What Does the Audience Want?

The question comes from Konstantin Stanislavski, who co-founded the Moscow Art Theatre in 1898 and spent the rest of his life working out why some performances land while others merely happen. The acting of his era was optimized on externals: projection, gesture, spectacle, the grand effects that carried to the back row. It worked, in the sense that it produced reactions. Stanislavski’s heresy was to insist that the audience is not responding to the gesture. It is responding to the motive underneath the gesture. An action without a believable inner reason reads as false, no matter how skillfully it is executed.

So he rebuilt the craft around the why. Every action on stage had to be grounded in a psychological need; every scene gave the character an objective in service of that need; every play gave the character a super-objective, the spine of wanting that runs through the whole story. Plot stopped being a sequence of events the characters marched through and became the collision of people fighting for what they want.

The influence of that idea is hard to state precisely because it is total; it is invisible the way winning ideas become invisible. His students and interpreters (Strasberg, Adler, Meisner) built the American acting schools on it, and the Actors Studio institutionalized it. When Brando walked onto the screen in 1951, audiences watched everyone around him suddenly look like they were signaling instead of behaving. Then the idea jumped media. The screenwriting note that has launched a million rewrites (“I don’t buy it; what’s her motivation?”) is Stanislavski’s system, laundered into the writers’ room. The whole vocabulary of character-driven versus plot-driven storytelling is his. Pixar’s story rules are steeped in it. The prestige-television era that has held the culture for twenty-five years is, at bottom, a machine for making us care what damaged people want. When we say a piece of content resonates, this is almost always what we mean: we recognize the wanting.

Now hold that history up next to our business.

Advertising, over the same hundred years, professionalized the other half of the stage. We became magnificently good at the externals: who saw the message, where they saw it, for how long, in what context, and what they did afterward. Audience, context, attention, outcomes. These are our projection and our gesture, and I do not diminish them; I have spent a fair part of my career helping to measure several of them. But they are all descriptions of what happened. They tell you the audience reacted. They do not tell you why, and the why is where the response actually lives. The theatre learned this in 1898: the audience is not moved by the stimulus; it is moved by the meeting between the stimulus and its own motivations. A century later, most of our optimization still behaves as if better staging were the whole game. We have been producing melodrama with progressively better lighting.

The creative community, to its credit, has always half-known this. Good creatives talk about insight, about tension, about the truth of a human want that a brand can honestly attach itself to. What we lacked was any way to operationalize that knowledge on the planning, buying, and measurement side. Motivation was the province of the brief, not the algorithm. That is the part that has changed.

Motivation is now measurable. My own company, RMT Labs, works in this area, so discount my enthusiasm accordingly, but the science stands on its own feet. In an EEG study by Wharton Neuroscience, motivational resonance between an ad and its audience was the only statistically significant predictor of the brain response associated with effective advertising; not attention, not recall, but resonance. Validations by the ARF, Nielsen NCS, MRI Simmons, and iSpot 605 point in the same direction, and in TransUnion’s validation, matching ads to the motivations of the people seeing them lifted ROAS by double digits and New To Brand by triple digits. Stanislavski asserted from a rehearsal room what the instruments are now confirming: the response happens where the message meets the wanting.

Readers of this column will notice the rhyme with what I wrote recently about the black boxes now spending our money: that we should insist the machines tell us why. This is the mirror image of the same demand. The why we should be extracting from the algorithms and the why we should be measuring in the audience are the two halves of one discipline, and the industry that masters both will not merely report resonance after the fact; it will plan for it.

A hundred years ago, a director in Moscow stopped asking his actors to be louder and started asking them what they wanted, and every form of storytelling that touched the idea became more powerful. Our craft is persuasion; we have been louder for a century.

The next era of this business belongs to whoever finally turns Stanislavski’s question on the audience itself, and builds the capacity to hear the answer:

What do you want?

Posted at MediaVillage through the Thought Leadership self-publishing platform.

Click the social buttons to share this story with colleagues and friends.
The opinions expressed here are the author's views and do not necessarily represent the views of MediaVillage.org/MyersBizNet.