80/20 rule.
You know, the “best practice” meeting rule – the 20 percent left to be accomplished isn’t worth the time it will take to get there given that you have 80 percent of the problem solved.
Personally, I invoke 80/20 all the time. My experience is that when you hit the 80 percent mark, you start moving in circles or – worse – you might actually fool yourself into believing that you have found a hard and fast solution – better to leave some open room for more thinking and ideating.
You with me so far?
80/20 was never meant to be “good enough,” as in no need to do better – it was simply a realization that often better or best or even better than that can be an elusive and even unfulfilling goal – and that solving the problem at hand might in fact be excellence versus solving the world’s problems.
See where I’m going?
This issue came up at Cannes as we judged the work submitted for the Titanium and Integrated Lions. See last week’s Weekly Ramble.
What was the standard of excellence across all channels? How did you judge extraordinary execution in multiple mediums? Did it have to be the same? (Not talking “matched luggage.”) What measurement or metric could possibly match a high-production-value video with an e-mail reminder when the e-mail was actually the bullet and the video was really the trigger? You get the point.
Clearly some work was good enough – didn’t have to be better – it made the point, accomplished its goal – maybe went beyond – 80/20 – it worked – let’s move on.
Truth is many companies known for big budget, multimillion dollar video productions, of 30-second commercials are being confronted by that debate, as cheaply produced videos clog the cloud but seem to get the same reach, frequency and possibly impact – so that on a cost of 80/20 that extra 20 is a financial drag – and in today’s world that’s not a good thing.
Bob Greenberg, the President of our Jury and well-known Digital Visionary, pointed out an article to us from Wired Magazine, that is a must read to get the debate going.
Here is what the article says about 80/20:
“If that 80 percent number rings a bell, it’s because of the famous Pareto principle, also known as the 80/20 rule. And it happens to be a recurring theme in Good Enough products. You can think of it this way: 20 percent of the effort, features, or investment often delivers 80 percent of the value to consumers. That means you can drastically simplify a product or service in order to make it more accessible and still keep 80 percent of what users want—making it Good Enough.”
Follow the link below, read the rest and see what you think:
The Good Enough Revolution: When Cheap and Simple Is Just Fine – Wired
“We get our breaking news from blogs, we make spotty long-distance calls on Skype, we watch video on small computer screens rather than TVs, and more and more of us are carrying around dinky, low-power netbook computers that are just good enough to meet our surfing and emailing needs. The low end has never been riding higher.”
Lots to comment on – small TVs have always been coveted for the right use; cheap and free have always created its own standard and Avatar would have had less impact if filmed by amateurs with less-than-perfect effects – having said that, there is a degradation of music quality and well – read the article.
Bottom line – I don’t know where I net out yet. I guess I will invoke the 80/20 rule and pass on the debate to you – but
Listen:
“He who thinks he’s good enough
isn’t going to get any better.”
And there you have it…
80/20, 90/10 or 100+, it’s never about settling…
What do you think?
this is so important of a discussion. i see this where ever i go today. it’s not only in the work it’s in the attention span of the people. no one is giving you more than 80% of their attention any more. they are distracted. skimming through this article , skimming through life…
i think we are losing more than our product, we are losing ourselves.
your thoughts?
Funny, I was just reading about the Pareto principle (80-20) today! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle) . It one of those things we’re all hearing about, but it was interesting to get the history, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.
One interesting coloration: “Microsoft also noted that by fixing the top 20% of the most reported bugs, 80% of the errors and crashes would be eliminated.”
Back in the early 80′s Chiat/Day had an internal slogan–”good enough is not enough” I think in the case of a SERVICE business which is what we are at Wunderman that is true. Services and products are different animals, there are not that many companies who have the capital to create hardgoods and so the 80/20 rule probably applies most of the time there. But with a service business…..there are always people out there willing to invest their sweat equity and their smarts to beat us. So—good enough is not enough
The nugget in the Wired article is that Good Enough gives rise to new opportunities. It’s not about fending off predators who do it ‘cheaper and better’ or expanding one’s market to the lower cost segment one could not previously reach. It is about creating new benefits, offerings, value propositions that trump the ‘full service’ product. It’s Good Enough AND Better. Like the MP3 player is both Good Enough AND Better than the CD. The Flip is both Good Enough AND Better than the camcorder. And the predator drones are both Good Enough AND Better than the F14.
Could Good Enough transform our industry for the better? And where will we stand? With Flip – or with Sony? After all we live for big ideas, great strategy, stunning creative and perfect, scalable execution. If the legal and the medical profession can do it, perhaps there’s an opportunity in advertising?
In fact, we’ve already ventured into the realm of Good Enough, with some considerable success.
