What’s in an insight?
Each fortnight in Encore, Naked’s Adam Ferrier poses a question to the industry. This week, he asks why the Mumbrella Awards jury failed to find a winner in the insight category. 
Anyone seen the wonderful Dumb Ways to Die ad? It’s one of my all-time favourite commercials (I still can’t stop singing it) and it’s doing rather well at Cannes too. What about the Overstay Checkout (by Naked), winner of the $10,000 WARC World Innovation Prize? As well as those global accolades, both campaigns were finalists at the recent local Mumbrella Awards (along with several other excellent ideas) in the category of insight. However, in this particular category, the judges didn’t award a winner – saying there was not a good enough insight among any of the finalists*.
There are only two options for this: a) the judges of the category had just the right balance of hubris and naivety to completely delude themselves; or b) they got it right. I’m pretty sure it was the former (although obviously, I’m not in an objective position to judge).
Here’s why.
I’ll also throw in my perspective.
There are two types of awards. Those where the first winner past the finish line automatically wins.
And those where there is also a minimum standard – sometimes one for shortlisting and a higher one for winning. In the case of the Mumbrella Awards, the standard set by our chairman of the jury, Mark Buckman – who leads marketing at Telstra – was to find the extraordinary, not merely the excellent.
In two categories, that resulted in there not being a winner.
From having been privvy to some of the jury deliberations, I can say that at least in part, the decision to award was not because the insights were not of themselves good enough, but that they were not expressed sufficiently well in the entries to persuade the jury.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
No – they are intrinsically linked. You know when you have a good one when the communication (idea) of the insight is somewhat obvious. But this raises two problems. Suits aren’t allowed to be insightful/creative. And creatives dont accept insights are ideas/inherently creative.
The winner is who it should be, the client.
I agree that “insights” are fetishized too much in our world.
Have always found this post from Adliterate very useful when thinking about them.
Essentially it says “screw insights… go for revelations”.
http://www.adliterate.com/arch.....revel.html
“Anyone seen the wonderful Dumb Ways to Die ad? ”
On this site? Are you having a laugh?
Ooh. Another doozy question from Adam. This is becoming uncomfortably appealing to my slightly addictive personality.
First up, cards on the table, I was a judge. Part of the problem, if you will. I’m fairly certain, given the depth and breadth of experience on that panel in that room that the accusation of hubris might have some grounding. Although there’s a heap of sexual masochistic connotations associated with the etymology of that word, that I can assure you was definitely not present in that very white, male, middle aged forum. But naivety is a little harder to take. Anyway insults aside, Adam asks a good question. And given that I am already tarred as hubristic, I may as well express an opinion, popular or otherwise.
In the final test, nothing is worth anything in the absence of effective execution. That’s a truism, worthy of another of Ferrier’s questions. An insight without an implication and an idea is pointless. Genuinely masturbatory marketing. In this (as all too often), Adam is right. My humble, considered, but open-minded opinion (god this hurts) is that hiding behind such truisms can hide other truths. In this case that process is important, as well as outcome. Especially if you are being judged on part of the process, not the whole. The ideas might well be amazing, incredible, award winning and brilliant (and I’d argue that they were), but the marks, the ‘award’, was for the working, not the answer.
That’s important because process is replicable, ideas aren’t. Not unless you want to face the wrath of the marketing blog-o-sphere anyway. So part of the issue, in general, and naming no names, was submissions waxing lyrical about the idea, but not applying the same effort to the process and the insight. And process involves, to me at least, careful articulation and documentation. We are in the communications business after all. The words matter. Sentences, even more so.
Can an insight be separated from the idea? I think it can. I think great brands and great brand positionings hold on to single powerful insights for a long period and find numerous ideas that express them in new and novel ways. For me it’s the mark of a great insight. Not just does it lead to an idea, but could it lead to many? I think there might be too much insight attention deficit disorder in marketing. We like the shiny new ball and we chase it. Much more fun to create a new insight and a new idea. Dull to find a new creative expression of old ones.
In this case, my contribution to this unpopular decision was mostly just that. I’d hoped for something better said and with more longevity and I judged by that standard. Was that wrong? Hubristic? Naïve? Maybe. I hope not. But I’m open to opinion! In a sweet irony, I’m sure I will be judged.
Inigo Montoya on “insights” : You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Might I suggest “creative strategy” as a paradigm?
The eternal frustration for Nakedians is that they have already arrived at a place that the separatists in charge don’t know exists.
I want to frame this:
An ‘insight’ has become this mythical holy grail delivered on a red silk pillow to the creative who is then so startled by its, ummmm, insight they create an amazing idea. Thus we are encouraged to find ‘deep, penetrating insights about the human condition’. Anything other than this is deemed just a finding or an observation. This is complete horse shit – and it doesn’t work like that.
Thank you Adam !
‘why do hotels still kick people out at 11.00am when the hotel is not full and there is no business reason for them to do so?’ is merely an observation. An intriguing one at that. But it is most definitely not an insight.
Hi all thanks loads for the contributions.
@tom I love the insight fetishism comment. I think that’s my issue in a nutshell – it’s hard to untangle it from the rest of the idea etc.
@insights manager – thanks and no problem.
@AC yep
@mumbrella I don’t buy your argument (about how they are expressed) I’m willing to guess all candidates spent as much effort and time on the entry as they did on other entries. if it cant be expressed correctly, then perhaps that’s an argument in favour of the fact it cant be untangled – it’s part of the idea.
@jon I love your point about an insight being big enough to carry numerous ideas. Indeed a compelling thought. One that exists at a brand level more than a campaign level perhaps? Very interesting food for thought.
Balancing all that up – Im none the wiser?!?
Adam,
I think the important perspectives to have on this topic are that an insight is the “so what” or potential implications of the observation or information – with an idea being the way of bringing a connection between that insight (which is ideally compelling … another topic, perhaps!) and the brand together in target or engaged consumers’ minds through execution.
In your example where you’ve said that: … the insight for The Overstay Checkout was ‘why do hotels still kick people out at 11.00am when the hotel is not full and there is no business reason for them to do so?’ – as ‘Old time planner’ noted at 9:38am above, this is an observation. In truth it’s nothing more than a query about a simple fact, not an insight.
Using that example, the true insights arise when you seek to understand the impact that behavioural observation has on hotel guests and what it might mean to them to if that accepted status quo was challenged or “disrupted” (another overused and misunderstood word de jour) … which is where the idea and execution come into play.
“love your point about an insight being big enough to carry numerous ideas. Indeed a compelling thought”
Insights don’t just come in single serve packs of one idea. Why would they?
Unless the budget demands this.
I’m with Andrew & Old Time Planner.
Being booted out of a hotel at 11am for a vacant room isn’t an insight to free extra nights for punters. The punters have somewhere else to be the next night, or would have already paid in advance.
No 11am check was an insight, once. Then it was an insight to late check-outs and flexible customer service. This was probably around 200BC, but it isn’t in 2013.
The claimed insight doesn’t really lead to the execution. Which suggests it was reverse-engineered.
The claimed insight is, in reality, an eternal one – people like free valuable gifts / surprises. The downside is that it’s only relevant and so of value, to those that don’t have to be elsewhere. Which isn’t many of us.
Which is why you didn’t win I guess. Sorry.
Good that insights are really inciting such passion.
AdGruntI hereby name you Master Insightologist and suggest you go on the next panel of judges