The paradox of the resealable can

It has been brought to my attention that a product called 'No Fear Extreme Energy' (a drink) comes in a 'unique resealable can.' I do wonder if the manufacturers have really thought this through.

One issue is the implication of providing this feature. The fact you need to be able to reseal the can suggests that it is difficult to drink a whole can in one go. Does this mean it's not exactly delicious?

However there is a much deeper problem.

On my creativity seminars I often use a technique called 'the level chain' which is great for developing new product ideas. Before letting the participants loose I demonstrate a couple of uses of the technique, one of which is looking for a new paint product. The outcome of the demonstration is to come up with the idea of selling paint in cans with ring pull tops. After all, one of the biggest issues with cans of paint is opening them.

One of the reasons I use this example is that is great to remind the participants of a blockage to creativity they have to be aware of - premature evaluation. It's very easy when someone comes up with an idea to instantly spot what's wrong with it and kill it. Ideas are like little green shoots - easy to tread on with hobnail boots. And when I use the example of a ring pull can of paint I can guarantee (I ask for a show of hands) that some of those present will be thinking 'Yes, but how do you close the can?'

Those who do, miss the point. I have a great product idea, it just needs a bit of development. After all, I'm a paint manufacturer. (In the example. I'm not really, even though you can buy Brian Clegg paints.) I don't want my customers to close their cans of paint, I want them to leave them open to dry up so they'll buy more paint. What I've done is transformed a difficult question (what new and distinctive product can we make) to a simpler one (how can I persuade people to buy cans of paint you can't close).

There are lots of potential solutions to the 'can't close' problem, from selling paint in packs of small cans rather than one big one, to selling separate reseal lids. But the point is it's a good idea and I'll sell more paint.

Drinks manufacturers already have this advantage. Going on the number of half-full Coke cans I find around our house, just as mustard manufacturers were supposed to of old, Coca Cola must makes loads of dosh from the Coke that's thrown away. But No Fear is saying 'let's not make those profits.' Nice one guys. Time for a rethink.

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog