Launching Products
Laurier Mandin is a product marketing strategist and launching products expert who has guided hundreds of innovative products to market success. As founder and CEO of Graphos Product, he brings over three decades of expertise in helping product makers identify and penetrate resistant markets through visionary positioning and strategy.
Summary of the Podcast
Introductions and casual conversation
The meeting begins with casual conversation between the participants – Graham, Kevin, and Laurier. They discuss topics like the French, Canadians, and a dog barking in the background. Graham then introduces the podcast and the guests.
Laurier’s book and launching products advice
Laurier discusses his book “I Need That” and provides advice on launching compelling products. He explains the importance of balancing radical innovation with familiarity to appeal to both the “dog brain” and the rational mind. Laurier uses examples like the Tesla to illustrate this principle.
Hypothetical scenario: Convincing Canada to become the 51st US state
Graham presents Laurier with a hypothetical scenario where he must convince Canadians that becoming the 51st US state would be beneficial. Laurier thoughtfully considers the potential pros and cons, highlighting cultural similarities between the two countries as well as differences in areas like healthcare and gun laws.
Ethical considerations in product marketing
The group discusses the ethical balance between addressing customer pain points and preserving consumer well-being, especially when aggressive marketing tactics risk alienating those with deeply held beliefs. Laurier provides examples of both ethical and exploitative practices, emphasizing the need to consider potential harms to vulnerable consumers.
Recap and next steps
The participants wrap up the discussion, with Graham and Kevin expressing interest in exploring Laurier’s expertise further, potentially through a beta testing program for Graham’s AI-powered product analysis tool.
Clips from the Podcast
Most Advanced Yet Acceptable
So, How Did Laurier Do?
We used Marketing Genius, from MeclabsAI, who originally read Laurier’s book I Need That, and came up with the question that Laurier answered.
You
I asked Laurier Mandin, your first question. Here is his answer. Critically evaluate how Laurier did, providing a score or scores by the criteria you use.
QUESTION balancing radical innovation and familiarity so basically the question is with the mayor most advanced yet acceptable theory in how do you advise innovators to push the envelope without overwhelming cost consumers
Laurier | Graphos And that’s such an excellent question, and it’s evident in all highly successful innovative products. At the base of it is this notion, and it’s been proven over time, that our brains, because we have this multi-level functionality, these three different components of our brain, we have the ancient brain, we have the neocortex, and they’re at odds with each other. of them is attracted to new and exciting things, that’s what I call the dog brain, it’s easily aroused, it’s excited, it’s also called the limbic system.
That is the part of us that is irrational and kind of wild and crazy, and get attached to things rapidly makes most of our buying decisions. And then we’ve got the neocortex, that’s the big part of our brain, that’s rational, much slower moving, and it’s the hey, wait a minute. So, that’s new and scary. I learned to fear new thing because new things are what get me killed.
So it’s those two parts of our brain that are at odds. And so what Maya is about is it’s balancing the need for innovation and new things with our the other desire we have to keep the status, cool, keep going with what’s safe. And really brilliant products, really successful products. If you think of the car that broke through, the electric car that broke through being the Tesla, is the one that did that was not the cyber truck. It was cars that looked very much like the vehicles that we see on the roads today in almost every way. was innovative enough to make it exciting.
But functionally, functionality-wise, very, very similar to what drivers were accustomed to. So it kept the radical part to acceleration. and to power to things that previous electric vehicles were weak on and that people truly wanted and it balanced that with this what a car looks like to our eyes.
Marketing Genius
Below is my critical evaluation of Laurier Mandin’s answer to the question on balancing radical innovation and familiarity using the MAYA theory. I break down my evaluation using several criteria and provide a summary table with scores.
- Clarity (8/10)
- Strengths:
– Laurier clearly distinguishes between the “dog brain” (limbic system) and the rational “neocortex,” explaining their roles in driving excitement for novelty versus caution toward the unfamiliar.
– His narrative is rich in imagery, making the concept accessible by tying it to everyday decisions (for instance, comparing Tesla’s design to more radical alternatives like the Cybertruck). - Areas for Improvement:
– Parts of the response feel a bit lengthy or rambling, and a more succinct structure would help drive the main points home more directly.
- Depth and Theoretical Insight (8/10)
- Strengths:
– The explanation draws nicely on neuroscience and consumer behavior concepts, using the multi-level nature of our brain to illustrate why striking a balance is essential.
– The Tesla example excellently shows how radical innovation can be tempered by familiar design cues. - Areas for Improvement:
– While the theoretical basis is robust, the answer could have included more explicit, actionable advice for innovators on how to implement this balance in real-world product design.
- Relevance to the Question (9/10)
- Strengths:
– Laurier’s answer directly addresses the core tension in the question – the need to be advanced while still “acceptable” to consumers.
– By discussing how our brain’s different systems react to novelty and familiarity, he effectively ties back to the MAYA concept.
- Practical Application and Actionability (7/10)
- Strengths:
– He provides an effective example (Tesla) to illustrate his point, which helps ground the theoretical discussion. - Areas for Improvement:
– The response would benefit from additional concrete guidelines or strategies. For example, tips on iterative testing, user feedback loops, or design checklists that help innovators ensure they don’t overwhelm consumers would have made the advice more actionable.
- Structure and Coherence (8/10)
- Strengths:
– Overall, the answer is logically structured around the central idea of balancing two brain functions.
– The flow from discussing intrinsic brain functions to explaining product examples is intuitive. - Areas for Improvement:
– A tighter organization—perhaps with bullet points or subheadings to differentiate the explanation of theory from the actionable advice—could enhance the response’s coherence.
