Roger Ebert once said, “A movie is not what it is about, but how it is about it.” Riffing off this, Tom Asacker writes, “If your business is struggling with disengaged employees, fickle customers and razor thin margins, it’s because you believe that your brand is what it is about instead of how it is about it.”
The post reminds me of the MacGuffin, a filmmaking concept used frequently by Alfred Hitchcock. Hitchcock’s description of the MacGuffin:
[It’s] the device, the gimmick, if you will, or the papers the spies are after…The only thing that really matters is that in the picture the plans, documents or secrets must seem to be of vital importance to the characters. To me, the narrator, they’re of no importance whatsoever.
In an interview with Francois Truffaut, Hitchcock discussed the importance of keeping the MacGuffin as simple as possible:
When I started working with Ben Hecht on the screenplay for Notorious, we were looking for a MacGuffin, and as always, we proceeded by trial and error, going off in several directions that turned out to be too complex…So we dropped the whole idea in favor of a MacGuffin that was simpler, but concrete and visual: a sample of uranium concealed in a wine bottle.
David Mamet has discussed the power of the MacGuffin too:
The less specific the qualities of the MacGuffin are, the more interested the audience will be…A loose abstraction allows audience members to project their own desires onto an essentially featureless goal.
Update: A couple of commenters mentioned the suitcase in Pulp Fiction as another example. Pulp Fiction co-author Roger Avery said:
Originally the briefcase contained diamonds. But that just seemed too boring and predictable. So it was decided that the contents of the briefcase were never to be seen. This way each audience member would fill in the blank with their own ultimate contents. All you were supposed to know was that it was “so beautiful.” No prop master can come up with something better than each individual’s imagination.
Steve R.
on 16 Jan 07Tom needs to start paying for space on ‘The Deck’ for all the advertising he’s getting.
I wouldn’t be too annoyed, except following the link to his site gives a very brief quote and a bunch of ‘buy’ pitch. Makes me wonder how much of this is ‘blog’ and how much is ‘plug’.
tj
on 16 Jan 07Hence the glowing briefcase in Pulp Fiction….
Einar
on 16 Jan 07The glowing thing in the suitcase in the film Pulp Fiction is a great example of this. It is never actually stated what it is and countless theories have been formed by fans.
Einar
on 16 Jan 07Oh, tj beat me to it :)
Peter Hentges
on 16 Jan 07It’s OK Einar, tj beat me to it as well. :)
Daniel Higginbotham
on 16 Jan 07I’m having a hard time understanding the difference primacy of “how” something is about over “what” something is about.
In the post you linked to, Tom Asacker also writes, “How a retail establishment is about it surely has to do with store placement. But it also has to do with exclusive, margin rich products; attractive glass front store designs that resemble museums; cultural relevance driven by astute design and marketing; etc.”
Aren’t these decisions driven by a business establishment’s idea of “what” their products are about? If a business considers its products to be about fostering and catering to feelings of superiority and exclusivity, won’t that determine how the business conveys what its products are about?
In other words, isn’t form (“how”) best when it follows function(“what”)?
Daniel Higginbotham
on 16 Jan 07Oops! The word “difference” shouldn’t be in the first sentence of the above comment.
Mike Moore
on 16 Jan 07Don’t forget the case in Ronin. Its my favorite MacGuffin.
Joel Finkle
on 16 Jan 07The stuff in the Pulp Fiction briefcase is supposed to be the same stuff that’s in the trunk of the car in Repo Man.
Or Marcellus Wallace’s soul (indicated by the band-aid on the back of his skull, where it was removed). Which doesn’t eliminate it from being in the trunk of the car.
Richard C
on 16 Jan 07My favourite MacGuffin is in Payback – (which is Porter’s desire to get his money back).
It’s so strong it overpowers his human side and makes him like an unrelenting and dumb automaton.
Also, I think I’m seconding Daniel Higginsomething. I don’t see that it’s easy to separate the ‘what’ and the ‘how’.
I see that the MacGuffin motivates a film, but it does seem a leap to say: “Therefore, it doesn’t matter whether McDonalds sells burgers. It’s more important that they sell a way of life for people with little time or money.”
But then maybe I don’t understand the point being made…
Ara Pehlivanian
on 16 Jan 07Very nicely summarized. I always understood the idea behind the MacGuffin but never quite put the details down like that.
Most glaring MacGuffin: The “case” in Ronin.
Daniel Higginsomething
on 16 Jan 07I keep reading the following from the original article:
It has the appearance of profound secret wisdom – all those problems, and only one solution! Just start believing that your brand is how it is about instead of what it is about. Not even that “how” is more important, it is the whole thing which your brand is about.
Does anyone actually believe that?
I’m also having a hard time relating “what” vs. “how” to MacGuffins. Couldn’t you argue that the real “what” of great movies is the themes and struggles they depict? I still can’t see placing “what” and “how” in opposition to each other, with one more important than the other, is beneficial
Bill
on 16 Jan 07A MacGuffin is simply something that sets the story or business in motion. It doesn’t matter what the MacGuffin is as long as it accomplishes the task.
Take for example 37signals. Their MacGuffin was client services (web design). That started their business. But are they doing client services work now? Not really, and it doesn’t matter that they no longer are in the client service business.
What matters is the MacGuffin for 37signals helped them start their business, which now has turned their business into a software company who has developed BaseCamp and the other applications.
Grant Hutchins
on 16 Jan 07Godot in Waiting for Godot is an archetypal example.
Also “Lot 49” of Pynchon’s The Crying of Lot 49.
