[Exploring Effective Presentations] Once you've committed to a path, there's no turning back— Even after fixing the colors and logo, the sense of unease remained | Inception-style Presentation
[What you will learn in this article]
・Why designs that were once approved can suddenly stop fitting later on
・Why trying to fix things piecemeal can sometimes increase the sense of unease
・Why people overlook changes in premises because they think, "I've already done this much"
・Why it is sometimes better to rethink the "premises" rather than the deliverables
・The dangers that arise precisely because inception-style presentations are so powerful
*What is an inception-style presentation: A presentation that does not force a conclusion on the other party, but naturally shares premises and judgment criteria within their mind
I once outsourced the package design for a product.
The initial premises were:
・Targeted at people in their 20s
・Low price range
・Instagrammable
・Pop and approachable
・A bit like a lifestyle accessory
・Colorful, with punchy copy
That was the plan.
Given those premises, the proposals that came back were not bad.
Bright and eye-catching.
Approachable as well.
It had an atmosphere that young people could easily pick up.
In the meeting, we also said,
"Let's proceed in this direction."
That was the discussion.
But along the way,
"The actual buyers might be mainly in their 40s to 50s"
"The price range might end up higher than expected"
"There might be demand for gifts as well"
"Rather than cuteness, a sense of 'quality' or 'reassurance' might be more important"
"It might be counterproductive if it looks cheap"
These points were raised.
The definition of "quality" required for a $1 accessory and a $30 gift is fundamentally different.
Ideally, at that point, we should have said,
"The premises have changed, so let's rethink the direction from scratch."
I think that was correct.
However, in reality, it is a little different.
People cannot go back that easily.
Maybe it will work if I tone down the colors,
maybe it will work if I make the logo smaller,
maybe it will work if I change the photos,
maybe it will work if I add a slightly more premium feel.
They try to manage by making partial corrections.
In a sense, that is natural.
People do not want to reject something they have already approved.
They have spent money.
They have spent time.
They have approved it in meetings.
If it was outsourced, they have repeatedly asked the other party for revisions.
That is why their focus turns to how to make the most of what they already have.
But strangely enough,
no matter how much they fix it, something just doesn't click.
Even if they tone down the colors,
even if they make the logo smaller,
even if they change the photos,
for some reason, only the sense of discomfort remains.
When they add a bit of premium feel, it clashes with the original pop style.
When they try to tone it down, it becomes half-baked.
When they try to aim for a higher target, the original lightness becomes noise.
No matter how much they revise it,
they lose sight of what they are aiming for.
Moreover, every time they make a revision,
the initial appeal and reasoning gradually fade away.
They erase the brightness,
suppress the momentum,
round off the edges,
and tidy it up so that no one will dislike it.
Then, the thing that was supposed to be the 'soul' at the beginning gradually drains away.
It is polished.
It is proper.
But for some reason, it doesn't make you want it.
Sometimes it ends up like a 'polished corpse'.
Perhaps that sense of unease
is not a problem of colors or logos.
In reality, the premises that made the design work have changed along the way.
Who is it for?
What kind of feeling do you want them to have when they pick it up?
What are you prioritizing?
What are you discarding?
Even though those things have changed,
if you only try to fix the final output, it will never quite fit.
However, rather than admitting that 'the premise has changed,' people are pulled toward:
'It will work if we just fix it a little more.'
'We put so much effort into it, we want to make it work.'
'We've come this far, we can't turn back now.'
They are pulled in that direction.
The fact that it was approved.
The money that was spent.
The work done so far.
The communication with external vendors.
The explanations given within the company.
These things turn from 'reasons to go back' into 'reasons why we can't go back'.
Inception-style presentations are powerful.
They have a strong ability to make others share a premise.
Therefore, even for things that should have been met with, 'The premise is different, so let's stop for a moment,' they can make people say:
'Indeed, it seems like we can proceed in this direction.'
And thus, they make it work.
In reality, it is not on the same trajectory.
In reality, it would be better to go back once and rethink it.
But it can be explained away effectively.
The inconsistencies can be smoothed over.
It can be made to look like a 'continuation of the same story'.
It looks like it worked in the moment.
But in reality, the sense of unease just won't go away.
I myself have had the experience of getting a design approved in a presentation even though it should have been redesigned after the target audience changed.
It seemed to work in the moment.
“It certainly seems like this direction could work.”
I was able to create that kind of atmosphere.
However, no matter how many adjustments I made later, things just didn't click, and in the end, it had to be redesigned.
It wasn't so much that getting it approved was a mistake, but rather that the real problem was making it look like it was “on the same trajectory” when the premise had actually changed.
That is why, especially after you have gotten something approved,
“Is the reason things aren't clicking really a problem with the deliverable itself?”
There are times when it is better to think about this.
Is it the color?
Is it the logo?
Is it the photos?
Or is it...
“Who do I want to pick this up, and with what kind of feeling?”
Is it the premise itself?
When there is a sense of discomfort that cannot be resolved by partial corrections,
what you really need to re-examine might not be the deliverable, but the premise that made that deliverable valid in the first place.
Going back is not a step backward.
Re-examining the premise is not a waste of the effort you have put in so far, but a step forward to prevent the current discomfort from growing any larger.
In fact, those who have had the experience of not being able to go back probably understand this sense of discomfort all too well.
[Summary]
・Even with a design that has been approved once, it can become misaligned if the premises change along the way.
・People tend to want to make use of what already exists because they feel, "We've come this far."
・As a result, they try to manage by making partial corrections to the deliverables.
・The more corrections are made, the more the initial appeal or "soul" can gradually drain away.
・Precisely because presentation skills can "get it approved," there is a risk of overlooking fundamental discrepancies.
・When there is a sense of discomfort that cannot be resolved by partial corrections, what might really need to be re-examined is not the deliverable itself, but the premises that made that deliverable valid in the first place.