If you plan a city from the start, it is far more difficult to get this touch of nature in it. Especially if cities are planned in a rigorous, top down way the results can be terrible. In Holland we have the ‘Bijlmermeer‘. A perfect example of a top down design, based on idealistic thinking about how a neighbourhood should be. The ideas were not bad at all, but the result was awful. Another example is Almere, a city that has many inhabitants and that is attractive for many because of the ‘good value’  you get for buying a house out there. So as apposed to Bijlmer, Almere is not a failed concept. However, Almere does not exactly succeed in creating a lively city atmosphere, as hard as they try. Part of this problem is due to the dull architecture of the city. In comparison with ‘natural cities’ such as Siena or Amsterdam, we find quite the opposite: many of the buildings are exactly the same, but the city fails to get the impression of a unity.

Funny enough it is possible to ‘plan’ a more natural city. And the way to do that, is let loose the control on microlevel. This has been accomplished for instance at the Java-eiland in Amsterdam: architects had complete freedom within fixed margins. Again, a set of rules that create unity. There is control, but it is a ‘loose control’. The effect is: a sense of unity emerging from a diversity. To give an illustration of the difference between emergent and top-down approaches, below you will find two photographs, one with a view on Almere and one on Jave Eiland. Choose for yourself which picture represents which city (and thus: which principle: rigorous top down control or emerging order within rules)

I think this is metaphorical for the way we try to make decisions as companies and as governments. The ideal position is a loose sense of control. It is control, but a natural kind of control. In the way the perfect teacher is capable of having his class listening in attention without punishing a lot. He uses the self organizing power of a group of children. He is able to manage this power. One reason for  marketig plans or gouvernment regulation to fail is a failure to recognize and use the selforganizing power of society. Trying to install our order upon reality creates a less imaginative, less rich result than trying to create order in a more emergent way.

Positive was to see the level of involvement of many, many volunteers. There are so many volunteers giving their time and energy to organizing it all. Literary thousands and thousands of people give a substantial part of their time. If you look at it closely you will find a complete system at work, with many layers of organisation, with the KNVB (the Dutch football association) setting the league rules as the highest.

Negative was the fact that you encounter alongside the fields a lot of negative feelings. Stereotypical is the coach shouting negative feedback only: emphasizing everything the team does wrong. This kind of feedback you hear a lot, also with very young teams. And even coaches with more educational skills (who know that you need to give positive feedback as well), tended in my memory to be very negative as they discussed the match with the parents (’no energy’, ‘no moral’ ). I see this at a bigger level also. Sports, and especially team sports, tend to arouse a lot of negative feeling. Disappointment, frustration are likely to pop up regularly and very strong. This is amplified in the reactions of the fans. If the team does not deliver, the fans will get angry. They will shout. At Ajax not only the fans disturbed training sessions, and shouted swearwords through the megaphone during trainings, but also boycotted the last game (quite spectacularly delivering impressive empty parts of the stadium).

This creates a negative atmosphere that does not exactly help to boost the results. It is very interesting dynamic that we human have: negative results activate negative feelings. Negative feelings encourage negative results. In a penalty range it appears that more than 40% miss the penalty if missing the penalty causes your team to lose. If your penalty turn would make your team win, more than 90% scores. We don’t perform well if the consequences of our actions are negative. We perform much better if we are feeling confident in the result. I think that really good coaches, such as Hidding or Van Gaal, really understand how to manage this phenomenon.

The funny thing is that not all marketeers & management understand this well. To be negative about the ‘other alternative’ is often embraced. Governments like to emphasise the ‘problems’ of wrong behavior. Eating to much or to fat is wrong. Smoking is lethal. In elections in the United States throwing mud at your opponent has been thé way to campaign. In insurance lots of brands like to highlight the problems that may arise if you haven’t been insured right.

I am very glad that we have an example now of the power of positive approaches in Obama who prohibited negative campaigning. This was new in the states.

There was however one  interesting phenomenon I would like to spend two blogs on. The hardcore fans decided to start a strike. The parts where usually the most singing, chanting and shouting comes from was completely empty, apart from banners mocking at the perceived absence of motivation with the Ajax players. This was a reference to the last game, that was lost dishonourable with 4-0 from a club with limited talent but a surplus of motivation. In this game the Ajax footballers did not show a lot of motivation to say the least.

Here’s where some interesting themes arise. The first one is the extremely powerful narrative of ‘talent versus effort’. The extremely talented often lack effort in this narrative. The less talented often win games because of the energy they put into their efforts. When a less talented team wins, this creates a lot of sympathy. Probably because most of us do not have that much talent, and therefore it is easier for us to identify with the ‘victory of motivation’ .  The theme is highly related to ‘victory of the smart’ such as the Goliath versus David story: the victory of wit. Either way: the weakest party wins, and that is hopeful for us human beings who are so often ‘the weakest link’ . The theme is also highly related to the ‘hybris’  theme: the strong start to be complacent and lose their wits.

I think this is narrative that is extremely important for brands to relate to. Especially Business to Business brands tend to want to claim victory only. They are extremely afraid to take a position that is seen as vulnerable. There is a tendency to hide all weakness. They forget that there is a huge weakness in being the strongest as well: you are likely to be judged as complacent. It  is especially unwise to avoid all ‘weakness-signals’  if you understand that the public is – through stories – used tu understand that any weakness can be strength as well.

We see this with Ajax also. The official Ajax goal is to be able to perform on a high level in the Champions League, whereas Ajax has proven not to be capable to perform in the Dutch leage for the last 10 years. I don’t want to argue that Ajax should plan the ‘underdog position’. That would not be a wise policy. Personally I even believe that Ajas could in nearby future play a role in the Champions League. But I think that marketingwise and as a corparate story Ajax will have to incorporate something new, because the ‘invincable’ theme that is Ajax heavily relying on is now starting to become grotesque. Within the European context, Ajax should try the theme of David versus Goliath.

But then …. in a restarant you want to sit down and talk a bit. Especially having visited a museum you want that. However, the architect, Huber-Jan Henket,  managed to create an acoustic nightmare.  The term ’swimming pool acoustic’  needs to be revised. Boymans created something way beyond this kind of hollow echoing acoustic atmosphere. The whole restaurant serves as a perfect amplifier of all sounds. The sounds in the bar are amplified manyfold. Sounds like ’stacking the cutlery reach the level of warscenes. It is literally  impossible to have any conversation at the bar. Ironical that the Boymans site promises us a perfect ‘restmoment’. Maybe if you are wearing your ear plugs in

But …… not half as much as I liked Saskia Olde Wolbers. The work of Pipi slightly reminded me of Wolbers work but than: Wolbers really impressed me. Actually, she was the first videoartist I ever liked. Until I have seen her work I associated video art with a boring symbolistic artist hocus pocus. Looking for hours at an empty chair or seeing a hand trying to catch mud over and over. More a symbol of the ‘unconventional anti-bourgouis’ character of the artists than a piece you might actually want to watch. Wolders work is not at all like that. It is mesmerizing. I guess it is influenced by dance and it has like Pililottes work a psychodelic, organic aspect. But the difference is: you don’t get bored. Actually, you can’t get enough of it. The reason might be that you get a lot of story in her work. It is like ‘alineating, empty story’ . But still … story. Drame, development. If you ever get the chance to see her, please do! You could watch this YouTube example, but it doesn’t do complete credit to her work

I found an interesting one in my daily of last Saturday (NRC). It was hidden in a diagram above an article on the economic developments. The scheme depicts the level of the Dow Jones index from the late seventies up to today. I have copied it above. This blog is not at all about the way the Dow Jones developped during the last 30 years. That is the literal meaning of the diagram. With Barthes I am interested in the meaning behind that. We see that the illustrator chose to depict the graph as a crack in the wall. A crack is a strong signal of decline. A sign on the wall so to say, signifiing that the house has not been taken care of well.

Very meaningful is the starting point of this crack in the early 80-ies, at the beginning of the recovery of the economy. As long as the Dow Jones Index is stable (but low), there is no crack. There are no devolopments. Things are therefor safe. Like a blissful poverty. You have got little, but you know what you have.

As soon as the curve starts to bend upward, the crack develops. The unspoken message here seems to be that at the root of economic prosperity there are already the seeds of decline. At the time it may have looked quite well to see the Dow Jones rise. But at hindsight we detect the beginning of the problems. This also signifies the feeling that this crisis is of a different level then the crisis between ‘ 79 and 2002. This is a fundamental one, that started in the early 80-ies, a sort of a ‘system problem’.

