I’ve always had this weird thing with numbers.
My brain never just sees numbers… as numbers.
Instead, numbers always evoke very specific images in my mind.
Like for example, this newsletter is Issue #041.
The #41 evokes the 1996 Dave Matthews Band song by the same name, and my mind “sees” the cover of the album “Crash”.
And this happens with virtually every one… two… (and even some) three digit numbers.
Some are obvious sports-related connections based on jersey numbers:
Like #77 is always Ray Bourque of the Boston Bruins…
But others are more abstract:
Like #17 is sitting in the back seat of my parent’s car while driving to an indoor soccer game with my teammate, Scott – talking about turning 17 yrs old – a conversation I remember from more than 25 years ago.
Or #369 was the favorite number of the mom of a girl I went to high school with. I remember her mentioning that one day in class and thinking it was weird.
Random, yes. I get it.
Psychologists describe this as “Hyper-Associative Numeric Imagery” (or Autobiographical Number Association), sitting at the intersection of memory, symbolism, and synesthesia.
Letters for me, on the other hand – always come with colors…
A is red.
B is orange.
C is yellow.
X is purple.
Etc. Etc.
This is what psychologists describe as classic “Grapheme Color Synesthesia.
Both are linked to abstract thinking and creativity – and neither is really a problem…
But I didn’t realize that everybody’s brain didn’t work this way until fairly recently as an adult, when I casually mentioned how my brain sees numbers and letters to a few friends and got a “wait, what?!” reaction from the group…
* * *
Okay, so why do I mention all this?
(And more importantly, what does this have to do with YOU?)
Here’s why:
There’s a concept I’ve been teaching for years that goes like this:
“Your message should come from your market, not from your mind.”
And one of the reasons for this is that our brains all operate differently – in weird and wonderful ways.
YOUR brain – just like mine – has its own share of random ways it tries to interpret and make sense of the world.
But often what makes sense to YOU, doesn’t make sense to your market…
This is why – when it comes to writing that next email subject line or social media post or piece of advertising – pulling language from your mind to write that piece doesn’t pack the same punch as pulling language directly from your market…
In other words:
Taking the *exact* words expressed by actual customers – whether from 1:1 conversations or open-ended survey responses – and incorporating those words (without modifying or sanitizing them) directly into your messaging.
(This is one of the reasons why The ASK Method has been so effective for countless businesses over the last two decades…)
But AI is changing all that.
(Or is it?)
1 | The Impact AI is Having on The ASK Method.
Earlier this week, I was interviewed by Zsike Peter for her upcoming book, Thinkbait, on the role of AI and the evolving impact it may be having on our brains…
And in our interview, Zsike asked me the following question:
“Your ASK Method is all about listening – deeply – to your audience. With AI now generating audience personas and customer insight reports at scale, are we at risk of losing the human nuance that made ASK so effective in the first place?”
It was a great question.
And one that is important for us to consider today, and here’s why:
In [Issue #035] Why the Struggle is the Solution we explored how convenience is killing us – and creating a “dopamine gap” in our brains, leaving us feeling disconnected, disengaged, and disillusioned in our lives…
And when it comes to understanding your market – this is not a good thing.
Because in the field of market research – it’s connection that gets you to that deep level of insight into (and empathy for) your market…
And that connection comes with a certain degree of struggle.
From the “sitting with the work”…
From the “deep listening”…
From the “letting the words of your market simmer in your “mental crockpot” and slow-cook for days on end” – as they swirl around your unconscious mind.
Sure, you can fire up your favorite AI tool du jour, and pop into the microwave an instant noodle prompt like:
“Give me natural consumer language from my market that describes the primary challenges, struggles, and frustrations they are facing…”
And POW!
In a matter of seconds, you’ll get this language pre-chewed and spit up on a plate for you to slurp up without even having to fire a single brain cell…
“How amazing!” we think.
BUT…
When we abdicate this process to AI…
Something gets lost.
We lose the actual experience spent immersed in this language…
We lose something that only comes from the deep reflection that takes place over dozens of one-on-one conversations – and hours spent reviewing call transcripts and open-ended survey data…
In other words:
What we gain in convenience, we lose in meaning.
* * *
So to answer the earlier question:
Are we at risk of losing the human nuance that made ASK so effective in the first place?
I believe the answer is…. yes, perhaps.
