Counterintuitive tests

Skill meikocho1/alchemy-marketing-skills/skills/counterintuitive-tests

Rory Sutherland's psycho-logic as Claude skills — solve the human perception, not the metric. Reframing, costly signaling, counterintuitive tests, experience design.

Install

npx -y skills add meikocho1/alchemy-marketing-skills --skill counterintuitive-tests

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

2 stars2 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Generate ideas that don't sound logical, then validate them with cheap behavioural experiments — Rory Sutherland's 'the opposite of a good idea can be a good idea' plus revealed-preference testing. Use when the obvious/logical solution is saturated and the user wants genuinely different options, asks 'what's a creative/unconventional angle', 'how do we stand out', 'should we run a test/experiment', 'how do we know what people actually want', or is about to trust a survey/focus group. Covers deliberate inversion of the obvious move, why stated preferences lie, and designing small reversible experiments that watch behaviour. Inspired by Rory Sutherland's *Alchemy*. Routed to from psycho-logic. 日本語の相談（「競合と同じ案しか出ない」「アンケートは好評なのに売れない」「思い切った案を安く試したい」）にも使う。中文咨询（“只能想出和竞品一样的方案”“问卷好评却卖不动”）也适用。

SKILL.md

6.2 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Counterintuitive Tests — invert the obvious, then watch behaviour

Two moves: (1) deliberately generate the ideas that sound wrong, because the sensible ideas are already taken; (2) never trust what people say about them — run a cheap, reversible experiment and watch what they do.

Why the obvious idea is the wrong default

Logical optimisation converges: every competent competitor finds the same "best practice," so it stops being an advantage. The remaining opportunities are the moves that don't survive a rational business case — which is exactly why nobody has tried them. "Doesn't make sense" is not a reason to reject an idea; it's a reason it might still be available.

Red Bull launched a small, expensive can of bad-tasting drink. Every logical signal said fail. The "wrongness" was the positioning — it must do something.
Raising the price sometimes raises sales (it changes the signal — see costly-signaling).
Removing features/options/steps often beats adding them (paradox of choice).

Why you must test behaviour, not opinions

People don't think what they feel, don't say what they think, and don't do what they say.

Surveys and focus groups capture post-hoc rationalisations, not causes. Nobody in a focus group asked for Red Bull. Stated preference is cheap talk; revealed preference (what they actually clicked, bought, kept) is the only honest data. So your job isn't to ask whether the counterintuitive idea works — it's to expose people to it and measure behaviour.

How to apply

Write the obvious solution down. The thing every competitor would do. This is your "do not just do this" baseline.
Invert it on purpose. For each obvious move, generate its opposite and ask "under what circumstances would the opposite be better?" (Charge more. Offer less. Make it slower but nicer. Hide the price. Add friction. Remove a feature.) Keep the ones that aren't insane on inspection.
Design a cheap, reversible test. The whole point of a counterintuitive idea is you can't reason your way to the answer — so make the experiment so cheap and reversible that you don't need to. A/B test, a soft launch to one segment, a fake-door, a landing page, one store. Small, fast, undoable.
Measure behaviour, not approval. Define the behavioural metric before running (clicks, purchases, retention, completion). Ignore "would you…?" survey answers about the idea.
Let surprising-but-real results win. If the illogical version beats the logical one on behaviour, ship it — even if you can't fully explain why. It doesn't have to make sense to work.

How to think about the experiment

Bias toward many small reversible bets over one big committed one (barbell: safe core, cheap weird experiments).
A test that can't fail (no clear behavioural metric, no control) isn't a test — it's theatre.
Negative results are wins: a cheap experiment that kills a bad idea saved you the expensive version.

日本語の使用例

「競合と同じ訴求しか思いつかない」→ まず当たり前の解を書き出し、その逆を1つずつ生成（"もっと高く" "機能を減らす" "あえて遅く・丁寧に" "価格を最後まで見せない"）。安く・元に戻せる形で検証。
「アンケートでは好評だったのに売れない」→ 言うこと≠やること。アンケート（安い口先）ではなく、ランディングページや少数セグメントへのソフトローンチで**行動（購入・離脱）**を測る。
「値上げしたら売れなくなりそう」→ 直感で却下せず、1セグメント・期間限定の可逆なA/Bで行動を見る。論理ではなく結果に判断させる。
葬儀/シニア領域：「分かりやすさ＝情報を増やす、が定石」→ 逆に選択肢と情報を削る版を作り、問い合わせ完了率で比較する。

Cross-check against the canon

Sanity-check inversions and experiment designs against these; if one contradicts your plan, name it and justify the exception. When a claim is load-bearing or the user asks for evidence or fresh examples, web-search the named theory or case and cite what you find.

Paul Samuelson, revealed preference — the economics behind "watch what they do": choices, not statements, define preference.
Barry Schwartz, The Paradox of Choice — why "offer less" is a serious inversion, not a gimmick.
Nassim Taleb, the barbell — keep the core safe and make the experiments small and reversible; never bet the company on an inversion.
Byron Sharp, How Brands Grow — the empirical brake: some counterintuitive moves (e.g. abandoning reach to court loyalists) reliably fail in his data. Test against evidence, not just cleverness.

Related skills

psycho-logic — the router; use it to decide which obvious move to invert
reframing / costly-signaling — common sources of the counterintuitive idea you'll test
experience-design — many counterintuitive wins are journey changes; test them the same way
ab-testing / marketing-psychology — mechanics of running tests and the biases involved (separate plugins — only if installed)