photo credit: Ian Hayhurst

So this happened today.

A couple of months ago I wrote a post inspired by a piece in Slate all about literal titles and how they may or may not destroy narratives. We got around to talking about the Slate article and my interpretation of it during a team meeting at work today. It was a really interesting chat – one that covered a lot of ground and ultimately ended with me declaring “the internet sucks” just as time elapsed and we all went back to our work.

Cheery proclamation for a web consultant, no?

Anyway, I wouldn’t do the discussion proper service if I tried to capture it all here. Suffice to say, we spent some time pondering the role of things like SEO and intuitive labeling in a world where the volume of content published far exceeds our own ability to digest it all. It dovetailed with my previous post but took on some other dimensions as well, which ultimately prompted the outburst described above.

On further reflection, my objection really isn’t to the internet itself, of course. That rage is really just a manifestation of something I’ve long known about myself.

I really, really like words.

I love the way an artfully-turned phrase can elicit wonderfully nuanced reactions. I love the way that good storytellers use language to draw you into their narratives. The best know how to give you just enough context to serve as a common baseline but leave gaps so the audience can inject their own reality.

Wherein the author picks the easiest contrast in the world to make his point

Compare, for example, pretty much any song from The Weakerthans‘ extensive catalog of awesomeness with, say, Rebecca Black’s “Friday” (easy target, I know, but I’m citing the extreme example to make the point more digestible).

The Weakerthans’ John K. Samson is more poet than songwriter, crafting these really beautiful descriptions but somehow leaving enough room for you, the listener, to inject yourself in his words. Even as he describes something as specific as commuters biting their gloves off to hand over a bus transfer (how Canadian is that image, by the way) he still somehow makes it possible to imagine you’re the jilted bus driver in “Civil Twilight.” Or the heartbroken Greenpeace shill in “Pamphleteer.” Or the curler in “Tournament of Hearts.”

Then there’s Rebecca Black. Literally describing each and every step in its most banal form.

Both artists (ahem) are telling stories. Both take fairly classic narrative formats. But only one seems to make you part of their story.

The numbers don’t lie

And I guess that’s where we come back to my first post, the Slate article and the spirited discussion around the meeting room table.

As it becomes easier and easier to publish, more and more people are taking the opportunity to do so. And as companies and organizations follow suit, they spend more and more time thinking about how to cut through the clutter. Time and attention are a precious commodity and so conventional wisdom is to front-load your messaging. Get them there with a title that makes a promise that’s easy to keep, then deliver before they lose interest and move on to the next item in their newsfeed.

There’s no incentive to take a risk. To deviate from the expected. In fact, not only is there no incentive, there’s an active disincentive in the form of bounce rates, low time on page numbers and the dreaded abandoned conversion.

It’s safe and, more importantly, it’s measurable.

I can’t stay mad at you, internet

So is that it? Do we throw in the towel and accept that A|B testing of calls to action has forever replaced the sweet satisfaction of leaving some sort of kicker that rewards the reader for having read your work to the end?

Tempting as it is, the reality is that this isn’t a new problem. The internet didn’t invent this debate and while it seems the pendulum has swung decidedly to one side, the reality is that it is indeed a pendulum and things will even out at some point.

In fact, even the pendulum metaphor makes it too stark a contrast; too blatantly black and white. I believe it’s still possible to craft stories that cater to both interests. An intuitive title doesn’t preclude a whimsical or artistic approach to the content. The challenge is to force ourselves to be better than simply falling back to what’s easy.

So every once in a while, delight your readers. Throw them a bone for making it to the end.

We long-form advocates will win them back one kicker at a time.

Well, I’ll be joining the ranks of their contract facilitators, anyway. Specifically, I’ll be teaching the online offerings of COM0015: Applied Social Media in Business.

And while I won’t be setting the curriculum, I will be drawing heavily on my work with major Canadian brands and large non-profits to talk about the factors that drive social media and online collaboration in the business world (work I’ll continue to do, by the way, I’m not leaving NLC).

On the off chance you’re reading this and you’re a potential student, here are a few things you might want to know about your humble facilitator:

• As a member of the strategic services team at non-linear creations, my work goes well beyond social media and into integrated digital communications, marketing and collaboration – both internal and external. I think this is really important. In the business context, social media can’t stand alone. Social media advocates have to understand how to position the tools and channels in the broader context if they hope to have success.
• I don’t always kneel at the altar of best practices. I do think there is a lot to learn from those who have done well but I think there’s as much or more to learn from those who’ve failed and those who’ve examined the opportunities in front of them and opted to stay on the social sidelines. Why someone chooses not to employ social media in their digital toolbox is just as instructive as why people do. And in social specifically, why would you always want to do what’s been done before? Things rarely go viral twice and what’s possible is always changing. As the great Henry Ford said – if he asked people what they wanted they would have said a faster horse.
• I always treat social media as a plural noun. This is both a practical tip to keep in mind when submitting assignments and a key to understanding how I view social media. Social media aren’t a homogenous entity that you either get or don’t get. Facebook isn’t YouTube; a discussion forum isn’t Twitter. Business communicators and marketers owe it to themselves and their employers to know the various tools at their disposal – social and otherwise.

