Read Mike's current blog here – mikearauz.wordpress.com
Subscribe – RSS
The Elements of Digital Conversation
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Although we often use the word in new contexts, the basic definition of conversation hasn't really changed. A conversation is an informal exchange of thoughts or ideas. Most importantly, though, engaging in a conversation means that you don't say everything that there is to say. You expect the other person to make a contribution, and you intentionally leave things unsaid so that the other person has an opportunity to add their part. (Brands often have trouble with this. Twitter is really good for this.)
During the internet's relatively short, yet prolific, evolution we've seen this communications technology enable incredible new forms of conversation: listservs, message boards, image boards, instant messaging, blogs, social network sites. And mobile technology has extended many of these conversations to our pockets, including conversation via text message.
Over the past two years Twitter has emerged as a powerful platform for global networked conversation, unlike anything we've experienced before.
I've been trying to wrap my head around what exactly makes Twitter so special. (And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.) What I've realized is that it's not any one specific aspect of Twitter that makes it special. What makes Twitter a revolutionary communications tool is how it combines seemingly elemental aspects of digital conversation.
Click for full size image
Place: Mobile / Web Based
In the olden days, in order to be in a conversation with someone you had to be in the same place. For a while this extended to the digital world, even as mobile devices became ubiquitous. Text messages stayed on the phones, and web-based chatter stayed on the web. Twitter merged these two worlds in a revolutionary way.
Time: Real-time / Archived
Conversations have traditionally been thought of as happening in real-time. Most people would probably agree that Instant Messaging is probably the closest digital equivalent we have to off-line conversation. But, the web allows us to make every exchange permanent, and more importantly searchable after the conversation is over. Twitter has bridged this divide. Our contributions to the Twitter conversation are available instantaneously (barring any technical difficulties), yet also available for catching up on or discovering later.
Access: Public / Private
Digital conversations have typically been either one-to-one or one-to-many. Twitter enables us to move along that spectrum of intimacy fluidly. Our messages are usually available to everyone in the public timeline, yet only our network of followers is intentionally listening. We can address our message specifically to one person either in public with an @reply, or in private with a direct message. We can switch from one to the other seamlessly.
Network: Open / Invite-only
The network structure of Twitter is its most unique aspect. Anyone can join any conversation. The barrier to entry is effectively zero. Yet, people are constantly receiving personal invitations to connect with new people via public @replies. This has allowed Twitter to achieve a scale of connectedness unmatched in even social network sites. We can follow many more people that we would typically consider ourselves "able to maintain a relationship" with, and yet almost everyone we connect with is at least a friend-of-a-friend.
Twitter the company and Twitter the tool may not last. Like so many social network sites before it, we may very well see a more savvy competitor take it's place. Or the tool might get integrated into other existing sites like Facebook or even Gmail, making the independent version inconvenient. But regardless of who enables this new global networked conversation platform, you can be sure that it is special. And it's not going away.
During the internet's relatively short, yet prolific, evolution we've seen this communications technology enable incredible new forms of conversation: listservs, message boards, image boards, instant messaging, blogs, social network sites. And mobile technology has extended many of these conversations to our pockets, including conversation via text message.
Over the past two years Twitter has emerged as a powerful platform for global networked conversation, unlike anything we've experienced before.
I've been trying to wrap my head around what exactly makes Twitter so special. (And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.) What I've realized is that it's not any one specific aspect of Twitter that makes it special. What makes Twitter a revolutionary communications tool is how it combines seemingly elemental aspects of digital conversation.
Place: Mobile / Web Based
In the olden days, in order to be in a conversation with someone you had to be in the same place. For a while this extended to the digital world, even as mobile devices became ubiquitous. Text messages stayed on the phones, and web-based chatter stayed on the web. Twitter merged these two worlds in a revolutionary way.
Time: Real-time / Archived
Conversations have traditionally been thought of as happening in real-time. Most people would probably agree that Instant Messaging is probably the closest digital equivalent we have to off-line conversation. But, the web allows us to make every exchange permanent, and more importantly searchable after the conversation is over. Twitter has bridged this divide. Our contributions to the Twitter conversation are available instantaneously (barring any technical difficulties), yet also available for catching up on or discovering later.
Access: Public / Private
Digital conversations have typically been either one-to-one or one-to-many. Twitter enables us to move along that spectrum of intimacy fluidly. Our messages are usually available to everyone in the public timeline, yet only our network of followers is intentionally listening. We can address our message specifically to one person either in public with an @reply, or in private with a direct message. We can switch from one to the other seamlessly.
