Experience Design, Strategic Innovation

Creativity is not innovation. We need creativity in order to innovate, but there’s a key difference between creativity and innovation – while any idea can be an expression of creativity, it must have economic value in order to be considered an innovation. Some might balk at economy as the precedence setting measure of innovation, but even those who prioritize social acceptance as the mark of innovation will likely have to agree that any thing (and most things today are products) that becomes accepted ultimately sells well and, thus, can be measured by the money numbers.

Creativity needs imagination. Creative economies value innovation and entrepreneurial imagination. Invention and innovation are what progress is made of; they are not the life-blood of creation. Progress stumbles on ideals, suggestions that there is a program or a way that moves society forward; creativity hunts a vision. Progress is pedantic; creativity, on the other hand, owns imagination. It commands the allegiance and love of the creative person as a way of being, living and thinking. The imagination that comes of that allegiance is powerful, self-renewing and tireless in delight. It permeates all aspects of civic life. It is the only limitless resource. But creativity is not enough for innovation.

Any powerful new idea can kick around unused in a company for years, not because its merits are not recognized but because nobody has assumed responsibility constructing the case that will convert the idea into a business opportunity.  Ideas are useless unless they are executed. The proof of their value is only in their implementation and adoption. Innovation is essentially the application of high creativity. It needs not be restricted to products; it applies to services and employee attitude, and across all levels of an organization. Innovation is a fundamental mindset pursued seriously by an organization. It is imperative to imbibe the culture of innovation.

The curse of the focus group is in part to blame for a lack of innovation. The focus group is the last place on earth where you can expect an innovative idea to be expressed. When Toyota was planning to launch the Prius, people in focus groups were asked what they thought of it. Everyone said the same thing: “It’s a niche product.” In focus groups, people are often asked how much they would pay for a 10% improvement in fuel efficiency. Funny that it’s always a small number. But you’re never going to learn about latent demands in focus groups. Toyota didn’t introduce the Prius because of findings in a focus group. It was convinced that the auto industry needed to change.  In fact, most of the innovation ideas that come from focus groups are incremental at best.

Organizations that rely on focus groups do so for a number of reasons. Some are good(ish): when your product is a hidden one or you have legal restrictions surrounding research, there aren’t too many other ways you can concept test. Your best bet here is to bring in a “facilitator” who offers an alternative way of processing what focus group respondents say. The conversation might be similar, but the song does not remain the same. Hiring an erudite listener or someone with experience in socio-linguistics can give you a real edge on delving into an understanding of what talk means to your product, service, business or brand. Before you go that route, however, know one thing: a focus group is not a test, it is a focus group. People looking at sexy pictures of your next big product offering and telling you they love the idea is not the same as people spending their hard earned money on that product when it comes to market only to find out that it is, in fact, a total piece of rubbish that they would never buy again. Some reasons for using focus groups are bad: when you decide to ‘test’ your advertising or marketing campaigns through focus groups you are living in La La Land.

There are a host of other reasons why innovative businesses are shying away from the focus groups these days, including:

Focus groups are safe. Organizations have been using them for decades and, as a result, their research departments have become lazy. When the big boss isn’t familiar with the methodology or value of another research approach, why suggest another? It’s easy to ship another Executive Summary report up to the wood-paneled office when you know the suit occupying it has already bought into the process.

Focus groups are quick and dirty. Some organizations are unwilling to make a real investment in research, so the prospect of throwing together a bunch of people in a room to provide some basic learning appeals to those that just want to get feedback on the cheap.  But you get what you pay for,right?

Focus groups are often lab-rattish. While an odd thing often happens in the presence of a camera – many people tend to ignore it after 20 minutes or so – the suggestion that feedback of any real value can be generated in front of a two-way mirror is a hop, skip and a jump away from ludicrous. It’s like being in the principal’s office: suspicious and nervous, participants often get their backs up against the wall.

Focus groups are ammunition for egos. Often, when one or two subjects tell you how great a product concept is there’s one young stud in an organization quick to use those reports to convince his boss that his idea is a runaway hit. Next thing you know you’ve invested a million dollars in grape flavored soap. Mmmmmm, grape flavored soap.

Focus groups are socio-generative. That is, when you put a group of people into a room for an hour or so, feed them, offer them drinks and then engage them in a conversation or an exercise, you’re temporarily birthing a transient micro community. As is the case in all communities, people take on particular social roles: the non-participator (just there for the sandwiches and $100); the exaggerator (who offers the equivalent of the consumer fishing story); the conversation dominator (who, if you can’t control him, makes you wonder why you spent $600 for $100 worth of feedback); the roll-over (who agrees to agree with everyone else); the challenger (the one who reports on how everything sucks and advertising or marketing doesn’t influence him); and, perhaps most confounding of  all, the focus group junkie (who tours the consumer feedback tour circuit like a rock star because your recruiting agency isn’t getting paid enough to find new people not well versed in what to say for $100). If the focus group was  a representation of society as a whole, a trained anthropologist might be able to make sense of these social roles and how their feedback can inform the client. But it’s not, so the data that emerges is often better suited to a white paper on the social dynamics of focus groups that an Executive Summary on whether or not to put almonds or peanuts into your chocolate bar.

Just because a company is spending tons of money on research and asking customers what they think or what they’d do doesn’t mean it will get innovation. As is the case with marketing, organizational development and other investments, innovation depends on the quality of the investment as much as the amount of resources put into it. New innovations create needs and performance gaps only once customers start using them and get turned on to the possibilities.

Businesses need to bring their customers into the innovation process as early as possible. They need to know that there is a large enough market to proceed. They need to have the mechanisms to capture value. They need to speak and listen in both the technology voice and the business voice. And they need to make sure that the features and performativity of new products or services are properly prioritized. Creativity and imagination are not enough. Balance is the key to successful innovation. This is where B-school meets D-school.