Kidlin's Law: how to define marketing problems

Kidlin's Law: start by understanding the problem

A campaign that generates no inquiries. A team that works hard but interprets the goal in different ways. A product that attracts attention without us knowing why someone would choose it. In marketing, the usual reaction is to look for another idea, another channel or a new piece of content. Before producing more, it helps to clarify what is going wrong.

What is known as Kidlin's Law suggests writing down the problem clearly before looking for solutions. The idea that this leaves it “half solved” works as a metaphor: defining the challenge helps guide the work, but it does not mean completing 50% of a solution or guarantee a business outcome.

From the perspective we share at GX Live Marketing, that pause has practical value. It encourages us to distinguish between what we observe, what we think is happening and what we need to find out. A better-framed question can change the research, the brief and the alternatives we consider.

What we know about its origins

The origins of what is known as Kidlin's Law are not documented by a primary source in the references consulted. Its attribution to a character in James Clavell's King Rat lacks a verifiable passage to support it. Its practical usefulness can be examined without relying on that origin story.

It also helps to distinguish this popular rule of thumb from design methods. The Design Council's Double Diamond includes understanding and defining a problem before developing and testing responses. That similarity does not establish that it derives from Kidlin's Law. Each framework needs its own explanation and sources.

From a complaint to a problem we can investigate

“Our advertising isn't working” expresses a concern but leaves too many questions open. Which campaign are we talking about? What should happen? What are we actually observing? Has the budget, audience or way of measuring changed? A useful statement describes the gap between an expectation and an observation.

Try this template: “Among this audience and during this period, we observe this behavior, whereas we expected something else. We need to understand what explains it before deciding on an intervention.” Filling it in may reveal information that is still missing. Recognizing that gap is part of the diagnosis, not a reason to invent a figure.

Avoid building the solution into the question. If you write “we need to publish more videos,” you have already chosen a format. If you write “people cannot find a clear explanation of the product,” you can investigate different responses: change the message, improve a demonstration, reorganize the page or review the proposition itself.

Five steps to put the idea to work

The following sequence is a GX proposal for applying the idea to marketing. It can help organize a team discussion and record what changes as new information emerges.

1. Describe what is happening

Gather the goal, audience, time period and observed signal. Separate data from impressions. If sales says the inquiries are not relevant enough, look for examples and agree on what “relevant” means before concluding that the ad is attracting the wrong people.

2. Identify possible explanations

Break the journey into parts: message, channel, subsequent experience and follow-up. A drop in inquiries can have several causes. A broken link, a confusing offer and a change in audience call for different responses. The first explanation that comes to mind is not necessarily the right one.

3. Develop alternatives

Suggest actions related to each hypothesis. If the problem appears to involve understanding, consider a demonstration or a more direct explanation. If it appears to involve access, review the journey. Creativity gains direction when it answers a specific question.

4. Choose a feasible test

Compare effort, cost, risk and the opportunity to learn. Define what you will change and what you will keep stable. A small test can be more useful than changing the entire campaign, especially when you do not yet know which part is causing the difficulty.

5. Observe and adjust

Record what happened and what remains unexplained. Do not automatically attribute an improvement to the latest action: other things may have changed. Our guide to measuring brand experiences explores how to choose signals and limits of interpretation before drawing conclusions.

Example: preparing a product launch

Imagine a team about to launch a product that proposes starting with ads. This is a hypothetical example, not a GX case study or result. Writing down the challenge reveals that the team does not yet know which need the audience considers a priority or which explanation of the product it understands best.

The problem changes: instead of “how to launch successfully,” the question becomes “what do we need to learn about the audience before choosing the launch message?” The team can talk to potential users, show alternatives and observe which questions recur. The first decision is about learning, not buying media.

It can then prepare a limited test with a clear message and next step. Before running it, the team agrees on what to observe: understanding, relevant inquiries or interest in a demonstration. The criterion must match the goal, without treating a social media reaction as if it were a sale.

If responses reveal confusion, revisiting the message makes sense. If people understand the message but are not interested in the offer, it may be necessary to revisit the product or chosen audience. Writing down the problem helps keep those possibilities open rather than persisting with a solution because of the work already invested.

Example: reviewing social media engagement

Another team notices fewer interactions and proposes a contest. First, it could frame the challenge like this: “Over the past three months, comparable posts have received fewer relevant comments; we want to understand what changed.” This is also a hypothetical example. The word “comparable” requires a review of formats, frequency, reach and context.

A decline in comments may coincide with lower distribution or with content that answers questions without generating conversation. The number alone does not explain the cause. It helps to compare it with the account's goal and other signals, such as inquiries or visits to useful information.

With that diagnosis, a test could compare two ways of explaining the same topic and observe what questions arise. A contest remains an option if it serves the goal, but it is no longer the automatic answer. The review ends with a documented decision: retain, modify or discard the hypothesis.

What writing down the problem does not solve

A clear sentence can be based on incorrect information. Clarity needs to be checked against reality. Listening to the audience, reviewing data and observing the journey remain necessary tasks. Nor can every challenge be divided into independent parts: some depend on relationships between product, price, service and communication.

That is why it helps to revisit the problem statement when the evidence changes. You can explore our perspective on Design Thinking to keep considering how to investigate before deciding. The value of these frameworks lies in the questions that help us work, not in promises of certainty.

Start with the challenge

Do you have a campaign or launch that needs a clearer question? Tell us what you are trying to solve and what information you have so far.

Explore more on The X Files Blog

• How to measure brand experiences with clear criteria: define what to observe before an action and distinguish signals from conclusions.
• Visual content: how to make your brand message clearer: choose images and formats according to what the audience needs to understand.

Sources and editorial scope

The explanation of the Double Diamond is based on the Design Council. The five steps and hypothetical examples are GX proposals for organizing marketing work.