A Communication-Based Approach to Interactive Media

I thought about titling this post “All Media is Social: It’s really not that complicated.” From caveman drawings, to the printing press, through mass media of the 20th century and 21st century, all media is social.  As we work to communicate with each other and negotiate meaning we are interacting in  social processes.    With new technology and the adoption of interactive platforms our lives become noisy leading to the postmodern communication dilemma, right?- the technology that is to make our lives easier seems to make it more complex.  One of the ways to reduce the amount of noise is to take a communication-based approach to interactive media.  Through the lens of communication we can frame interactive media (web, social media, digital communication, online communities, etc.) .  Confusion about adoption patterns, listening, participating, community, etc., can be seen more clearly with the use of a few good communication theories.

There’s nothing more useful than a good theory.

-Kurt Lewin

There’s nothing more useful than a good communication theory

-John Cragan

Theories, pragmatically, help us understand, predict, and explain phenomena.  In this case, communication phenomena.    While the interactive landscape may seem confusing a few communication theories can help us cut through the noise – to better understand, explain, and hopefully predict what is going on.

I know, you’re thinking “hey, that’s fine in theory, Poindexter, but what about the real world?”  Good point, but the Poindexter thing may have been offsides.  If your theory doesn’t work in the real world, if it doesn’t have utility, then it’s not a good theory. It’s really that simple.

Over the next few weeks, I’m going to go into more depth about some particularly useful theories, the importance of listening (think customer centricity, user-centered design, and research), the art & science of interactive media (the zen like nature of human and digital communication), and applications of these concepts as they relate to building a better brand and improving marketing communication performance.  Together, these should provide an organizing framework to  help you meet your business goals, as well as helping your customers with their interaction goals.

The theories or frames that will be covered in the next series are:

1. Information Systems.Claude Shannon’s theory of message integrity.  While initially developed as a mathematical model for machine to machine communication, it provides a solid framework for human communication.
2. Symbolic Convergence Theory  (SCT).  Developed by Ernie Bormann and advance by Cragan and Shields,  SCT helps us understand how meaning, motive, identity, and emotion can chain out from any message or communication episode.  Elements of SCT have been covered earlier in the blog, notably here and  here.
3. Narrative Paradigm Theory (NPT).  We often here that you need to tell a good story.  That’s right.  NPT, advanced by Walt Fisher).  What does your story, or collection of stories, need to hold true and resonate with your audience.
4. Diffusion of Innovation.  From the work of E. Rogers.  From his work we have insights to how an innovation (like a new idea, or technology) is adopted or not through networks and cultures.
5. Dramatism or Burke’s Dramatism Theory (BDT).  Looks at other elements of the dramatic nature of human communication and how we identify with the speaker/message sender.

With each post about the theories, I will provide applications and how those elements need to account for here-and-now phenomena and make current communication elements like  social media less mystical and abstract.

Feel free to send me questions that you may have or communication issues that your organization may be dealing with and I will work to incorporate into future posts.

Things are always better when they're fun

A friend and former colleague on the three important aspects of a "delightful user experience":
- Playfulness
- Usability
- Context

As always, nice job Fred.

Tropicana Design Mishap

As noted on "Under Consideration," Tropicana is reverting back to its old design...or the one that was recognizable.   The design may have been acceptable for a Web 2.0 site, but is not the right move when consumers, especially those in your tribe, are trying to find your product in the commodity laden refrigerated section.  The iconic logo was easy to spot and differentiated from other OJs. The new (now old) logo looked more like a generic.  

Perhaps the PR team will argue that this is generating buzz, but I don't think it's going to have a long-term positive effect on sales or the brand.  I'm curious to know what, if any, research when in to creating the creative blueprint for this.  I must say that this post makes me want to pour myself a nice glass of of pulp free Minute Maid.

Thanks to Rett for the link.

