Stories, not strategy

For many years we have been working under the assumption that there is a double layer between those who create and those who use/consume. The idea we’ve been toying with is one where this double layer should actually be more like a flexible membrane (see last slide). So what spawned this change? the fact that we are story driven beings. Stories (where experiences are crystallised) have been empowered with various formats. A simple tweet, a long blog post, a conversation over coffee… simply put, they are the currency of communicative active behaviour. The design process has also been very story driven, although never very overtly.

As designers and creatives come up with ideas they package these ideas into use cases, which are simple subject object stories, where the subject(s) uses the object thus giving the object a purpose. By object I mean something that can be a dildo, but can also be a complex web application…

So stories are at the core of how products and services are created, which is great because everyone loves a good story. Now, these stories are then subject to the cold and hopeful formatting of a business logic. Is the proposed product/service going to be profitable? By when? What is the competitive context? How much investment for how much return? … Economics is ultimately a science of relationships, and it’s great that relationships are really about stories.

Once the business case is approved, the idea goes through a process where it becomes a product or service.  Great, now the question on the creators’ minds as they mingle with the crowd of users and themselves become users, is a simple one: how do the stories that were created at product/service genesis (use cases) compare with the stories generated by the various users?

Ok, so in order to minimise the risk of failure, corporations usually test a the product/service at an early stage, many times at concept stage, with focus groups. What they are really doing is making sure both stories match: the use case and the user case. If they don’t, it’s back to the drawing board. I’ve always had mixed feelings about focus groups. Why don’t we change the process in a way where both these membranes are smaller, more  flexible and constantly surrounded by users?

Most designers will tell you it all starts with a need. Most pitches kick off with “We have identified a market need…” which is great but kind of redundant, given that the market is needy by nature. Well, what came first the need or the tweet? Users are immersed in products and services, the complex interactions between these creates spaces that can be fulfilled by more/different products and services. Most of the products/services we have are not there to fulfil a need (in the Maslow sense of a primary need), but to create or crystallise a new one. As such, this membrane approach makes more sense.

We’ve known for a while now that the faster we can get a product/service to market the faster we can get: not only a return on investment but a return on the story that was created, thus quickly adjusting and adapting for optimal use. We need to get those users generating stories and conversation and comments…

The present day revolution is that the products/services stories’ are opening up, becoming ‘apparently ‘more visible throughout the whole creation process. Most of the time, and unfortunately so, this is so in order for corporations to seed a need before it exists (see iPad example), and for powerblogers to justify their existence with inside scoops and retweets.

Objects/services need to be able to quickly link and feed off public user narratives. This emotional layer is the most powerful driver behind user behaviour. Now the question is how this is done, and should it not be part of a continuous creative process rather then the PR stunt industry?

A wooden cupboard and a dating site. A dating site as a service is able to contain the user stories that make it so appealing. As such, provided the stories it has generated are cool, it will be successful. On the other hand,  the stories around a wooden cupboard are external to the cupboard. The furniture dealer will tell you that that particular cupboard was the property of Audrey Hepburn, will prove it with a photo and will have the whole story in his website. Suddenly the wooden cupboard comes with a website where is story is public/available.

When I think of these small active membranes as the pumping hearts of a story based economy, I think of small producer markets rather then huge shopping malls. Conversations. A closer relationship between the producer and the user. A strange but beautiful locality in the products/services created. Bespoke, in touch with the users stories. The definition of luxury.

Summary:
Stories not Strategy.
Stories generate a business layer which justifies the market existence of a product/service.
Products and services create stories and close the narrative loop.