What makes an idea, creative product or other innovation "stick" or "go viral" or otherwise catch on? What is the relationship between popularity of the idea and the level of creativity?
There is a difference between creative product and a sticky product. Innovation recognition depends often on the societal “readiness” and culture in its willingness to embrace any new idea. This is also dependent on both the accumulation of culture as well as recent or present situations or circumstances. For example, any catastrophic event that affected a society or culture such as a large hurricane or terrorist attack would shift the societal ethos and “readiness” for any particular type of either creative or sticky idea. Furthermore, the familiarity of any culture with particular ideas, skills, or techniques, may make some ideas less creative or sticky than they would be otherwise. The classic example would be the glass beads traded to the early Native American peoples for food and other trade goods. To the European culture, they were commonplace, but to a different culture, their stickiness and worth was valued much higher.
As an example of how people often can mistake the sticky product from one that is creative comes from the popular home-improvement show, “Ask This Old House”. They run a segment each week called “What is it”, in which they ask some of their crew to try and imagine what some odd creative construction invention is used for. The answers are often absurd, humorous, or downright ridiculous, but always creative. Often the correct answer to this weekly puzzle is even more outrageous than the ones given by the crew. Now, even though this TV segment is obviously scripted, it is based on some of the impressions from many different viewpoints on how any particular item may be used. This, I think, is an excellent example of how any individual’s judgment of the “creativeness” of a product is very much colored by their individual perspective. Now, whether or not any of these items are “sticky” may yet depend on how they are received by the public, but first impressions in this case are not always on the mark, which leads us to consider society as a whole and how they view any types of new ideas.
Is there a bell curve to popular ideas? I often wonder if the general public places value on any product or idea based on how much it will appeal to the middle of the bell curve of use for living. If something
has a use for enough people that they will go out of their daily routines to pursue it, then it is considered “creative”, however this may not always be the best indicator of whether any single idea is really creative. A so-called sticky idea that follows the SUCCESs method from Heath and Heath’s book “Made to Stick” would be Simple, Unexpected, Concrete, Credible, Emotional, and involve a Stories. However, not all creative endeavors produce simple or even completely concrete products. Some may involve some of the Success method and not other parts. For example, a good play or dramatic performance may not be simple. Take the Michael Frayn’s play, “Noises Off”, as an example. It is extremely complex, but incredibly hilarious and engaging. It also does not produce anything concrete except perhaps a spoiled plate of sardines at the end, so it may not meet all of the aspects of the Success method, yet I would argue that it is amazingly creative. In fact, I happen to think it is one of the best plays in its genre ever written.
So, what creative ideas, then do I think will “stick” in the future, (besides duck tape)? Here are a few examples:
1. How about holographic ultrasonic interactive images.
http://fusionfilter.com/?p=1702
Being able to feel a holograph might be a good way to interact with people from quite a distance apart. Ultrasonic compression wave emitters developed for some of this technology could have significant applications. Imagine tiny ultrasonic bugs that could take out real insects by zapping them with ultrasonic waves, or disinfect surfaces by zapping them with this type of compression energy. The right frequency could rupture cell walls and perhaps even explode the casings of viruses! However, this might be dangerous unless we could find highly specific frequencies of resonance for the size and shape of certain viruses. Who knows, a tune by someone like Michael Jackson played at a rate of 100 KHz might be just what is needed to eliminate H1N1 from a surface!
2. What about a pill or therapy to increase your “creative” genes/ mutations.
According to recent information, (http://fusionfilter.com/?p=2499) each person has between 100 and 200 mutations in his/her genes. This means that each person has the potential to derive some type of creative impulse from a different part of the nature equation in at least a slightly different way from any other person. In other words, no two people have exact genes AND the epigenetic factors of the environment both present and past contribute to differences that may be even larger in our lives than the genes or mutations themselves. Now, we have not as yet identified which particular genes may contribute to creativity. Is there a creativity gene? However, my question is whether or not any of these genetic mutations could offer us any particular benefit in our creative abilities? Is this something we should pursue? Can or should we engineer genetic mutations to move ourselves forward in the evolutionary ladder or will we, in the process, just turn ourselves into mere human machines? Could we possibly give ourselves gene therapy and make ourselves more “creative”? I th
ink the jury is still out, but the potential exists for a great amount of stickiness here.
