The Rules Of Engagement
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result” Albert Einstein
Ever since studying Social Biology at college I have been a fascinated observer of engagement methods, not only in media but also personal relationships.
Why do people interact with a particular advert? What drives deep conversation with others? Why do people surrender personal details to a faceless company? How can marketers create environments that are highly engaging?
There is so much discussion of ‘joining the conversation’ and ‘rich dialogue’ but not so much about the strategy or execution of engaging information. In this section we will consider ‘The Rules of Engagement’ which are essentially a set of guidelines that can be applied to any type of communication, commercially focused or otherwise. Application of these rules creates interaction, grows trust and enables conversation.
The rules are split into 4 parts – all equal in priority and not in any particular order:
1. Transparency of Offering (allowing crystal clear understanding)
2. Relevancy of Communication (not assumed but assured)
3. Value of Incentive (not necessarily monetary)
4. Ease of Interaction (enabling intuitive interaction)
Whenever I have outlined these 4 parts publicly or in consultation, heads are nodded and almost all concur that these things are all very important. Then in many cases business as usual resumes and campaigns/products/services are released to market that may have a strong value of incentive and are super-relevant but the implied user experience dictates a super-human effort to interact.
Few people engage and effort is largely worthless. Fingers are pointed, lessons seldom learned and the same people using the same methods do the same thing again and again, expecting a different result.
The thing I have found is that on first glance the rules seem almost too simplistic, too brief, too ‘top-line’, too easy. Added to this there is a subtlety often overlooked in that the rules are critically inter-dependant and applicable to one another. For example:
A new product on the market that you find highly relevant (rule 2) may have some form of incentive that encourages you to purchase (rule 3). However the incentive must be clearly defined (rule 1) and also relevant to you in itself (back to rule 2) as should the method of purchase – whenever or wherever you like (rule 4), all from a vendor who doesn’t have questionable terms and conditions (back to rule 1).
So, despite the 4 rules being blatantly simple, the interplay between them often differentiates success from failure.
Transparency of Offering
At the time of writing, a multitude of (currently) successful companies have a myriad of methods to persuade consumers to purchase in full knowledge that eventually the consumers may well realise that the product or service isn’t exactly what they thought.
The small print is hidden away as small as the regulators will allow, not apologetically but intentionally sidelined so prospects’ interpretation of marketing message isn’t hindered by truth.
Seth Godin: “Somewhere along the line marketers, in order to succeed in a competitive marketplace, decided to see what they could get away with instead of what they could deliver”.
Entire divisions are created to deal with the calls that the vendor knows will take place and scripts are written to combat the consumer complaints that the vendor knows they will have, in many cases because it’s only a matter of time before the consumers realise the catch.
Within trading regulations, many marketers will stretch truth to the absolute limit hoping that those that engage will at best fall for it or at worst, accept the sub-text.
Until recently, this was a seemingly fair and popular approach. However, in the ultra-connected world in which we live, access to information has never been easier. Billions of people can seamlessly access forum posts by others who have real-life experiences of almost any product or service. As we discuss in the chapter ‘Perception = Reality’, this citizen content is omnipotent.
Now, any misguidance in advertising campaigns is subject not only to the original risk of consumers realising an unpalatable truth, but also a risk of mass communication within communities of past, present and potential consumers that eclipse existing market size thus determining market acceptance.
I believe offerings into market must replace small print with big print.
If something costs money then it should not be advertised as free.
It’s not free. It costs money.
If there is a barrier in the journey to engage, show a roadmap upfront or create a current like a lazy river effortlessly assisting people through experiences.
The people of the world are not stupid. Getting away with smoke and mirrors up until now should neither be justification nor indication of future strategy. The last 100 years is not a blueprint for the next 100 years, let alone the next 10.
Transparency has to replace trickery. I am sure this is a concern to those who are masters at spin, but frankly, we need new experts.
Relevancy of Communication
Stating that relevancy is important is like stating that air is important to breathe. The unfortunate reality is that assuring relevance is a great deal harder than playing a numbers game in traditional commercial communication.
Adopting a ‘hit and hope’ approach safe in the knowledge that 1% or .1% of people will find communication suitable to their taste is one of the foundations of the media industry at the time of writing.
Can you imagine a doctor prescribing a drug 100 times to 100 people feeling content that at least 1 of those people will find that drug useful and the other 99 will find it abhorrent whilst their biological system will try its best to tolerate the chemical imbalance? In the medical world this is malpractice. In media its best practice.
