Fugglers are gaining massive global popularity. They were invented 15 years ago, but just this year sales grew
247%, and they are now distributed in 50 countries. And they rack up hundreds of millions of social media impressions.
But how? After all, by
their own admission, they are UGLY.
Fugglers are a very visual example of the principle of Planned
Imperfection.
Perfection is often boring. Imperfection conversely, is often fascinating. Hence why we slow down to ogle a car crash, but zip
on by when nothing is amiss.
You can use this principle to your advantage.
My friend Charlie Plumb, the legendary fighter pilot, Vietnam POW and motivational speaker, once told me how he uses this technique in every presentation.
Because Charlie tells his own story in his talks, he certainly knows the material perfectly after having delivered it many hundreds of times.
Thus, in each presentation he intentionally inserts a mistake (wrong word, story sequence, or other misstep. Nothing major, just enough for him to have to quickly "apologize" to the crowd).
This makes him all the more relatable, and gives the audience the impression that the presentation isn't a rote recitation.
Even though my presentations are very customized to each event, I also use Planned Imperfection in nearly every program. I learned it from
Charlie. If you've seen me onstage and think you can guess what it is, reply and let me know!
Sometimes in a presentation I'll talk about what
just might be my favorite consumer psychology factoid, and it ties back perfectly to Planned Imperfection:
Customers who have a problem that you solve are more loyal, and spend more money, than customers who never had a problem at all.
Isn't that amazing?
Your ability to "fix it" is far more powerful and persuasive than your ability to just do it right
all the time.
As an amateur Machiavellian, this makes me wonder "What can I get "wrong" knowing I can solve it, and therefore trigger this
powerful psychology?"
Perhaps that's something for you to consider in your own business?
Certainly, it's a bit of a high wire act, no? You don't want to lean TOO far into Planned Imperfection, lest the "mistake" be grave enough that your "fix" isn't
satisfactory.
And of course, if you're going to make an intentional mistake - or create a global line of monstrous stuffed toys - you better know how
you're going to make it work BEFORE you start down the path of purposeful missteps.
Let me know what you think of this approach, will
you?