Welcome to the Iowa City Readers: Constituent Lifecycle Revisited

I realize that we may have an increase in readership to this blog from readers in the Iowa City/Cedar Rapids area. To that end, I will repost some more in-depth entries that will apply to specific marketing and communication roles. As a start, please take a look at this post regarding student life cycles, constituent relationships and the symbolic identities associated with higher education institutions.

Business/Technology Break Through from 2008

Looking back, Apple was able to keep their hot streak alive. In '07 they changed the smartphone landscape with the introduction of the iPhone. In '08, they released a new iPhone, but more importantly they opened up the ability to deliver applications created by other programmers. The model is the same as their iTunes store. More details are in this Washington Post article.

Beyond the money Apple is making (30%) from each transaction, it turns out that this may be more of strategic move, rather than a short-term money-maker in a down economy. Here's what I found to be the most interesting paragraph in the entire article:

Apple won't say how much money the App Store is taking in, nor will it say how many of the 300 million downloads were free apps and how many cost money (most apps are free; the others cost anywhere from a buck to $10). Apple gets a 30 percent cut of revenue generated by apps. But for Apple right now the money isn't the point. The big thing is the race to become the dominant mobile-computing platform, the way IBM-standard PCs running Microsoft operating software -- first DOS and then Windows -- came to dominate personal computing in the 1980s and early 1990s.

Best wishes for a safe, happy, and prosperous 2009.

MIMA Blogger discusses the Obama Approach to interactive marketing

Interesting post from the folks at MIMA:

Obama’s seamless integration of so many interactive tools makes his approach look simple and easy. For the most part, it is. Consensus among writers from Fortune Magazine, CNN.com, Fast Company and more is that what made it work was Obama’s clear sense of knowing what his key messages and strategy would be from the beginning.

In an election-night interview with “60 Minutes,” Obama’s staff said that they knew from day one what their messages and strategy would be. They stuck to it and never wavered.

As my EVC counterparts have long said -- no random acts of marketing. Make sure your tactics are tied to your strategy and desired outcomes.

Election Follow Up

So, long time no posts. The election was nuts for a political communication junkie. On top of that, I took a new job, as an online channel manger for Best Buy. It’s been a fascinating ride so far. Now here’s my quick recap of the election from a brand and symbolic identity perspective. My analysis is not meant to explain all facets of the election or the psyche of the electorate, or talk about spending, I just want to highlight some things that interested me and helps explain why Obama won.

Obama had a better use of technology and connected more with young and first-time voters. C’mon he even had an iPhone app that could provide localized news. Obama seemed more presidential, as he remained calm. While his election is historic and he ran a great campaign (even the conservative CNN talking heads agreed – the only big mistake was the “clinging to guns and religion” statement). However, I feel that McCain’s team did a lot to beat themselves by not grounding their symbolic vision. As I outline these items, they are not on my ethics, but rather based on where brand promises are broken.

*McCain’s “maverick” status would have worked to separate himself if he didn’t vote with Bush 90% of the time.

*McCain’s choice of Palin was a high-risk choice. At the end of the day, may have hurt him more than helped (which is out of the norm for a VP choice).

*Joe The Plumber – was not really a plumber, was not trying to buy a business, and could not afford a shopping spree the likes of the Palins.

*The key issue moved from Iraq to the economy in late summer. McCain looked erratic and indecisive (yet wanted to be the one with experience to lead). He wasn’t sure if he would be at the first debate, if he would be on Letterman, etc. At the end of the day, he votes for the bailout (like Obama). So there was no unique differentiator on the vote, and how he got there did not instill confidence as a leader or a maverick. I had a conversation with conservative friend of mine who felt that McCain could have won if he made only two different choices: Pawlenty for VP and voted against the $700B bailout.

*Economy part II: Warren Buffet endorsed Obama. Among most voters, Buffet has recognition of being a smart investor. The Obama endorsement is hard to overcome for McCain. Obama’s weakness on foreign policy and experience led to the choice of Biden. McCain’s admission of not being strong on economics led him to the choice of Palin. It’s hard to say that the nearly “socialized” economy of AK would translate to a strength on the National or International level.

