I read something today that got me thinking about what participatory communications can and can't do. I am wading my way (painfully at times) through Theodor Adorno's Aesthetic Theory. In his chapter on "Art Beauty: Apparition, Spiritualization, Intuitability" I ran across the following line: "...this transparentness gnaws away at [artworks'] possibility." Now, he is talking about the spirit of art, and it gets a little technical from there, but this phrase, and a following one that talked about "the encipherment of the artwork" sparked something for me I wanted to share with you.
I have written before about how I think transparency -- of process in particular -- is necessary for ethical communications. Others have written about transparency in terms of the truth of what you are writing/podcasting/etc. The dilemma that appears for public relations, marketing, and, especially, advertising, is that too much transparency might ruin what we are trying to achieve -- "an emotional connection with the brand" is one way of putting it. In other words, explaining the facts of a razor aren't nearly as powerful as showing a handsome man with his face being caressed by a beautiful woman. The second contains mystery, possibility. The first does not.
How, then, can participatory communications tools like blogging or podcasting, create that possibility (assuming this is still a needed item for persuading people to take action)? A transparent conversation about the facts doesn't seem to cut it. That's not to say that there isn't a place for that conversation, of course, but rather that we still need the production of possibility, which might -- might -- require more formalized, produced material (ads, commercials, etc.). I am not entirely sure about this, but I think a conversation about the value of possibility vs. transparency and how the former can be achieved through participatory means could be interesting.
In the Culture Industry Adorno writes about how we as consumers know we are being manipulated, yet even so go along with it (buying the products advertised and so on). He has a rather dystopian view of high capitalism, to say the least, but he is not really wrong, as far as I can see it. I tend to think that participatory communications could provide greater freedom for individuals; that is why I am studying it. As both consumers and organizations become more adept in using the tools, I think that the transparency-possibility conundrum needs to be thought through in more detail. I welcome your ideas, opinions and comments!
Elizabeth...very interesting. We seem to be poking at the same issues today regarding ethics and transparency.
http://www.socialcustomer.com/2006/03/paul_mcnamara_j.html
To your question: "How, then, can participatory communications tools like blogging or podcasting, create that possibility (assuming this is still a needed item for persuading people to take action)?"
With respect to "possibility," I think sharing experiences within an internally-referential customer community gets to that. When a pace-setter type customer uses a tool/product/service and is able to do fantastic things with it (for real), that gives others in their peer group the sense of possiblity: "Hey, Janice was able to do that, I bet I could, too!"
With respect to "persuasion," I have this happy, nagging feeling that persuasion (in this case meaning "convincing someone to buy something they don't need, or putting a higher value on something based on its connection with a created 'brand'") may finally be slipping. Instead, we may be moving into an era of more clear and, dare I say, transparent communication based on a different type of ideal: a combination of rational decision-making (based on the "facts") coupled with more real interpersonal relationships. The "value" of a product is more than it's price: price is one aspect, but there are a number of other soft/emotional things that fit into the value as well. In the mass-market era, that emotional differentiator was created via the "brand." I think for the upcoming era that we are entering now (and will be very apparent in the generation that follows us), that differentiator will no longer be with the "brand" ... instead, it will be based on relationships with *people* who are associated with the brand.
Posted by: Christopher Carfi | March 23, 2006 at 07:09 PM
(in the last 'graph above, it's = its. was typing too quickly.)
Posted by: Christopher Carfi | March 23, 2006 at 07:16 PM
I think you are on to something there Christopher - the (perceived) relationship creates the possibility vs. some type of image-crafting. Interesting and deserves more thought. However, I don't think persuasion is necessarily all the negatives you stated above. There are highly positive persuasions as well (such as convincing someone not to smoke or to lose weight). The question (which might be empirically testable) then comes to - do I stop smoking due to constant exposure to ads and "smoking kills" labels on cigarette cartons or because people I have some type of "relationship" with convinces me to by telling their stories. Of course, choosing something like "stop smoking" is highly complex. Perhaps we should start with something simpler - maybe like using virus protection or something.
Lots to consider here - thanks for commenting!
Posted by: Elizabeth Albrycht | March 23, 2006 at 07:29 PM
Olivier Blanchard over at the Corante Marketing Hub has written a great follow-on piece to this about metaphor: http://marketing.corante.com/editorial/archives/2006/03/metaphors_metaphors.php
I will have more to say on this!
Posted by: Elizabeth Albrycht | March 25, 2006 at 08:45 AM
I also agree that persuasion / persuasive communication can be used 'positively' (in the interest of the persuadee) or 'negatively (in the interest of the persuader...which slides closer to the propaganda end of the scale) and I think it is similar with transparency. The thing that is difficult to ascertain is the intent behind the decisions as no matter how transparent the process is the intent remains 'hidden' from observable view.
Posted by: Julia Jahansoozi | March 25, 2006 at 02:28 PM
Elizabeth, I'm very taken with your thinking about the application of the transparency concept to artistry in advertising. I'm pleased that someone is taking the time to "flesh out" how we operationalize these terms. As I see it, an ad about "just the facts" of a service or product is not the only way to be transparent. I think you can have the "possibility" you are concerned about through ads that are open about the story they are trying to tell, the identity they are trying to create, etc. You inspired me to write a bit about it at battleofthemasks.com
(also enjoyed your 05 post about transparency and PR ethics.)
Kathy Hale
Posted by: kathy hale | March 31, 2006 at 08:24 PM
Julia - intent is indeed a challenge! I think you are correct in that we cannot ever know for sure (and I suspect even the person taking the action doesn't always have a clear picture of their own intent.). We can certainly make educated guesses about intent by a close "reading" of what we are seeking to judge (which also brings our own intent into the picture) - if we didn't do that, we'd never make any decisions at all! What is important here, I think, is the perception of intent by the "reader", as that is what we make decisions on. As we've always said in PR: "perception IS reality". The question is how to be as transparent/ethical as we can about manipulating what that perception could be.
To be a bit provacative, in some sense it doesn't matter what the original intent was! It is the resulting action that matters. People can create mayhem via good intentions, as we well know!
Posted by: Elizabeth Albrycht | April 03, 2006 at 10:21 AM
You're right - unless you're party to the decision-making process the only thing you can go on is the observable behaviour. It's the same with interpersonal relationships and no different when it comes to organisational behaviour...and transparency.
The thing that bothers me though is that transparency is often viewed as a quick fix solution that shows in neon signs who is accountable, and while there are indeed loads of positives connected with transparency (accountability, trust, collaboration, cooperation, etc) there are also some negatives. For example, transparency can be a coercive force ... one company becomes 'transparent' and so the pressure is on for its competitors as they either must follow and do the same or deal with the suspicion that they are doing something wrong. The IMF is pro transparency but at the same time acknowledges that it lowers the level (quality) of decision-making and effectiveness of policies. The down side coud be that decision-makers become more concerned regarding how the decision / policy will be framed in the media than whether it is the 'best possible' decision for the long term, so there are implications regarding the resulting actions ...but again you won't really know because the intent is hidden!
But perhaps the huge improvements in practice outweigh this...
Posted by: Julia Jahansoozi | April 03, 2006 at 11:11 AM