In the last few weeks I've been thinking quite a bit about what defines "cool"... I've discussed the topic with colleagues, friends and random people. While some say that cool is fleeting, I disagree.
Hype is fleeting. Cool is permanent, generally not recognized by all, and tends to grow after the lifespan of a person/place/thing has been used up. It's highly subjective, but I'm beginning to believe that there is universality in cool – even if someone disagrees with the "coolness" of a person/place/thing, they probably know deep down that it is cool.
Perhaps, though, cool is just a subsection of seduction. People/places/things use a variety of methods to seduce us into interacting with them in some way. Cool, in my mind, is just one of those methods. But, like my friend Andrea says, "seduction" may be too simple a concept. The driving force behind truly great brands is something bigger:
"It is too simple to say that there is the ephemeral element of seduction in brands/ads. Some nuance that makes you want something you don't particularly need/can't afford/is unhealthy etc. I agree that we cannot name it – precisely why it can be so powerful." (AMF, email 6/29)
Whoa. That's a tough concept to mess with. How can you build, design or create the unnameable energy behind powerful brands? I think at this point we're dealing with the notions of power and control, and the factors that contribute to their existence.