Vol. 1, No. 4
Fall, 2000
When General Motors tried to introduce the Chevrolet Nova into Latin America it shared the same fate as NesCafe. They both failed; after all, who wants a car named "Doesn't Go" or an instant coffee with a name like "Is Not Coffee." Ignore culture at your own peril.
Let's face it, in the United States independent inventors are the Rodney Dangerfields of the marketplace. Often ridiculed by the press and ignored by policy makers, independent inventors are still an essential part of the American economy, contributing one-third to one-half of all important inventions. So, what gives rise to all this disdain? In part, it is America's abiding faith in Corporate America. In 1956, John Kenneth Gailbraith, a leading economist of the times, proclaimed:
Most of the cheap and simple inventions have, to put it bluntly and unpersuasively, been made. Because development is costly, it follows that it can be carried on only by a firm that has the resources which are associated with considerable size.Attitudes like this simply do not leave much room for recognizing the potential contributions of independent inventors.
Inventors themselves often contribute significantly to this negative image. Anyone who has worked with inventors for very long has a few stories to tell, like the inventor who responded to a letter from the Oregon Innovation Center rejecting his invention because it was a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. He angrily responded with, "I don't give a d___ what laws you guys pass in Washington, I say my idea will work!!!!" Another inventor penciled a proposal to the president of a very large retail company, offering to sell his invention to the company in exchange for a used mobile home for his son. The paper was lined, but he didn't stay within the lines, and he filled the margins with comments as well, starting in the lower right hand corner and writing up the page, across the top and down the left hand margin. It was difficult to read his letter because the soft lead had smeared and his handwriting and spelling were very poor. Now, a lot of us don't have very good handwriting and some of us will write in the margins when communicating informally, but few people in the business community would use this approach when trying to sell something to the president of a very large corporation. That sort of thing simply isn't done in American business culture.
Some inventors are sophisticated and very knowledgeable about the innovation process. These experienced individuals frequently don't need a lot of help in commercializing their ideas because, through experience, they have moved well up the learning curve. However, most independent inventors are ordinary citizens who, like most Americans, know little about industrial innovation or the wiles and ways of the marketplace. These inventors are easy marks for invention promotion firms who offer to market their inventions.
Many inventors are likely candidates for failure, not because their ideas lack merit, but because they, like our inventor above, violate the cultural norms of the business and technical communities. Cultural norms you say? Business isn't a culture, it's an activity. That's partially true. Business is an activity, but around each sustained activity, a culture (or, more accurately, a sub-culture) has or will evolve. Those who ignore or violate cultural or sub-cultural norms do so at the peril of their objective.
Many inventor proposals are rejected well before somebody passes on the technical or commercial merits of the idea or invention at hand. Inventors aren't the only ones who miss the target because of cultural violations. We, including large sophisticated corporations, can all do this if we don't take the time to check out other cultures before we make contact with them. As noted above, the Nova (Chevrolet) and NesCafe did not do well in Latin and South America. It wasn't because our southern neighbors don't drive cars or drink coffee. Would a car with the name "Doesn't Go" or a coffee labeled "Is Not Coffee" have much appeal to you? These English speaking marketers violated a basic marketing rule: they didn't know their customer. They neglected to translate their English names into Spanish before launching their products in Latin America. They failed to consider culture, and their products failed as a result. The list of corporate cultural goofs is long and makes for amusing reading, but they add nothing to the bottom line. The same is true of the cultural mistakes of inventors.
Inventors might as well toss their inventions and new product ideas into the trash rather than present them to industry in the manner which is the norm today. Sure, there are a few companies which will look past grossly exaggerated claims of market potential, foolish statements like "there is no competition" or "everybody will buy one," a lot of misspelled words, incomplete sentences, exaggerated claims of marketability and value, inadequate costing, lengthy and unnecessary discussions of the history of the invention (even family history!), heavy reliance on family and friends for concept validation, inadequate costing, and so on. However, these firms are few and far apart. In general, corporate attitudes toward independent inventors are negative if not downright hostile. Even those firms open to outside new product ideas/inventions still expect a straight-forward and professional description or prospectus, and a realistic view of the potential of the idea at hand. When they don't get it, the invention and the inventor may be headed for rejection, often before anyone passes on the commercial merits of the new product. Ignore culture at your own peril.
Over the years, I have had numerous discussions with inventors along this line. A lot of inventors seem to expect anyone who has more resources than they should accommodate them because they are small. As an inventor once put it, "But I'm just an individual inventor. They can't possibly expect me to be professional. It just isn't fair. They should understand." We'll debate this point of view in a future issue of IR, but for now suffice it to say fairness has nothing to do with it, and "they" won't understand. If the cultural gap is going to be bridged, it is the inventor who will need to do the building.
This is where SCORE, SBDC, or one of our other Innovation Resource Partners can be of immense help. Volunteers don't need to be experts on the patent system or product development. Some common sense, and an awareness of American business culture, will do. Helping inventors draft professional letters of transmittal or introduction and assisting them in describing and explaining their invention in a concise but adequate manner can be of immense help to inventors. Presently, over 90% of the disclosures WIN receives violate business cultural norms. We are accustomed to this and look beyond cultural expectations. We have had years of experience in sticking with even the crudest disclosure. Still, we too are influenced by a good solid disclosure. Investors, licensing agents, and others in industry tell us unsolicited new product disclosures submitted to them follow the same pattern, and the bulk of them are trashed in the mind of the viewer even before he or she reads the material.
Most inventors need help in drafting appropriate letters to industry and in presenting their ideas/inventions on paper. Perhaps the idea of helping inventors by editing their communications with industry does not sound like a major contribution. However, helping inventors to put their best foot forward will increase the chances of avoiding the wastebasket. Serious new product submittals are far more likely to get serious attention. We don't have any solid data on this topic, but our experiences and discussions with people in the business community suggess chances of getting a serious review increase perhaps four-fold, and maybe more, with a well-done presentation and transmittal letter. For example, an Arizona inventor with a 50 year old invention had run out of hope when he contacted WIN. We liked his invention and referred him to an Arizona Resource Partner who helped him prepare a brief presentation and letter of submission to a major corporation. The company licensed the idea and it is now in world-wide distribution. The point here is the invention wouldn't have gotten to first base without a solid, professional-appearing presentation.
I'm not suggesting it is possible to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse. However, it is possible to reduce the chances a silk purse will be viewed as a sow's ear. In fact, that is precisely what happened to the WIN client mentioned above when he got help in presenting his 50-year old invention to a major health products firm. Their combined effort got through the corporate screening person to the president of the firm who thought enough of what they had to say he asked the head of R&D to evaluate the device. Our Resource Partner devoted a couple of hours to the inventor and made a major difference. So can you. If you are smart enough to invent something, you are smart enough to present it right. Take the time and get help if you need it. If success is one of your objectives, learn how to play by the cultural rules of the great game of innovation. The rules are not all that difficult and learning them makes the game a lot more fun and rewarding. We'll be more specific about the rules for this game in a future issue of IR.
Gerald G. Udell, Ph.D.
Copyright © 2000 by The Innovation Institute.
Permission to copy for free distribution granted to SCORE/SBDC's