Network: Open / Invite-only
The network structure of Twitter is its most unique aspect. Anyone can join any conversation. The barrier to entry is effectively zero. Yet, people are constantly receiving personal invitations to connect with new people via public @replies. This has allowed Twitter to achieve a scale of connectedness unmatched in even social network sites. We can follow many more people that we would typically consider ourselves "able to maintain a relationship" with, and yet almost everyone we connect with is at least a friend-of-a-friend.
Twitter the company and Twitter the tool may not last. Like so many social network sites before it, we may very well see a more savvy competitor take it's place. Or the tool might get integrated into other existing sites like Facebook or even Gmail, making the independent version inconvenient. But regardless of who enables this new global networked conversation platform, you can be sure that it is special. And it's not going away.
7 Comments:
Mike:
There is noise. There is conversation. And there is outcome. Twitter has lots of noise. But if you get past it you can, in fact, find and create meaningful conversation. The question for brands is and will be, what's the outcome. Listening, engaging, yada yada is all good. But at the end of the day, brands want results. What all marketers, from CMOS to self proclaimed SM experts are trying to do is figure that one out. So, yes, we now have the platform (place, time, access, network). It's time to do even more interesting things with it. How do we employ it, connect it to other initiatives, integrate it into overall marketing efforts, make it part of a brand's culture, use it to solidify relationships with prospects and customers that yield outcomes. Lots of people talking about it. Fewer actually accomplishing it.
Edward Boches
Interesting and very well written article. Thanks for this.
But, Twitter is not suitable for large corporations wanting to have one voice and one message to their customers, rather, various people from within that corporation have Twitter accounts and they all represent that company. So it's getting harder for companies to control that message and to have an uniform communication stream.
I think this is why Twitter brings back the power to consumers. Companies feel naked in front of consumers on Twitter. That's why many companies block access to it during working hours and have strong policies regarding things you can or cannot say regarding the company you work for.
For consumers, Twitter is a lot better than blogs. Blogs tend to become untrustworthy because there are a lot of publishers who blog for money, and, everybody has a price.
Thanks again for this great article!
Good analysis, which I buy. This is such a fluid and emerging landscape that I'm especially interested in how this evolves. I think the tensions you identify - that make Twitter so unique and some would add so special - are also unsustainable. I think particularly the open, public and real-time elements are overwhelming to many people. In some ways they function as a barrier to entry ('will everyone see what I say?'; 'won't I be overwhelmed?'; 'I don't want to read what strangers have for breakfast'), but even for avid Twitter users the intensity can be too much. The next phase of Twitter's evolution (or it's eventual successor) will offer more flexibility around dialing down or dialing up these features.
Agreed. Great, but what are we going to do with it? Habermas famously theorized that 18th century London coffee shops and the development of "public spheres" were central to helping develop liberal democracies because they helped facilitate free and open discourse among people normally divided by class, status and social boundaries According to Habermas, these public spheres connected the sphere of "authority" (gov't) with the needs of the "people." But these people wanted and needed something: civil rights, voice in the gov't, greater equality. Social media is similarly breaking down boundaries between the producer and the consumer but to what end? the role of social media as a powerful political tool is now self-evident. But as a business tool? How many conversations do we want to have with "brands"? And to what end? Better products?
You've been on fire of late, Mike. Great stuff.
Mike- sorry for the delay getting back to you about this.
I think your analysis is interesting and overall it's correct. When you revise it for your book, you might want to look at who each of your four points benefits.
The whole notion of conversations being permanent and searchable is not a consumer-friendly feature, but rather an advertiser-friendly one, right? I have no vested interest in some random @ response showing up on Google, but if it said @bob- I really like the Nike version - then Nike, of course, would enjoy knowing that and having it show up in Google.
Where Twitter differs from instant messaging is that it's asynchronous and we also don't know who else is on at any given time (imagine what a different experience it would be if you could know which of your friends was signed in to the web site or Tweetdeck at any given moment) - that (to me anyway) seems like serendipity-- it's a feature I didn't know I wanted, but once I saw it I really liked it.
Great analysis overall and nice clean graphic. Well done.
Problem with writing comments late at night if they often seem unintelligible when you read them back.
The whole asynchronous/IM think was in reference to your Real-time/Archived analysis and how the notion of asynchronized conversation fits into that.
Post a Comment
<< Home