Communication Power

I've been meditating on a clumsy analysis of communication channels that I stumbled across, fairly certain that its creator was close to getting it right, his analysis was attempting to tackle too many factors all at once, which was leading him to the wrong conclusion. It's going to take some work to untangle it and sort it all out, but I think I've made a little progress in accurately simplifying communication power to a two-factor analysis.

"Accurately" is of importance: far too many theorists inaccurately simplify - and I realize by using two-factor analysis, a clumsy tool that has led to innumerable bad conclusions, I may be doing the same, but my sense is this is about right:

In its most fundamental sense, communication power can be distilled to the ability to send or receive information. The two are not necessarily related, and by comparing them in a binary sense (you either can or cannot communicate - though these are extremes on a spectrum in which communication is possible, but constrained - though I'm avoiding that level of complexity at this time), four categories of communication power are defined:

Interactive Communication

A fully interactive communication, in which a person is able to communicate to others and receive communication from others, is widely considered to be the "gold standard" of communication, to which technology should always aspire.

However, I disagree: from the perspective of both the sender and the receiver, there are instances in which interactive communication is not effective, efficient, or even desirable: there is an appropriate place for the other three categories of communication empowerment.

Neither is interactivity particularly high-tech. The most primitive form of communication, face-to-face discourse, is the most highly interactive form of communication that exists, and for all the effort that has been placed on research and development, technology is laughably impotent at achieving the same richness of interaction as a simple conversation.

Indifferent Broadcast

Indifferent broadcast pertains to a situation in which one party is fully capable of transmitting information, but incapable of receiving any information in return from the receiver. This is the mode of communication of most mass-media: newspapers, television, film, radio, billboards, and the like are all methods of broadcasting a message to an audience.

I've appended "indifferent" because, frankly, it applies to most individuals who seek to communicate in this manner. It is a highly egocentric method of communication chosen by those who are indifferent to their audience - in effect, it is the mind-set of an individual who declares "I will speak, and you will keep your mouth shut and listen to me." Such people are considered boorish in interpersonal communications, and it is no less so when a politician delivers a speech or an advertiser delivers a commercial message: they don't want to have a conversation, but to inflict their ideas upon a captive audience, and expect only their reception and obedience.

"Indifferent" not the same as "undifferentiated," though mass-media may give that perception. A letter written from one person to another is a one-way communication to a single recipient, and segmented marketing seeks to communicate to very specific audiences, but in a mode that is still broadcast communication.

Passive Reception

Passive reception is a mode in which a person is able to receive information but not send any information in return. Most generally, this is done when one is a compliant recipient of an indifferent broadcast - which may be done willingly (a person chooses to read a book or watch a television program) or unwillingly (a person cannot avoid a roadside billboard or an announcement made over a loudspeaker).

As with indifferent broadcast, passive reception may be a matter of ability or a matter of choice. A person can choose to be passively receptive to information that another party may be unintentionally broadcasting. This is common practice when interpreting nonverbal communication: in most instances, the transmitter is not aware of the information he is sending, and the recipient remains observant but not responsive to it to avoid calling attention to the fact that he is gathering information.

It is (wrongly) assumed that passive reception indicates agreement with and agreeableness to the information they are receiving, and that they will choose to act upon the information in the way that the transmitter intends: the interaction of indifferent broadcaster and passive receiver is inherent in most approaches to advertising and marketing.

Absence of Communication

In this situation, the individual can neither send nor receive information. The most extreme example of such a situation is that of a hermit, living alone and apart from other people in a remote location, who hasn't the ability to communicate at all.

However, it's not only at the extremes that absence of communication exists. Driving a car through a long tunnel, with no cell phone signal, puts a person in a situation where they are unable to communicate. Riding in an airplane also prevents communication - you may chat with fellow passengers, but can't have meaningful conversation with people in other locations.

