"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
– Richard Feynman

Everyone loves grand unifying theories. Simple explanations for the complexity of life. You see it in how we tell stories about the past. "We did x, then y, then z happened," sounds much better than covering whatever crazy set of circumstances that led to x happening in the first place.
This week I sat in on a presentation of an exciting new product. It's a marketing tool that can be used to determine intent. The plan is to use it to bring down the cost of some very expensive, complex sales lead generation. Instead of trying to reach buyers, you can get access to a data stream that tells you about people who are actively looking for information about the product you sell. Reach out to them, the theory goes, and you can eliminate a lot of the pre-work that goes into producing the best leads to follow up on.
It's very impressive.
One of the issues we had when digging into the details of the product turned out to be defining the term we both used freely. Leads. Both sides peppered their comments with this word, but over time it became clear that we operated from different definitions.
Our side sees decision-making as a complex, almost indecipherable event. We can make some assumptions, but inside each buyer's head is an unknowable world. In a complex sale, there are dozens of heads involved, hence the name. A name showing up on a list doesn't make the intent obvious. However, in a list of 1,000 names, it may identify a few more qualified leads than an alternative list. This has some value. We ask to run tests to get a feel for what kind of improvement happens when we use their black box, and go from there.
Their side doesn't like this arrangement. They see their AI intent algorithm cutting through the decision process and providing the sales people with a massive operational advantage. In short, they are operating on the idea that their intent engine operates on a grand unifying theory. This simplicity is worth a $500,000 price tag. We should prepare to pay handsomely for the test because just by giving us access, we are getting the "Glengarry Glen Ross" leads. The easiest of easy sales will be put right in our lap. They hope our bank is ready, because our accounts are about to overflow with cash.
I love a big grand unifying theory. They're fun. They help explain the crazy randomness of life. But I know they don't exist. They work at a high level, and fall apart in the details.
That said, I hope they're right. If they really are able to find new opportunities earlier in the decision process, giving their users an advantage and increasing revenue, they'll get very big, very fast. Then I can tell my story about how "we did X, then Y, and that's how we ended up with Z."
|