Ok, that’s enough soapboxing for now. I’m really excited about this opportunity and I have to say a special thanks to Susan Murphy, who is coordinating the program and offered me this gig, and to my bosses at non-linear, who not only gave me the okay to take on this role but also give me the opportunity to work with the diverse client base that I will shamelessly exploit in my teachings.

Right, off to buy some red pens and smiley-face stickers.

*Disclosure: I don’t own a tweed jacket

 photo credit: One Laptop per Child

I often like to think I’ve picked some of that up from him. My interest (and relative success, I guess) in my field stems from my love of telling a story in a way that the audience can appreciate. It’s a different beast to write a speech for an accountant to deliver than what Grandpa does but it comes from the same place, I think.

What do users want to experience?

But this article from Slate made me rethink things a bit, as articles from Slate tend to do (go read it, it’s worth the investment and doing a synopsis to distill its key points would really sort of undermine the whole angle of this post).

Much of what I do as a web professional falls under the broad realm of user experience design and definition. We talk about user-centered approaches to information architecture and persuasive design but really, at its core, its about reducing barriers to some sort of conversion. This might be more true for me than other web folks, I guess, given the enterprise nature of my clients, but at some level, we’re all focused on getting the user to take some concrete, measurable action.

And I don’t think that’s necessarily wrong. More often that not, we’re giving users what they want. They come to these sites to transact in some way, whether concretely (buying or signing up for something) or more abstractly (to get information or have a question answered). They don’t come for a narrative exploration of something, they come to do something.

And yet, aren’t the narrative experiences the ones we ultimately remember? Doesn’t a good story stick with us more than an efficient transaction anyway?

How the hell do you quantify that? The first person that does might just revolutionize the web.

photo credit: Jill Clardy

Details? Well they’re right here.

So good show all around. Now, what comes next?

The overly-used and only slightly-cogent toolbox metaphor

As digital communicators, marketers and community builders of some sort, we’re all equipped with a number of tools to get our jobs done. Social media are a relatively new addition to our toolboxes and we’re doing ourselves, our organizations, our clients and our customers a disservice if we don’t do what we need to do to learn when, where and how to use them. Events like Social Capital are a good way to do that.

But here’s the important thing. Unlike an actual toolbox, there’s no size limit on our particular tool storage units. We don’t have to toss aside an old rusty screwdriver when we bring home the latest cordless laser-guided power drill that the smug bastards at Home Hardware make us covet with their lighthearted and quasi-patriotic commercials.

To bring in yet another over-used metaphor, if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.  But not everything is a nail. Sometimes you’re dealing with a screw. Sometimes you’ve got a nut. And sometimes you’re using those weird nut-screw hybrid things that IKEA uses to bind the corners of my nightstand and my god why are those so hard to align just right?

Don’t fight single-mindedness with single-mindedness

Promoting the use of social tools simply because they’re social is just as stupid as ignoring social tools simply because they’re social. Honestly, those of us who loosely define ourselves as social media advocates don’t need another self-appointed martyr throwing themselves on the bureaucratic fire in a fit of misguided rage and blind loyalty to one toolset over another.

Sometimes, printing another poster is the answer.

Speaking as someone who makes recommendations on digital tools for a living I can tell you that the social media revolution rhetoric that so many advocates spew out does more harm than good. As my good pal (and self-identified radical) Nick pointed out during our session, Clay Shirky is on to something with his assertion that technology has to become boring and pervasive before it can really be allowed to reach its full potential. Trumpeting the relative values of social media as a singular, revolutionary force is as counterproductive as it is overly simplistic.

If you want to go social, stop talking social

The best way to “sell” social media in your organization is to stop talking about social media and start showing how one or more social tools can help you reach your goals. Don’t advocate for social because it’s social, advocate for the tools that will help you reach your goals – social or otherwise.

Go to conferences, attend events, read blogs and play with the tools. Do all the things you’re doing today and more to understand what social media can do. But don’t forget about the tools and processes that exist already.

Social media provide opportunities to connect and communicate in new and exciting ways. For that reason they are worthy of consideration and as a professional communicator, marketer or community builder you have a responsibility to understand them. But don’t toss aside your rusty screwdriver just yet. It might still come in handy.

photo credit: Cayusa