WEDNESDAY 28 JUL 2010 10:32 AM
HOW EFFECTIVE IS ONE-WAY COMMUNICATION?
In the rush to embrace social media, corporate communicators forget that dialogue and conversation isn’t always as desirable or helpful as clear, authoritative one-way communication
Mark Terry-Lush is founder and CEO of Renegade Media. He’ll be arguing that in this era all communications are two-way. His opponent this month is Phillip Lane, head of planning at Penna Barkers, who believes that one-way communication shouldn’t be consigned to history.
Dear Phillip,
In the transmedia era of interconnected, fragmented media consumption, multi-platform mash ups, and always-on mobile connectivity, there is no place for authoritarian one-way messages.
Before the proliferation of social media, communicators were obsessed with ‘owning’ a conversation. More ‘listen to me’ than ‘engage me’ and that’s what some modern communicators get wrong when trying to coordinate integrated communications or sustained messages.
In social media, the stakeholders are in control and unless you play by the rules then your brand will succumb to the same fate as history’s most infamous dictators.
As much as most brands would like to communicate one-way, the art of traditional storytelling (as in the way in which brands articulate their messages) has been eroded: there’s no single beginning, middle and end to a brand’s narrative. There may be one start, but 20 to 30 middles, maybe 10 to 20 endings because social media takes over a message and contextualises it for a given audience.
The communicator can’t control a single message once it’s been delivered – because the message goes beyond the recipient into a social media hyperspace. At this point a communicator can only monitor, react, steer... but not control.
Savvy marketers invest in conversations not campaigns and recognise the need to let go of their brands. Easier said than done, but brands these days are not always solutions, they are often enablers.
Conversation marketing may be a buzz phrase but it’s here to stay – the conversations we used to have at the pub, bus stop, watercooler are now online, happening faster in real time. We talk to friends and family on Facebook, use search engines and forums before making decisions on all aspects of our lives.
It’s naïve to believe in a single, authoritative voice or message in an era of corrupt and fragmented communications. So who am I to say what’s correct? Let’s talk about it.
Best,
M
“Before the proliferation of social media, professional communicators were obsessed with ‘owning’ a conversation. More ‘listen to me’ than ‘engage me’ and that’s what some modern communicators get wrong”
Dear Mark,
It’s precisely the fragmentation of media platforms and multiple voices that necessitates a clarity of message. In a marketplace where everyone can speak, consumers of information will gravitate toward authoritative voices.
Just as in offline discussions, not all voices online have equal weight. Reviewers have more authority if they are peer-reviewed (and deemed trustworthy based on other users’ experience.) Although anyone can blog, most don’t, and though each day sees thousands of new conversationalists, the top ten blogs rarely swap positions.
Why? Because credentials matter. People gravitate towards authority because they find it more helpful and desirable.
One of the roles of corporate communications is to be that authority, to help people make what is essentially a buying decision. And audiences need reliable information to make those decisions – Is this the right job for me? Should I buy this product? Where should I eat tonight?
Social media is great for validating a message, but validation itself requires an authoritative voice that has demonstrated credentials. They’ve earned the right to give advice and then most people do simply listen.
Conversations are just a process through which decision makers go and a marketer with an objective which isn’t merely to prolong the preamble needs to focus on objectives rather than chasing an ill-defined notion of ‘engaging’ that demonstrates no ROI.
Regards,
Phill
Hi Phillip,
The top ten blogs have become rather famous. In doing so, they’ve entered the mainstream - far from being citizen journalists, they are now traditional broadcasters with a fan base that enables them to influence others.
But it is below this level that brands must visit to see the true tide of opinion. The results in Google change by the minute thanks to the introduction of social posts in the top positions.
It’s true that brands communicating online need authority (usually technically through backlinks, or re-Tweets). Nevertheless, it’s influencers who change opinion or bring brands crashing to the floor. Social media realism only comes via the masses and can’t be fuelled with one-way broadcasts.
Who do you define as the authority? The brand owner? It is not possible for corporations to give believable messages all the time -- they can’t when their objective is to sell something or protect/ramp a share price. A third party must be involved.
We’re involved with Converse, through the converseblog.com, which has empowered creative folk to fuel and populate the social media landscape with whatever they want. It’s an enabler – not a one-way voice. It’s not selling sneakers, it’s providing a platform. All its stories fuel PR and communications as well as other channels of marketing. There is no one-way sound bite or corporate message. It recognises tapping reality and being an enabler or spark for other people’s creativity is a valuable, measurable commodity.
Everyone starts his or her search for authentic and reliable information - often from the authority itself. But people view authority as corrupt - from Amazon to the Government - and seek shared experiences to give confidence to their decision making.
Millennials, who are to the 80s and early 90s what baby boomers are to the 50s and early 60s, don’t trust what they read, hear or see. They check multiple sources, often in real time. Want a new TV? A millennial will Google the model, compare specs, read reviews, check tech blogs, visit comparison sites, go in-store and see for themselves. They/we often ignore the ‘authoritative’ sales person in favour of our peers.
