The question is whether it’s easier to hype something when it’s not seen—or to use all current media tools and techniques which show the consumer everything?
Back in the day, promotion used to include an air of mystery.
Some say the basis of charisma is mystery.
A test case is the Underground Literary Alliance’s “Howl” reading/protest at Columbia University in 2006. Here’s an article about the event by establishment writer Rachel Aviv:
The article is fairly dismissive of the ULAers, yet captures some of the excitement of the affair.
Now, here’s video of the ULA that day, the first part of things anyway, our drinking from pitchers of margaritas and our own impromptu reading outside.
Which is more effective—the article or the video?