Neither ins absence of communication entirely undesirable. There are times when a person simply wants to be left alone for a while: few people cared to be bothered by anyone in the workplace while on vacation, and virtually no-one cares to be interrupted when engrossed in a book.

Caveats

Primarily, I must concede that this analysis is highly simplistic, and as such may not be entirely accurate (though at this time, I have a sense it is so), nor of much use in and of itself. It's not so much a discovery as the exploration of a common premise that is very often overlooked.

Another drawback is that I have not made much distinction between the ability and willingness of the parties involved. I have referred to it in some instances, but have not fully considered the differentiation between a person who is utterly unable to send or receive information and one who simply chooses not to do so.

A third note is that this has been a binary analysis, which assumes that a party is either fully able or fully unable (or willing) to send or receive information. I have a sense that it is common for a person to be able/willing to communicate to a degree, rather than all-or-noting, that bears further consideration.

Coming Soon: Mobile 2.0

The boom-crash phenomenon of the Internet in the late twentieth century resulted from traditional retailers (store and catalog) investing billions of dollars in extending their operations to the Internet without considering that the new channel might require them to take a different approach. It was not until there was a widespread catastrophe that most firms decided to start over, and try to get it right, after having learned the hard way that the Web is a thing unto itself, fundamentally different from traditional channels, and requiring a fundamentally different approach.

The emergence of the mobile channel has given them the opportunity to repeat the same mistake, and they seem to be doing an excellent job of it: companies are approaching the mobile channel in the exact same way they are approaching the Internet channel, as if the mobile device is merely a miniature computer. Many seem to be making their mobile presence a virtual clone of their Web sites, to enable (or compel) the customer to do the exact same things, in the exact same way, as they do in a fundamentally different channel, with very little regard for the nature of the channel or the way in which people seek to use it.

Sooner or later, they will achieve the exact same results: a complete and spectacular failure that will give them the incentive to do what they should have done in the first place ... consider mobile as a thing unto itself, fundamentally different from the Web channel, and requiring a fundamentally different approach.

From all I've seen and experienced, I don't hold out much hope that companies will see the mistake they are making before they venture too far and invest too much in going in a familiar direction that's altogether inappropriate for the new medium. I do expect that they will learn the same painful lesson and that, before much longer, we will see the rise of Mobile 2.0 - and hopefully, they'll only need two chances to get it right this time.

Capitalizing on Consumer Behavior

I read a brief article on consumer behavior that got me to thinking: how is it possible, in a broadcast medium such as the Web, to consider the personality and motivation of a specific buyer? It's easy enough to understand how these ideas would be applied to direct sales - a face-to-face selling situation provides the salesman with the ability to read a person and adapt the way in which he pitches the product to the personality and motivation of the prospect. But on the Internet, a single interface communicates product information to all buyers.

I have a sense that certain firms collect enough information about their users to make an educated guess: a bookstore would likely be able to sort out a person's personality relatively easy, and to some degree the same could be done with any entertainment product (music, videos, etc. all are categories where the user's consumption provides strong hints); a retailer who sells a wide variety of merchandise; or a credit card company (which cannot detect the items, but the retailers should provide sufficient evidence to make a reasonable estimate).

Even a niche retailer might have a sense of its demographic, and in some instances be able to formulate a fairly accurate estimation of the way in which its particular body of customers is skewed. And the fact that certain kinds of customers prefer certain retailers might lead a single firm to operate multipel storefronts that sell the same inventory, with different presentation styles to appeal to different market segments.

It's an interesting notion, and one that is not new to the online medium ... but the online medium does seem to provide certain facilities that would enable a single firm to more easily adapt its strategy to the needs of specific market segments in a more fluid and adaptable way than could be done in the brick-and-mortar or catalog channels.

Change Drives Technology

I read an astoundingly gormless blog post this morning: the author was expounding on the notion that technology drives change that transforms a culture, and she used the example of the Roman roads, insisting that the Roman Empire was able to expand to encompass all of Europe because there were roads over which they could move their armies and supplies. Without such a system of roads, the Romans would never have been able to build such a vast empire. Given the context of the post, this was not a misstatement, but a complete misinterpretation of historical fact.

