And first up, we’ve got a guy called Brian Harris who always posed some interesting stuff. He has got a growth consultancy, I believe. And so he’s in the market for helping people who already have businesses kind of grow larger. So he talks a lot about different strategies and marketing strategies and growth strategies and things like that. And he tweeted the other day. An interesting, very long Missiroli thread. You can find a link in the show notes about two different ways of thinking about your business. And he characterises those as total thinking and problem thinking and the point he’s helped me to getting out. Is he saying the difference between those two things is that total thinking is when you have come up with a thing. And you want to take that thing to market and, you know, it’s an amazing thing, maybe it’s an amazing piece of software or it’s a new invention that you’ve come up with is a better mousetrap. And you ought to take that to market and. Everything that you do is based around. Okay, well, I’ve got this thing and we now need to go and find people who want this thing or we need to generate interest in this thing or we need to educate people how to use this thing. And your whole approach to the market is about the thing that you feel and how people react to that. And can you sort of generate interest in purchases for that thing, whereas problem thinking is coming at it from your direction, which is saying there are a bunch people over there and I’ve talked to them enough or I know enough about them, that I know that they have a closet problem. They have a job that needs doing. There’s a jobs to be done framework, which I think originally came out of intercom. The SAS company probably predated them, but they popularised it. And so the idea there is you say, right, you go there and you say, OK, these group of people have a particular problem that they’re willing to pay money to solve because maybe it’s preventing them from making more money. It’s taking up too much of the time. Maybe they’re you know, if they were able to solve this thing, they could multiply their income in some fashion. So they’re more than willing to spend money on it. And they’re probably also so partially solving it in some very clunky ways. They’re doing it in Excel. They’re doing something super manually, whatever it might be. But if you then go into that sort of pre-existing market and then come up with ways to to solve that problem or partially solve that problem for that market and then sell them on that, then the argument he makes is that you’re far more likely to be successful when you’re far more likely to grow larger. If you approach markets from a problem. Perspective than you are from us, from a pre-existing or your existing toll based perspective. He gives a couple of examples. The main example, he goes into his Kodak, the. The camera photography film company, which is gained a bit of intimacy recently because in the whole stock market frothiness awareness of the current times than Kodak is basically in bankruptcy. But the stock was going up. But anyway, the point he makes is that Kodak, he says, approached the market from a total bias perspective, which is way all manufacturers, all film, in essence, like photography, film, and everything that we do is predicated around selling more film, doing more stuff with film. So if we get into cameras, then that is designed to sell more film. And and so everything they’re doing is they’re trying to sell more film. And as soon as something comes along like digital photography, something that’s completely disruptive, whereby you don’t need film anymore. People have a problem. They want to capture the memories, the world, images, whatever it might want to be. They don’t really care about the underlying technology. They just want the image. And then if something better comes along, then there is a real problem. Whereas if Kodak could approach the market from way, we are a company which helped people capture images and memories and things like that, then they might have been in a better position or make better decisions as a company as to, you know, to survive that that changeover from film to digital.
So if you’re going to any sort of examples of this or any thoughts, again, I think another classic example is Blockbuster. So we had Netflix. They are one on holidays. They got stuck to their philosophy that it worked before and therefore it will work in the future. And they then pay attention to them. Core problem. They were trying to solve.
So which was basically convenience entertainment or with. And yeah. Anyway you want.
But I agree as well with the concept that from our personal experience, every time you tried to solve problems. Yeah. You get way further with that business, Don, trying to put like a creative or clever idea out there. Do you think it’s going to salt something maybe that many problems without usually one of the top problems? I, I have or I think people could face he’s trying to communicate that new idea. So if it’s new, it’s hard to explain what it does and why that’s a problem. So I think you can spend a lot of money and energy there. That’s the main challenge. Whereas you will notice that very early on. So I’m not against trying to discover new tools because eventually you can pull it off. But your odds are not in your favour. So if you are going to try that approach, you better do a very lean Start-Up model where you treat a lot in low budget and very quickly. So you just rule out what or, you know, it doesn’t work until you find something that has potential. I knew you would realise that by. You can measure that potential by the early interaction of your audience.
So, ah, if you spend like you only need to spend one hundred dollars, I would say make maximum two hundred to see something works. And you can do ads online. Ask some groups etc. untested. And if there is engagement on do you can just put like a contact form for lead generation. And if no one is replying and if they’re what source. If they are clicking your ads and they are not feeling a forum for more information. So there and there is no engagement in your publications, then you know that that’s out there then. I mean, you can twist it and treat the product with new features or this and that or change the communication.
Usually, yeah. It’s more about the ad that you don’t have the problem you are trying to solve. This is not something that people perceives as a problem. So if you it’s not about the ad. It’s not about the image of the ad or the title. Yeah. Usually if you put a good enough. I’ve just one at one campaign, one title that should be good enough for having some traction. And if it’s not with one hundred quid, then you can go back to a whiteboard.