• iMpact
• Nokia’s hub model
• Digital Hubs
I’m sure there are others. Though our focus is usually cost: Good Enough. Cheaper. Not necessarily better. And with rules so it does not jeopardize our core business.
But iMpact is not just cheaper; it’s also faster. Is there an opportunity for a transformational service?
• Faster turnaround and lower cost means you can optimize campaigns while they are still in market. Transforming the deploy-and-forget approach of some campaigns.
• Would cheaper and faster enable our clients to efficiently deploy campaigns to mini target groups of 20? From standardized worldwide campaigns to very small, very local?
• Would our clients run campaigns they never dreamt of because we keep telling them they were not possible?
It’s sure worth exploring.
You made me think about features for transactional websites. We normally create a dramatically large “feature” list when planning with our clients. The list has many inputs: client requirements, best practices, previous work. At the end of the day only 20% of these features deliver the 80% the client is looking for. And they are not necessarily the costliest or most complicated.
We tried for many years to convince our clients of the above but it was always tough to get them to agree that “less is more”.
So we switched to the agile process a few years ago…2 week builds so they can see the website function earlier. It is much better.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Weekly Ramble, Wunderman Romania. Wunderman Romania said: David Sable: "Better to leave some open room for more thinking and ideating." (Art. Good Enough) Full art. here: http://bit.ly/9qKOH6 [...]
While we should always strive for great, not merely good enough, when it comes to investing resources we’re always constrained. If there were no other priorities, deliverables or opportunities, going for the full 100% might make sense. The question we have to ask is whether the last 5, 10 or 20% spent on some other activity could produce more for the client (or Wunderman). What’s the opportunity cost of putting more into this project? The way to decide is whether that last 5, 10 or 20% adds value–for our clients’ customers, for our clients, for Wunderman.
fuel to the fire — a quote from the wired article…
“Speaking at an Online publishers conference in London last October, New York University new-media studies professor Clay Shirky had a mantra to offer the assembled producers and editors: “Don’t believe the myth of quality.” When it comes to the future of media on the Web, Shirky sternly warned, resist the reflex to focus on high production values. “We’re getting to the point where the Internet can support high-quality content, and it’s as if what we’ve had so far has all been nice—a kind of placeholder—but now the professionals are coming,” Shirky said”
Read More http://www.wired.com/gadgets/miscellaneous/magazine/17-09/ff_goodenough?currentPage=2#ixzz0t0JZIflM
Reading through this article, one particular phrase that I hear far too often resonated, “they don’t make them like they used to.” Businesses realized that making durable and top-of-the-line products just did not turn the high profits that they craved. In a society in which we get bored quickly and always want the “new” thing, businesses began spitting out products that could easily have the “better”, upgraded model available in a year. Because we bought whatever was just better than the rest, there was no reason for companies to waste so much energy, money and time giving us more than what we would have already accepted.
For brands that do not already have a following, it seems that the cheaper option is better than quality. Uniqlo has pushed out designer fashion brands in Japan because it offered cheap fashionable clothing. The quality was never superior, but what can you expect from a $20 pair of jeans? The success of Uniqlo is because their clothing is good enough for the price you pay. Why spend more money making better quality clothes when your selling point is cheap chic?
Unless other businesses decide to exhaust resources to become the very best they can be, our society will continue to accept what is good enough.
I’m reading this with great interest, and at 30,000 ft, flying along the west coast with internet service. It’s not great service, a bit slow, but it’s better than not having it. It’s 80%, and it’s free on Alaska Airlines right now. It’s meeting my needs. Getting to 80% somehow seems, in our world of advertising, to be a sellout – like we haven’t gone all the way to make it special and make the work as great as it can possibly be – yet in the real world of everyday products which make our lives better, easier, more fulfilling and satisfying, sometimes 80% is good enough. Seems to be so at 30,000 ft.
from Sea Level Id have to agree — now think on this — its all about INSIGHT — understanding the market and what the market needs/wants — not what we want or think is cool — how do we define qulaity — ??????
more from the article…
“He now defines quality entirely in terms of ease of use—how easy it is to shoot and share the video. “The one thing everyone wants to do with their footage is show it to someone else,” he says.”
Read More http://www.wired.com/gadgets/miscellaneous/magazine/17-09/ff_goodenough?currentPage=5#ixzz0t1rq69c6
I believe that to produce work that’s truly remarkable, the good enough principle won’t cut the mustard. Here’s a convincing rebuttal to the good enough principle that I had the pleasure of reading: http://outspokenmedia.com/social-media/old-spice-social-media/
Great Post!…
[...] I found your entry interesting thus I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog
[...]…