Recently I was reprimanded for posting the following Tweet.
It was Friday night, I was at a gig. I like the band a lot and the Union Chapel is beautiful and evocative venue – and in those circumstances this translated a little more rationally perhaps than it does out outside of that context.
Even so, I didn’t entirely understand the reaction to something, I was informed, was not the kind of thing I normally talk about or am associated with.
Logically I’m only doing what lots of people do now, which is to extemporise moments in their lives, to an audience they may or may not know. At the same time using language and expressing emotions that are not the norm, could be seen as inauthentic or worse still pretentious – rendering the message a victim of its own intent.
The latter point is crucial in some respects as any communication relies on its audience to judge the originator’s motivation. Was this serious? Did I mean what I was saying? Did I express it properly? In a world where sarcasm and irony are used to decontextualized commentary, how you express something is often as important as what you are trying to say.
But if the importance of social media is that it does allow us to talk about what we chose, where and when it suits us, then presumably there are going to be more interactions like the above not less. Which is course begs the question is this really a good thing?
Isn’t it going to create a world of ever greater noise, where anybody can comment on anything, and where we all get lost in the welter of confusion and conflicting messages which surround every experience or idea.
I think this is not the case. In fact I think we have good evidence to show that the converse is already proving to be true.
“It’s not information overload. It’s filter failure.” Clay Shirky
Quite simply we have to learn to deal with the abundance of information that is coming our way for no other reason that it is in our own objective interests to do so. We have to begin to curate our own needs and requirements as we cannot rely on the traditional outlets here.The press are slowly disappearing and broadcasters are increasingly struggling to deal with the problem themselves. And of course both devote much of their time and space to information generated by social media in the first place.
Unless we decide where we source our information, from, then things quickly become overwhelming. And lots of us are becoming adept at this quite quickly. Just look at how we already segment our (electronic) social-selve’s between various channels
According to OFCOM on average in the UK we (the average “we” that is) spend 35 hours a week online – which for a lot of us is an entire working week. And within that expansive period, a quarter of all time is spent on just four or five Social Media sites. This is an enormous commitment of time in many peoples lives.
While the plethora of sources makes this more challenging in many ways, it also offers more diversity. Instinctively we look for those that reinforce our accepted ideas and opinions but it’s increasingly impossible to avoid the wider discourse and debate. If nothing else the matrix of sharing and interconnectivity opens us up to more sources, ideas, individuals and organisations, many of whom were unknown to us previously.
With both our personal and professional lives now open to these opportunities, we find ourselves increasingly taking a similar approach to both.
Individually, we fail to discriminate between the two, and we will happily use either, where it is useful or expedient to do so.
Which is great.
Unless your job involves trying to reach clients and markets as part of your companies messages and products. Because if our audience (i.e. us) are individually starting to control and curate our own information needs – and only trust those which we choose to connect with - then how do those traditional models of companies identifying, targeting and tracking their targets stack up in a networked world.
In short, they don’t.
Quite simply our personal adoption of disruptive technologies is, perversely, disrupting a function (marketing) which has always prided itself on being disruptive. For a long time now marketers have been “warming up leads”, “creating communities” and “executing engagement strategies”. Many of which are no longer credible activities because the exchange of information between individuals within any specific personal network (cohort) is regarded as more trustworthy or actionable.
If one person is recommended to do something by somebody else in their network (even if it’s just, read this article) then it’s more likely that it will happen than if compelled to do so by a random email.
It might be convenient for a large organisation to ascribe attributes to their clients and targets and call these “communities” but in an age where we are all bombarded with information, unless what is sent out is clearly actionable and of immediate interest to the recipient, it will be rejected and ignored. Aggregating content into products, based on such broad assumptions, is increasingly difficult to justify in a world where information flows so freely.
In the wider social context this is not a new phenomenon. In his 1958 paper, Community and Society sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies, identified the shift from smaller communities, which were regarded as definable unitary entities to a more urban society comprised of fragmented networks of association or cohorts.
The crucial difference being that such associations were made through personal choice rather than external ascription, strengthening an individual’s trust in their specific cohorts rather than the arbitrary groups (communities) to which it was assumed they belonged.
Which is where it all gets interesting. Businesses require structure and organisation to operate efficiently, but also to measure and tailor that efficiency. As such it makes sense for areas of knowledge and expertise to be grouped together internally, and similarly it makes sense to rationalise the marketplace into discrete areas that can be targeted through marketing, business development and sales activity.
However, there is an increasing mismatch between the structured groups used to target individuals and their view of how they wish to find, accept and consume content. As information becomes an increasingly key commodity in business decision making it is imperative that we all understand the nature of this change and operationally adapt to its processes to meet the needs of a world where information is more readily distributed through cohorts rather than to communities.
So how do we do this? The good news is that a crucial element of it is relatively straightforward. Just start creating and distributing useful content. Think of information as a utility rather than a support mechanism.
Content has become devalued partly because it has become a commodity and partly because its role is so ill-defined. Much of what we see today is borne out of the last major information revolution in the mid-to-late 1980’s, when desktop publishing technology allowed organisations to emulate the processes of the mass media and produce their own print-based publications.
Companies then began aggregating multiple pieces of content together into magazine or newsletter style products aimed at so-called communities of interest. The bigger the community the more content could be packaged together, the bigger the savings in distribution. This approach is still the norm in many organisations. It also dominates thinking around the commissioning of content. However, this model no longer really works.
The internet demands content be stripped back to its core messaging and is readily available as unique components, be it a publications, white papers, videos, webcasts, podcasts etc. This is how the material is indexed, this is how it is searched and this is how it is found. But while businesses continue to bundle content together in ready-made packages the bulk of its intellectual value is lost.
And this despite the fact that engaging video and audio products are almost as easy to create, edit and distribute as print documents.
We also know that users consume content one piece at a time, and they do not necessarily know nor care about the provenance of the information as long as they trust its referring source. This is what is hurting traditional newspaper publishers. They are now competing with each other on a story by story basis and cannot rely on discounts in cover price to shore up a title.
Similarly, we can no longer rely just on our brand image, size or reach. Clients and targets may initially think of looking to organisations like ours for their information needs, but now it is easier to type a query into a search engine and find the answer to the question on your mind, then that reliance can no longer be trusted.
If the aggregation of content into a greater whole actively damages the chances of it being found and read online, particularly if you use content to distribute thinking and look for client engagement – what has become known as content marketing. Our content distribution model needs to be adjusted to one which sweats every asset produced to ensure the maximum value can be extracted.
This is best done by publishing information individually, in multiple formats, via multiple channels to the widest possible audience – through atomisation.
But as the user experience continues to diversify, towards video and audio, personal blogs, social networks etc the onus is going to fall on companies, to connect on their audience's our terms.
If you are investigating a question and you are pre-disposed towards watching video’s rather than reading documents then you’ll choose a You Tube link over Wikipedia. Similarly, if you think someone in your network will know the answer to a question you may well ask them via Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn. As a result it is crucial that we ensure our content is as portable, mobile and sharable as is possible.
The basic challenge here is simple enough – in an information rich environment how do we best reach our clients? Which brings us back to the central importance of networks.
Our established methodology still groups people together based on forms of market segmentation. But the fragmented nature of people’s roles and lives means that these ascribed groups are not necessarily understood or recognised by those in these target groups.
Finding the moment when somebody is interested in and what a company is talking about is an inexact science – but if it addresses the issues on the mind of its audience, in the language they chose, and make it available where they are likely to look, then its chances of success increase exponentially.
It sounds easy because it is. But only if you understand why so many organisations find it so hard.