Archery is Cool, But Not Quite As Cool As I Thought It Was 2 Hours Ago: Lars Andersen and the Need to Satisfy Curiosity

A little over a year ago, while browsing youtube, I came across a video called "Lars Andersen: a new level of archery." At the time, I did not new what the level of archery Andersen purported to replace was, but given that it is an olympic sport I figured it would be interesting to see what a new level would entail. I was not disappointed.

A deep, gravelly, very serious voice narrates the video, which intersperses clips of Andersen doing amazing things with pictures and occasional videos to back up its thesis: that Hollywood archery is a lie and Andersen is bringing back the real thing. I found it almost mesmerizing; the dramatic voiceover, historical references, and incredible trick shots were entertaining from start to finish. I felt like I had gone from knowing nothing about archery to being right on the cutting edge. I did not forget the video, but I didn't think much of it until this morning when it popped up on my computer. I decided to watch it again because I remembered enjoying it the first time, but something was changed. The first video youtube suggested I watch next: "A Response to Lars Andersen: A New Level of Archery" by a channel called skepticallypwnd. I had been fooled.

I didn't really want to watch the response, but I realized that if I was going to write a media blog about the video, I needed to have both sides. I slogged through 15 minutes of rebuttals to Andersen's video, with the conclusion being that while the guy can certainly shoot, he is no revolutionary and his claims of historical support are flimsy at best. I finished the video and wondered how I had been fooled in the first place. I tend to be skeptical of anyone saying that there is a better way to do something than the way everyone else is--articles about how "high intensity interval training" is superior to all other methods drive me nuts--yet I did not conclude that this video was probably a little off. I think it shows the power of the need to satisfy curiosity.

Archery is perfect for satisfying this need, as for me it is shrouded in multiple layers of mystery. As a combat discipline it is a relic of a time of knights, castles, Mongols, and a host of other cool historical things packed with fun facts. A glimpse at what exciting things people did back then is always interesting to me. In a more modern context, it is equally opaque to me; I have no idea what qualities allow an olympic champion archer to be so much more accurate than an amateur. As such, seeing something that addresses both mysteries arouses my curiosity, and my lack of knowledge about the subject means that I have a harder time discerning what is true and what is false.

I suppose advertisers already know what I so sadly discovered today, because if not I would not have learned about the need to satisfy curiosity as a basic need used by commercials. However, I think my foray into archery through the ages reveals a problem with the appeal: it takes a special medium to deliver on it while avoiding skepticism. Andersen's video was cool, based on a subject I knew nothing about but had interest in, and perhaps most importantly was not trying to get me to do anything. As far as I could tell, it was a guy who had spent years researching and practicing his craft spreading what he had learned, so I had no reason not to believe him.

Creating those circumstances is near impossible for advertisers, but I think there is one way they can, and perhaps do, achieve it: perfect product placement. If a company could seamlessly integrate its product into a something like Andersen's video, my experience tells me it could probably be very effective. However, I have no idea how they would do it, and watching The Persuaders gives me the feeling that they have tried. My only suggestion to companies would be to look back in time: perhaps somewhere deep in the historical record is the forgotten technique of perfect product placement.