Certainly, the road systems helped Rome maintain control: but it's far more plausible (and historically accurate) to suggest that the Roman empire expanded, then the roads were built. They may have helped Rome to maintain the lands it had conquered, and certainly facilitated the movement of men and materiel to its borders - but they did not exist beforehand: they did not enable Rome to expand, but were needed after Rome had already expanded.

In the context of the argument, and discussion of the topic in general, it is clear that technology does not drive change ... change drives technology.

Until a need exists, technology is of little value - it is a solution in search of a problem - and unless a need arises, the technology to serve that need is of no value at all. Arguably, technology can help people to find a way to do something they didn't think was possible, but it takes a whole lot of marketing dollars to teach them about the "needs" they do not recognize that they have.

The notion that "technology drives change" was one of the leading factors in the dot-com crash of a decade ago, and it's clear (from that blog post, and many others that take as premise the same notion in more subtle ways) that the lesson has not been entirely learned: technology that gives people a way to do something that they do not need to do is not likely to succeed, or to become transformational.

The transformation must come first, and technology will follow, to address the problems and needs that arise as a result of the transformation.

This is an important principle to keep in mind when considering the hype that surrounds any new development in technology: what existing need does it serve? Where there is a straightforward answer, the technology is likely to succeed. Where the promoters take the tactic of suggesting what new things it enables a person to do, without reference to their existing needs, it likely will not.

Tangling with Tyrants

I've posted reading notes on Tony Deblauwe's book, Tangling with Tyrants. The book is intended to serve as a guidebook for employees who are dealing with difficult bosses, but it's interesting in the context of any relationship in which there is an imbalance of power, and the individual in the advantaged position acts in a way that serves their short-term interest but damages the greater long-term value they (and their organization) might derive from a less parasitic relationship with the disadvantaged party.

The employee of a "tyrant" boss can be likened to the company that serves a petulant customer - though the nature of the relationship often seems inverted, there is a balance of power that should be considered: while companies will bend over backward to serve their customers because they provide the company with its income (just as an employee will suffer an abusive boss for the sake of a paycheck), there comes a point at which a customer demands more value from the vendor than the vendor is willing to give, in light of other customers who will pay a fair price and be less demanding. It's this notion that leads a firm to refuse to give any further service a customer who costs more to placate than the company derives in profit from serving them.

Aside of that, I was stricken by the notion that many employees who protest at the treatment they receive from their superiors often become bosses who inflict the same treatment upon their own subordinates when they rise to a given level of power and authority. That is, when the roles are reversed, there is a complete change of perspective.

This can be witnessed in instances in which a company stops serving its customers and begins attempting to control them. A retail store may cater to a customer up until the moment of sale, but the quality of the customer experience completely reverses itself when the customer seeks a refund for a product already purchased. Or a company whose product involves a term commitment, such as a health club or cell phone provider, has the customer "locked" into an agreement that compels him to pay regardless of whether he is satisfied with the service he receives. Or a company who is in a position of power due to the lack of options available to a customer, such as a utility company or a hospital emergency room.

The problem is similar in that the company who treats a customer poorly doesn't consider the benefit it derives from a more long-term relationship with a customer - it seeks to get all it can in the near term, maximizing profit or minimizing loss from immediate activities, rather than considering the potential lifetime value of the customer from being more service-oriented and attentive to the needs of the customer. As soon as other options are available - the term contract has ended or another provider enters a market - the customer leaves.

Ultimately, the answer isn't to perpetuate the power struggle between parties, but to seek a mutually beneficial relationship, with each party being reasonable about its demands of the other in light of the value it obtains in exchange. To do otherwise is to achieve a short-term gain at the sacrifice of a greater long-term one.