Captivating Is Nicer Than Interrupting

For years now, "they" have told us we have to interrupt our audience if we stand any chance of getting some mind-space.

Everyone is so focused on their distractions.

And it takes a Herculean effort to make them pause for a second and take in your message.

That might be true.

(OK, it definitely is true)

But what if we approach the idea of getting the attention of your market in a nicer way?

No one likes it when you interrupted them.

And most people don’t like doing the interrupting either.

At best, it's a nuisance.

At worst, it triggers someone's inner fury.

So, instead of interrupting, what if we focus on doing things that captivate our audience?

Now, you're thinking:

"Captivating and interrupting are essentially the same thing"

I agree.

From a practical standpoint, there's no discernable difference between them.

The reader has stopped what they were doing and now they're paying attention to you.

You are 100% correct.

But what I want to talk about here isn't the tactics for creating captivating posts, images or videos.

I'd like to make a distinction that separates the two.

For me, it's more the feeling and intent behind what's done than the action itself.

e.g.

Two people could make the same video: same script, same lighting, same background.

One of them is doing it by rote and doesn't care about the end goal. Only going through the motions and hoping to get a payout at the end.

The other dives in completely. Speaks from the heart and tries to reach through the camera to connect with the viewer.

Which one's better?

If you're scrolling through your feed... either video could make you stop and watch.

But only the 2nd one has a chance to impact you on a deeper level.

That's what makes a good actor, a good writer or a good artist.

They go beyond the surface.

It's an attempt to bring something forth from within.

And if it connects with someone in the right place, at the right time... then it will be meaningful to them.