The takeaways: Don’t break brand promises. When trying to ground a brand identity, make sure that are reality links to can make the symbolic tangible. You can’t be all things to all people. The here-and-now changes the landscape. If the economy wasn’t the chief here-and-now issue, McCain’s weakness on economic issues may not have mattered.

Politics brings out incongruity and some of it is laughable, but too much of it and a vision can not be grounded or reach critical mass.

Don't violate the here-and-now...or don't scare people with bombs

Interesting article from Brandweek about a Dark Knight promo that bombed.

Here's the basics of the article:

A Dark Knight promotion, featuring a chocolate cake wired to look like an explosive device, prompted a local San Antonio, Texas, news station to call in the bomb squad earlier this week.
Echoing the Aqua Teen Hunger Force bomb scare in Boston in Feb. 2007, the low-budget guerilla campaign delivered some unintended results for the Santikos Theater chain.

A couple of things:
- Yes, you need to be symbolically unique, but you shouldn't be reckless (unless that's part of your brand).
- No, you shouldn't violate most general norms of your audience. The cake (as far as I know has no real safe signifier to folks to say "hey it's a joke."


There are a few of you out there that are saying "Hey, look, buzz..."if you still believe that hack version marketing, I have nothing for you. I just ask that you get out of you polyester used-car salesman suit and move on. In the case of the Dark Knight, I'm guessing that the record-setting weekend attendance wasn't from your guerrilla/dunce marketing team. It was from more traditional channels, supported by a sad story about a co-star, and an interesting use of trailers at Imax theaters last winter -- that were then propagated through YouTube.

I think the Aqua Teen Hunger Force (ATHF) version was a bit different, because its stunt, the people charged with the crime, and the "bomb" were all fairly well aligned with Adult Swim/ATHF guerilla promotion. So, it got some points for being grounded with its audience. Still a bit risky, but that's inline with the overall brand. The Dark Knight promotion seemed lazy and stupid...unlike the depth and thought provoking nature of the actual Batman text as interpreted by Director Christopher Nolan.

Brand Lessons with The Big K

Rockford, IL, my hometown is the source for some new store testing by K-Mart... or more accurately new testing in old stores. This effort is interestingly detailed in a recent Chicago Tribune article. You may know Rockford as the former screw capital of the world, not because of Ginger Lynn Allen, but because of its status a leading manufacturing town from the 1940s – 1970s. Towards the end of Rockford’s glory days came K-Mart. K-Mart is trying to figure out its brand identity and how to ground it in a meaningful way with constituents. In a similar way, Rockford struggles to attract new business and industries to the once proud city.

I think there are a few interesting take-aways from the article:

1. As mentioned with politics in the previous post, when it comes to brand identity, it’s a position or be positioned proposition. K-Mart had the lead from a timing perspective and Wal-Mart outflanked K-Mart pragmatically on price. Target claimed a social position based on shopping experience. That kind of leaves a righteous position, but it’s hard for any consumer to think blue light and quality together.

2. Test. I think it’s a great idea to test concepts. In this case it’s a low-risk proposition, as Rockford is not a trend-setting, high visibility hot spot. Yes, I know, the greatest power pop band ever came out of Rockford, but that’s not going to help K-Mart. So, K-Mart may want us to want them, we’re not going to surrender to their whims. Ok, back to my point about testing. Try to figure out what might work. Iterate. Rinse, lather, repeat. Progress, not perfection. Then when you’re feeling confident, notify the public. Not the other way around. Especially if you’re trying to re-brand or reposition, don’t lead with the awareness campaign, then try to figure it out. You can do more brand damage if you deliver a bad experience when you’re saying you’re new and improved. The customer is left to believe that you’ve gone from bad to worse.

