Why LOST is Losing It (The Relationship Between Audience Engagement and Inference)
By Melissa Read, Ph.D. on Thursday, March 8th, 2007Here lately, LOST is losing it — at least for me. In previous seasons, things were different. Work came to a grinding halt every Thursday morning as hours of LOST water cooler conversations ensued. We’d TiVo back and forth through LOST commercials like mad fools, logging onto secret websites to dig for clues. LOST theories ran through the office like wildfire — blackberries going off in meetings with one liners that could go back and forth into the night. The purgatory theory…the ‘it’s all just a big dream’ theory…the writers are on crack theory…It was like the year between the Matrix 2 and Matrix 3. Endless possibilities. Unlimited potential. But something’s different with LOST this season. This season, we’re back to work.
So with all this extra time on my hands, I’ve been thinking. What’s changed? The characters are the same. The set’s the same. The story is heading the same direction. But there’s one fundamental difference. And it’s kind of hard to ignore. This season, we got to meet The Others. And as it happens, The Others really aren’t that scary.
In previous seasons, we were forced to ponder questions like “What do The Others look like? How many are out there? How far are they willing to go?” In our minds, The Others were a dangerous group of primitive people…or ferocious monsters…or people possessed by some evil deity…or whatever else scared the H out of us. Now that we’ve met The Others and have gotten to know them, things are very different. Now, they’re just a group of slightly off key adults singing Kumbaya in some outdoor recreation center.
Is our rapid loss of LOST engagement surprising? Perhaps not. After all, the funniest comedies don’t give you all the lines. The best mysteries don’t give you all the clues. The scariest movies never show you the monster. No matter what the genre, it seems that audiences are most engaged when they aren’t given all the details — when they are forced to make inferences instead. And when you think about it, this is really a timeless concept. Take Helen of Troy. She’s possibly the most beautiful literary character of all time — all because Homer never described her face. All we know is that she was so beautiful that the grandfathers of the soldiers who died in battle over her could look upon her face and understand what all the fighting was for. Now that’s hot! So many people have imagined her differently. In the 60s and 70s, she was a twiggy, thin lipped woman dressed in psychedelic cloths. In the 80s, she was a curvy full lipped woman wearing a black unitard and pink aerobics sox. If you’re into brunettes, she’s a brunette. If you’re into read heads, she’s a read head. Helen of Troy will always be beautiful because it doesn’t matter what you’re into – she’s that.
So how does the concept of inference apply to our industry? Should we design our brands to flex with audience expectations – to let our audience dictate what they want to see? Could ‘inferential marketing’ (if you will) be the key to reaching the highest levels of audience engagement – the key to universal brand appeal? Given the effects of inference in so many other media forms, perhaps it could.
Give the brain a taste of what you want it to know and the mind runs wild. Give the brain too much and the mind stops –making room for other curious things.







I think the real reason we knew Lost was going to tank is because he (Abrams) did the same thing with Alias. It was about the third episode of season 1 of Lost that I started hating it… hated it for making me love it because I knew it was going to break my heart. Now that it has… I don’t even care.
And I mean that in the dirtiest way possible. (My favorite ‘inferential marketing’ line)