Interestingness, Part II

My short definition of interesting is “worth thinking about.” Something is interesting to the extent that, even in its absence, you continue to replay it, develop it, compare it, communicate it, translate it, share stories about it, laugh at jokes about it, use it to understand other things, have an opinion about it, imagine variations on it, seek further information about it, want to communicate with it and with others who also find it interesting.

That’s not a complete list. But there are some things that are definitely not on it. Interesting ads and brands may have some of these qualities, but they aren’t necessary:

• It doesn’t say you approve of it, positively identify with it or even like it. Plenty of very valuable brands and effective ads are actively disliked by significant (though not overwhelming) numbers of people. That’s evidence that they’re interesting to a lot of people and will help both to attract new converts and to further solidify the loyalty of adherents.

  Of course, it would be ideal to be both interesting and universally adored, but I can’t think of a brand that’s pulled that off (not even iPod). Let me know if you can. In general, the relationship seems to become antagonistic once both qualities get above a certain level.

• It doesn’t say that you find it entertaining. Entertainment is a much bigger category which includes lots of things that aren’t necessarily interesting. For example, there are plenty of ads that are well-liked in focus groups but just aren’t worth thinking about afterwards. These are truly funny, aesthetically spectacular, warmly emotional ads, but once they’re over, they’re off the clock, extinct, because they didn’t stimulate enough thought.

  And then there’s Microsoft. Massively interesting brand, but about as entertaining as waiting for Windows to boot, with ads that are neither interesting nor entertaining. Why, Microsoft? Oh, why?

• It doesn’t say that you understand it. Often, the more you understand something, the less interesting it is. There are no questions to consider. No inconsistencies to explain. No mystery. No surprise. No tension. No energy. No life. You know that you love someone long before you come to understand them (if you ever do). This is why simplicity and consistency are not the unalloyed goods that so many marketing people think they are. Complexity is a strong signal that conscious life is nearby.

  But complexity is a cardinal sin in the Keep It Simple Stupid church of marketing. Complexity leadeth unto Confusion and surely we will die. But even confusion can be, not just tolerable, but fascinating when it comes from the right source, in the right dose and context. As a younger, more rational planner, I used to try mightily to get people to explain why they loved Sega ads. The best explanation I ever got was, “Because…they’re just so random!” Yep.

  Applied to brands, K.I.S.S. thinking leads to an expensive, wasteful melee for the limited number of obvious, simple positions in a category. All those fragrance brands battling it out to own “sexy”. Can anyone tell them apart?

  Plus, I just don’t like being called stupid by a stupid meme. It’s a pretty rude way to greet a potential host.

One other thing: When I say that the Pink Air campaign is interesting, I mean interesting to me. Which sounds like a copout, but I don’t see any way around the fact that “being interesting” always means “being interesting to someone”. 

That doesn’t, however, make interestingness purely subjective or unmeasurable. It just means that you have to identify the someones you want to interest before you start measuring its interestingness.

Comments

[Camiel]

I once read an article or research paper that tried to introduce a definition of interestingness.

(browses through a pile of paper, causing it to fall over)

I´m afraid I´ll have to take a rain check on providing you with a reference, but it could be summed up by this:

Interesting stuff connects / overlaps familiar ideas in our memory with new information. A bit like a domino game.

[Jeffre Jackson]

No doubt that's right. Something that's interesting is always a combination of new (something not yet understood) and familiar (possible tools for understanding). I wonder if you can go a step further and say that interestingness means that the new also changes our understanding of the familiar.

[Camiel]

Look at crime mysteries. Writers always develop the plot in such a way that you hate yourself for not solving the mystery before the final clue was revealed.

What makes the final clue (new) so interesting, is that it helps previous information (familiar) make sense.

[Jeffre Jackson]

One way to look at interesting marketing is that it makes the brand a major clue in bestselling mystery stories like "Who am I?", "Where is the threat hiding?" and "Who really loves me?"

[wizard]

So when things are revealed, what happens as the intrest level peaks? How long is it interesting for? any thoughts on that?

[Jeffre Jackson]

I think that a big part of a marketer's job is managing the sequence of revelations to keep the brand interesting indefinitely. There have to be ups and downs, as in any fascinating story, but there's no reason why there has to be a final revelation. The most interesting questions, like "Who am I?", don't have any final answer, but we keep asking the question.

[Iain Carruthers]

Hey Jeffre
Love the idea of brand manager as script editor for suspense. The 'life as mystery in which we participate and brands are clues' thought is spot on. We should do a 24 style workshop for long running brands.

[Jeffre Jackson]

Hi Iain.
That would be interesting. You could also just do a "4th dimension" workshop in which brand managers took their onions, keyholes, diamonds and other static brand symbols and drew them out over time, adding movement and development. It might be really generative to start talking about the brand plot rather than the brand idea.

[Ken Rothfield]

Hi Jeffre--Please drop me a line if you are the Jeffre I think you are.

[russell]

Don't keep us in suspense.

Are you the jeffre he thinks you are?

[Dananjay Anandan]

too many answers, not enough questions!

jeffre, i agree with you about treating brands like clues in a mystery-suspense text. most brands overreach when they pretend to be the "season finale" or the meaning of life itself. it would still work, for a precious few that too, if we had a sense of humour about it.

instead, there are far too many brands that end up being saddled with the unbearable arrogance of advertisers who think they're talking to people who're not as smart as them. maybe it's too scary to presume the opposite. i just think we'd be better off if we did. like in war, chess or love.

and to indulge in some shameless post-rationalization, it's also one of the reasons i quit advertising.