Engagement Vs Interruption

One of the dangerous myths perpetuated in marketing over the last two or three years is the notion that the 'interruptive' model of advertising is somehow out of date, and that communication based on 'engagement' is better.

To those of us who make successful interruptive things every day for our clients, this has long been considered utter bollocks. It's the kind of nonsense that sounds snazzy as a presentation at a conference, or as a pitch by an agency that specialises in that kind of thing. But it just doesn't stand up to the scrutiny of simple common sense.

Not least the simple fact that NO ONE ACTUALLY WANTS TO ENGAGE WITH YOUR STUPID BRAND, DUMMY. As we were getting at here and here.

I could obviously go deeper into why, but thankfully someone has already done it. Some mysterious soul (if you are reading this please tell us who you are so we can give you the credit you deserve) has created a useful, thoughtful analysis of the interruption vs engagement argument. I get the impression that the author wouldn't want to claim this as a scientific piece, but I think it is soundly based on common sense, with some facts to back up specific points.

Oh, and we got a couple of mentions, which is nice. Thanks, whoever you are.

It's well worth a read - you can read it or download it here.

Here are a few snippets...