This represents quite a powerful theme we often see in stories about economics. I remember very well the early 2000, when the most cited economics stated that now the times had shifted towards a stable growth for ever and ever. Although the more cunning economists of course never believed this story, the feeling was very optimistic overall. Interviewing consumers however showed a strong hidden fear. Consumers were getting a little anxious because they had in mind the very strong the story of decline after prosperity.  Since decline had to come, they wondered: when? Also they felt that prosperity brought us too much problems, like an egoïsm and materialistic, individualistic view on the world. Another strong theme: as prosperity growth, so do the vices associated with it (read Simon Schama’s wonderful study about the outrageous increase of wealth in 17th century Amsterdam,  ‘The Embarrassment of Riches’)

The crack is growing to gigantic proportions a few years ago (2005), signifying the final fall of the economy started before we were actually aware of it . This is very much in resonance with our idea of a big fall: as in the cartoon when the character is still proceeding as he thinks he is still on the ground. But the spectator knows better. The character is already in the big void. As soon as he looks down and becomes aware of this, he falls down. And hard (being a comic, surviving the fall). The big fall of our economy is therefore placed in a time before the clash in september last year, allowing the theme of idle sense of stability to emerge.

Of course we see the opposite theme as a very strong theme now: after the healthy decline a new era will follow.

Monderman designed roads and crossroads with a minimum of signs, all of them showed significant less accidents. Allthough his legecy is now growing, in Holland it is officially declared that his ideas are applicable ONLY within slow traffic zones. The allmighty Dutch ANWB just started a big campaign to bring the government to add MORE striping on the so called ‘ 80 Kilometer an hour’-road.  This is an effort to claim back control. It resonates very well with the classical control mechanisms, always in favour of more signs. They use research to back up this policy and claim to be able to save hundreds of lives with addes striping.  This is based on a case where new striping was added. The research made a classical mistake however, because not only the striping was changed, but on top of that the police started rigorous speed control with a dedicated team. It is more than likely that so called ’striping effect’ was nil in comparison to the other measures.

The same effect we saw with the client. Often we see that it is hard to keep ‘discipline’ in the viewing room. Rather sooner than later discussions take away the attention from what is happening in ‘the other room’. And for viewers it often is tempting to reject the answers – especially for staff responsible for product, website, or service development. The consumer – in their eyes – doesn’t always understand the difficulties of there job. If you take away the wall, it becomes impossible to start a conversation on either the research (or on the rate of mortgage interest): you have no time for that. And directly confronted with consumer, the frustration is taken away a bit: you can’t just deny what is been said and you are able to ask questions. Now those responsible for making – in this case – a website were able to test their ideas and thoughts directly by sharing them with consumer.

As a consequence you see a level of engagement that you don’t normally see.

Inspired by the beautiful results of the co-creation workshops, I would like to talk about the methodology background of co-creation workshops. I have this urge because of the resistance I still feel with clients to the approach of workshops with consumer and clients working together on new concepts. There are a few major fears:

1. will the consumer not be afraid and be intimidated by the client?
2. what about objectivity? Do we get objective results?
3. the consumer has no phantasy and is not able to ‘think outside the box’. We only get diluted ideas in this way

The first one is very easy. As if any client could be intimidating! As if consumers would be intimidated nowadays by any authority! I mean: doctors have to follow the exact instructions of partly illiterate consumers who have been doing web-research on their complaints. Teachers have problems with parents insisting on a special treatment for their kids. And the consumer would shy away from a marketing manager or new product developer? They won’t and they don’t. I have been doing co-creation workshops with very senior clients and it never has been a problem at all.

Now about the second one. In the old research paradigm the ‘scientific’ value is in objectivity. In order to have objective results, a wall is needed between consumer and client. The researcher is the ‘middle man’, not biased, not interested in the outcome and therefore a guarantee to an objective outcome. The client is allowed to watch trough the one way mirror. A basic assumption is that there is an objective truth that can be found if looked for in the right (that is: unbiased) way. In qualitative research this objective truth often is finding out about consumers emotions and needs. If this objective truth is delivered by the research project, you can use the results to implement. You can sort of ‘deliver’ the results (preferably in a report) to the client. Enlightened by the truth the right actions, as prescribed in the recommendations, can be taken with improved advertising, product development or websites as a consequence and Everyone Will Live Happy Thereafter.