3. All symbolic, or brand, identities have a shelf life. Perhaps the Big K has run its course. From it’s regional days to the high points in the 70s, K-Mart has clearly gone through consciousness creation (new, unique drama), consciousness raising (growing/expanding the identity among more people), sustain the vision (shielding the committed, staving off new visions like Wal-Mart or Target), decline (your identity loses currency in the market place and your customers seek new visions that meet their needs) and then implosion (the vision dies).

Politics is a Position or Be Positioned Proposition

Last weekend, Al Franken won the Minnesota DFL nomination to be their candidate for the U.S. Senate race against incumbent Norm Coleman (R). While Franken won on first ballot, his campaign has been weakened by income tax problems and a satire piece for Playboy magazine. What I find interesting, is that it seems as though the Coleman campaign knows more about Franken than Franken’s campaign. The way Coleman’s campaign and surrogates have been able to keep Franken on the defensive is another example of how you can be positioned by your competition.

With all symbolic realities (brands, politics, etc.), it’s a position or be positioned game. If you can’t carve out an identity and ground it, you run the risk of having your competition do it for you.

Zappos & Culture: Walking the Talk with an Online Shoe Store

Great article about Zappos and their policy to pay employees to quit.

It’s a small practice with big implications: Companies don’t engage emotionally with their customers—people do. If you want to create a memorable company, you have to fill your company with memorable people. How are you making sure that you’re filling your organization with the right people? And how much are you willing to pay to find out?

Hat tip to Christopher for the link.

Communication 2.0: Symbolic Identity, Interactivity, and Research

Over the past few weeks, I’ve been in an extensive dialogue with some professional colleagues regarding the importance of reputation management (which in many ways is a return to good, solid communication and public relations practices) to provide communication value in a (long-tail media) world of fragmented communication channels.

Our discussions have reinforced my thinking about some of the key areas that are/will be needed by communication professionals in the 21st century. In short, I believe that communication professionals must embrace and master a holistic approach when it comes to integrated communication. There are three areas that comprise this holistic approach - (1) symbolic identity (or brand management), (2) interactive strategies and tactics (continuing to master all media and channels at your disposal), and (3) communication-based research.

Symbolic Identity & Brand
As the number of media channels continue to expand and traditional (and not so traditional) audience groups continue to segment the need for a strong brand and understanding of your symbolic identity is imperative for marketing and communication professionals. Having a cohesive, understood symbolic identity helps you cope with the changing elements of your audience. We, as humans, continue to re-tribalize through our symbol systems – most of which are now delivered electronically. This retribalization makes it nearly impossible for communication practitioners to master, let alone manage, all available channels. Instead, one should understand the symbolic dramas that comprise their brand or identity (see research). In many ways, as Reis has said, it is the rise (or return) of PR, as communication professionals need to manage reputation (and symbol systems) rather than channels. One way to do so is to be honest to your identity – know what it is you are and embrace it – don’t try to be all things to all people, it will help you in the wild, wild west of Web 2.0. It is my belief that most brand damage comes from within – try not shoot yourself in the foot buckeroo.

Interactive Strategies & Tactics
The name of the game, so far this century, is interactive. The Web, Web 2.0, Social Media, etc. continue to be new, or emerging, channels that introduce a new vernacular. We need to continue to use good, sound communication practices and balance that redundancy with the novelty of new channels. The channels enable and restrict the message as well as the potential bandwidth for our symbols. We no longer have the luxury of mastering a few channels and messages – in a world when we generally had similar shared experiences when it came to the places and types of media we consumed. However, we need to understand how the Web, interactive, and mobile is changing the way we negotiate meaning with our publics and the cue-givers. Appointment television is over. Newspaper readership is dying. However, interactive continues to grow and better yet it is measurable (with the caveat that just because you can measure doesn’t mean it’s valuable). With the growth of interactive channels and devices it is important to know how new technology enables and constrains your communication with your audience segments. Strategically, you need to understand and master grounding your symbolic identity in a valuable way with your constituents. Tactically, you need to consider messaging and CRM tactics that leverage an interactive world that is continuing to leave the desktop and mouse behind. Think about the iPhone and gesture technology, texting (and the vernacular or vulgar, depending on your point of view), and search engines influencing web traffic as examples of how new media is changing the communication landscape.

