What can you afford to do?

an etymological approach to decision-making

I’ve reached the end of the year with minimum energy and attention span. So the question of what makes the cut and what doesn’t became relevant as ever. If it’s also your case I hope you can afford to read this. Let’s begin with definitions to make sure we’re talking about the same thing.

What’s the meaning of 'afford'?

According to Oxford, there are at least three definitions (and we’ll talk about all of them).

1. to have enough money to pay for something. Which stretches to having resources to spare, such as time. "he could afford to take the day off"
2. The natural consequence of that definition is that it stretches all the way to “to be able to do something without risk of adverse consequences”. (A possible reflection in language of how we tie money to problem solving)
3. To provide or supply (an opportunity or facility). This is the definition that is most related to our work (branding, consulting, etc).

The link between definitions can be helpful in making better decisions, be they related to hiring people, providing services or consulting.

AFFORDANCE: THE INTRICATE POSSIBILITIES OF DAY-TO-DAY OBJECTS

In cognitive psychology, the ability of an object to invite us to action upon it is called affordance. Some of these affordances are planned (and the founding principle in UX is basically this), and some are accidental (because we can’t anticipate all affordances, we conduct user testing, which helps us see what escaped our perception).

The typical “accidental” examples are, for example, how cliffs provide or supply (following Oxford definitions) us with the possibility of falling, so we stay back. Or how public transport window panes are perfect for our coffee to rest on. Human made or not, things have accidental uses we can’t always predict. And they are all at a pretty instinctive or intuitive level.

Other behaviors are learned and taught, they’re called “planned” affordances. We know buttons on a website are meant to be pressed. Many take the form of things from the physical world to strengthen this affordance and take them from learnt to intuitive and keep on building from there.

So if we ask “what can this object afford to do?” we’re talking about accidental and intentional levels. But then comes a second question, can we afford to do that?

CAN WE AFFORD THESE POSSIBILITIES? SHOULD WE DO A REBRANDING?

This question usually means "can we get away with it with no adverse consequences?" If we change the website to a radically new kind of design, will it work? Can we afford to lose traffic if people don’t understand it because it has less predictable affordance?

If the brand reputation is flaky, or a lot of time has gone by and the current brand image doesn’t provide the response it used to, should we do a rebranding? Or will it make us lose the little we have left?

If we launch a new product to market, with a sleek new package and a communications strategy no one has tried before, can we afford the cost of it not working? Where is the M.A.Y.A (Most Advanced Yet Acceptable) principle line drawn? Can we afford both the intentional and potential accidental possibilities?

CAN YOU LITERALLY AFFORD IT? OR WHY “LET’S DO MORE ADS ” IS NOT GREAT

People want their brand to grow and become more profitable. The answer to how one can do that often takes the shape of social media. “Let’s invest on ads, linkedin strategies, PR and so on to make a strong impression”, but…

Can you afford to do that? All connotations involved.

It’s a question we often ask our clients —and ourselves— to make sure that’s the right path.

We go over the main objectives to see if this strategy has to do with inertia or with an actual need to invest in comms. Victoria Marcó is very clear about this. Chances are, you don’t need a specialist on this at the initial stages of a company, and you probably can't afford to spend money on this either. If you do, it’s probably because you have resources to spare, so it becomes more of a desire than a need.

So, for small companies, “can you literally afford it?” is the first question. But if you do have resources to spare, then the question becomes “do you actually need it and shouldn’t you be doing something else?”

So, the affordance tree to decision making is:

• Does or can the object, design, product, naturally afford this?
• Do you have the support or the backing to do this without, or in spite of, adverse consequences?
• Can you literally afford it? Is it worth more than other priorities?
• If the answer to all of the above is yes, should you be doing this? Can you afford to have your attention here or should you be looking elsewhere?