Seth Godin said it here: You’re boring. I really love this post, but have been trying to put it into context.
Almost every day, I speak to a different client who will want me to engage with people on their behalf, under the assumption that their story is very interesting, if not remarkable. In fact, most of the time, there is nothing remarkable about the story, but they think that because they’re engaging via digital / social media, or creating video content, it will automatically become interesting – that the channel will make content interesting, that the video will go “viral”, etc.
While organisations can make dull content more interesting, it’s very hard to be remarkable, to stand out, to be very memorable. It’s not about shocking people, but it’s about getting a reaction.
When I was in the music business, I was lucky enough to work with, and learn from some very smart people. One of them, Tim Smith, was the brains behind many and varied artists (Britney, Mutt Lange, et al) as Head of Creative Services at Zomba Music. During one of our first meetings, I sat in his Queens Park offices, and he espoused one of his major tenets; that no creative output was worth a pinch of poo unless it provoked a reaction. For example: turning up the music in your car, asking a friend what “that song is”, getting up and dancing to the song in a club, stopping a conversation and listening to the song – and the most important reaction of all – buying the music.
So, what is remarkable – remarkable enough to provoke a reaction, to be worthy of further investigation, further conversation, memory, purchase? How does your activity compare? How do you, as a communicator, as a creator, provoke a reaction, when compared to the great creative outputs in the world? How’s this for a test in terms of provoking a reaction – is it more interesting, less boring, or more memorable than this site [WARNING, WILL OFFEND]: http://ratemypoo.com/?