Rory Sutherland: the opposite of a good idea
This is a named pattern with documented cases and a sound logic behind it, not an effect anyone has measured. Treat it as a lens that keeps proving useful rather than as a law.
Rory Sutherland, a vice chairman at a major advertising agency, has spent decades arguing against a particular kind of corporate thinking: the over-reliance on what can be measured. His case is that businesses trust the spreadsheet too much, because the spreadsheet can only contain the things that are easy to quantify, and the things that actually win markets, how something makes people feel, what it signals, why it is oddly appealing, frequently cannot be quantified at all. His favourite example is Red Bull. By his account, when it was tested, it failed nearly every rational measure: people disliked the taste, the can was small, the price was high. Every sensible analysis said it should fail. It went on to create an entire category and become one of the most successful drinks in the world. This is an argument built on a striking example, not a controlled study, and the specific Red Bull taste-test details are largely his telling, so hold it as a persuasive case rather than proof.
The things that can be measured are not always the things that matter, and a decision made purely on the measurable can confidently reject something that would have worked. Sutherland's point is that strict rational analysis has a blind spot exactly where human psychology, feeling, and signaling live, which is often where success actually comes from. Keep the evidence, and stay suspicious of any decision that dismisses something solely because the numbers do not support it, since the numbers only contain what could be counted. Sometimes the option that fails every rational test is the one that works, precisely because it is doing something the spreadsheet cannot see.
Sutherland says the spreadsheet only holds what can be counted, and what wins markets often cannot, so a decision made purely on the numbers will confidently reject the thing that would have worked. Moneyball says the scouts' feel for who looked right was measuring nothing, and the numbers beat it badly. What separates them is what the uncounted thing is actually doing. The good face felt like evidence and produced no results, which is the case for the numbers. Red Bull failed every rational test and produced a category, which is the case against them. The question is whether the thing the spreadsheet cannot see is showing up in outcomes, or only in how confident people feel.
Sutherland says the spreadsheet only holds what can be counted, so an offer that fails every rational test can win the market anyway, and Red Bull did. Hoover's free flights failed every rational test too, a risk consultant said so out loud, and the offer worked exactly as designed: it sold a recession's worth of vacuum cleaners. What separates them is not whether the numbers approved the idea. It is whether the company could survive the numbers being wrong. Red Bull's downside was a failed launch. Hoover's was every customer collecting six hundred pounds of flights on a hundred pounds of purchase. The uncounted upside is worth chasing only when the counted worst case is one you can pay for.
Source: Rory Sutherland, Alchemy, 2019. An argument illustrated by cases; the Red Bull specifics are largely his account.
Rory Sutherland, 2019
The full argument for why the things that move people so often make no logical sense, and why that matters.
Draw your own card. It does not take long, and it rewards taking your time.