We defend these approaches with statements about how it has worked until now. Horseback riding worked fine as a principle transport mechanism until cars came along.
I believe there is only one way of ensuring relevance and that is to learn about the parties being communicated with rather than just being randomly being communicated to.
I do not believe the term ‘semi-targeted’ is valid. I do not believe that inferring from behaviour alone is enough to ensure relevance.
People’s behaviour can only ever be one singular layer upon which true preference and permission can be built to show a fuller picture.
Behaviour alone does not necessarily show what people want or what they think and bearing in mind marketers would like people to think they want a particular brand, I believe that allowed knowledge of feeling and desire is critical.
One especially heated exchange on stage at Oxford University in 2008 presented in a contrary view to the above (which has been echoed by many since) based around the claim that:
1. The media industry has been fine using the existing models for the last 100 years so there is no need to change
2. We are built with in-built filtering mechanisms (our eyes) so there is no need to enhance relevance
3. Advertisers don’t know how to ensure relevance (the phrase the person used was ‘they don’t have the mental bandwidth’) so there is little point in applying a model that wont fly with them
However exasperated the above makes you feel, I assure you that having the CEO of a large social network saying it in front of a packed audience who admire him is an interesting experience to say the least.
Value of Incentive
The immediate thing that comes to mind is money. We often equate value with cash. Incentive is almost parlance for payment. It is interesting though that people value different things at different times. Sometimes money isn’t top of the list.
I view incentive as something that is desirable. In any form of communication, incentive also has to balance against the personal payout.
In 2007 a campaign ran where people were asked to provide some personal details (this was the personal payout) and in exchange they would receive 2p off a 30p snack. The results should that out of the few who engaged, most details were found to be false.
Later the same year, a famous coffee chain ran a mobile campaign where
anyone who was outside a coffee shop (with Bluetooth enabled) was sent a promotion for coffee. This was all well and good for those that were not in the below segments:
1. Those who didn’t want a coffee
2. Those who didn’t like that particular brand of coffee
3. Those who didn’t like the brand
At the time of writing, this campaign is viewed as a success but even if you remove the fact the sun was blazing hot during the campaign, do you suppose the people in the 3 segments above would see it as remarkable?
Incentive is only of value if:
1. The incentive itself contains no hidden catch (Transparency)
2. The incentive matches your desires at that time, place and context (Relevancy)
3. The incentive is worth the payout (Value)
4. The incentive is easy to gain (Ease)
Ease of Interaction
The inherent challenge that new technology has is that people who are not user experience experts create many of the offerings. Many start-ups and established companies become so obsessed with technical innovation that the application in real-life is, at best, after-thought.
Sometimes these innovations are claimed to be ‘ahead of their time’ or that there was ‘not enough money to take it to market’. Other times, the claims are that ‘the market wasn’t ready’ or that competitors spoiled the party.
Actually, it is just as likely that the product or service was fundamentally flawed in ignoring the need for incredible and intuitive ease of use.
The reason that Google’s home page contains very little content (and absolutely no advertising) is so there are no barriers to being able to use the service. Compare this to directory services where there are often multiple boxes and variables. These services demand the individual to do the work rather than have their software taken the burden.
I believe that ease of use needs to be contextually relevant to the product or service. The experience needs to be consistent throughout. Mechanisms created so people can buy a ticket easily must solely allow people to do exactly that. Immediately.
I believe that ease of use needs to be transparent in its method. There must be clearly stated steps showing those engaged where they are in the (very simple) journey.
I believe that ease of use needs to be marketed as a killer incentive. Amazon buyers are unlikely to churn off a service that is currently intuitive. The buyers want to go there as brilliant experience is now expected. Apple iPods are simple to the point of child’s play and I doubt many people ever read a guide of how to work it.
—
None of the above is revolutionary. This isn’t rocket science.
Why then are these principles so often ignored, missed or overlooked?
The rules of engagement can be (and should be) applied to all instances of communication in my opinion.
Try using the 4 rules the next time you request a meeting with someone who you don’t know. Try using the rules when you ask someone out on a date. Try when you are being interviewed for a job. Try when you are interviewing.
Try when you are assembling 30 really busy marketers who have 100 better things to do (in their opinion).
Try when you create an advertising strategy. Try when you create a new company or launch a new product.
See the difference the rules make. Use them liberally at every opportunity and you will find people will more likely engage with your thoughts, words and deeds.
–
Discuss
geezer, this is a fantastic piece. E
thanks mate – i really appreciate that..