The Future of Interactive Campaigns
Interactive work has spent a decade being judged on whether it was clever. The campaigns that are still running are the ones that were judged on whether anyone wanted to finish them.
Novelty is not a mechanic
- A format that is interesting because it is new stops working the week after it stops being new.
- The interactive work that lasts gives somebody a reason to reach the end -- an answer, a result, a thing to send on.
- That reason has to exist before the technology is chosen, not after.
Build for the second visit
Most interactive campaigns are designed for the moment of discovery and fall apart on the return. If the experience cannot remember what somebody did, or produces the same output twice, there is no reason to come back and no reason to share it. Persistence is cheap now, and it is the difference between a stunt and a channel.
The constraint that improves the work
Assume a mid-range phone on a bad connection. That single constraint removes most of what makes interactive campaigns fail: the four-second load, the gesture nobody discovers, the layout that only exists at 1440px.
The question is not whether it is clever. It is whether anybody wants to finish it.
Brandora
Conclusion
Interactive is not a category of campaign; it is a way of making one. Start from what the audience gets out of participating, keep the entry cost close to zero, and let the technology be the last decision rather than the first one.
Recent
How to use a trend without being dated by it.
What colour actually does for a brand, once the folklore is set aside.
Every interaction is a brand asset, including the ones nobody designed.