Going on the Offensive with Creative Strategy

The piece argues that the dominant business premise-that rigorous analysis of past data can reliably predict future revenue-is a logical fallacy that leaves innovation defenseless. Creatives who try to defend ideas while accepting analytics' assumptions are set up to lose because the forecasts they are asked to produce are fundamentally unknowable.

Martin cites Aristotle and Peirce to show that no new idea has ever been proven true in advance analytically. Modern statisticians agree that a sample only represents the future when the future mirrors the past, a condition rarely met in fast-changing markets. This mismatch makes revenue forecasting a fantasy and forces companies to spend huge effort on a metric that offers little real guidance.

Because analytics demand proof of economic attractiveness before an idea can move forward, innovators are caught in a catch-22: they must prove something that cannot be proven. The result is stalled innovation, frustration, and wasted resources. The article lays out three concrete implications: revenue forecasts are essentially pacifiers, defending innovation within the current analytic framework is impossible, and the only viable defense is an offensive strategy.

The offensive tactic is to turn the tables on analysts with the "What Would Have to be True" (WWHTBT) question. By asking analysts to articulate the exact conditions under which their status-quo forecasts hold, creatives can reveal hidden leaps of logic and compare them directly to the WWHTBT for a new idea. This side-by-side logical fight forces both parties to expose assumptions and decide which gamble is worth taking.

For practitioners, the takeaway is clear: stop defending innovations with impossible forecasts and instead challenge the analytic baseline. Put the status-quo and the new idea on equal logical footing, let the WWHTBT and barriers to choice surface, and let the competition of ideas decide where to bet. This approach reframes the innovation conversation from a defensive proof game to an offensive, evidence-based debate.