Flogging a dead horse is a commonly used idiom here in the UK. If someone is trying to convince someone else to do or feel something without any hope of succeeding, we say they're flogging a dead horse. This is used when someone is trying to raise interest in an issue that no-one supports anymore; beating a dead horse will not make it do any more work. 1. Similarly, the tribal wisdom of the Dakota Indians, passed on from generation to generation, says that, "When you discover that you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount." Rather than seeing a situation for what it is far too many individuals, businesses, public service and government organisations prefer to live in denial rather than accept the wisdom of the Dakota Indians. Instead, it seems people just love to develop alternative strategies for flogging dead horses. Taken from various articles and blogs currently on the Internet here are just a few suggestions:
• The horse isn't really dead, we just need a better whip
• It's not the horse it's the rider that's at fault
• If you don't get up you're sacked, Silver!
• Commission a study of how other companies ride their dead horses
• Lower the horse's productivity standards
• Reclassify the dead horse as ‘life challenged'
• Hire a top management consultancy to tell you that the horse is dead without telling you where to buy a new one or how much it might cost
• Improve pay, conditions and training to increase your dead horse's performance
• Produce a report that highlights the fact that dead horses incur fewer costs
• Rewrite the expected performance requirements for all life challenged equines
• Promote the dead horse to boardroom level or put it out to pasture while paying it a huge golden hoof-shake – sorry, that's just horse manure.
Strangely enough, those people who believe that the past is an accurate barometer of future events are the very same people who possess an alarming tendency towards flogging dead horses. If it worked yesterday and it works today then it'll surely work tomorrow. It's this sort of linear thinking that gets horses killed in the first place. These equine assassins tend to view the future as a predetermined event, waiting just over the horizon to happen. Of course, the truth is very different.
For one thing, while most people would accept that we share a common reality, such as general social norms of behaviour, essentially we all see the world slightly differently. My view of the world is coloured, filtered and distorted by my own personal experiences to a greater or lesser extent. For example, while a furniture manufacturer regards trees as a raw material and resource, the environmentalist treasures them as the “lungs of the planet” to be protected at all costs. Each sees a valid aspect of a much bigger, more complex system at work in the world.
And so it's easy to see how problems and misunderstandings can occur when one vision of the world clashes with another. This is bad enough when just confined to the realm of our personal relationships, but can be absolutely disastrous in terms of business, religion and politics. Taking the narrow or institutional view of the world rather than learning to appreciate the bigger picture always limits the options available, and blinds people to both hazards and solutions.
Not convinced? Still think it's better to flog a dead horse than dismount? Okay, how about this for a bit of disastrous institutional thinking: 2. In September 1944, at the battle to capture the Arnhem bridge over the river Rhine (the last phase of operation Market-Garden), the British First Airborne Division landed with the wrong radio crystals. This technical oversight meant the Paras at Arnhem couldn't communicate with the outside world, or their relief column, XXX Corp, just a few miles away at Nijmegen. As anyone who has seen the movie “A Bridge Too Far” will know the Paras were isolated, heavily engaged in bitter fighting against superior numbers, had limited resources, and were surprised to find that many of them had been dropped in the wrong place to start with.
Lack of communication between the scattered elements of the First Airborne and XXX Corp proved critical in the battle's decision. However, while the battle raged, members of the Dutch resistance in Arnhem routinely talked with their counterparts in Nijmegen. The civil telephone system remained intact. The Germans didn't think to cut the telephone lines while the British paratroopers never thought to simply knock on someone's door, ask if the telephones were working and make a call to Nijmegen.
To the rigid corporate mind of the British and German armies the battlefield had been defined outside the civilian infrastructure. The Dutch underground assumed the paratroopers were talking to each other and Nijmegan by radio, and so didn't think to mention the telephone system was operational. At Nijmegan, Dutch intelligence about the unfolding disaster at Arnhem was largely ignored or discredited as unreliable, as no-one at XXX Corp realised the Dutch possessed an open channel of communication. Instead of ending the war by Christmas of 1944, the Allies suffered a humiliating defeat and the war went on until the following May – and all for the want of a horse-shoe nail.
The ability to deny what is glaringly obvious, and do nothing, or support a position against all evidence to the contrary is a common human failing. However, thankfully, learning organisations are springing up everywhere; challenging the status quo; adapting to rather than denying or avoiding critical situations and issues. 3. A learning organisation is one that learns and encourages learning among its people. It promotes a continual exchange of information between employees hence creating a more knowledgeable workforce. This produces a very flexible organisation where people will accept and adapt to new ideas and changes through a shared vision. Perhaps, eventually, we'll all learn that when we discover we're riding a dead horse, the best strategy really is to dismount.
