The Fool’s Errand
I was pointed to an Adweek article that talks about the difficulty — nay, foolhardiness — of creating the next Subservient Chicken.
“Trying to create the next Subservient Chicken is a fool’s errand. It’s impossible. The novelty that made Subservient Chicken possible is gone forever. Today’s challenge is much more daunting. Try to create the next Battleship Potemkin.”
I remember where I was when first exposed to the enigma that was SC. My friend and account executive Francis X. burst into my office exclaiming something along the lines of “holy crap, have you seen this chicken on the Internet that does anything you tell it to? How does it work? Can you make something like that?”
The last sentence is the clincher. Already the copycat gears were turning, and I know for a fact that it was not happening only in our office. I think my replies to the questions were “no”, some overly technical explanation to make it sound harder than it really was, and “none of our clients have enough money let alone me having enough time. Besides, why would you want to copy an idea that people would automatically know where it came from?”
In a heartbeat the novelty that made Subservient Chicken — in its purest form — was gone forever. Plus, there’s my position that closely inspired derivative works can never be as strong as the original. The only way to make it be the next big thing is to deviate. Seth Godin tends to agree:
“When you make something that works a little better, you’re playing the same game, just keeping up with the status quo. When you make something different, on the other hand, you’re trying to change the game.”
It’s a fool’s errand to try to ride the coattails of a trend or meme for two reasons:
- Your work will not be as good.
- As such, your work won’t receive anywhere near the recognition, accolades, traffic, money, or whatever it is that you are looking for.
The only way to match the results of your inspiration is to one-up it and surpass it.