Everyone is talking about Patricia Arquette. The story of her Oscar speech and its aftermath has well and truly gone global, and in less than a day her words have reached the furthest corners of the world. They have struck a highly emotional chord, be it anger or awe, and it seems everyone has an opinion. Some have praised her defense of female actors in Hollywood. Others have criticised her post-Oscar interview and a poorly worded quote, which brought issues of race and sexual orientation into the fray.
Let’s for a moment forget about which side of the fence I sit on in the Patricia Arquette debate. (Truth be told, I see most of the discussion from either side of the altercation as adding to the discourse around equality in general, which can’t be a bad thing.) Let’s instead focus on the wildfire spread of the story. If you sit back and think where we were even ten years ago, this is a truly staggering phenomenon. Global news in a day.
In today’s hectic always-on world we see such instances as commonplace. We are surrounded by viral videos of piano-playing cats and we forget that just a few short years ago there were no smartphones, and just a few short years before that the internet was being touted as a passing fad. How the world has changed.
Of course, this type of hyper-connected environment also means more noise. Millions of channels are vying for our attention. Take a quick look at Australian TV ratings and the exponential increase in blogs, websites and social platforms and you get a pretty clear indication that audiences are splitting. How, then, does a single story break through this noise? In less than twenty four hours?
In the case of Patricia Arquette there are unique factors which obviously helped. She is a famous actor who made the comments during the biggest night on the Hollywood calendar, at an event which is broadcast internationally and watched by millions of people worldwide. But if you strip the story back to its essential elements, there is one critical factor which defines the controversy: Emotion. Arquette’s words, for good or for bad, have sparked an extreme emotional response.
Marketing gurus Jonah Berger and Katherine Milkman recently published a paper which cited “high arousal emotions” as the major factor which leads to ideas going viral, regardless of whether these emotions are positive or negative.
Or, if you really want an idea to spread, then why not draw on both sides of the coin? Arquette’s Oscar quotes have been incredibly polarising, tapping into either side of the emotional spectrum and inciting response from bloggers, tweeters, posters and journalists around the world, in a very short period of time.
In fact, Atomic 212° recently conducted a consumer insights study which confirmed exactly what we already suspected. If an issue evokes strong reactions, both positive and negative, then it is more likely to maintain the interest of an audience. Polarisation is an effective viral technique. And there are very few issues that are more emotionally laden than those surrounding gender, race and sexual orientation.
Of course, this has been true since time immemorial. Emotion has always been a key factor in the mushrooming of ideas. But if you add to the melting pot the skyrocketing success of the digital world and social media, then suddenly emotional ideas are not just spreading, they are spreading in less than a day to the far corners of the globe.
This is at once powerful, scary, inspiring and humbling. And the implications are clear. If you have a polarising opinion, be ready for an emotional response.
Jason Dooris
Atomic 212°
chief executive