In the aftermath of the latest riot-inducing how-dare-you-offend-my-faith global nonsense, someone with a unique insight into such idiocy gave a fascinating interview I caught the other day.
Author Salman Rushdie suffered death threats after The Satanic Verses. A masterpiece by all informed accounts.
He described how with it, he sought to explore how world-changing ideas develop.
He set two tests. How those promoting the idea behaved when first weak, then after acceptance, when strong.
In the weakness phase, you could easily be crushed, but if you survive, you change the game. With eventual strength, he was focused on how merciful you were towards those you’d overcome.
He intriguingly stated that, ‘on both fronts, Islam performed rather well’…
Anyway. I got to thinking how much I liked the concept of “two tests”. Reminiscent of the famous €uro Five Test story engineered by Brown & Blair.
Take your main product. Can you think of two tests that you could suggest to prospects that they apply to uncover the merits, or otherwise, of its deployment? Which also, of course, place you in better light than competing wares.
You hear prospect using your language here and you’re likely onto a winner.
And along Salman’s lines, it pays for the tests to be a ‘pair’. Like strong is to weak.
So if you use the same vibe, then your strength test would be about how you’d protect from potential market threats perhaps, or future-proof in general. And the weakness test could be about how you fix a current shortcoming.
Other pairs feel useful too. Risk and reward. Quick versus slow.
If you like the concept, then ask your chief techie or bean counter how they evaluate ideas. Maybe some sparks will fly through your own mind as a result…