Jonathan MacDonald

Several years ago I wrote a piece called The Rules of Engagement which appears in my book The Communication Ideal.

These covered also in a piece called ‘The ‘advanced’ Thinking of Basic Principles‘ and further referenced in a whitepaper introducing a modern day philosophy called Involvism.

Here are The Rules of Engagement in full:

–

“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 showed 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 seen as 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.

–

Namaste

I love infographics but actually, @tomiahonen is still THE authority on mobile statistics.

Click to expand.

Not Tomi, the infographic.

–

One of my favourite albums of all time has one of the best songs ever recorded in my opinion – it’s called ‘Oh My God’ and the album is called ‘Stay Human‘ by Michael Franti & Spearhead.

Below is a video taken at the Power to the Peaceful festival – apologies for the quality – it captures the essence though.

The lyrics are beneath…and what a lyric…note, in the video he changes a few – the ones below are the original – slightly more hardcore(!)

Namaste

Oh my, oh my God

In my mind they got us livin’ suicide

Singin’, oh my, oh my God

In my mind they got us livin’ genocide

Singin’, oh my, oh my God

In my mind they got us livin’ suicide

Singin’, oh my, oh my God, oh my God

Slam bam I come unseen but like gasoline, you can tell I’m in the tank

Like money in the bank, I smell appealin’ but I’m toxic can send ya reline’

Without an inklin’, keep ya thinkin’ ’cause you gave cash to the Feds,

Left your school district for dead fucked you up in the head

But still they sayin’ nothin’s wrong sellin’ firewater but outlawin’ the bong

Still believin’ the system is workin’

While half of my people are still outta workin’

Anonymous notes left in the pockets and coats

Of judges and juries from Frisco to Jersey

Threats and protests politicians mob debts

Trumped up charges and phoney arrests

Stage a lethal injection, the night before the election

‘Cause he got donations from the prison guard’s union

Oh my, oh my God

In my mind they got us livin’ suicide

Singin’, oh my, oh my God

In my mind they got us livin’ genocide

Singin’, oh my, oh my God

In my mind they got us livin’ suicide

Singin’, oh my, oh my God, oh my God

Listen in to my stethoscope on a rope, internal lullabies

Human cries, thumps and silence, the language of violence

Algorithmic, cataclysmic, seismic, biorhythmic

You can make alive longer, but you can’t save it,

You can make a clone an then you try to enslave it?

Stealin’ DNA samples from the unborn

And then you comin’ after us’ cause we sampled a James Brown horn?

Scientists who’s God is progress, a four-headed sheep is their latest project,

The CIA runnin’ like that Jones from Indiana

But they still won’t talk about that Jones in Guyana

This ain’t no cartoon, no one slips on bananas,

Do you really think that, that car killed Diana?

Hell I shot Ronald Reagan, I shot JFK

I slept with Marilyn, she sung me happy birthday

Oh my, oh my God

In my mind they got us livin’ suicide

Singin’, oh my, oh my God

In my mind they got us livin’ genocide

Singin’, oh my, oh my God

In my mind they got us livin’ suicide

Singin’, oh my, oh my God, oh my God

Well, politicians got lipstick on the collar

The whole media started to holler

But I don’t give a fuck who they screwin’ in private

I wanna know who they screwin’ in public

Robbin’, cheatin’, stealin’, white collar criminal

McDonald eatin’, you deserve a beatin’

Send you home a weepin’, with a fat bill for your Caribbean weekend

For just about anythin’ they can bust us,

False advertisin’ sayin’ “Halls of Justice”

You tellin’ the youth don’t be so violent

Then you drop bombs on every single continent?

