the basic and invariable function of a mail sorter is to see mail once it has been sorted. Of course the obvious always seems trivial after the fact. An important lesson is that until the obvious is analyzed, basic and invariable meaning will not be apparent, regardless of how trivial it becomes after the fact.

Another important lesson is the effect analyzing the obvious has on the competition. Imagine the feeling a CEO of a metal or wooden mail bin company must have had the day after the Clear Vue was released.

The story of the Clear Vue mail sorter (just like the Weed Eater story) stands in direct opposition to the type of analyses usually undertaken during the product development process. Metrics like estimated sales volume, target market(s) growth forecasts, market penetration, etc., are incapable of measuring whether existing products have made the obvious apparent.

Metrics have a part to play in the product development process, but it’s a subordinate part. Until basic and invariable meaning has been made apparent, no other data matters. After basic and invariable meaning has been made apparent, few, if any, data are required.

We can tell you with absolute certainty that every remittance processing center that purchased a Clear Vue mail sorter system had a solution already in place. Or to put it in typical marketing speak, Clear Vue was successfully sold into a market that was 100% penetrated. It was a total repeat of the situation that existed the day before the Weed Eater went on sale.

Until the obvious is analyzed there is no calculus capable of measuring market potential. And there is no limit to the potential success of newly developed products that make the obvious apparent, particularly when they stand in contrast to existing products which have not.

Seeing Clearly
June 5, 2012 by Bob Manna & Matt Manna
Version: 005B0C6E(R03) • Jan 29, 2014
Photo © alphaspirit – Fotolia.com

Download
Seeing Clearly (PDF)

Related
Article – An Unusual Mind Ghost Story
Article – Changing The Game
Article – Marketing's Greatest Conviction
Article – Projection vs. Prediction
Article – Seeing Red
Article – The Invention Of The Birthday Machine
Article – The Most Important Resource
Article – The Weed Eater

The Weed Eater

Image

Here’s a chance to get some exercise. Take a moment and stick either arm out directly in front of you. Now open your hand palm down and extend your fingers as far as they will go. Make a really tight fist and release it. Again, make a tight fist and release. Again, make a tight fist and release. Now do it 10 times fast.

That hurts! Yet, for many years, that exact motion was required to work the bladed trimmers used to trim weeds and grass.

Customers went to manufacturers and asked, “Can’t you do something about this?” Manufacturers said, “Yes, we can make a better bladed clipper.” They did so by adding a motor and battery.

Customers said, “Gee that’s better, but now it’s heavy and hurts my shoulder. Can’t you do something about this?” Manufacturers said, “Yes we can make a better bladed clipper.” They added wheels.

Customers said, “That is superb, but you see it hurts my back to bend over. Can’t you do something about this?” Manufacturers said, “Yes we can make a better bladed clipper.” They added a long stick handle!

Then, 41 years ago, a real estate salesman named George Ballas changed the game. Ballas was watching his car go thru a car-wash in Houston Texas and wondered if the revolving brushes could be made to cut grass and weeds. He got in his cleaned car, drove home, and invented the Weed Eater. A year later, in 1972, Weed Eater, Inc. came into being.

In its first year Weed Eater, Inc. had net sales of $560,000 per year. In 1974 the figure was $7,791,000. In 1975 it was $14,305,000. In 1976 it was $41,000,000. In 1977 it was $80,000,000.

That’s impressive growth, but it’s only half the story. The other half, and maybe it’s 51%, is what happened to the other guys. How would you like to have been CEO of a company who’s warehouse was full of bladed trimmers the day after (almost literally the day after) the Weed Eater was invented?

The invention of the Weed Eater is a stunning example of the difference between intelligent minds and unusual minds.

Intelligence is widely accepted as a measure of one’s ability to store, recall, and process data. Store and recall processing is impressive. We reward it in schools and on game shows. But store and recall processing is limited by an undeniable fact. The only data that can be stored, recalled, and processed is data that already exists.

Store and recall processing is dependent upon what came before. It’s a paint by numbers exercise, the results of which are predestined by the makeup of the data being processed.

So, repeatedly squeezing your hand shut hurts. No problem, here’s a motor and battery. What’s that, a motor and battery are too heavy. No problem, here are some wheels. What’s that, it hurts to bend over. Here, have a stick.

