Designing Conversations In Beta

Update: I did a boo-boo and should have uploaded a PDF not PPT.  This version of the post includes a more readable version of the deck.  "Bip" will still hate it—maybe it's even more evil now that you can read some more of the slides.  Ahh well, that's how it goes.  :)

"David—good design is good business and you have demonstrated an ability to design conversations"

This is part of a handwritten note I recieved from Valeria Maltoni a while back, which came along with a signed copy of Mavericks at Work.  The book and note was a nice gesture.  And a source of inspiration.

The Slideshare deck above is a "beta version" of what I've been working on for my upcoming Webinar on Marketing Profs.  You'll need to hear the voiceover for the full effect, but here's basically what's on my mind these days—the deck is a true mash up of ideas I've come across as well as what's been in my head:

Marketing has traditionally been about messages
Marketing is increasingly becoming about experiences
These experiences are enhanced by facilitating conversations and promoting community
This converts passive consumers to active participants, seeking relationships
Relationships lead to loyalty, affinity, and an emotional connection.

We need to design conversations.
We need to stop marketing.
We need to become conversation architects.

This is what's on my mind these days.  These are themes you'll hear about on the Webinar and at SOBCon.  And while I'm on the subject of SOBCon, here is a snippet from the description of my outline which is aimed at bloggers looking to take their blogs to the next level:

Designing Conversations: How “Conversation Architecture” can result in an effective, differentiated blog experience.

"David, will combine his strengths in visual communications and experience design to show you how you can tap these techniques to help differentiate your blog and build a better experience for your community.

• The myth and reality of design and what it means to blogging
• How “conversation architecture” can strengthen your community
• How design effects our “personal brands” and can help you find your “voice”
• How visuals can enhance our conversations and spark meaningful dialogue
• How to upgrade your blog experience without alienating your community
• How you can get noticed by mainstream media and other influencers

Sometimes this all feels like a second job.  One that doesn't pay the bills.  But being I'd rather be a participant than spectator—so in this context it's worth it.  So here's where my head is at.  Thoughts welcome as you always make my thinking better."

Everything in beta.

Comments

[Drew McLellan]

David,

You've done a remarkable job of assimilating the bits and bytes of this moment's reality and weaving them into a story worth telling.

A story we need to not only understand but live. Authenticity isn't optional for us.

Otherwise, how will we ever help our clients discover that the water is fine?

Drew

[William Couch]

That's a really good presentation you have there. I'm all about conversation right now, especially as I'm quickly becoming addicted to Twitter (and I enjoy your updates). Conversation really is the currency of the Internet.

[John Young]

David, I'd love to hear your take on how the "conversation architecture" emphasis today is different than the "OMG let's create a community of experts" boom of 1999 and 2000, when companies were (just as now) investing heavily in discussion board platforms.

I know there's a number of qualitative differences, but as someone who's built social systems _then_ and is building social systems _now_, can you give me your thoughts on what's different?

-- Early-majority users are getting engaged now, instead of only early-adopter users?
-- Conversation platforms aren't as cumbersome to join?
-- "Ubicomp" tools like SMS allow a fuzzier line between the sit-at-your-computer Web and the walk-around, omnipresent Web?
-- Users are readier to create user-generated content?
-- Designers have a better, more nuanced pallette to use when creating experiences?
-- Some combination of all of the above?

A lot of folks, myself included, say that Web 2.0 is really Web 1.0 plus venture capital -- the tools are incrementally better, but that's just because we've been working on them this whole time. Could I get your thoughts on how THIS iteration of "let's curate communities" is different from the LAST iteration of "let's curate communities"?

[Gavin Heaton]

DA ... looking good! I think John has some great questions, but also points to extend your presentation.

Not only are the tools for community building better, so are those of us using them. Our use and adoption of technology and all its associated gadgets has changed our relationship with technology -- partly driven by ease of use (ie designed for usability), but also because the tools are now designed around our modes of behaviour (ie used by design).

This last point also means that communities are no longer curated in the same way that they were. They can coalesce quickly and disperse as fast. It is almost like "accidental communities" rather than communities by design -- where chaos and chance play as much a part as good work, dedication, branding and effort. Perhaps this is Chaos 2.0.