Communication-Based Research
Finally, research. Specifically, communication-based research (qualitative and quantitative), like that in SymbolicID. What’s research have to do with the two items above? Well, a lot frankly. You need to know what symbolic visions or dramas your audiences are participating in. The best way to get there is to use communication-based research. Communication professionals need to understand how to operationalize communication variables and constructs. This is what helps you tell a fact from a not-fact and avoids expensive scavenger hunts with your communication campaigns. You need to know what creates value for your constituents. You need to measure and manage the customer-experience. Beyond traditional marketing and research metrics (which are necessary but not sufficient), you need to be able to understand meaning, motive, identity, and emotion as the construct a symbolic reality for your audience segments. You also need to understand the current value and life cycle standing of your symbolic identity. This understanding impacts your communication strategies and tactics. Remember, all symbolic visions have a life cycle, which includes five stages:
1. Consciousness Creation (bringing a new symbolic identity to life - -think innovation);
2. Consciousness Raising (growing the vision, expanding your audience);
3. Consciousness Sustaining (shielding the committed, inoculating against competing visions);
4. Decline (the vision loses currency in the symbolic marketplace) and; finally,
5. Implosion (the vision dies as there is no symbolic value in the market place).

Research helps you better understand, explain and predict audience behavior. Through a mix of research tools available to us, it becomes easier to conduct research from easy to conduct quantitative surveys and polls, to in-depth qualitative work. While it becomes easier, like our communication practices, you need good, solid research practices to help you separate facts from noisy and expensive non-facts. Communication-based research is the key to "cracking the code" on constituent behavior. Research is sounding pretty valuable right now isn’t it? To what extent can you currently explain and predict your audience behavior?

In summary, the three components of symbolic identity, interactivity, and research helps tie together a unified and valuable approach to communicating with our constituents in the 21st century. A holistic approach, grounded with the previously mentioned touchstones, will prevent a confusing smattering of shotgun tactics that can hurt more than help your brand. Instead the approach enables you to effectively tie together your strategy and tactics in a valuable and meaningful way. Utilizing these elements will prevent you from wasting energy trying to keep up with the Joneses 2.0. Right, everything just sounds more authoritative if you throw a “2.0” on the end. But seriously, you should really focus on the trifecta of symbolic identity, interactivity, and research.

Knowledge Management & Innovation: The Knowledge Brokering Cycle

One of my professional interests is knowledge management. From base level items that may technically be information management (in the areas of customer service -- pushing the right information closer to the customer) to the concepts of a knowing organization and strategically leveraging knowledge to develop innovative products and services. While preparing for a project to address innovation within health care, I was reading HBR's book on Innovation. One of the chapters, by Hargadon & Sutton ("Building an Innovation Factory") is an interesting overview of the process of knowledge brokering (rooted in the work of Thomas Edison). The authors highlight a four-part process for knowledge brokering, which is a great pragmatic approach to starting to try and repeat a process, rather than saying "then the magic happens...and we're really not sure how."

The Knowledge Brokering Cycle:
1. Capture Good Ideas
2. Keep Ideas Alive
3. Imagining New Uses for Old Ideas
4. Putting Promising Concepts to the Test

Within these steps, some other knowledge management basics are touched upon such as: (1) if you want more ideas, get smart and creative people to interact -- give them the space, technology and resources to do so; (2) leverage the concept of parallax -- look at items from multiple perspectives, industries, products and services; and (3) try to cultivate (and save) good organizational knowledge -- don't let your good ideas leave the company when a particular person leaves the company (unless directed by a judge).

