Creative Imitation Only Gets You So Far
Recently I read a blog post about the concept of “Creative Imitation”.
Personally, I have mixed feelings regarding the way this is presented to small business owners. On the outside, it sounds like all you have to do is model leaders in your industry and you’ll succeed.
I agree with this… initially.
But I think there is a MAJOR consideration that is left out.
Here was my response to this article…
Creative Imitation works in the beginning and is definitely the fastest way for a beginner to get going.
However, I think if you only focus on “creatively imitating” someone, you’re always going to be limited.
It doesn’t allow for true innovation or progress and you end up being dependent on someone else to “lead the way”.
Do you always want to be a follower?
If not, then you need to learn how to innovate and generate ideas for your industry that have never been explored before.
The world is a fun place to live because millions of people are trying different things that have never been done before.
Can you imagine how boring the world would be if everyone “creatively imitated” everyone else?
Now I know it has been said that there isn’t any “money” in being creative, but I strongly disagree.
There are a TON of examples of when someone cashed in on their creativity but here are two that we’re all familiar with…
If the guys at Google “creatively imitated” Yahoo, we’d only have a slightly better Yahoo. Instead, they went in a totally different direction with how they structured their search engine, and they quickly became the market leader.
Apple is another great example. Their iPod designs and features are unique to them. They went outside the “norm” or what was working for other leading MP3 player manufacturers. As such, they immediately stood out from their competition, people took notice and the public ultimately voted with their wallets.
Now, when you think of “MP3 players”, most people would immediately think of the iPod. With that in mind, it’s easy to understand why Apple dominates the market in this product category.
My point is this…
Creatively imitating market leaders is a good thing in the beginning. It helps you grasp an understanding of what is working in that industry and it helps you get going.
However, for long-term success you need to get beyond creative imitation and start exploring your own unique ideas. Otherwise you’ll always be a follower and you’ll never lead your industry.
What are your thoughts?
Share them below in the comments.
***********************************
About The Author
***********************************
Stu McLaren is a sought after marketing consultant for small business owners. He specializes in helping entrepreneurs leverage the internet in their marketing activities and is well known for his expertise in building and managing highly profitable affiliate programs.
***********************************
Other Websites of Interest:
***********************************
IdeaSeminar.com
MarketingWebGraphics.com
GetStartedWithInternetMarketing.com
GetStartedWithInfoMarketing.com
BasicListBuilding.com
Stu,
Thanks for your thoughts, I had just read that posting yesterday, and actually had a limo consult with Alex in the afternoon. We talked some about the imitating thing, and while he greatly trumpets the “imitate rather than innovate
“, I think he would agree that next step would be to take your credibility from that point, and carve your own path.
So I guess I would add that the imitating stage allows you to build credibility where you might not have some, giving you a stronger voice as you bring in more innovative offerings in the future.
@Jim - I agree with you. “Creative Imitation” is good in the beginning stages but to be a market leader you need to get beyond imitating and start innovating.
However, that’s where I think things get dangerous because people aren’t taught the second “phase” and most end up running their business looking to just imitate others.
Hey Stu
Nice…going against the grain
But yeah I understand where the writer of the original blog post was going with it (sometimes writing everything you think can be bad too…) however he probably didn’t mean it so literally.
If you really think about it nothing is truly original anymore..we may think it is but most likely it was tried before and failed or it badly was in some need of excellent marketing, haha. Or course there are many instances of truly original things but to bring up your Ipod example..yeah, it is awesome..but it still is an Mp3 player no matter how you look at it!
Imitation is great and especially for most “normal” people because just doing anything is better than nothing and I believe that’s kinda where the original blog writer was going with it but I totally agree with your thinking as far as everyone should step outside just plain imitating or even creative imitation. Sadly though, most people won’t even get that far…
Thanks for the thought provoking post. I look forward to many more
Mark
@Mark - Thanks for your thoughts.
It’s true that the iPod is still just an MP3 player but there is no denying that the unique features, components and design is what makes it so successful - that’s where the innovation comes in.
Most MP3 manufacturers were creating their MP3 players to have a similar look with similar features. The iPod completely took that “normal” MP3 player and turned it completely around.
A couple of thoughts.