Karl Nieberding
on 16 Jan 07In Mission: Impossible 3, the rabbit’s foot.
I personally don’t like the device at all, unless it’s used very slightly. I consider it to be exactly what the Pulp Fiction author said, that they couldn’t come up with something good enough and left it to you to write the story.
I think the audience is able to abstract behavior just fine when the author includes a specific goal. Otherwise most stories would be disliked. I see no reason to leave things unwritten, unless it’s a very small touch.
Darren
on 16 Jan 07I think Higgensomething almost has it…The MacGuffin here is the nonsense in the Asacker post.
‘Essentially Featureless’ and ‘loose abstraction’ are beautifully appropriate – there’s nothing applicable or down-to-earth at all in what Asacker wrote. How can you take action on that?
Without some sense of what Matt believes, as evidenced by SVN and Getting Real, I’d have no idea what Asacker is talking about. Talk about featureless and abstract…
Viewed through 37signals’ lens, we possibly might see it as ‘Details count, refine your user experience rather than blathering about core values’ or something…but it seems Asacker is doing just that.
On the other hand, we all just wasted how much time reading, thinking and writing. I feel used.
Anonymous Coward
on 16 Jan 07Maybe this is 37’s way of saying that Sunrise is a MacGuffin
Bill
on 16 Jan 07Anonymous Coward
I completely agree and was mistaken in my remarks about client services was the MacGuffin for 37signals.
You are completely right, Sunrise is, was, and has been the MacGuffin of 37signals.
Or maybe it’s simply called vaporware? Does vaporware == MacGuffin? Interesting.
Gorelog
on 16 Jan 07Funny, I was watching and listening to the commentary for The Frighteners last night and Peter Jackson talked about how they used the urn as a MacGuffin near the end of the movie. Good commentary track and interesting that they did a lot of the writing during the shooting of the movie. IMO it is surprising it turned out as great as it did.
Anonymous Coward
on 16 Jan 07I don’t think that the “what” is in opposition to the “how.” One takeaway is that implementation matters, that the “how” you choose from the pool of “hows” determines (or at least impacts) the outcome.
E.g. the Apple brand is about elegent computers and consumer electronics. As such they could have just sold their wares at Best Buy like all the other companies do and relied on the brand reputation to sell the products. But instead, the Apple store is a shrine all things Apple, presented in a way enhances the image and boosts sales in a way that selling at Best Buy only would not have.
Zack
on 16 Jan 07mamet’s other one The spanish Prisoner has a good example of the macguffin, I think it’s plans to build something scientific, or a diamond, or plans to build something diamondy http://mammals.wordpress.com
CJF
on 16 Jan 07The vauge MacGuffin is a great us of closure. From Understanding Comics. “Kill a man between panels, and you doom him to a thousand deaths.”
When done well, people will fill in the blanks without realizing what they’ve done. Sure, maybe the device becomes obvious upon careful study, but that doesn’t make it any less artful, or less effective in engaging the audience. I like discovering the details of how something (be it movie, comic, book, or user interface) created a reaction in myself or others. It’s even better when I can put that knowledge to work.
ken
on 16 Jan 07off topic…......yeeeeeeeeeeeess…......but …....
sunrise…... sunrise…... sunrise…..
I really really really don’t want to use salesforce.com :-(
Bill
on 16 Jan 07@ken
Then don’t. Use sugarcrm for free (http://www.sugarforge.org/)
Tom Asacker
on 16 Jan 07Wow! What a tough crowd. ;-)
But a few have proven the point of the post in the choice of words in their comments. You can make your point (the what) in various ways (the how), with the goal being to build esteem and encourage dialogue, learning, etc. or to discourage, antagonize and “turn off.”
The same applies to business. You can design your coffee shop, bank, search engine, retail outlet, et al to encourage social exchange, repeat patronage, etc. or not. How well you understand – and can implement – the “how” of value creation (e.g. identity enhancement and meaning-making) will define your success in building and growing an enduring and endearing brand.
P.S. Hey Steve. Where should I mail the check. ;) And please help me out: where’s the “buy pitch?”
Dan, you are absoultely right. Form should follow function. The issue then becomes one of defining the function; e.g. what’s the function of a [fill in the blank]? How many search engines exist? Have they all defined the “function” properly?
Matt. I love the MacGuffin analogy, because it’s prupose is simply to “motivate the characters and advance the plot.” In that regard, most of Starbuck’s business model is a MacGuffin.
Richard, take a closer look at McDonald’s and BK’s recent performance. When they refocused on the “how” of selling the “what” (fast, cheap burgers), customers started returning more often.
Anonymous Coward (can I call you A.C.?) you’ve nailed it with the Apple store.
And Darren . . . give me a hint as to how you are trying to apply the insight and I’m more than happy to try to provide some clarification and details.
Marko
on 17 Jan 07Interesting post. Thanks for sharing.
Let me see is I get this correctly;
So in stead of telling people how we love to Design Simple Websites and Webapplications that work, I should tell them we do fixed everything projects—satisfaction guaranteed?
Dennis
on 17 Jan 07Well, i do recall the MacGuffin from Ronin. The entire movie was playing around it. Yet we never knew what was in it…
Christof D.
on 17 Jan 07What a frickin awesome post. We live in a “MacGuffin Economy”. It’s the economics of attention. Technology, Web, Design are all MacGuffins for us – of perceived great importance. Man, if there would be smarter people doing pottery, I’d be doing that. Or underwater basketweaving. It wouldn’t matter. Of course, some subjects are better MacGuffins than others to capture people’s attention and get them involved.
This discussion is closed.