The Sudden Urge to Act: How Resonance Works in Marketing & Media
Imagine I want to launch a new show about entrepreneurship. (I'm not. I'm busy with Unthinkable and an upcoming docuseries with a brand partner I think you'll enjoy. More on that in the coming months.)
Which of the following descriptions of this pretend-show resonates with you more deeply?
VERSION 1:
Today, lots of entrepreneurs we find in the media have achieved a rare level of success: they've built or sold businesses worth billions of dollars. As a result, they've set the tone and created the modern model for what millions of entrepreneurs now consider success.
But more entrepreneurs than not will never build a billion-dollar business. We can still learn a lot about successful entrepreneurship from them. These are people who achieve sustainable growth and end up selling their businesses for six, seven, or eight figures. These individuals don't often appear in the media, but their stories deserve to be told.
On this show, we'll question some of our assumptions about what it means to be a successful entrepreneur and learn what's possible when you carve your own path. I'm Jay Acunzo. Welcome to Name of the Show.
VERSION 2:
Billions or bust.
Billions ... or bust.
THAT seems to be the mission, the story, the mainstream perception of what it means to be a successful entrepreneur today. You have to declare yourself to be the next Elon Musk, and apparently, you have tweet like the guy. You're not building any old company -- oh no. You're creating THE company they'll talk about for generations. A true original. (Even if you did just pitch your startup to a VC as "Uber-for-X.") You're not here to take safe little swings. You're here to hit a home run.
Billions ... or bust. That's the common narrative for entrepreneurs today. But it's just ONE narrative. Mainly, it's Silicon Valley's -- or, more specifically, a tiny fraction of a fraction of a percent of people in Silicon Valley. It's a myopic, even destructive view of what success means. The thing is, plenty of entrepreneurs reject that narrative. Instead, they carve their own path. They never utter phrases like "hypergrowth," and never miss their kids' games and recitals. They build meaningful businesses, then they sell for six, seven, or eight figures. In doing so, they solve problems they care about, create meaningful wealth, and build a life full of meaning.
Between "billions" and "bust," we find a whole lot of very smart entrepreneurs and a ton of powerful lessons. Their stories are their own, not Silicon Valley's, and we're going to tell them. I'm Jay Acunzo, and this... is Name of the Show.
* * *
Set aside the fact that the second was a touch overwritten (because #NewsletterDeadlines) ... which resonated deeper?
I'd argue either could absolutely hit home, but at least for me (and I'm guessing you), the latter hits harder. It resonates deeper, or at least it stands a chance of doing so. Because while people can certainly respond positively to the first description, it's the second that tells a more emotional story. It's almost a call to arms. It first leans into the problem, then uses that tension to slingshot the reader towards the solution to be explored by the show.
The "story of what could be" is stronger. The premise is clearer. I think that means the resonance is deeper. It feels a bit more personal, doesn't it? If you see the world the way I see it (as conveyed in the second version above), then you're more likely to come sprinting all the way into my corner -- rather than merely glancing my way and maybe sauntering slowly over to me. That feels healthier, if we're to create and serve more passionate fans: SOME people all the way in your corner, instead of MORE people who glance your way but don't really move.
Turns out, that's what resonance is for. The movement. Sparking action. But that resulting action begins with a message that feels personal to those receiving it. Resonance is first and foremost about the closeness with which we can match how someone CURRENTLY sees the world, and then (and only then) can we inspire action.
I think the second version of my pretend-show description tells a better story because it matches the way we already think and feel about something. Even if I wanted to change how you thought or felt, I'd have to meet you where you're at. (This is why online debates are usually pointless. We're rarely willing to start by acknowledging that the other's concerns or objections or approach are real and important to them -- even if we think they're foolish. But without that initial moment of acknowledgement and alignment, you can forget about changing anyone's mind about anything.)
When we want to resonate deeper, we need to align more closely with how others already think or feel. We don't need tot pander to them. But we do need to walk over and start our process arm-and-arm with them.
To resonate is to align closer. To align closer through communication is to tell a better story.
As we've established before in this space, a better story doesn't mean glossier edits or grander end-to-end tales of heroes and villains. It means the story more closely matches the narrative playing out in their minds. (Here's the full piece on this idea.) It's that harmony between what I am saying and how you are feeling that causes that instant, irresistible pull towards the message.
Resonance in action.
* * *
The science of resonance reveals a whole heck of a lot about this idea of alignment with others as the precursor to sparking action. In the past, in my writing, I've tried to define resonance as it applies to our work like this:
Reach is how many see it. Resonance is how much they care.
