Trying Desperately to Listen

Hello and welcome back. I took large chunks of the summer off (hence the sllence); I hope you also had a chance to decompress, spend time with your family or whatever it is that makes you feel rejuvenated and ready to get back in the game.

In keeping with the generalist approach of this blog, I'd like to spend a few blog entries in the coming months talking about the folks we used to call 'audiences.' You know, the supposed recipients of our communications and the people who sometimes have genuine conversations with us. I'm going to start with some thoughts on audience understanding.


Hey Ray

Here's Ray Kerins.



He's most famous for asking the pharmaceutical industry a very pointed question: "How in the hell do we have such a bad reputation?" (I'll answer that in a future post... with some glee and schadenfreude) and for his re-organization of the communications and PR functions at Pfizer. As VP of Worldwide Communications for the world's largest drug company ($71 billion in revenue, 137,000 employees) he is naturally very interested in understanding his audiences.

All that is great but what really interests me is what he said at a recent Social Communications & Healthcare conference.

"The whole issue of listening is something we are trying desperately to do."

Trying desperately to listen. I confess to being a little spooked by this as it suggests a certain degree of panic. After all, the roots of the word 'desperate' mean 'lack of hope.' I hope that's not what he meant but I think truthfully many large organizations - from Fortune 500 multinationals to governments, are indeed engaged in a desperate attempt to figure out what is actually going on 'out there' in the minds and behaviours of their various constituencies.

So I set myself the challenge in coming blogs to answer the question: how do we try desperately to listen and succeed at the task? Often we get bogged down in the mechanics of so-called audience understanding - the how-tos of focus groups, quantitative data analysis, etc., etc. So how do we let the authentic voices of our audiences come through? I'll be talking to public opinion researchers, in-the-field communications folks and even a few eggheads like anthropologists to see how we can actually get (more than) a few bursts of insight into our audiences.

Next up... On the Virtues of Lurking.


--------

And, in the spirit of listening, if there's something you want me to yammer on about just drop me a line at mcivor at RosettaPR (.) com

The Logic of Crowds

“It’s all about me,” went the rallying cry of web 2.0. The governing principle was empowerment of the individual – Facebook pages about me, my MySpace, people following me on Twitter. As we move into an evolutionary world where terms like web 2.0, 3.0 and beyond are increasingly meaningless, I have to ask: “is it still all about me?”

Here let me suggest something a little subversive:

it has always been all about you (and me)

Communicators talk about “the people formerly known as audiences,” as though a great emancipation has begun. While the term, ‘audience,’ implies passive listening – audentia (Latin for ‘hearing’), it’s not as though the willingness to engage in a conversation has been absent. After all, the term ‘audience participation’ was first coined in 1940 when communications largely meant radio, film, newspapers and magazines. There has always been the theoretical potential to talk back to the creators of the media content you just consumed. Of course there was that niggling need to master film production or learn how to operate a printing press, but still… I had this toy printing press when I was a kid and ran my own newspaper until the crushing tedium of manual typesetting took the fun out of it. That’s talking back.




In the 1940s this man (Paul Lazarsfeld) came along:



He looked at communications during an election and found that, rather than media reaching audiences directly, it was mediated by opinion leaders... kind of like 'early adopters' of information. This led to his two step flow theory that looks something like this:



This is quite obviously not wholly the case any more because (a) opinion leaders have proliferated (including previously marginalized voices), (b) individuals are now in contact directly with each other, thanks to social media and (c) they're talking back more easily, thanks to technology.

Two step flow is dead. I've just shown you why. Instead we have a different environment that's less about the relationship between monolithic mass media entities and the individual and more about the individual and the communities he or she belongs to.

You're probably wondering when I'll stop pontificating and say something useful. How about right now? Let's start with a basic situation analysis:

• Audiences are not so much fragmented as completely splintered
• For all the talk about individuals and individualized communications, audience segmentation is still an effective tool
• Audiences are self-organizing into groups (and companies like Seesmic are really enabling it)
  
• Groups fill a 'bridging function,' connecting to other groups, borrowing ideas and content from each other
  
• Understanding how groups (or 'communities,' if you prefer) work, who belongs, how they connect and talk provides insight into message flow and penetration

Let's look at one approach to this. Twitter is based on the individual, whether a person, an organization or a brand. To be really useful to the communications planner we need to see a bigger picture. Some sort of aggregation has to happen. That's where Tinker comes in. It's a service that enables you to follow events, not just individuals. It gives you a broader view of the chatter (sorry... buzz) going on about stuff that interests you and your organization. You get to see the connections between people and groups. Cool, no?

So yes, it's still all about me but that's not particularly helpful for communicators trying to do our jobs - getting the message out. It now has to also be all about communities.