However, in thinking about solutions in improving products, designs or services, there is not such a thing as a ‘guaranteed, objective’ to success. Objective and rational thinking is not the right attitude for innovation. Objectivity and analytical thinking is very important but it is not useful in a creation phase. Creation is more like ‘evolution’. In evolution there are no right solutions, there are many solutions. The evolutionists describe a ‘field of possibilities‘  with barriers and attractors (a fitness landscape) that is in a constant flux. It is not possible to find the right solution by reason, because you can’t control the environment (as you can in a scientific experiment where you have carefully taken away all context and test in an idealized situation that will never occur in reality. That’s why evolution is in favor of many solutions and of variations. There is not an objective and reproducible road to any solution. It is more a model of ‘trial and error’. You see it when you get there.

So as opposed to the ‘analytical mode’ – that is archetypical for a research situation – you would be interested in a ‘integration mode’. Far more important words that help you in the creation process would be ‘imagination’ and ‘involvement’. It is exactly those values that tend to get lost in an analytic approach. And it is exactly those values that are there in a well moderated co-creation workshop.
Now the last fear. Will a consumer be able to fruitfully participate in an innovation project?. Could it be unwise to ask the consumer to think together with the client over any innovation? Doesn’t the consumer stick with ‘the old rules’? Here we see the old fear as described in my ‘Alfa or beta’ blog. The consumer as destroyer of ideas. And the researcher as the facilitator of this mass idea construction. Extended experience with co-creation has learned us otherwise. The idea of the ‘stupid consumer that doesn’t understand real innovation’ is rooted in wrong questions. If you asked a consumer 30 years ago ‘are you interested in machines that dispose money after entering a 4-digit code’ you were bound the get negative answers (as the research did). But that is basically: bringing the consumer to an analytical mode. So the answer is: if you set up the workshop in the right way, the consumer is not acting as ‘innovation-destroyer’.

A bit of a long story. Sorry about that. And I haven’t been able to write half of what I wanted to touch. I would like to dive deeper into this in a paper that I intend to write.

However, as bad as a beta fault can be, there is also the chance of an alpha fault. There are a few famous examples. A fairly recent one was the ‘new Coca Cola taste’. It was tested and found a major improvement. The innovation died a quick death, after consumer started a massive protest against the disappeared ‘trusted taste’. Another example is older: a few decades ago a cigarette without smoke was designed, and thoroughly tested. It had to be withdrawn in a few days. Nobody bought it.

Here the mechanism is completely different. A collective wrong focus. Together with the client, the researchers share a tunnel vision. Context is ignored, common sense replaced by a shared vision of Reality As It Could Be If Only It Was The Way We Wanted It.

I have been given a hilarious video about a qualitative example of a ‘beta mistake’: a focus group to find out the attitude towards a new invention (the wheel). The research method seemed to have been designed in order to ‘falsify’ the new invention. The video is a must see. It is also a very strong stereotypical story of How Research Kills New Ideas. It sort of demonetises the focus group method, showing how a researcher COULD go completely astray by encouraging the wrong kind of rationalisations. Click on the link to see it if you want to have laugh.

2_focusgroup-desktop

It could be used as an instruction video, asking students to pinpoint the Four Major Mistakes.The biggest mistake is setting up a focus group about this as an idea. Innovation can only be discussed in a focus group if it is incremental innovation as opposed to rule breaking innovation. The second mistake is the test material. If you would have rule breaking innnovation, you would need to show context and future use situations. Third is the recruitment. If you have a rule breaking innovation and you would like to discuss it in you shouldn’t invite the average consumer. You recruit either consumers who are into innovation or even ’semi-experts’. The fourth mistake is the moderation. The moderator gives plenty of room for post rationalisations. The human brain works counter intuitive. We think that our thoughts and opinions precede our choices. In reality it is reverse: we choose and than create opinions according to the choice. The reversed timing can be monitored: they occor as recurrent patterns in the brain after the choice has been made. It is therefor a big mistake to dive to deep into opinions and beliefs, especially in innovation, because there is a tendency in the human brain to dislike the new. A logo is liked more as it has been seen more often. This is referred to as the ‘mere-exposure’ effect. Since innovative stuff can never have been ’seen often’ it is disadvantaged in a test situation (and in the real situation as a matter of fact).