I'm an ardent advocate of function over form, so I have to love Shel Israel's "suggestion", which I will call "Shel Israel's Law of Presentations" which I found on a blog post of his:
A crappy presentation with great technology is so much more valuable than a great presentation with crappy technology.
He says "It's all about the product", which is something I wholeheartedly agree with.
Oh, I just found a nit to pick... I would substitute "with" with "of":
A crappy presentation of great technology is so much more valuable than a great presentation of crappy technology.
Hmm... I wonder if I could now claim that it is my "law"!? No, I wouldn't do that.
Oops, I just found another nit... replace "great technology" with "great product or service":
A crappy presentation of a great product or service is so much more valuable than a great presentation of a crappy product or service.
Since, in theory, people don't really need to be concerned with the "technology" that is embedded within the product or service or under the hood.
Maybe now I can get away with calling it my own law?! No, I still won't do it.
One of the things I struggle with is that it would really be nice to have one term that encompasses both products and services. The best I have ever been able to do is "offering", but that just doesn't feel quite right. I certainly do not think "technology" is a reasonable or satisfying umbrella term for the "stuff" that an organization "offers" since technology is the stuff inside and hopefully mostly hidden from view by the industrial design or "presentation."
In any case, I recognize the contribution of Shel's "law."
Oops... yet another nit... should it be called "Shel Israel's Law of Presentations" or "Shel Israel's Law of Crappy Presentations"? I think he should decide. I would opt for the former, but the latter is good for when you are intending to emphasize the crappiness of a presentation.
-- Jack Krupansky