Few Seconds To Grab Them Or Lose Them

        

Sorry, not sorry. But you clicked on it, didn't you? (photo from Buzzfeed)

        So much to read, so little time. We click on a headline because it sounds interesting (and the thumbnail looks cool, or confusing, or terrifying) and then we read the first couple of sentences. There. In a couple of seconds, we have already made up our minds if we want to keep reading the story or not.

        Oh. Hi! You're still here?

        Well, I guess that's a good sign that my lead worked, then! 

        And how much is it, exactly, that I know about this subject? Probably not much more than you do. I know what grabs my attention and what doesn't, like everybody else. But how about we dive a little deeper and try to understand how leads manage to get us hooked on a story (or bore us to death)?

        Let's look at three examples? Then, you can decide if you agree with me. This website has some cool guidelines that can help us establish some parameters.

        Story 1: IKEA Tests New Store Layout That Lets You Escape The Nightmare

I really like this. I’m gonna guess this is an anecdotal lead. Though it does not talk about someone in particular, it's definitely not a summary of the story. 

It doesn’t mention how IKEA intends to change their layout, or why they have decided to do it. 

Instead, it attempts to gain the reader’s interest and sympathy by complaining in a comic way. What will get the reader to keep on reading the story here is a feeling of bonding through an issue that allegedly bothers everybody who shops at IKEA.

The lead is unusually long. They’ve started the story with a huge block of text, which we know is not usually the nest idea. What might make up for it is the fact that the introduction is funny. I must say it worked for me. I read the whole thing. The story does live up to its promise, explaining exactly how the shopping experience at IKEA will “cease to be a nightmare.” They have even included a blueprint of the new model.

Story 2: Is Your Partner Having a Back-Burner Relationship?

This lead follows a different model: the story starts with a list of key topics. It goes straight to the point and lets you know what you can expect to know by the time you finish reading the article. Can the list be considered the lead, though? Well... it is a good summary. The first sentence after that does not summarize what the story is about (which would be kind of silly, since the list is right there), but instead answers in more detail what “back burners” means. The definition had already been touched on in the key topics. 

As one would expect from Psychology Today, the story is very thorough and it covers all the main aspects of the issue, addressing all of the questions that could arise from someone reading their lead.

Story 3: Ancient DNA from a teen girl reveals previously unknown group of humans

I'd say this lead summarizes the story, but not completely. It talks about excavated bones, who they belonged to and how old they are, but it doesn’t explain who this "previously unknown group of humans" was. The lead is not long (30 words) and it is followed by two other short sentences that are very easy to visualize. These following pieces of information still don’t provide an explanation to what the group of humans is. Instead, they aim to build up the reader’s curiosity and expectation, by emphasizing this lineage is very rare. They choose to mention that the study was published in Nature to bring credibility to the story. I believe this was an effective leading. It makes the reader intrigued, but in an elegant way. It’s not like a clickbait. The article itself is informative and complete.

What did you think of these leads? Would you change them in any way? If so, how would you do that?