The only way to avoid the restrictive obedience of intelligence is to develop the talent of an Unusual Mind. That’s what George Ballas had going for him, and it’s why Ballas did what the intelligent mind was restricted from doing. Ballas changed the game! Let us make this point perfectly clear, until you can change the game you’re destined to play by somebody else’s rules.

A bladed trimmer with a stick, wheels, motor, and battery isn’t a change of what came before, it’s a replication of what came before. It couldn’t be anything else, because each step along the way was restricted by intelligence. And intelligence is, by definition, rooted in the past?

Developing an Unusual Mind requires dissociation from the past. The unconditional first step is to avoid asking, “What process do I recall to deal with the situation at hand?” Unusual Minds ask a different question, “What is the basic and invariable meaning of the topic at hand?”

Before the Weed Eater came along manufacturers were asking, “What process(es) exist that will result in a better bladed trimmer?” George Ballas asked a different question, a basic and invariable question, “What’s a better way to trim weeds and grass?”

There is no evidence indicating if George Ballas was more or less intelligent than those who managed the bladed trimmer industry. In truth, intelligence had very little to do with the invention of the Weed Eater. The Weed Eater’s invention was the result of an Unusual Mind — of the talent to reveal basic and invariable meaning.

Forty years ago this spring George Ballas founded Weed Eater, Inc. Ballas has stood as a prime example of the game changing power of an Unusual Mind for each of the 40 springs since.

The Weed Eater
April 15, 2012 by Bob Manna & Matt Manna
Version: 004FCA66(R07) • Feb 21, 2014
Photo © Horticulture – Fotolia.com

Download
The Weed Eater (MOV)
The Weed Eater (PDF)

Related
Article – An Unusual Mind Ghost Story
Article – Changing The Game
Article – On Replication
Article – Projection vs. Prediction
Article – Seeing Clearly
Article – Success Is Built On Frameworks, Not Rules

An Unusual Mind Ghost Story

Image

An original idea, like a good ghost story, is the product of an Unusual Mind.

Defined as the ability to discover the basic and invariable meaning of something before it becomes apparent to others, Unusual Mind talent comprises half the reason an enterprise succeeds. The other half is comprised of the talent to sculpt persuasive messages.

Unusual minds operate in stark contrast to intelligent minds. An unusual mind discovers basic and invariable meaning before it has become apparent. An intelligent mind stores and recalls data that is already apparent.

Store and recall ability is a highly regarded attribute, but it does not lead to the discovery of basic and invariable meaning. Anyone who has “put a bunch of smart people in a room and hoped for something new” can appreciate the distinction.

The Unusual Mind of George Ballas had an idea that the brush action which removed dirt from a car could be used to cut grass. Before the Weed Eater plenty of intelligent minds had made improvements to bladed trimmers by adding motors, batteries, wheels and handles. But George Ballas came up with the Weed Eater, which gave the intelligent something new to think about. The Weed Eater also did away with bladed trimmers.

Unusual minds work by regarding the messages and items they come into contact with as ideas, not as facts. The difference is important.

Ideas are possible representations of the world that we hold in our head. Words are ideas we can pronounce; pictures are ideas we can see; gustatory and olfactory sensations are ideas we can taste and smell; tactile stimulations are ideas we can literally feel.

Facts are representations of the world we hold in our head that we believe actually represent the world.

Before the Weed Eater, the idea of cutting grass with a swirling brush could not exist in the mind of a person who represented the world solely by facts. In such a mind the desire to cut grass could only be satisfied by recalling the appropriate grass cutting fact — a blade.

Children are natural Unusual Mind practitioners because children regard everything they come into contact with as ideas, not as facts.

Turning the messages we encounter as young people into the facts we cling to in later life is the very definition of growing up. It is also the change of conviction that most inhibits Unusual Mind talent.

Which brings me to the following ghoulish exchange that took place, a couple of Halloweens back, between my 4-year-old niece, Madeline, and myself.

I asked, “Madeline what are you drawing?”

“A ghost,” she said.

I said, “That’s nice but how do you know what ghosts look like?”

She pointed at her drawing and said, “They look like this.”

Wonderful stuff!

An Unusual Mind Ghost Story
November 15, 2007 by Matt Manna
Version: 0062E6B2(R04) • Feb 13, 2014
Picture by Madeline Manna, Age 4

Download
An Unusual Mind Ghost Story (PDF)

Related
Article – Belief In Branding
Article – Changing The Game
Article – Seeing Clearly
Article – Talent
Article – The Marketplace Of Abundance
Article – The Weed Eater