But it doesn’t have to be this way…
2 | The Growing Dysfunctional Relationship Between Content Creation and Content Consumption.
Earlier this week, the indomitable Taki Moore and I were having a discussion with with members of my Mastermind over Zoom…
And we were talking about someone on LinkedIn who bragged about using AI to write an entire book in under 30 minutes.
“Who wants this?” the post’s CTA enthusiastically read…
Taki left a comment on the post asking, “But is it any good?”
The poster’s response?
He sheepishly admitted in a private message that he hadn’t even read his own 30-minute “instant book”, so he couldn’t comment…
(Yeah, I had the same eye-roll reaction.)
Which brings us to the question:
How can we expect our audiences to take the time to read something that we not only haven’t written…
But that which we haven’t even taken the time to read ourselves?
* * *
I think there is a dynamic at play here that’s important for us to consider, and that is…
The relationship between the time and effort required to create something, vs. the time and effort we expect our audience to invest to consume that thing.
For example:
If it takes you 30 seconds to create a piece of content – and you expect your audience to take 3 hours to consume that same piece of content…
Maybe (just maybe) there is something fundamentally misaligned with that relationship…
(And if you’re not getting the type of engagement you’re looking for with your audience right now, perhaps this is something worth pondering…)
* * *
Conversely, it might take you 10+ hours to painstakingly research, write, edit and publish a weekly email newsletter like The Digital Contrarian…
And it might only take your readers 10 minutes to scarf down your writing in a few quick bites.
(Which is roughly what the equation looks like for me each week…)
And on the surface, that might seem unfair, unreasonable, and unsustainable…
But I see it differently.
Because I know that over time, there might be thousands of people who invest 10 precious minutes of their time to read any one of the pieces that I write.
(This is one of the reasons why I’m such a proponent of LFCD – Long Form Content Discovery – as I wrote about at length in [Issue #031] Cultivating Influence vs. Chasing Attention.)
So on the balance, the 10 hours it takes me (roughly 600 minutes) to write an issue of this newsletter is relatively “cheap” when I think of 1,000 people (or 10,000 people) spending 10 minutes to read it – and the corresponding impact it can have.
Because when I do the math, this is the equivalent of 10,000 – 100,000 cumulative minutes spent consuming…
…In exchange for 600 minutes of my life spent creating.
(And that’s a pretty good exchange rate.)
And BTW – Even if you have a much smaller audience:
Just 100 people consuming what you write still represents 1,000 minutes of attention.
* * *
Which brings us back to the question about The ASK Method…
Because similar to creating and consuming content…
When it comes to conducting market research:
If we can’t be bothered to take time to understand the language of our customer’s problems, how can we expect them to buy our products?
3 | What Gets Lost When We Rely on AI.
When we rely on AI, we risk not only homogenizing our content but also eroding our critical thinking…
In other words:
You not only miss the visceral impact of directly engaging with customer language…
But you also risk what I’m increasingly describing as “the photocopy effect” where we are losing connection with the original source of truth.
In terms of critical thinking …
I think about how this is impacting our kids.
Like for example:
Right now as a family we’re listening to the Telepathy Tapes – a podcast mini-series exploring the relationship between autism, non-verbal communication, and seemingly telepathic capabilities among certain non-verbal children on the autism spectrum.
It is fascinating stuff – and a series that simultaneously raises a mix of skepticism, curiosity, speculation, and wonder.
And as we listen to this series together as a family, I am challenging my kids by asking them the question:
“What do you believe and why?”
In other words:
“What of this do you believe to be true? What do you believe to be not true? And what evidence leads you to believe that?”
And I’ll leave you today with a similar question:
If you are relying on AI to spoon-feed you the microwaved instant noodle version of consumer language in your market…
“How do you know that it’s true?”
* * *
So…
Is ASK still relevant in an AI world?
I don’t know…
You tell me.
* * *
Okay, I’ll leave you with that for today…
Tylene and I are at a wedding this weekend in DC.
(Hence the opening photo of the cherry blossom behind me…)
And I need to wrap this up because we have a rehearsal dinner to get to – and I still need to shower and change into my suit…
So…
Have a great rest of your weekend…
Hug the ones you love.
And remember:
Be Curious. Ask Questions. Seek Truth.
Until next week,
Ryan :-)