This painter had painted it specifically for her family. It was the story about how her father acquired his favorite horse. He was hiking somewhere and came across a dead mare tangled in barb wire with the colt standing next to the body. The poor colt didn't know what to do without his mom. So her father took the colt home and raised him.
The painter (who knew her father personally) was so moved by this story he went to his studio and painted it. He then gave the portrait to her father, who treasured it. However, the father had recently died, and the woman wanted to sell the painting.
In her mind, it was worth quite a bit. The painter was famous; many of his paintings went for quite a bit of money. And it was a one-of-a-kind. Buyers should be lined up around the block to snap it up. She thought she should be fighting them off with a riding crop.
But to her utter surprise and astonishment, no one was interested. More then that, they didn't want to buy it for ANY price, much less the price of what she thought it was worth. For the life of her, she couldn't figure out the problem.
She actually had the painting with her when she told this story, and unwrapped it to show everyone. So I got to see this painting, which I've never been able to get out of mind. This picture of a dead horse, wrapped in barbwire, with the poor colt standing close by, head bowed in mourning. The landscape is beautiful but bleak and desolate around him.
Needless to say, I took one look at this painting and knew EXACTLY why she was having trouble selling it. First off, it was disturbing. The horse is clearly dead, the barbwire wrapped around her was bloody. And the colt looks so alone and helpless in the landscape. (It reminded me a bit of the scene in Dumbo where Dumbo was saying goodbye to his mother, who is wrapped in chains. Another dreadful scene.)
Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with disturbing, plenty of people buy disturbing art. But not her target market. Her target market is people who buy Western art. Western art is realistic art. While many times there is a sense of loneliness and desolation, I wouldn't classify much of it as actually disturbing.
On top of that, many people who buy Western art love horses. People who love horses probably wouldn't want a painting of a dead horse hanging in their living room. (Call me crazy, I know.)
So, while she probably does have something valuable on her hands (a one-of-a-kind painted by a famous artist) it's not what the target market buys. And that, my friends, is the point I'm trying to make.
It doesn't matter how good your product is or how much you believe your target market NEEDS what you're selling. If it's not a good fit, it isn't going to matter because they won't buy.
So the first thing you need to look at is this:
Is what you're selling (whether it's a product or service) something your target market WANTS to buy? Not needs to buy but wants to buy. No one buys what they need, people buy what they want. Many times they'll justify it as "need" (i.e. I need a dress for the wedding, I need to eat organic food because it's better for my health) but those are still wants, not needs. You WANT to show up at the wedding in a nice dress, but no one is going to shoot you if you show up in jeans. (Dirty looks maybe but no executions.) You WANT to take good care of yourself so you buy organic, but you can live a long time on cheap, non organic food. (Maybe you'll have other health problems, but you'll still be alive.)
If what you're selling is not what your target market wants to buy, then you need to either find a different target market or sell something different.
And if what you're selling IS what your target market wants to buy, but they're not buying it, then you need to look at how you're explaining it so people realize they do want to buy it.
Here's another quick example of making sure what you're selling matches up to what your target market is buying. You may have noticed Hollywood is coming out with an Incredible Hulk movie. But wait, you might be thinking, hasn't there already been an Incredible Hulk movie? Why yes, in 2003. But the movie didn't do very well. Why? Well, common thought is because people go see an Incredible Hulk movie because they want to see a big green guy running amok and wreaking all sorts of havoc. The one in 2003 didn't deliver -- it was a slower, angst-ridden Hulk we saw, not one gleefully stomping about ripping police cars in half.
Whether or not this Hulk movie does better in the box office is yet to be seen, and it's really besides the point. The point is, Marvel Comics believed that the first movie did not deliver what their target market wanted, and therefore the target market did not buy. So, they decided to repackage it and re-release it (to the tune of $150 million).
If Marvel Comics is willing to redo a movie and spend $150 million on it, how much are YOU willing to spend to repackage your services and products to better match to what your target market wants to buy?
Both Charlie The Copywriter & Michele Pw are contributors for EditorialToday. The above articles have been edited for relevancy and timeliness. All write-ups, reviews, tips and guides published by EditorialToday.com and its partners or affiliates are for informational purposes only. They should not be used for any legal or any other type of advice. We do not endorse any author, contributor, writer or article posted by our team.
Charlie The Copywriter has sinced written about articles on various topics from Marketing. Charlie Trumpess, Marketer and Marketing Copywriter email charlie@charlie-the-copywriter.co.uk website . Charlie The Copywriter's top article generates over 3600 views. to your Favourites.
Michele Pw has sinced written about articles on various topics from Flirting Tips, Marketing. . Michele Pw's top article generates over 3600 views. to your Favourites.
Beauty Liftfusion Face Lift Engaging their services will ensure that any complications or side effects from your surgery are reduced