Some insight into insights

Since Uli pointed it out, I've read Jeremy Bullmore's insight into insights a number of times. It's one of the most interesting things on briefing and advertising in general I've ever read.

He defines insight in terms of its effect rather than its inherent qualities. An insight is creatively generative, it leads people to think in a new way about something, to see a whole new field of effective possibilities that had been invisible. And in order to be evocative in this way, it has to be kind of allusive. It must "avoid the direct and the explicit".

This last part is what makes the article truly (and recursively) insightful for me. An insight has to be interesting. It can't just be a statement of fact that is then made interesting through creative interpretation. It has to be based in fact, but have gaps to be filled in, that beg to be filled in, by the reader.

I used to think that we had to come up with a catchy summary of each brief so that the client and agency would have a quick and attractive "elevator shorthand" to communicate and sell the idea internally. Over the past few years, I've come to see that the elevator phrase, truncated, alliterated and, strictly speaking, inaccurate though it may be, is usually a better, more insightful, brief.

Comments

[Dana]

It's like with any act of creation. I quote Ernst Junger, the German writer (approximate translation from "Pages from Kirchhorst"):

"The task of an author isn’t absolute exactness, but optimal accuracy. This is rooted in the difference between logic and language. It’s about the premises of good style the fact that the author contents himself with the optimal expression. Looking for the absolute takes him on wrong paths.

Words are mosaic-like; this means that there are fissures between them. Logically speaking, they are shortcomings. Nevertheless, they leave free ground for the roots of more profound explorations."

[Jeffre Jackson]

That's a very nice quotation. Thank you, Dana.

Good expression, even in an ad, is a tangle of logic and language. The idea that the two should be separate, with the brief/planner providing the logic and the ad/creative crafting the language, can lead to a lot of confusion about whether the final expression is "on brief" and if that's a good thing or not.

I was initially excited about planning because I assumed it was about exploring those fissures.

[Dana]

So true. Plus, logic is a sterile source of inspiration: it keeps the mind marching within certain boundaries, in a certain direction. Inspiration begins with the taste of freedom. Why it’s rather the paradox that awakens interest and lightens up the imagination? Because it renders our mental loops useless and lets the precious substance break free into the open.

The key is ultimately producing some sort of astonishment. But again, surprise is a gate one can hardly find at the end of a road paved with logical inferences. Aware of the implied pot of usual beliefs and meanings, some magic combination of words has to be employed to crack open a mental skull. The rest is almost a joyride: blow softly in the desired direction upon the suspended substance, and, if/when necessary, scatter some more words along the way, as signposts.

Setting limits between logic and language is as sensible as asking someone to speak 100% from either his mind, or his heart.