Sorry ... should have posted this myself rather than waxing on. Hope this helps!

[Bip]

You're everything that's evil about selling stuff to people.

[John Young]

Oh, s-u-u-ure, make fun of the marketer and his powerpoint deck, Bip. Way to stalk the Big Internet Game.

Anyhow, don't taunt the marketers. They're trying to be genuine here, and engage in the conversation that's as old as marketing: "what would make you want to buy my product?" and then "what would make you want to buy more of it?"

Doing that by, you know, LISTENING to you and what you have to say is light-years better than, say just plastering a picture of teh bewbies on the label. Wait, maybe that's not _always_ true. Anyhow, my point is:

1) Listening to what you want, then producing what you want, and telling you about it, so you'll want to buy it: good
2) Not listening to you, coasting, pissing you off by being clueless: not evil, but dumb.
3) Removing your freedom of choice, monopolizing industry sectors to artificially control markets, cooperating with totalitarian governments: evil.

Which of the three do you think DA is promulgating here?

[Ed Lee]

I really don't like the idea that you can design a conversation. Sure you can lead it and try to influence it, but "designed" conversations are exactly the thing that most consumers are rebelling against when they buy a TiVo, read a blog, start a Facebook proile or post images on Flickr.

It's almost a cliche but enpowerment is so much more evocative and representative of what we as marketers should be doing.

A caveat - of course we should have a clear idea of what we would like consumers to say about our clients, but the market should be free to decide what it wants; free to evolve and find new conversations.

I'm sure Arm&Hammer didn't expect it's baking soda to end up as a domestic de-odouriser but there it is, in my fridge, freezer and cupboards soaking up the smells.

Ed

[Valeria Maltoni]

Let's take a quick look at what conversation can mean. The new conversation is a space where we engage in listening to the whole person. A place where we, the consumers, feel we're being accepted as we are. Brands stay open to us.

It's a give on both sides, an exchange.

Ed: I don't like the term "empower", it implies that someone does have power and takes you inevitably to loss of balance. Note that I did not write "give and take", I chose the word "exchange".

The empowering story we got from managers who thought they could pacify employees, *and* consumers that they had authority. It's old language, and still divisive.

[Lewis Green]

Nothing "beta" about building relationships. It is and always has been the alpha and omega of marketing, when blended with authenticity, honesty, sincerity, passion and conviction.

Not advice but if I were making this presentation, I would be careful about using jargon such as empower and design. The best conversations just happen because we relate. And relationships only happen because those conversations happen.

[Asi]

I'm with Ed here. while the idea is great and the presentation is fabulous, I prefer facilitating conversations rather than designing them.

perhaps it's just terminology but in the act of design, there is an inevitable control over the experience and we're trying to design an experience that enables or facilitates dialouge and relationship.

David - no plans for a gig in London yet???

[DA]

Hi everyone. I'm on deadline so I have to keep this short. Thanks for the comments so far. I'm going to do a follow up post in regards to "designing conversations" . I do not agree that design = control. Maybe in the traditional sense that is true, but it's been evolving. Firefox, You Tube, and Twitter are all designed experiences. Each has taken on a life of it's own due to how communities want to engage these platforms. But make no mistake, they have been designed—they did not emerge out of pure chaos. Just ask the folks who developed them.

And a special shout out to "Bip" who has dubbed me evil. Having no context as to if the post is toungue-in-cheek etc. I can only assume thatr Bip's feeling are genuine. But I have views of what evil is in this world as I believe it exists. The sytematic extermination of Jews in the Holocost was a manifestation of evil carried out by people. So, as a personal preference I think we should use this word sparingly

I'm having a difficult time how seeing how my desire to get marketers to think past messsging and "viral" and think about experiences delivered through digital applications is "evil". And speaking of designing conversations—how does calling someone evil facilitate a conversation? How does this help?

The only conclusion I can come to is that you feel I am so bad that the conversation isn't worth it. And that's kind of sad.

[DA]

"David, I'd love to hear your take on how the "conversation architecture" emphasis today is different than the "OMG let's create a community of experts" boom of 1999 and 2000, when companies were (just as now) investing heavily in discussion board platforms."

