« No Internet Going On Two Days | Main | Vote! »
Why Engagement Matters
Engagement is a word I am hearing more and more these days. We used to say interact (as in interactive media or advertising). Now we say engage.
It all semantics. These words are a recognition that two way is different than one way.
I have a friend who is one of the best technology journalists around. He took me to task recently for my non stop ranting about paid news content (wsj.com and times select in particular). He pointed out that all forms of media have free and paid models and archives are almost always paid.
I told him I have nothing against the business model per se, I am against the result. I cannot engage with content behind a wall. And I need to engage with content. I need to link to it, I need to screenshot/grab it, I need to bookmark it, tag it, comment on it, forward it, quote from it, blog about it, rate it, digg it, mash it up, embed videos, and supercharge it into the ether.
This is what two way media is all about. One way business models don't work in a two way medium.
That is why people are trying to measure and use engagement. A good examples is flickr's 'interestingness' algorithms that almost always deliver amazing photos when I search by keyword/tag. It's not clear what goes into that algorithm but it clearly uses commenting, favoriting, and probably a few other factors which are all measures of engagement.
Robert Scoble has been talking about this lately, particularly as it relates to measuring audiences around videoblogs and podcasts.
My friend Mark has built a service called Infofilter that measures the engagement level for entertainment products (bands, films, tv shows, even politicians). Enter a name and see the trends on flickr, myspace, youtube, delicious, blogs, etc. He's written a good thought piece on measuring engagement which he posted to his blog today. I like this quote:
In an initiative conducted by the Advertising Research Foundation, the need for a measurement of engagement is described as the "search for the 21st Century gross rating points.
If you are in the audience business, you must focus on engagement in the two way medium and adopt business models that facilitate audience engagement. To do otherwise is like showing up to a Nascar race in an old VW bug.
November 6, 2006 in Venture Capital and Technology | Permalink
Comments
The engagement piece at wiredset is indeed interesting. As I reflect on the engagement chart, What fascinates me is the different levels of ethical responsibility and brand liability companies must assume as they move from the lowest to the highest forms of engagement. At the lowest stages, trust is still forming so faux pas are acceptable, but at the highest stages of engagement a Startup could risk insolvency. With the viral nature of social networking, social media, social shopping, et. al. the new branding wars will be won at the earliest or lowest stages of engagement where trust and reliability form the basis of long-term brand-consumer relationships.
Posted by: Gerald Joseph | Nov 6, 2006 3:27:23 PM
It's instructive to note in your discussion of business models that they are, in fact, "business" models, and that the site usually has to pay for the paid content in the first place. Or to put it another way, editors, writers, and reporters all need to eat too.
It may well be that paid content doesn't allow you to "engage" with it as you'd like. It may also be that paid content suffers from being hidden.
Both cases, however, may be preferable to the alternative, which is no content at all. Well-written, well-researched, fact-checked content backed by a reputable source either has value to an audience that counter-balances the negatives you proclaim, or it doesn't.
One can get free, hot-headed opinion-based pieces anywhere on the web. Even here.
Posted by: Michael Long | Nov 6, 2006 3:49:01 PM
As a frequent reader of your blog, I love the fact that you bash the "behind the wall" publishers. I respect their decision, but time and time again it's been proven that free, ad supported will win online (consumers don't want to pay for content they believe they can get for free elsewhere). I am not saying it will never change, but not in my lifetime.
Salon.com, WSJ.com, the list goes on; eventually they change when other free publishers reveal their ad revenues.
Anyway, I think one major thing that will change this for good and tip the scales in favor of free content is - at the risk of drinking the cool-aid - blogs.
You don't have to read it, but the basic premise is that blogs will not link to something if they know that it will go behind a wall the next day. That gives a "ginormous" incentive to keep the content available for good...
Here's the link:
http://www.watchmojo.com/web/blog/?p=104
Posted by: ashkan karbasfrooshan | Nov 6, 2006 3:58:55 PM
>One way business models don't work in a two >way medium.
I don't disagree with you - but your post would be a lot stronger if you provided examples of one way-based businesses that are indeed broken. Just because there are many successful engagement-based businesses that are successful doesn't mean that all one-way based business are broken. In short, is wsj.com failing?
Lastly, in regards to content companies, the most successful companies are going to be the ones that combine elements of engagement with editorial control. NYT Digital is a great example of the hybrid model as it migrates to a middle point on the spectrum- the majority of (current) content is linkable; if you go to the homepage today, there are two blogs highlighted 'above the fold'; and the "most emailed" section is quickly tells me what other people have found popular - digg without all the pretentious social media blather.
So, could slashdot be doing better if it adopted more of an engagement model? Yes.
Could digg be doing better if it adopted more of an editorial model? If it ever wants to expand past the tech vertical, definitely.
Posted by: Gabe | Nov 6, 2006 4:04:08 PM
I'm not sure I fully grasp what engagement means. I'll assume it means anything from forwarding to social bookmarking to user-generated content. I do know this, though, there are times when the passivity of TV viewing, for instance is darned appealing. Engagement can take some time and energy, which limits the number of things I can absorb. It's engagement fatigue. There are many things I enjoy and absorb that I don't engage with, unless you count paying for it as engagement. These are usually things that people put together as a finished product, a "work" rather than a conversation, and often I appreciate the effort and art that goes into that.
Posted by: everysandwich | Nov 6, 2006 4:28:19 PM
I'm glad to see the term "engagement" making the rounds in the blogosphere. I know that in some ways it really is just a matter of semantics, but sometimes a change in terminology can make a big difference.
At Parnassus Ventures, we've made a point of using the term "engagement" when referring to working with bloggers and the blogosphere, because we really want to emphasize that everything is now two-way.
Posted by: Jason Preston | Nov 7, 2006 4:11:42 PM
new media simply changes the rules of branding. engagement (or whatever you want to call it) is everything. in the old world, mass media brands spoke at customers - in the new digital age, customers utlize interactive media to communicate with brands. Customers, with self-serving interests, are looking for individual and collobarative exerpeinces. Brands that understand that will succeed. the WSJ may have success with their paid model, but the real business question is who could they have become had they chosen a different path?
Posted by: Leigh | Nov 7, 2006 4:44:06 PM
I was wondering about this article which calls for us all to engage in another way. What are your feelings on it?
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2006/11/06/daily19.html?f=et78&hbx=e_du
Posted by: W.A. | Nov 7, 2006 8:26:43 PM
If you're wondering what's involved in the "interestingness" formula, you may want to check out their recent patent application on it.
Posted by: Darryl Ballantyne | Nov 8, 2006 12:58:08 AM
I saw Fred post on this blog recently saying that it's Fred's job to know about companies before they are written about on TechCrunch. I believe a phrase used by you was "That's life," in reference to the fact that access to information is not always democratic.
People who pay for WSJ/Times content feel they have some informational advantage or a feeling of cache, and they pay for that. Professionals who pay for VentureWire or who use Bloomberg Terminals similarly have informational advantage over those who don't. Most of this is one-way stuff.
If Fred were posting summaries of all his meetings for early-stage investments, that would be great, because I could "engage" with them. I could learn about new companies with whom I could partner, and I too would have an informational advantage. But Fred doesn't share his summaaries, and I suppose, to borrow a phrase, "that's life."
Posted by: Chris | Nov 8, 2006 8:31:35 AM