And while I still think that's helpful to a degree, it doesn't really stand alone. I want to understand the concept of resonance without needing to juxtapose it with reach. So I turned to the science. There, I encountered the idea of resonance mainly as it applies to sounds or vibrations. Here's a visual I made to help us find some clarity. (You may need to tap the image to zoom on mobile.)
The yellow line represents an object or system's frequency. The easy example I keep in my head is someone on a swing on the playground, swinging back and forth at a steady cadence. That cadence is their frequency.
Equilibrium in this example would be the moment they're pointing straight down. The norm. You're at equilibrium when you first sit down on the swing, too, before you push forward or backward.
Lastly, amplitude is the distance from equilibrium, the distance from the norm. So whereas frequency is horizontal (the cadence of swinging back and forth, back and forth), amplitude is the vertical. In the example of swinging, it's how far forward or backward you go from that straight-down position.
Why does this matter? I have no idea.
(Just kidding. Please keep reading.)
This matters because of where resonance enters this picture -- and the clues the science offers for those of us doing creative work.
Below is a visual of when resonance occurs.
To better imagine what's happening, suppose I start pushing you on a swing at just the right time, in such a way that matches your frequency. I'm the red line. You're the yellow line. You're swinging there alone, back and forth, at whatever frequency is now your "natural" frequency, i.e. whatever cadence of swinging you've created for yourself. Then I walk up, and this happens:
The red line is considered a "resonant" frequency. I've applied an energy that matches your natural energy. My pushing matches your swinging, and as a result -- you are amplified.
In brief, resonance is an energy transfer. By matching your frequency with my pushing, I give you energy to move further from the norm than you could have done alone. Had I not matched your natural frequency (in other words, aligned with you first), I would have added no energy, or possibly removed some energy (i.e. added resistance instead of resonance).
Push too soon, and you're still swinging back towards me, so I just slow you down. (I decrease your amplitude.) Push too late, and you're already swinging away from me, so I barely add anything. Or else I miss entirely.
But if I can push you at juuuust the right time, I can amplify you.
THAT is the power of resonance.
(By the way, I used the word "resistance" before. That's what happens in most online arguments, no? Because neither side is willing to first align with others to start the discourse, all we get is resistance. We end up achieving the exact opposite of resonance.)
As creators, if our work aligns with others in juuuust the right way, we can amplify them. That sensation can be summed up another way: we create a sudden urge to act.
So how might we define resonance as a standalone concept?
The sudden urge to act created by a message or experience which aligns so closely with your beliefs or identity that your thoughts, emotions, and abilities feel amplified.
Suddenly, they want to subscribe, reply, share, or buy. Suddenly, they're passionate. Suddenly, they feel like they could run through a wall. They're a fan -- hell, a stan.
If you're looking for a reason to care about resonance or hoping to convince others they should, start here: We need others to take action.
Period.
For our business to grow, our causes to succeed, our movements to create change in this world, we need others to act.
If you don't care about sparking action, not only are you missing the point in my estimation, you don't need to think about resonance. Instead, just run around shouting and coercing your way into people's lives. To you, marketing is about "getting in front of people" instead of showing them why they should care.
But if you want to grow something, to change anyone in any way, then you need to impart the energy to act. You need to resonate.
* * *
I may not be launching a show about entrepreneurship. But if I wanted to, I'd need to explain the premise in a way that resonates with others. To resonate requires us to align first, inspire second. We match the audience's natural frequency to start, and then and only then do they feel energized enough to act.
It's here that for the second week in a row -- and umpteenth time overall -- I need to cite author Kazuo Ishiguro's interpretation of stories. "Stories are about saying to others, 'This is how it feels to me. Do you understand what I'm saying? Does it also feel this way to you?'"
Stories illuminate commonalities we'd otherwise not see.
Stories are the world's most powerful means of creating alignment. That's why we say, "That story resonated with me." It's because it spoke to you, and who you are, and how you think and feel. You saw yourself in the story. "That story resonated with me."
This may not be rocket science, but there's plenty of actual science at play. No matter how badly we want others to act or change, we have to set aside our eagerness to see immediate results. What we need instead is immediate alignment. Only then have we created the conditions necessary for others to respond to our work.
Tell a better story.
Speak to their soul.
Help them see themselves in what you're saying.
Above all, match their natural frequency.
That's the only way we resonate. That's the only way we spark action.
And isn't that the job?