Bread, Beer & BFOS

In the world of product development, the products that really seem to resonate well are those about which people initially say “Why didn’t I think of that?” and which, over time, become products that just seem right, they, in effect, blend into the environment because they are so common. Some of them become clichés, like “sliced bread” and “canned beer.” But early on sliced bread—which goes back to 1928 (actually, it was the invention of the sliced bread machine that was required, for commercial volumes of sliced bread; after all, even cavemen had knives, and had they bread . . .)—was a shocking change.

According to the Brewery Collectibles Club of America (bcca.com): “The ‘official’ birthday of the beer can is January 24, 1935. That’s the day cans of Krueger’s Finest Beer and Krueger’s Cream Ale first went on sale in Richmond, VA.” Imagine what a shock that must have been for those persons who realized that in order to drink the liquid they had to somehow pierce the top.

Arguably, canned beer and sliced bread are examples of a BFO—Blinding Flash of the Obvious. A BFO is the sort of thing that could cause the proverbial forehead slap as someone looks at the creation. But what’s interesting to consider is how the management at the Chillicothe Baking Company in Missouri thought about the new-fangled slicing machine or how the executives of Gottfried Krueger Brewing of Newark, NJ, felt in November of 1933, shortly after the end of Prohibition, when they ran the test of canned beer. Wouldn’t the brewery execs have figured that they could probably sell their brew in any sort of containers (remember people were making gin in bathtubs) without having to make what was undoubtedly a considerable investment in the beer-canning line and associated infrastructure? It is hard to imagine that they couldn’t have had several years of skyrocketing sales as a thirsty public bought their beer. They could have padded their profit margins very nicely. And as for the Chillicothe executives: realize that the Great Depression started in 1929, and sliced bread no doubt came at a premium price. Wouldn’t it have been appropriate for them to simply stop slicing and sell more at a lower price?

This brings us to another type of BFO, one that is all-too prevalent in all-too-many organizations of all shapes and sizes: Building Fancy Obstacles. There are several other words that can be inserted to create that acronym, but those terms are not particularly family-friendly. This BFO is the organizational default used by those who really don’t want any creative developments coming out of their operations. Oh, the executives at these companies will swear up and down that they are the most innovative and creative people this side of Steve Jobs, but when it comes to something that would be—perish the thought—risky, they come out with reasons, chapter and verse, as to why this is something that they “just don’t do.” Of course, they aren’t too obvious about it (or so they think) and so they create the elaborate obstacles, often in the form of endless market research, which sucks up time, energy, and cash, all as a means of torpedoing programs.

To be sure, it is absolutely essential for product developers to have first-hand insights into what customers think and about the sorts of things that they desire. But can you imagine that if someone asked about sliced bread in 1927 or canned beer in 1932 (OK: this one would have gotten a nod, as would have probably been the case for any container ranging from a coconut to a glass slipper) there would have been results that would have green-lighted the projects? Organizations engendering the right BFOs win. The others, at best, go along for the ride . . . or are left at the side of the road.