One, I agree with you, Stu, that imitation goes only so far. But there’s a fine line between being so innovative that you’re too far ahead of the market, and not innovative enough and having your market yawn because they’ve seen it before. Many businesses fail because they’re too far ahead of the curve. (I was a part of a project by a publishing company, 30 years ago, that ended up lasting only two years. Here’s what we did: interviewed authors, broke it up into 5, 5-minute daily segments airing on radio stations, offered a freebie to build a list. 30 years ago the technology was too expensive, and the enterprise folded. Now, it’s called podcasting and costs almost nothing to do. That program was innovative 30 years ago–and it failed.)
I read something recently (Seth Godin?) about how if you’re too innovative, you reach the “early adopters” but may miss the bulk of the market, who are not early adopters, who want something more familiar and comfortable.
Second thought: Is it more important to be PERCEIVED as innovative, than to actually BE all that innovative? In which case, “creative imitation” might be the appearance of innovation, and all that’s needed.
“Your Book Publishing Coach
@Diane - you are absolutely right that there will always be situations where a creative idea is too far ahead for the market.
But that doesn’t mean we should stop innovating!
Jimi Hendrix said this about his guitar playing skills:
- 80% influence from watching and hanging out with “greats”
- 20% original self taught art
We all get inspired by everyone and everything we see. But none of us are truly originals.
Jeff
@Jeff - of course we will always get inspired by others but don’t you think that’s a little extreme to say that none of us are truly originals?
Doesn’t that seem a little depressing?
Hey Stu -
Thanks for taking the time to contribute your comment to my guest post on Alex Mandossian’s blog. I think we have the beginnings of a really good discussion here, and I hope we can keep it going.
The curious thing is that you and I are on the same page about creativity. My post was not intended to frame “creative imitation” as an end-to-end solution to be used at all times.
My definition of creativity goes like this:
“Creativity is simply looking at something that has always been there and seeing something that has never been seen before.”
From that definition I pull these two additional definitions:
“Creative activation” - what most people would call invention, I look at as seeing something that has never been seen before and creating something new. A good example would be the work of Walt Disney.
“Creative imitation” - learning from someone else’s work and using it as a jumping off point for putting your own, sometimes better, twist on it.
Having said that, there was another point being made in that blog post.
I don’t know if you had the time to look at the link to Eric Gruber’s course or some of the other comments.
The intention of the two examples given were twofold:
1. To highlight how my “creative imitation” of Alex Mandossian helped me to launch my teleseminar business and all I have been able to create in the short time since then.
2. The second example was intended to highlight how someone has taken my work with http://www.ArticleWritingandMarketingSecrets.com and done something other than creative imitation. I’ll let others and the comments of others on this blog name what they think that something might be.
Again, Stu, thanks for taking the time to contribute your comment and for starting a discussion about this on your own blog.
I hope we can have a discussion that benefits us all.
And all the best to you too,
Jeff
@Jeff - Thanks for clarifying your definition of creativity - it’s true we definitely share a similar view.
The trouble I have is that when the concept of “creative imitation” is taught, there is very little (if any) spoken about the second phase (which you defined as “creative activation”).
The result of this means people only hear half the story and as such they begin to do things like flat out copy someone’s work thinking that they are “creatively imitating” (which is what you are experiencing with the course you mentioned in your post).
The bottom line is this…
I think the term “creative imitation” is easily misunderstood and as such it creates a variety of additional problems as mentioned above.
We’ve got to remind people that it’s “ok” to be creative. In fact, it’s one of the most important things moving us forward as a society.
Without fresh, new, innovative ideas, we’re all just standing still. That’s not what I want and I don’t think you do either.
Therefore, if you teach people about “creative imitation” it’s as equally important to also teach people how to tap into their own creativity.
Hi Stu
I appreciate your comments.
Your emphasis on what life would be like without creativity reminds me of a book my son read for school and I read this summer called the “The Giver.” Set in the future, everything in the world is at peace, but everyone is the same and there is no color, it’s all gray.
Sounds like a world without creativity, does it not?
Jeff
Stu Let me clarify….
lol!
Everyone is unique and completely original in how they are made and put together by God, that is for sure. There is not another you. Did not mean to make it seem like that was the angle I was promoting.
But when it comes to creativity and influence, I am saying that it’s very rare and extremely hard to be the person who comes up with the really original and truly unique idea.
That is why google is willing to pay out for 10 people to wow the world with their new contest. They know it’s out there and people do have it.
They certainly do exist and anyone can come up with a 100% unique idea, but I agree with Hendrix that we are a mishmash of many influences. And struggle to be completely unique and produce original ideas in creation.
Jeff
Hi! I wish to buy a levitra for impotence treatment. Somebody already used it? What was effect?