Different perspectives, different sources, no single authority. This is precisely why marketers should encourage conversation. Brands have faults too, everyone knows this, so be transparent and admit it because an informed choice gives consumers control.
Transparency gives consumers the opportunity to ask questions or vent their frustrations; either is a vital part of the customer journey and it’s all measurable.
Best,
Mark
“It’s precisely the fragmentation of media platforms that necessitates a clarity of message. When everyone can speak, consumers of information naturally gravitate toward authoritative voices.”
Dear Mark,
Yes, social posts do change Google results in real time; Millennials do check many sources; and, yes, there are endless perspectives and sources to review. But how does such a level of noise help or make things clearer?
Actually, it’s less helpful to consumers. And it’s far less helpful for corporate communication. Much online conversation is unvalidated - and yet it can still influence decisions in a way that is negative to a brand.
Take the recent case of Greenpeace versus Nestlé on Facebook. The initial attack on Nestlé was a coordinated attempt by Greenpeace to start a conversation about Nestlé’s involvement with Sinar Mas, a palm oil supplier implicated in deforestation.
Although Nestlé doesn’t buy palm oil from Sinar Mas (as attested to in an official, one-way response on their website) it entered into a conversation on Facebook which was quickly fuelled by contributors with no information or experience whatsoever about Nestlé, Sinar Mas, the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil or anything else related to the debate. But that didn’t stop them “joining in the conversation”and sharing unvalidated opinion with the masses.
This conversation may have garnered many column inches, but it was certainly not helpful or desirable.
Phill
Hi Phillip
What’s so great about clarity? It’s in BP’s interests to be clear it’s fixed the leaky pipeline, and say that it didn’t influence the Scottish Government in the repatriation of the Lockerbie Bomber. Clarity that suits an agenda, but who do you believe? Clarity is a word that suggests there is only one view, one goal, one message. Very antiquated.
Nestle is an unfortunate choice of case study – a single issue pressure group such as Greenpeace will rally all its assets in defence of its own agenda. Sadly Nestle has so much past environmental baggage that “an official, one-way response on their website” will not change majority of public opinion.
Nestle’s attempt at Facebook eModeration is a how-to-not manage a conversation and why a brand shouldn’t necessarily ‘do a Facebook’ let alone a ‘Twitter’. Social media requires strategy and professionalism. A Nestle representative posting responses like “Oh please...it’s like we’re censoring everything to allow only positive comments” is not helpful in calming things down (that’s a real post).
In defence of Nestle, it was brave to open itself to criticism and transparent enough to use social channels, but it was inexperience in execution that failed it. Attempting to stifle criticism by citing copyright and trademark was foolish.
Ultimately, consumers were presented with multiple arguments and had the choice to decide whether to believe Nestle, Greenpeace or their peers.
Whether the social media conversation was “helpful or desirable” in this instance depends which side of the fence you sit. Google “Nestle Greenpeace” and make your own mind up.
Best regards,
M
Dear Mark,
Which side of the fence do I sit on?
That of the corporate communicator for whom, in the Nestlé example, conversation was neither helpful, nor desirable but merely demonstrated the dangers of your suggestion that organisations “let go of their brands.”
Corporate communicators should be aware of social media, but aware too that using it socially is not always the best idea.
The recent Kingsmill Confessions campaign and your own example of Converse both try to use conversational techniques, but both have failed to get a conversation going, as the low number of comments on both testify. It seems that audiences are less interested in conversations than marketers – why?
Well, our own Social Media Audit of 84 organisations shows that a majority that use social media to communicate effectively actually have more success when using these platforms for one-way communication.
And that’s because dialogue is valuable only where opinion from both sides is valuable and where both sides see the benefits.
Feedback as part of new product development is a great use of social media because consumers have useful experience of products and manufacturers are able to make changes based on that feedback.
But if you are not going to (or in Nestlé’s case, can’t) use the feedback, it would be better not to ask for it.
In many instances, audiences actually have little to contribute. And, by marketers clearly articulating a message, both sides gain more than if they had tried to start a conversation.
There is plenty of evidence to show that focusing on dialogue runs the risk of reputational damage. It also increase the time and resources needed to conduct a campaign. Investment, but not necessarily the desirable return…
Indeed, if organisations are to conduct campaigns that are helpful and beneficial to both sides, they would do well to think twice before embarking on a two-way campaign and consider again the tangible benefits arising from clear, authoritative, one-way communication.
Best regards,
Phill
SIMILAR ARTICLES
THUR 7 Mar 2013 9:29 AM
The speed of sustainability
THUR 6 Nov 2012 1:20 AM
Is social media more relevant for businesses or individuals?
THUR 27 Sep 2012 11:50 PM
Is social media erasing the need for media relations?
THUR 15 Dec 2011 12:56 PM
Are CEO blogs valuable to stakeholders?
