As communication architects, we employ fresh thinking to develop creative solutions that provide our clients bottom-line results. These solutions occasionally encounter challenges of "newness" - cognitive assimilation, user resistance, system integration, and the like - which we address and minimize through our processes of iterative development, prototyping, low-risk phase I engagements, and positive feedback loops. But creative solutions face a greater enemy than the oft-preventable challenges of newness. More commonly, the idea itself is diluted before its merit is fully explored, signaled by the appearance of a fluttering red flag - "JUST."
As we are all guilty of its use, "just" becomes a universal excuse to underachieve. It rolls brilliant ideas lazily toward mediocrity, justifying cut corners and project sacrifices. It acknowledges the existence and possibility of the remarkable - and then discards the remarkable in favor of something else.
"Just develop this idea for now - we'll replace the system in six months anyway."
"Just build us what we're asking for, we've already created the solution."
"Just give them that idea that we know they'll like."
Unfortunately, when "just" announces its presence - often in moments of premature desperation - the most common casualty is the power of the marketing idea itself. All too often, development teams abandon the essence of a remarkable concept (which is invariably the greater challenge) in order to satisfy client and contract. The resulting communication devolves into an unremarkable shell of its former self - incapable of capturing attention, inspiring action, or implanting a memory - and destined, at best, to lukewarm success.
Admittedly, business is unforgiving, and "just" has its place. Time and budget constraints affect project breadth and enforce realistic objectives (while remarkable, it remains impractical to logo-plaster the pyramids). In these instances, "just" is an unfortunate reminder of a deadline, expectations, and the pressures of development.
But we can train ourselves to hear the word "just" as a ringing bell. When it sounds, we should take pause and temporarily refocus on the following questions:
1) What does "just" seek to sacrifice?
2) Does the sacrifice adversely affect the primary objective of the project?
3) If so, how might compromise be achieved without the adverse effect?
From that discovery, we're able to articulate the potential losses from compromise and deploy countermeasures from an archive of production experience and documented processes. Or try something altogether new.