The downer when reading these things or working on other knowledge projects is that I'm reminded of a "Ground Hog Day" / Sisyphus (not surprisingly, Murray is more accessible than Camus) nature of a lot of our problem solving works. It seems like we're continuing to work on the same problems. Elements change, but at times it seems like the same rock and the same mountain. However, as an old boss said, he'd rather we use our brains for thinking rather than remembering. If we can increase the organizational remembering, maybe we can think through more innovations.

What's Your Connection Strategy?

Beyond brand and symbolic identity, you need to understand the technology that will be used to deliver your message and enable engagement with your stakeholders. The technology you choose creates structures that both enable and constrict future communication. Five years ago, we didn't think about gesture technology or a robust web browser on our phone. Five years from now, what will we have available? User experience and design elements will be challenged as we continue to move away from the standard keyboard, monitor, mouse framework.

TED - Ideas Worth Spreading

I was recently turned onto TED by a coworker. TED stands for technology, entertainment, design. There's a lot of good, in depth content. In this nerd's opinion, Wow! What a great site. As a sampling, here's a video of Larry Lessig (Stanford prof and digital copyright authority). "TEDTalks" are also available via podcasts.

Meta Tipping Point: The Tipping Point of "The Tipping Point"

Interesting article in Fast Company regarding The Tipping Point and influentials.

Whopper Freakout - Great Campaign

This is a great campaign. Fun, memorable, and highlights people's emotional connection to the product.

http://www.whopperfreakout.com/

David Byrne on the music industry

Happy New Year. Death and rebirth. The blog is dead, long live the blog. As many of you know, my original blog (co-authored with some great co-conspirators) ran its course and was officially put to rest today. Now I will continue to blog here. For any new readers, this blog is mostly about business trends, marketing ideas, pop culture, communication, and other nerd fest things that interest me and that I’d like to share.

My admittedly nerdish love of music and fascination with the music industry have led to more than a few music related posts here on Notes from the Field. To kick off the new year, I’d like to share this great article from Wired. David Byrne writes about the music industry (death) and where it is going (possible rebirth).

What is called the music business today, however, is not the business of producing music. At some point it became the business of selling CDs in plastic cases, and that business will soon be over. But that's not bad news for music, and it's certainly not bad news for musicians. Indeed, with all the ways to reach an audience, there have never been more opportunities for artists.

You may ask yourself where is my bloated record company? Where is my beautiful margin?

There’s also a nice exchange in a related article between Thom Yorke (of Radiohead) and David Byrne.

New York Economics

New York magazine has an interesting piece on economics of NYC. Want to know the basic business model for a pizza joint, the MOMA, a sex shop or the Yankees. You can find out here.

(via 37 Signals & Kottke)

Dr. Z: Lose a few billion and call me in May

An interesting conclusion to the Daimler-Chrysler saga – less than ten years ago Daimler (known for premier cars and large trucks) bought Chrysler for $36 Billion. Now, Daimler sold 80% of Chrysler to a private company, Cerberus, for less than $8 Billion.

I’m not saying this is a bad move looking forward – you don’t want to throw good money after bad, but man is this humiliating for both parties. This is another real and symbolic blow to the American auto industry. One of the most prestigious automakers in the world spends nine years with you and says we’re willing to lose billions on this if you just take it off our hands. How will the brand be perceived moving forward?

Daimler will shed itself of the pension responsibilities of Chrysler and refocus on its strengths. Chrysler and Cerberus will need to get all three heads of that dog barking and heading in the same direction to help reestablish the remaining Chrysler brands (Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, etc.).

So, what would be more interesting ways to spend (lose) $26 Billion over a decade? I used to think that when you’re in a position to make million-dollar mistakes you’ve really made it. This really makes me reconsider and resets that bar.

Dr. Z, please send $500 Million, if there’s no ROI in nine years, you’re only out $.5 Billion.