When Uncomplicated Things are Made Complicated
By Brad Thomason, CPA
June 8th, 2015
You know those new drink dispensers that they have at some fast food places, the ones with a touch screen and a set of menus that you have to click through in order to gain access to dozens of drink options? I despise them.
First off, the screens on a lot of them only seem to register about every third tap. Then there’s the fact that with all that custom mixing going on, even if you order a standard version of an old favorite, the taste is often a little bit off. And did I mention the time factor? With that many choices it turns getting a drink into the most complicated analysis that many people have to tackle throughout that whole day. Then there’s the matter of those who are less comfortable with technology in the first place, who stand there in a stupor trying to figure out what to do while you stand helplessly behind them wanting to get on with lunch.
Admittedly, I am not a candidate to ever fill my cup with tangerine/kumquat Dr Pepper infused with Thai peanut sauce. My taste in soft drinks is much more mundane. But even still, it is almost impossible for me to regard these machines as anything other than a solution desperately grasping for a problem; a gross violation of the if-it-ain’t-broke-don’t-fix-it doctrine; an insult against the sanctity and wholesomeness of nature; and a silly thing for anyone to ever consider in the first place.
What is wrong with putting your cup under the spout, pressing it against the lever, and removing the cup when you have what you want? I’m sure it’s a cheaper piece of equipment for the restaurant. It delivers more consistent product. It’s faster. At every level, other than whiz-bang factor, the old way is far superior to the new “solution.”
Alas, we do this in other arenas, too. Design is an important part of the world around us, but when designers take off in directions that are simply design for the sake of making something different, there is only so far that they can go before the utilitarian part of the mission is forgotten. This fact would seem to be the kind of thing designers should remember. But forget it, apparently, they do.
In a recent article on design there was criticism from professional designers about three products which they had problems with: the umbrella, the post-it note and modern razors. The central beef with the post-it notes and the razors was that while they did their jobs incredibly well, they weren’t all that attractive. The criticism about the umbrella did at least rise to the level of the substantive, pointing out the problems they can have when winds kick up, or an eyeball gets too close to the outer edge. But even there, it was pointed out that umbrellas in their current form had been around for over three millennia, a sure testament to their efficacy at their job.
To me this highlights the problem. Designers want to design. But design, ultimately, is only a function unto itself in a few rarefied places. Because consumers buy solutions to problems. If there’s a way to solve a problem that’s also stylish or elegant, then that’s a double win. But when it comes down to it, most people would prefer effective over snazzy. That’s why saltine crackers outsell artisanal crisps. It’s why Walmart dominates the world of retail, and not boutiques. Design costs money, and when design doesn’t improve utility (or in the case of that drink machine, actually lessens it) then the consuming public votes with their wallets.
There may be a major design overhaul for drill bits coming down the pipe, but one isn’t necessary. Because people who buy drill bits don’t really want drill bits in the first place: they want holes. Present-day drill bits yield holes. There’s just not much left to talk about. The tool is not the story; the need it fills, is.
We often see people making things more complicated than they have to be when it comes to investments, too. An investment is a tool. It’s something you acquire because you are trying to bring about something else, some result. Or at least it should be. Too often though people get so caught up in the what, that they completely forget about the why.
Is a given investment going to deliver what you need for that block of capital, and do it at a risk level that’s appropriate for the situation? It either is or it isn’t. It really is that simple. The answer to the question should guide what happens next.
Is your current portfolio doing what you need it to? If so, great. If not, change it. This is not complicated stuff. So why make it complicated?