When is an insight truly insightful?

As we begin to wrap up the semester, and reflect on the lessons learned and the topics covered, I realized that one of the topics that had been over looked in the discussion of consumer insights is WHAT MAKES SOMETHING AN INSIGHT?

We have talked about how to conduct research to uncover insights about our customers, but when is research just more data and when is it elevated to the point of an insight? Early in the semester we had a presentation from the Consumer Insight folks at General Mills and I was off-put by their attempt to convince me that their latest product offering, Cheerios with Berries, was a product borne out of insight. “Well, you see we observed people putting bananas in their cereal and realized that people like fruit with their cereal.” Honestly people…wake up. You don’t have to do ethnographic studies to know that people like fruit with their cereal. Hello…Kellogg’s Raisin Bran???? It’s been around for 60 years. Actually the first version, developed by a company called Skinners, was launched in 1926. Or even granola…how long has that been around – oh, since the late 19^th century? The next thing they are going to tell us is that people like nuts in their cereal.

If you simply had some competitive intelligence data you could have recognized this preference. I have a hard time even calling this a trend because it has been around for 100+ years and doesn’t seem to be experiencing any sort of intense growth.

So, this brings me to my first criteria for classifying research as an insight. If others have already perceived an act or outcome and addressed it through social commentary or business problem solving (ie. new product development), it can no longer be considered an insight. Instead it is merely an observation, when you bring it up. An insight must be unique and original.

Last week, I listened to Jerry Seinfeld’s last stand-up act “I’m Telling You for the Last Time”. And no matter how many times I listen to this routine, I never cease to be entertained and impressed with his ability to uncover human insights. Seinfeld's observational humor is as timeless and sharp as the day he first performed it. The great thing about Jerry Seinfeld's sense of humor is that he makes you see completely ordinary everyday circumstances as hilarious events. His jokes are familiar to you in a way because they incorporate a universal element to them.

If you ever hear him talk about how he comes up with his jokes, you will learn that most of them come through direct observations. Comedy is a very serious business, and the easy flow of a smooth performance belies the deep digging that goes into the art of creating it. Seinfeld closely links successful humor with logical discipline--needed to trick your audience into believing in the setup--and declares that "laughs contain thought." Not given to looking at a psychological angle for what motivates great comics, he does ultimately define the comic's project as "an exploration into the self" that requires a hyper-detailed awareness. It takes him at least half a year to hone a routine into a finished project, he observes.

I believe the most successful comedians are those that find the commonalities of life that people experience but don’t necessarily go around talking about to one another nor do they even think about the underlying motivation. For a comedian, discovering the motivation that only exists in secrecy is where the joke or the insight lies. It isn’t about the vulgarity or shock value that makes a comic popular; it’s about finding a subject matter that relates to many people.

This brings me to my second and third criteria for an insight. The act or outcome must be widely substantiated by a significant number of people. And despite its applicability to a large group of people, it can’t be obvious.

So, the next time you are trying to learn something insightful about society…take a lesson from one of the greatest comics of this generation. You too can be the “master of your domain.”