The Conversation Economy: 1 Year Later

It's been nearly one year since I wrote "It's The Conversation Economy, Stupid" for BusinessWeek. Thought it might be fun to pull a few thoughts and see if they are still relevant today.  What do you think—is it still the conversation economy, or have we moved on?

On Advertising to "Consumers"
"Once upon a time, we were consumers. We consumed things. We took in the messages that were communicated to us. We didn't really get to talk back. If we had a good or bad experience with a product or service—we told a friend. Maybe that friend told a friend. Maybe, just like the shampoo commercial from advertising's golden age, "They'll tell two friends, and they'll tell two friends, and so on, and so on…." Marketers are finding themselves in an increasingly frantic race to get people talking about their brands. The desire to produce something "viral" is nearly ubiquitous in the marketing world. But it's unclear who exactly "consumers" are these days."...

On Bud.TV
"But great experiences aren't enough. It's entirely possible to design and develop a rich, immersive, experiential Web site, only to have light traffic and little return on investment. Bud.TV, for example, is falling short of its goal of 2 million to 3 million monthly visits. Many fault the registration process. In spite of a slick interface and highly produced video, Anheuser-Busch (BUD) doesn't seem to be reaping what was sown. Why?"

On Twitter
"But why is Twitter so hyped? Why all the fuss? I believe it's because Twitter has evolved from a simple service that initially allowed users to express mundane thoughts into a robust "conversation ecosystem."

On Traditional Marketing
"Conversation architects move marketing beyond the idea of one-way messaging. Traditional marketing efforts were founded on this tried-and-true format and are still prevalent within the industry. Consider the example of a typical creative brief template, which usually says something like, "What are we trying to communicate?" Can you see the old-world residue in the word "communicate"? It lacks the dimensions of experiencing something and having an ongoing two-way dialogue."

On Dell
"I've personally witnessed Dell's change of heart in the form of an unsolicited comment on my blog from a Dell employee in regard to a post I had written about my experience talking at Loyola University. I had asked the graduate students there whether they had heard of Dell Hell (approximately 90% of them had not). But that didn't stop Dell from hearing what I said."

On Design
"My background is in design, and I like to think that at the core, design is about facilitation. We designers should stop talking and start designing conversations. We should convert from marketers and information architects to conversation architects. Information is a one-way street, conversation isn't".

Comments

[Toad]

The one thing that jumped out at me immediately was your comment on Bud.tv.

The whole "we'll make them register as a way to justify what we're doing- capturing names is the only way we can prove that we're reaching consumers and of course they won't mind registering" - that sort of thinking seems to be rapidly falling by the wayside. I suspect Bud.tv will also be cited as a reason. (The lack of truly compelling content didn't help their cause either. You get what you pay for.)

[laurent]

From where I sit and my little experience with the companies I dealt with, but I could be wrong, I believe it's not quite yet there from a 'corporate' standpoint. I mean the revolution you've been talking about in your blog (conversation architect, deep daily engagement, two way messages) hasn't yet broadly happened but it's getting closer. Most company I have talked to don't know how to start. They need help! They're used to some kind of structure/control which is not there in social media land. The change will take place, just a matter of time and like every change, it always takes longer than we wish it would.

[Stuart Henshall]

Good list. Companies fail to both listen and engage. I cringe a little at designing conversations.

[Ria Kennedy]

I don't think corporations will ever surrender to a two-way dialog. They have ranks, and structures and hierarchies and I think any evolution that is done will simply be to keep those things in place.

So that 2-way conversation is really just strategic feedback for them. The most you can hope for is you talk, they listen.

[FireStarter]

I think at some point corporations will have to learn to surrender to a two-day dialog. Sooner or later it will be sink or swim and the brands that are participating in conversations with people are going to be the ones who are successful.

I really see it, on some level, as a new form of PR.

[RichardatDELL]

Hi David,
I think your thoughts and graphics are still very relevant...but this is an evolution which seems to ebb and flow with tools and trends, but the principles remain sound -- conversations, relationships, affinity and community.

I wonder if anything planned can be considered viral. Its a contradiction. Agree with Stuart on the cringing. Ria, structures and heirarchies are difficult for sure...but that does not stop conversation. Listening is an important step and one we are very focused on but we also want to participate, not "passively" listen....we are not perfect, but working hard at it engaging because I believe that is where the real value comes, with the connections and listening.

[Mary H. Ruth]

Your description of the trend is excellent, as far as it goes. Have to wonder about the ultimate meaning -- anarchy and chaos or harmony and enlightenment? Conversation is all we have to begin understanding where and who we are, and blogging manifests this stage in the developing economy. What's the next stage, I wonder?

[David Zinger]

Your last sentence sings to me: We should convert from marketers and information architects to conversation architects. Information is a one-way street, conversation isn't. I think architects of conversations is a wonderful term. I can see we will have it shortened to AoC's in no time.

[LP]

I hate "conversation architects". It implies that someone--the architect or company--is creating, designing and controlling the conversation.

Corporate folks just can't give up the desire to control their "customers", can they? In the current environment, that just isn't going to cut it. At the most, you can provide an environment for conversation and join as a participant.

You try to control a conversation and users will jump to a forum where there is less manipulation. Give up trying "use" the public for your own purposes...people have a lot of choices and if you start moderating or orienting a forum to suit your own needs, well, there are thousands of other places where people can go and have a free-ranging conversation without eavesdropping.

[ArtistaPena]

David, I think a big part of the art of a conversation is listening and insight. I am not sure that a "conversation architect" is necessary. I do think that a real conversation requires courage.

http://joannapenabickley.typepad.com/on/2009/01/on-conversations.html