John, I'm not an expert in this area so I'll do my best to provide a limited POV. I think one of the biggest differences was that most of the applications I can recall during the dot bust is that they seemed focused on selling some type of product or service. Boo.com, Pets.com, Kozmo.com, Webvan. From what I remember it was all about going from bricks and morters to digital distribution. But your question was specifically about message boards etc. Not sure this is the right answer, but maybe those didn't take off because people weren't ready to engage this way. Or maybe the facilitation wasn't the best. Or maybe there wasn't a lot of life on those efforts. And here's something to chew on. Remember participate.com? I recently interviewed someone who used to work there who confessed that his job was to impersonate legitimate commenters and post all kinds of reviews and stuff under false names. The self policing could be a differenciator as well.

Ed, my reply will show up indirectly in the next post.

Lewis, when did the word design become Jargon? Huh?

Asi, I'll also be addressing your points in my next post. Hint, design includes facilitation (or at least should). I know this from experience because I use my "design abilities" to help spark and facilitate discussions. Take a look at how I've designed this blog and how I use the visuals.

Valeria, you are a conversation expert and I'm digesting your thoughts on "exchange".

Gavin, would you describe what's hapening via Twitter as Chaos? I feel it's more of taking on a life of it's own. In a case like this, credit belongs to both designer and user (and those who hack and mash). Maybe that makes us all designers in some way? Co-conversation architects? :)

To Lewis' point, yes it's about relating. Such a simple concept. But as with all things simple, usually when you lift up the hood you see a world of complexity hidden behind the veil of simplicity.

[Gavin Heaton]

DA ... as Twittered ... I think there is something in the yin/yang relationship between design and chaos ... will give that more thought -- perhaps design as an organising principle and chaos as its anarchic brethren?

Rather than defining/limiting a space for engagement, technology or "conversation architectures/ecosystems" are providing a platform from which multiple conversations/streams/threads can be launched as sustained. How they spill out is part of the fun -- don't know if Twitter is chaotic or just random. How we use it is chaotic (ie suggestive of a behavioural element) -- so to me it feels like a novelty that may yet morph into something more lasting.

[John Young]

Hey, DA, we should take this offline. There are a BUNCH of communities that started in the nineties (don't just dismiss it as the "dot bust" -- there's lots and LOTS of threads of continuity between then and now; to someone who's been working specifically in this sector for both, it's really just two big infusions of capital, not two different things), anyway, there are a lot of communities that started _then_ that are the 800-pound gorillas _now_ that you should spend time playing with. Because all the folks that are new to communities now who have not yet been STFU n00bed or otherwise steeped in the whole engament thing, are gonna be learning over the next 18 months.

[Lewis Green]

David,

I knew I didn't say enough when I claimed that design is jargon. I think it leans toward jargon because it is specialized language of your profession.

My editor has me evaluating the uses of sales and marketing because they, too, can be jargon. As she says, if language is specific to a profession, then we need to be careful of its use.

[Toby]

David - As always, wonderful, powerful graphics. Seems to me that this post dovetails nicely into your 3/21 post. The ying and yang of the "new marketing." In order for customers to develop their own experience the environment has to be created. The more pleasurable, value-add, needed that situation the more likely your customer is to Want to take hold of the conversation and make it her (or his own). Opening the doors to further extentions and learnings = better "new" markeitng.

[Bruce Grant]

David --

Very cool. Already blogged on our internal MBC (soon-to-be Digitas Health) blog. Any chance you could share the actual deck with a fellow Digitasnik?

Bruce Grant

[Noel Titus]

David,
I am glad you like the graphic. I got a kick out of making it and you are welcome to use it or refer to it as you please.

I am delighted that you see engineers as part of the creative design process.
In the post on the Adaptive Path blog by Dan on the teaching at design schools, where he stresses thinking, making and doing, the making seems to stop at the prototyping stage. However, getting a product out to market requires developing solutions beyond the prototyping stage, requires making the product manufacturable, and with DfX type issues, taking into consideration factors from the entire product life-cycle. The engineer, working with other personnel like supply-chain folks, distribution folks are what make this possible. All these aspects require creative problem solving.

Regards,
Noel