Do you know the exact date the Earth was created?
If you lived in the 18th century, you learned that the world was created on Saturday, the 22nd of October, 4004 BC. And not just any moment on 22nd October, but "on the beginning of the night".
This idea of the Earth being just 6000 years old is preposterous to us living in an age of science, but back in those times, the only geology textbook was the word of an Irish bishop and theologian called James Ussher.
It was in this world that James Hutton came up with his theory of the Earth
While observing the side of a hill, he noticed bands in the cliff face. Over time, he realised there were possibly hundreds of bands of sediment laid one on top of the other, compacting itself into rock.
Hutton's great insight was that the creation and destruction of land wasn't one day in October, 4000 BC, but instead a remarkably slow build up over time.
In 1785, he presented his radical idea to the Royal Society of Edinburgh
The Society rejected his theory almost immediately. And as if that were not enough, the members of the society branded him an atheist. Hutton was God-fearing, and he must have felt the sheer weight of how his ideas were being rejected out of hand.
History is full of instances where ideas were too controversial to be accepted.
And we too are faced with scepticism when we present an idea.
While our ideas might not be as earth-shattering, they're still very important to us. The only problem we have is that our concepts are controversial.
They're ideas that are very hard for clients to digest, and therefore we tend to stay on the safer, more boring side of life.
But what if there were a way to present your controversial idea?
- And what if you could do it in various media.
- Would it be possible to create an info-product that went against the grain?
- What about a webinar or seminar that was a bit different from what clients expect?
In this article let's look at: Why you should not discard a controversial idea
What caused the slow decline of newspapers?
If you were to ask this question to most people today, the answer would likely be quite prompt.
Most people are likely to say: It's the Internet.
The news online is free and can be accessed at will. It can be tweaked to your taste, has video and other interactive content—plus, it's searchable. It's not hard to see that the Internet was the most dominant factor in the decline of the newspaper industry.
Except there's a neat little graph that tells a different story
If you started the graph back in 1945, you'd notice how the trend heads south. 1955 has fewer readers per household but is better than 1965, which in turn is better than 1975. As you hurtle through the years, the readership drops precipitously as we get to 1995—and the Internet as we know it today didn't even exist back then.
In his book called "The Content Trap", professor Bharat Anand, brings up a concept that we'd consider to be quite odd, if not outright controversial.
However, the very nature of the controversy is what jolts your audience to life
If you were to read an article on "how to increase prices", you'd be likely to be interested, but something that talks about "how to decrease your prices" might seem controversial and ignite a much higher level of curiosity.
But is this controversy really necessary? Can't we get our ideas across without having to raise hackles all the time?
It really depends on the situation
Take for instance the formula that most marketers tended to follow. Marketing strategies comprised of finding an audience, a target audience. Once you knew who you were targeting, you needed to state the features and benefits of that product or service. This sequence of events would get you your desired result, or so it seemed.
Which is why we ran into instant pushback the moment we started speaking at small events in Auckland and parts of New Zealand.
The earliest version of The Brain Audit did have the concept of Target Audience and Benefit, but it suggested that the most important element was the Problem. Not only was the Problem the most important, but it needed to show up before the Solution or any kind of benefit.
Controversial ideas don't always land on fertile ground
With The Brain Audit, we did get people saying that they loved the idea of the Problem.
However, by and large, people felt the entire concept was negative. Why bother leading with the problem? they asked, especially when the solution has worked so well for so long?
What if clients respond badly to the problem? They liked the other parts of The Brain Audit, but the concept of the problem needed to go, or so it seemed.
The reality is that controversial concepts need to stay
When your audience is saying, "this won't work", they're simply objecting. They're saying, "we can't see how this will work for me, and could you possibly be so kind as to give us some proof?"
Which is exactly what Bharat Anand does in his book—and he does so at many levels.
First, he pulls out a graph of newspaper circulation per household over the past 70 years. Then, to bolster his point, he talks about a Norwegian media group called Schibsted. Schibsted published newspapers too, and their costs had spiralled upwards while the returns were horrific.
They had a loss of over 200 million kroner. By 2011, Schibsted had turned the ship around. Its operating profits were up to about $220 million—nearly 60% of the entire group.
Bharat Anand realised that controversy can be a friend
When you introduce a controversial idea, there's instant pushback, but also instant attention. The pushback is merely the objection that needs to be tackled. Once he was able to furnish the proof, that attention level morphs into intense curiosity. The reader, or the audience, want to know more because their worldview has not only been changed, but there's proof to back up the sudden change.
When presenting The Brain Audit to a sceptical audience, I had the same aha moment
I could start off by being like everyone else or could choose to advance the idea of the Problem being the most critical element of all. Which is why I'd go through a demonstration of picking up a piece of paper and crumpling it into a ball.
That would get the audience's attention, but then I'd suddenly throw the ball towards the audience. Instantly people would duck or swing their heads away from the oncoming missile.
Without too much fuss, I was able to demonstrate that a ball of paper might get their attention, but when thrown at them, that very paper got far more people to react.
It's more than likely that you do things that aren't run of the mill
They may well be controversial, and it's easy to believe that it's safer to stick to the well-trodden path. However, all that's missing is the understanding of the objection.
When James Hutton came up with his theory of sedimentation, sure he was ridiculed, but part of the problem was merely that he couldn't explain several facets of his theory.
Granite was considered to be the Lord's foundation stone—the first part of the Earth to be created. Hutton, on the other hand, claimed that granite was an example of a recent development. And, he suggested, that rock had not so long ago, been almost liquid.
See the controversy at hand?
Sure you do, but you also are hooked into the excitement that would follow if there were proof. And that's why the controversy concept is so very powerful. You push it towards your audience, and they, in turn, push back. They come up with every reason why your idea is nonsense. As you get more objections, you are quickly able to figure out which one of those objections recur with the most frequency.
That's gold for you
Now you've got controversy, but you also know what's getting the most attention. And then, you also have proof.
_______________________
Announcing: The Article Writing Self Study Course
The biggest frustration with article writing is the sheer amount of time. You struggle to write quickly.
Yet writing is a "language" like everything else. Learn the structure and you can learn to write without the frustration and faster than ever before. Find out how the "tiny increments" system gets results for everyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment