For me, the best writing takes complicated things and make them simple.
So everyone can understand them.
If it’s really great, it also takes simple things and makes them powerful.
So everyone can feel them.
Recently, I was watching a programme about neutrinos.
Neutrinos are a complicated concept.
For a start, they are everywhere all the time.
Millions of them are passing through our bodies every second.
Billions upon billions passing through our world ever day.
The entire universe is filled with neutrinos.
Constantly passing through everything we consider solid.
Just as if it wasn’t there.
In fact neutrinos can only be trapped by a certain liquid.
So the Japanese built a massive lake of this liquid, to trap some.
They built it inside a mountain.
Away from noise, vibration, smoke, sunlight, everything.
Because the neutrinos had no mass they moved through solid matter as if it wasn’t there.
Through the top of the mountain.
The sides of the mountain.
Even from underneath the mountain.
But a totally unexpected thing happened.
They found the neutrinos arriving at the bottom of the lake of liquid were travelling slightly slower than the neutrinos arriving from the top.
Something was slowing them down.
It was because the neutrinos at the top only had to travel through the mountain.
Whereas the neutrinos at the bottom had to travel through the entire planet.
So travelling through the greater mass was slowing them down.
For the scientists this was shattering.
It changed everything they thought they knew.
This meant neutrinos actually did have mass.
No matter how tiny that mass was.
The interviewer asked the scientist why that was important.
Could he put it into language ordinary people could understand?
The scientist said “The entire universe, absolutely all of it, consists of neutrinos.
Many, many more times than that which we consider solid matter.
They pass through us, and our world, as if it weren’t here.
And, because they’re everywhere, their mass is a far, far greater physical presence than ours.”
This was still a complicated scientific concept.
So once again the interviewer asked what does that mean to us?
Why should we care?
What the scientist said next fulfils the criteria for great writing.
He simplified all the complicated scientific jargon.
He reduced it down to something incredibly powerful.
He put it in terms that anyone could understand.
He said it in a way that would make anyone stop and think.
Even people who couldn’t care less about science.
The scientist looked down.
Then he looked up at the interviewer.
He said “It means we are the ghosts in someone else’s universe.”
For me, that last line is great writing.
Brilliant. It’s poetry isn’t it?
Dean - 8 December 2010 12:43 pm
Wow. I can feel the impact of that statement. It stirred something inside me. And a great post. As always.
Viraj - 8 December 2010 12:50 pm
OOh!
I just passed through Uncle Arthur!
Kevin Gordon - 8 December 2010 1:08 pm
::::::::::::::somebody help, the neutrinos [mag x 750,000,000,000,000.05] r after me!
Grilla Login - 8 December 2010 5:16 pm
Hallo Dave,
A question about taking ‘complicated things’ and making ‘them simple’. Absolutely agree with you there. Just that sometimes – rarely – when I manage to do that, I get planners, suits and project managers saying ‘but that’s not the brand’s tone’. Annoying because it seems to such, image is more important than comprehension. Advice, please. Thanks.
Robin. - 9 December 2010 9:03 am
Grilla has reminded me that
Captain Scarlet used to call them Mysterons.
Does that make planners Puppeteers.
Kevin Gordon - 9 December 2010 9:40 am
@Robin:
that’s something i struggle with as well, but in my experience, the balance/middle term is almost always possible.
and it’s easy to get enamoured by the proverbial light bulb in your head after writing a decent/great head. but with a little distance, and without giving in to the client too much, i almost always find that the arguments they’re making are pertinent and that i should go the extra mile to make creativity meet the brief halfway.
there’s also a lot to be said about letting them think they’ve won, or simply giving them what they want, but in a way they’re not necessarily expecting..
diogo - 9 December 2010 12:01 pm
I think, Dave, that what you are describing in this post is why many of us return to this blog over the course of a week.
Waiting for the next post.
Picking up another insightful piece of knowledge.
Deciphered for us to understand.
I was reading an article the other day, written by Will Self in The Times.
I’m reasonably well-read and educated but I’ll admit, unashamedly, to punching in numerous (umpteen) words he used in the article into Wiktionary because I had no idea what their meaning was.
Even in the context of the sentence.
I realise this is good practice for me and I learn a few new words and their meaning.
They all just seemed so…. unnecessary.
Trite and conceited at the same time.
I believe I enjoy reading your blog not just to digest the anecdotes, sage advice, and the drawing of historical comparisons to professional strategic thinking – but more so because it is just so damned easy to read.
I haven’t had to look up any word when reading any of your posts.*
I beleive that’s a good thing.
Analogising in layman’s terms without noise pollution.
Great writing basically.
(*ps – until this one – “neutrinos” – goddamit!)
Jim - 9 December 2010 1:24 pm
Casper, is that you?
Cal - 9 December 2010 3:47 pm
Just done a blink and you’ll miss it 10” TV ad for Gillette Energising Moisturiser with the line ‘because Winter Hates Your Face’ and been gobsmacked by the feedback. Over 1000 tweets of the exact line in the last week, 30 facebook fan groups and number 5 in the top 20 most viewed telly ads online. Simple and powerful? Or lucky to get a cold spell at just the right time…
rachel carroll - 9 December 2010 4:53 pm
Thanks Jim,
Very nice of you to say so.
dave - 9 December 2010 5:22 pm
Well done Rachel, but you should put that on the other blog, about understanding context.
dave - 9 December 2010 5:39 pm
Rachel, is that a factual statement? Only it could create problems for Winter if you made it up – they could, for instance be walking down the street spreading frost and chill winds when suddenly, they’re surrounded by an angry mob of moisturized people screaming “Hey you, what’s this we hear about you hating our faces!”
Grilla Login - 9 December 2010 6:11 pm
Well done Rachel,
I’m sure Dave will moisturise before going out in the bleak midwinter now.
john w. - 9 December 2010 7:27 pm
I concur with Jim.
Uber clarity is educating.
Who dares these days to be crystal clear?
Jim P - 9 December 2010 9:23 pm
Jim and Jim P,
Confident people like things simple.
This is why:
http://community.brandrepublic.com/blogs/dtb/archive/2010/05/20/ockham-s-razor.aspx
dave - 10 December 2010 10:16 am
Cheers Dave and John. Don’t worry Grilla – if you ask Winter, you’ll be told it’s a fact.
Clarity uber alles. But how many times have we all had ideas rejected because simple ideas are often deemed too obvious – so binned by people who think we have to justify our existence by being complicated. There are still so many ads you have to really concentrate on to decipher what they’re trying to say. And who (not in the industry) would bother?
rachel carroll - 10 December 2010 8:23 pm
Hi Dave,
In your story you say:
…Something was slowing them down.
It was because the neutrinos at the top only had to travel through the mountain.
Whereas the neutrinos at the bottom had to travel through the entire planet…
Isn’t this a great way to explain how agencies and clients
wrestle differently with an idea?
To an agency it’s obvious, because they produce mountains of ideas daily.
To a client it’s not, because often they have to wrestle with an entire planet
of accountants, researchers, product managers, brand managers, sales managers,
public opinion, competitors, media and news agencies, pr gurus and other agencies.
You go on to say:
…So travelling through the greater mass was slowing them down.
For the scientists this was shattering.
It changed everything they thought they knew.
Perhaps your story is very relevant in explaining to clients how much agencies succeed or fail to understand them.
Then the question for agencies and clients would be
Who is the ghost in whose universe?
Kevin Gordon - 10 December 2010 9:03 pm
Thanks, Dave, your brand-republic blog post was truly enlightening and backs up my theory on Will Self’s peacock’s-tail-vocabularly being slightly unnecessary.
What is also interesting in a conincidental way (if you believe there are merely coincidences) is that in the 3 heroes you listed one was an ad guru (which makes sense given what you do) but also a former top class England national football leader and a former top class English football club leader.
On the same day I read your blog post “Great Writing” (which led us to here) I was ridding my house of some old Sunday supplement magazines.
As I do, I flick through them quickly to see I’ve missed something or kept it for something. In an Observer mag I found the “Did I say that?” column featuring a current top class England national football leader and top class English club leader.
The very last quote is quite significant to me now…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/feb/07/did-i-say-that-john-terry-football
Funny how Ockham’s razor continues to cut through the ages but who we attribute the source of that enlightenment to changes despite its real source being 700 years ago.
Jim - 11 December 2010 12:47 pm
Jim’s just given me an idea for an ad.
Why don’t Gillette run an ad at 11.59 and 30 seconds pm tonight.
ANC: Celebrate with us in the closest shave of 2010.
There’s still enough time to get it on air tonight.
Kevin Gordon - 31 December 2010 3:16 pm