Useful Lunacy:
Thinking about thinking, creativity and the power of ideas.

Scale is another way of asking an idea about the future.

Design firms test the scalability of a logo idea by reviewing it at different sizes, in different colors and in different media conditions. Does the idea translate consistently from a print ad, to the side of a building to a 16 pixel-square favicon? Does the logo idea scale across different languages and cultures?

Food manufacturers test the scalability of a new product idea in terms of a formula: manufacturing, marketing and distribution costs versus the size and appetite of an addressable audience.

In the short term, politicians measure the scalability of their ideas with polls and fundraising. History takes care of the rest.

Writers test the scale of their book ideas with blogging.

Web engineers might test the scalability of an idea by estimating server traffic. (Side note: Fascinating article here on Tumblr’s astounding technical growth related to serving 15 billion page views per month.)

So the question, “Will your idea scale?” has little to do with the present moment. Nor is it about revelation or intended insight. Rather, “Will your idea scale?” is an exploration of an idea’s flexibility, its resilience and the cost to sustain it over time. It is a question of potential.

It boils down to intent, doesn’t it?

Advertising ideas seek to persuade. Software ideas seek to be used.

An advertising idea has finite relevance. Once we’re persuaded, the idea’s purpose wanes. Or as Howard Gossage put it, “How many times do you have to be told that your house is on fire?”

The idea of software has evolution and adaption built into its purpose. Lack of use defines lack of useful purpose.

This distinction illuminates some of the gap between agencies and tech start-ups.

If your objective is finite then fleeting (as advertising’s often is), you’ll define strategy and process in a manner distinct from those who’s objective is ongoing and adaptive (as software’s must be).

You are lucky. You get to see the idea first.

Hollywood envies the writer for this reason. They get to see the movie before anyone else.

But is what the writer sees in their head, and what the audience or collaborators see the same?

Likely not. We all receive quite differently. Which is why it can’t hurt to step to the side and ask, how might this idea of mine be received? Can it survive their interpretation? And is there anything you can do (in presenting, politicking, following up) to help insure your original vision arrives in their brain as intended?

Another metric for thinking about the efficacy of ideas is time. It’s akin to testing relevance. Creative or strategic briefing can be measured by this same standard. You might ask:

Once an idea is produced, will the problem it was supposed to address still exist? Or, once we publish the brief, will the problem still exist as we understand it? (In other words, if it takes six weeks to produce a TV spot or 8 weeks to deliver a website…will the obstacle or opportunity still merit the effort?)

What ought to be the lasting potency of this idea/brief, after its released into the word? If the assignment is architecture or a logo, then timelessness or history ought to factor into the work. If the assignment is a July 4th sale, the idea’s necessary potency is less than 24 hours.

How long do we honestly estimate it might take for an awesome idea we produce to really take root, and cause the desired effect? Is that amount of latency/incubation acceptable? Is there anything an idea might address to help seed affect sooner?

I’m sure there are other ways of thinking about this, but it’s late.