Mandatory minimum sentencin’

‘Cause he got caught with a pocket fulla medicine

Do that again another ten up in the pen

I feel so mad I wanna bomb an institution

Singin’, oh my, oh my God

In my mind they got us livin’ suicide

Singin’, oh my, oh my God

In my mind they got us livin’ genocide

Singin’, oh my, oh my God

In my mind they got us livin’ suicide

Singin’, oh my, oh my God, oh my God

And we say, “nah nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah”

And we say, ” nah nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah nah”

So we keep movin’ on movin on ’cause they never gonna

Stop us no, stop us no, stop us no

Stop us no, stop us no, stop us no

Stop us no, stop us no, stop us no

Stop us no, no

Oh my, oh my, oh my

Oh my, oh my, oh my

Sweet, sweet, sweet, sweet

–

A while ago I wrote a whitepaper of a philosophy called Involvism.

Here I would like to re-blog the 4th method called Cohesion.

The entire series published to date can be found by clicking here.

–

Mantra

The cohesive link of beliefs, values, approaches and strategy across all company activity is an fundamental component of enabling value, efficiency, productivity, profitability and scale. Activity in the public facing part of organisations must match the mindset and methodology of internal structures. Conversely, there must be the same cohesion between the way of working and the approach to citizens. Only when all parts of an organisation are working cohesively can real benefit be gained.

Key Actions

1. Formalise key values, offerings and ethos into a clear, understandable core direction and proposition

2. Familiarise all sectors of an organisation in the above direction and proposition, encouraging belief and inheritance of core

3. Focus especially on the silos that act without link to the core – adding flexibility and agility to their operations

4. Follow the guidance of citizens in adjusting the core direction and proposition – become jointly accountable with them in enabling a cohesive approach

Involvist Viewpoint

It is very common to see an organisation with a public facing approach that has little or no relation to internal belief.

In the days of broadcast control, it was very difficult for citizens to:

a) Identify delta between what was said and what was done or,

b) Transmit such identification to others

Until we were well connected in the developed world, the above points enabled companies to operate with two dissimilar approaches. Few people would realise and even less would talk about it.

Now though, we have an increased ability to discover how companies are run and cross-match that with the outward approach in public. Be it through easy access to public records, employee blogs or facebook pages – it’s not hard to construct a fairly accurate account of what is really going on within an organisation. A company whose outbound message is one of ‘freedom’ yet runs its business in a dictatorial way, is more easily found out and the ‘story’ to citizens doesn’t really add up.

Involvism suggests that the model of disconnect isn’t optimum in the world we now live in. What is called for in the 4th method is cohesion between what is said and what is done.

Unfortunately for companies who have never needed to worry about this, the implementation of cohesion requires significantly broad activity across an entire organisation – so much so that this Involvism method may well look like science fiction. Nevertheless, to operate in the most valuable, efficient, productive, profitable and scalable way, cohesion is a mandatory method – regardless of required upheaval.

The key to understanding cohesion is to start with seeking clarity.

Clarity breeds understanding of what business you are actually in, what value you really bring, and what opportunities are concretely there.

Many companies have numerous departments, divisions or data centres who have little if anything to do with one another. Many companies contain other companies with subset P&Ls which are managed by people who, understandably, have little care for wether another company’s profit is healthy or not.

This environment makes it difficult for a cohesive system to be in place as priorities are not linked together.

We see companies who have great strap-lines and soundbites – maybe even throw in a unified colour scheme – but are fighting for different corners and have little or no understanding what it is they are really doing that is of value.

It is of paramount importance that once clarity and understanding is achieved, the sectors within an organisation need to be totally familiar and believing in the core approaches and values set out.

It is unlikely that the way of working can remain unchanged if the current way doesn’t fit squarely within the core belief. This is especially common in disparate parts of an organisation that is on linked in a tertiary way to the main business. However, these are often the parts that have the most negative effect when acting independently to the core approach as everything is as strong as its weakest link.

Even when there is cohesion within an organisation and its outbound communication, the final element is to enable input and guidance from citizens. Then, we would see truly cohesive outbound and inbound behaviour that is monumentally hard to compete with and replicate.

Cohesion is not the easiest of things to implement – however, the world is too fast and too connected to seriously consider an approach that is in any way disjointed. Become a cohesive energy and you will be monumentally empowered to enable value, efficiency, productivity, profitability and scale.