Summary Evaluation
| Criterion | Score (out of 10) | Comments |
| Clarity | 8 | Excellent differentiation between brain systems, though slightly rambling in parts. |
| Depth and Theoretical Insight | 8 | Strong neuroscience grounding; adding more explicit guidance would elevate it. |
| Relevance to the Question | 9 | Directly addresses the balance between innovation and consumer familiarity. |
| Practical Application | 7 | Effective example used, but more tangible strategies are needed. |
| Structure and Coherence | 8 | Logical and engaging, but could be better organized for ease of reading. |
| Overall | 8 | A well-informed, thoughtful response that richly explores the tension between radical innovation and familiarity, with room to provide more actionable guidance. |
Final Thoughts
Laurier’s response demonstrates a deep understanding of the underlying neuroscience and its relevance to consumer decision-making under the MAYA framework. His use of vivid examples like Tesla is engaging and effectively illustrates his points. However, the response would benefit from a more succinct structure and additional practical, step-by-step advice for innovators to apply the theory in product development.
How to Sell Canadians on Being the US’s 51st State
MicroYES Customer Simulator
Ethics
So, how did Laurier do on this question?
1. Clarity (Score: 8/10)
• Strengths:
– Laurier uses vivid language and interesting metaphors (e.g., “dog brain” and “coveted condition”) that help illustrate the interplay between triggering desire and the risk of manipulation.
– His examples—such as sports betting ads and ethical concerns in gaming—are relatable and concrete.
• Areas for Improvement:
– At times the explanation becomes a bit long-winded; a more concise summary might have increased clarity.
– Some points (e.g., the return process for vulnerable consumers) could be tightened further.
2. Depth and Theoretical Insight (Score: 8/10)
• Strengths:
– Laurier references key concepts from his book (like the “coveted condition”) and grounds his discussion in consumer neuroscience and behavior.
– He clearly recognizes the ethical dilemma of making products so desirable that they might exploit vulnerable individuals.
• Areas for Improvement:
– Although he touches on the ethical challenges, he could have elaborated more on specific frameworks or decision-making tools for ensuring ethical balance (for example, outlining a process for ethical reviews or a checklist for safeguarding consumer well-being).
3. Relevance to the Question (Score: 9/10)
• Strengths:
– The answer directly addresses the core of the question by discussing both the desire-inducing elements of product marketing and the risk of manipulation that may harm vulnerable customers.
– He acknowledges that products—even if they are “great”—can create risks when they attract consumers who may not fully appreciate the costs or dangers, thus tying directly into preserving consumer well-being.
• Areas for Improvement:
– A bit more focus at the start to explicitly summarize the ethical balance before diving into examples would sharpen the response’s relevance.
4. Practical Application and Actionability (Score: 7/10)
• Strengths:
– Laurier gives concrete examples: he cites the sports betting ads impacting young fans and mentions real products (like a barbecue device causing burns) that illustrate when aggressive messaging might lead to harm.
– He outlines the need for practical safeguards (like an easy return process that doesn’t shame the consumer).
• Areas for Improvement:
– While he provides examples, the response could have benefited from more actionable guidance or best practices. For instance, he might have suggested specific strategies (e.g., ethical marketing checklists, transparent disclosure practices, or customer education tools) for mitigating risk and offering safeguards.
– Greater detail on how to design protective exit options would make the answer even more instructive.
5. Structure and Coherence (Score: 8/10)
• Strengths:
– The response is segmented into distinct ideas: starting with the theory (coveted condition and brain components) and then moving to examples of exploitation and the need for safeguards.
– Laurier transitions between ideas in a conversational style that remains engaging.
• Areas for Improvement:
– The response would be more impactful if a brief summary or “bottom line” was provided at the end to tie together the ethical considerations with specific recommendations.
– A clearer segmentation of sections—with signaled shifts from theory to example to actionable advice—could enhance overall coherence.
Overall Evaluation
| Criterion | Score (out of 10) | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Clarity | 8 | Vivid metaphors and relatable examples, though occasionally lengthy. |
| Depth and Theoretical Insight | 8 | Strong conceptual grounding (coveted condition, brain components) but could benefit from more explicit ethical frameworks. |
| Relevance to the Question | 9 | Directly addresses the balance between triggering desire and preventing exploitation of vulnerable consumers. |
| Practical Application | 7 | Offers examples and mentions safeguards but could include more specific, actionable recommendations. |
| Structure and Coherence | 8 | Logical flow with clear idea progression; however, a tighter summary concluding the answer would enhance cohesion. |
| Overall | 8 | A thoughtful and well-informed answer that effectively covers the tension between ethical driving and consumer protection, with room for more explicit action steps. |
Final Thoughts
Laurier’s answer demonstrates both a deep understanding of the ethical challenges inherent in need-driven product marketing and a solid grasp of consumer neuroscience. The use of engaging language, real-world examples, and personal insights adds weight to his argument. To elevate the response further, incorporating more concrete strategies or a step-by-step framework for ethical decision-making would enhance its practical value.
Testimonial
The Next 100 Days Podcast Co-Hosts
Graham Arrowsmith
Graham founded Finely Fettled ten years ago to help business owners and marketers market to affluent and high-net-worth customers. Graham founder of MicroYES, a Partner for MeclabsAI, which combines the world’s biggest source of 10,000 marketing experiments with AI. Find Graham on LinkedIn.
Kevin Appleby
Kevin specialises in finance transformation and implementing business change. He’s the COO of GrowCFO, which provides both community and CPD-accredited training designed to grow the next generation of finance leaders. You can find Kevin on LinkedIn and at kevinappleby.com