3. Here is a sticky one for our energy woes, the ultra-tiny fuel cell:
http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2009/02/19/sugar-cube-sofc-fuel-cell/
Imagine being able to power all of your devices in your house with a gallon of water! Solar energy could be used to electrolyze water, then a set of fuel cells turns the resulting hydrogen and oxygen back into electricity! It operates much like a NASA spacecraft! (And, by the way, we’ve had some of this basic technology since the 1960’s, but until recent years have not done very much to pursue its potential)
Now, ask yourself if you think any of these ideas are “sticky” today. Did you know about any of them prior to reading this blog? Do you think that the general public will find any of them “creative”? Is this, then, more about the timeliness of certain ideas OR whether or not a particular idea has POTENTIAL to have a large impact on society. We know that many creative ideas from the past continue to have influence today, but maybe not all of them. However, the criteria for many sticky ideas may not only lie in the psychology of current human experience, but in our own practiced skill at envisioning how any idea will affect our own future. I think we as a culture are getting better at a more divergent view of potential future directions, but unless you happen to be a Science Fiction buff (ahem…like me.), an artist, engineer, or technophile, you may not have a perspective that is farsighted enough to encompass the potential of a particular creative idea. However, some of these ideas have a way of sneaking up on us if we don’t keep our eyes open.
So, what should you do? (Shameless advertisement spoof goes here…) Why, get some future visionary goggles, they help you see into the future…just dial in the number of years and you can immediately know what’s hot and what’s not for the rest of your lifetime and many more to come…Just imagine how impressed your friends will be with your insight and vision, and you can even use them to help with future investing too. Now, due to the nature of causality, we can only offer them to a few select clients, so sign up now for your free home construction kit…You’ll wish you did.
Put yourself into the future, then look around, you’ll know what sticks then.
There is a difference between creative product and a sticky product. Innovation recognition depends often on the societal “readiness” and culture in its willingness to embrace any new idea. This is also dependent on both the accumulation of culture as well as recent or present situations or circumstances. For example, any catastrophic event that affected a society or culture such as a large hurricane or terrorist attack would shift the societal ethos and “readiness” for any particular type of either creative or sticky idea. Furthermore, the familiarity of any culture with particular ideas, skills, or techniques, may make some ideas less creative or sticky than they would be otherwise. The classic example would be the glass beads traded to the early Native American peoples for food and other trade goods. To the European culture, they were commonplace, but to a different culture, their stickiness and worth was valued much higher.
As an example of how people often can mistake the sticky product from one that is creative comes from the popular home-improvement show, “Ask This Old House”. They run a segment each week called “What is it”, in which they ask some of their crew to try and imagine what some odd creative construction invention is used for. The answers are often absurd, humorous, or downright ridiculous, but always creative. Often the correct answer to this weekly puzzle is even more outrageous than the ones given by the crew. Now, even though this TV segment is obviously scripted, it is based on some of the impressions from many different viewpoints on how any particular item may be used. This, I think, is an excellent example of how any individual’s judgment of the “creativeness” of a product is very much colored by their individual perspective. Now, whether or not any of these items are “sticky” may yet depend on how they are received by the public, but first impressions in this case are not always on the mark, which leads us to consider society as a whole and how they view any types of new ideas.
Is there a bell curve to popular ideas? I often wonder if the general public places value on any product or idea based on how much it will appeal to the middle of the bell curve of use for living. If something
has a use for enough people that they will go out of their daily routines to pursue it, then it is considered “creative”, however this may not always be the best indicator of whether any single idea is really creative. A so-called sticky idea that follows the SUCCESs method from Heath and Heath’s book “Made to Stick” would be Simple, Unexpected, Concrete, Credible, Emotional, and involve a Stories. However, not all creative endeavors produce simple or even completely concrete products. Some may involve some of the Success method and not other parts. For example, a good play or dramatic performance may not be simple. Take the Michael Frayn’s play, “Noises Off”, as an example. It is extremely complex, but incredibly hilarious and engaging. It also does not produce anything concrete except perhaps a spoiled plate of sardines at the end, so it may not meet all of the aspects of the Success method, yet I would argue that it is amazingly creative. In fact, I happen to think it is one of the best plays in its genre ever written.So, what creative ideas, then do I think will “stick” in the future, (besides duck tape)? Here are a few examples:
1. How about holographic ultrasonic interactive images.
http://fusionfilter.com/?p=1702
Being able to feel a holograph might be a good way to interact with people from quite a distance apart. Ultrasonic compression wave emitters developed for some of this technology could have significant applications. Imagine tiny ultrasonic bugs that could take out real insects by zapping them with ultrasonic waves, or disinfect surfaces by zapping them with this type of compression energy. The right frequency could rupture cell walls and perhaps even explode the casings of viruses! However, this might be dangerous unless we could find highly specific frequencies of resonance for the size and shape of certain viruses. Who knows, a tune by someone like Michael Jackson played at a rate of 100 KHz might be just what is needed to eliminate H1N1 from a surface!
