Comparisons

One of the ways in which we help someone understand something they are not familiar with is to compare it to something that they are familiar with. This is a powerful technique for conveying a vast amount of information in a very short period.

A good comparison is one that is as accurate as possible while also being as familiar as possible.

For example, we can say, "An iPad is like a big iPhone," and provided someone knows what an iPhone is, then they would have a fairly good idea of what an iPad is. If they had never heard of an iPhone, then this comparison would be useless. Note that we did sacrifice a bit of accuracy, as iPads typically are not able to make phone calls, and we didn't explicitly say how big it was compared to an iPhone. Still, provided someone is familiar with the iPhone, the lack of accuracy is worth the tradeoff in helping someone quickly understand what an iPad is.

If we were to say, "A tilt-rotor aircraft is like a helicopter crossed with an airplane," we would sacrifice a lot of accuracy, but the accuracy we did sacrifice may not matter. Tilt-rotor aircraft have a rotor at the end of each wing instead of a helicopter's single centrally located rotor, and they don't have a tail rotor for stability. Still, if the goal was to give someone a quick idea of what a tilt-rotor aircraft was, we would be successful, and the inaccuracies would be easily resolved the first time someone saw a picture of a tilt-rotor aircraft.

Now, if we were to say, "Quantum mechanics is like Newtonian mechanics, but at a quantum scale," we have used a comparison that is most likely unfamiliar to our audience, as most people are not familiar with Newtonian mechanics or what specifically "quantum scale" refers to. Further, implying an equivalence between Quantum and Newtonian mechanics is entirely inaccurate, as Quantum mechanics is nothing like Newtonian mechanics, and outside of both being sub-disciplines of physics and sharing the word, "Mechanics," has nothing to do with one another.

This example demonstrates the issues created when a comparison drifts too far into the realm of unfamiliarity and inaccuracy.

Consider the following, "A subprime mortgage is like a regular mortgage, but carries a little more risk." First, this assumes that people actually understand what a "mortgage" is, including the fact that mortgages can be bundled together and traded between financial institutions. Second, "a little more risk," hides the fact that a subprime mortgage refers to loans made to people with poor credit scores, who would not have normally qualified to get a mortgage. An argument could be made that implying the equivalency of a regular mortgage and a subprime mortgage while relying on the fact that most people did not understand that mortgages could be bundled together and traded, was at the heart of the 2008 global financial crisis, as it was used to deceive millions of people into believing that the housing market was stable when it was instead a house of cards on the verge of collapse.

When using comparisons, therefore, we must be very careful to make sure that we are not so inaccurate that our implied equivalency is tantamount to dishonesty.

In the business world, we can make comparisons to explain practically anything including products, services, business models, companies, competitors, policies, processes, and technology.

For example, imagine your company is in the agricultural industry, and at a customer meeting you explain your company as follows: "Our company utilizes optimized supply chains to offer the lowest prices for industrial farming equipment, fertilizer, and seed." Alternatively, you could make a comparison and say, "Our company is like Walmart for farmers."

In explaining your company's product, you might say, "Our seeds are carefully selected from the best crop strains from around the world, and then genetically enhanced in a laboratory to be resistant to drought, disease, and infestation." Or, you might say, "Our seeds are like cockroaches that grow into food." While this might convey just how indestructible your seeds are, it is not a flattering comparison, and generally, you don't want to make a comparison that makes your product or service seem worse than it is.

Imagine your company is in the tech industry, and at a customer meeting you describe your company's services as, "Our company's platform facilitates the recruitment of independent drivers that act as delivery intermediaries between dairy product retailers and end-users." You could instead say, "We're Uber for ice cream."

Note that "Uber for ice cream" would be meaningless if our audience is unfamiliar with Uber, but as Uber is practically ubiquitous, it is a convenient point of comparison. In fact, any well-recognized company or brand offers ripe opportunities for comparison. If you were to describe your company as, "like Google for medical records," or, "like McDonald's for vegans," or "like Tesla, but instead of cars we make lawnmowers," you greatly increase the chances that people will understand what your company does, simply by relying on the fact that most people are familiar with Google, McDonald's, and Tesla.

While short simple comparisons can convey a lot of information to a general audience, if you have insight into what concepts your audience is already familiar with, comparisons can also be useful in explaining more complex concepts.

For example, if we were to explain the difference between value-based and speculative investing to people familiar with the stock market, we might say, "Value-based investing is like putting your money into a savings account, where speculative investing is like gambling."

If we were to explain the difference between Waterfall and Agile processes to a group of car enthusiasts, we might say, "Waterfall works like the automotive industry where you spend a lot of time and money to fully design every aspect of a new car, and then use a finalized specification to assemble a car that exactly meets those specifications. Agile is like Formula 1 racing, where between every race, a team of engineers uses what they learned from the previous race to make modifications to the racecar that incrementally improve its performance over time."

Whether your goal is to explain something simple to a general audience, or to explain something more complex to a more knowledgeable audience, always remember to balance familiarity with accuracy, as there is no point in drawing comparisons to things the audience is unfamiliar with, and pushing the boundaries of accuracy too far can be dishonest and even unethical.