I don't know much about juggling, but I know what I like. Maybe you've seen that video of the guy juggling to the Beatles.
His name is Chris Bliss, and you can see him here -- grimacing, hopping about, frantically, wonderfully, keeping three balls in the air in time and in mood with the music. It's pretty darn cool.
Well, along comes another juggler named Jason Garfield with a "parody" video of himself juggling to the same music. Apparently, according to hard-core jugglers, Bliss' performance is lame. See Garfield here. He's juggling five balls, his moves appear to be technically superior (but what would I know?), and he makes it look easy.
Which performance is more appealing? The "lame" one. Hands down.
Copyblogger puts it best in this post, Why Emotion Matters:
Jason’s "diss" response to the Chris Bliss act was a straight appeal to logic. He can do the same act, juggling more balls, without even breaking a sweat.
On the other hand, Bliss made an emotional connection with his audience.
A good stage performance tells a story to the audience, and it gets them involved. When telling a story, emotion wins over logic. The human desire for emotional connection is the reason we tell stories in the first place.
Bliss comes across as an appealing performer, connecting with his audience. Garfield comes across as an arrogant technocrat. And if you read some of the commentary that goes along with his video, you can see a clear hatred for Bliss' audience: the reason they respond to his lame juggling is because they are lame!
I'm guessing here, but I imagine Garfield's performance is the big winner among jugglers. But Bliss' is the winner with everyone else in the world.
So much fundraising is like Garfield's juggling: it's about technically powerful programs, flawlessly executed, confidently portrayed. Yet lacking heart. It comes across as cold, excluding, and arrogant.
Don't ever forget the heart. It matters more than all the brilliance in the world.
Technorati Tag: juggling