2. What about a pill or therapy to increase your “creative” genes/ mutations.According to recent information, (http://fusionfilter.com/?p=2499) each person has between 100 and 200 mutations in his/her genes. This means that each person has the potential to derive some type of creative impulse from a different part of the nature equation in at least a slightly different way from any other person. In other words, no two people have exact genes AND the epigenetic factors of the environment both present and past contribute to differences that may be even larger in our lives than the genes or mutations themselves. Now, we have not as yet identified which particular genes may contribute to creativity. Is there a creativity gene? However, my question is whether or not any of these genetic mutations could offer us any particular benefit in our creative abilities? Is this something we should pursue? Can or should we engineer genetic mutations to move ourselves forward in the evolutionary ladder or will we, in the process, just turn ourselves into mere human machines? Could we possibly give ourselves gene therapy and make ourselves more “creative”? I th
ink the jury is still out, but the potential exists for a great amount of stickiness here.3. Here is a sticky one for our energy woes, the ultra-tiny fuel cell:
http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2009/02/19/sugar-cube-sofc-fuel-cell/
Imagine being able to power all of your devices in your house with a gallon of water! Solar energy could be used to electrolyze water, then a set of fuel cells turns the resulting hydrogen and oxygen back into electricity! It operates much like a NASA spacecraft! (And, by the way, we’ve had some of this basic technology since the 1960’s, but until recent years have not done very much to pursue its potential)
Now, ask yourself if you think any of these ideas are “sticky” today. Did you know about any of them prior to reading this blog? Do you think that the general public will find any of them “creative”? Is this, then, more about the timeliness of certain ideas OR whether or not a particular idea has POTENTIAL to have a large impact on society. We know that many creative ideas from the past continue to have influence today, but maybe not all of them. However, the criteria for many sticky ideas may not only lie in the psychology of current human experience, but in our own practiced skill at envisioning how any idea will affect our own future. I think we as a culture are getting better at a more divergent view of potential future directions, but unless you happen to be a Science Fiction buff (ahem…like me.), an artist, engineer, or technophile, you may not have a perspective that is farsighted enough to encompass the potential of a particular creative idea. However, some of these ideas have a way of sneaking up on us if we don’t keep our eyes open.
So, what should you do? (Shameless advertisement spoof goes here…) Why, get some future visionary goggles, they help you see into the future…just dial in the number of years and you can immediately know what’s hot and what’s not for the rest of your lifetime and many more to come…Just imagine how impressed your friends will be with your insight and vision, and you can even use them to help with future investing too. Now, due to the nature of causality, we can only offer them to a few select clients, so sign up now for your free home construction kit…You’ll wish you did.
Put yourself into the future, then look around, you’ll know what sticks then.
Whoah, Tim-- amazingly creative ideas. They're technical, which is why they're on the cutting edge. Do you think that lack-o-simplicity might inhibit "everyman/everywoman" from getting on board with it?
ReplyDeleteI agree that not everything that is creative can fit into the Heath and Heath SUCCEs Model. I agree that plays such as Frayn's hilarious comedy, Noises Off, might not fulfill all of the requirements of the "Made to Stick" criterion. There are many other such applications that do not fit the model and end up being good ideas that have "stuck" without the Heath and Heath "stamp of approval" as well.
ReplyDeleteNoises Off is certainly a play that is produced over and over again in professional and amateur theatre groups and probably wll continue to do much like the Mousetrap has survived as the longest running successively play in history. These plays have "stuck" in the Western theatre/drawing room comedy genre since the day they first played to audiences. In fact, both plays were so popular, that they were made into movie versions. Agatha Christie continued to write more comedy/mystery "who dunnits" and Frayn wrote an equally funny sequel to Noises Off called "Audience." "Audience" isn't as well known as "Noises Off" or "The Mousetrap" but I think the idea of "stickiness"---that is, a good idea that is made to last-- in dramatic literature at least, has more to do how effective the playwright presents a mirror of human nature and behavior that is universally timeless. If the play's characters and storyline communicate themes, for example, that befit humanity at its best and at its worst with a good storyline to boot, then the writing sustains the "test of time" and sticks. Like all of the dead authors' works we covet today, stickiness in the world of good literature has survived without the SUCCEs method. The question really is, what authors are writing today new works that will stick?