THE FOUR VITAL COMPONENTS
OF THE ORGANIC MESSAGE:
An Introductory Guide
In my post “The Organic Message,” I discussed my view that messages can attain a life of their own and that the more they achieve that status, the more powerful they become. Those messages that achieve a state of “existence” can be considered to have become an “organic message.” I concluded that post by defining what I believe to be the four factors that are essential for a message to become organic: it must have frequency, relevancy, credibility, and exist within a context. In this post, I take a closer look at each of these factors. In an upcoming post, I will analyze the Obama and McCain campaigns from the perspective of these four factors and draw conclusions that can be applied in the forthcoming fight for control of messages in the new economic and political environment.
FIRST OF ALL, THE MESSAGE HAS TO BE COMMUNICATED FREQUENTLY.
BUT THE DEFINITION OF “FREQUENTLY” HAS TO BE RETHOUGHT.
“Reach and frequency” have been standard concerns for communications campaigns for decades. The logic is simple: the more a message is communicated the more effective it will be. Unfortunately, that logic is over-simplistic and wrong.
There are many ways to measure the number of times a message is communicated to its targets. But whatever measurement system is used, the total numbers are deceiving because they judge how many times a message is delivered – but that becomes less relevant in a world where people are hit by messages constantly from all directions. The true number of “frequency” to measure is the number of times a message has actually been received.
Gross frequency numbers are not unlike gross sales on a P&L – they are misleading because something (pass-through expenses in the case of the P&L, for example) has to be deducted. Both objective research and subjective opinions can (and should) be used to determine what and how much should be discounted from whether a message has the frequency needed to become “organic.” In doing so, the following questions must be considered:
- How compellingly is the message presented? People are being hit more and more with all sorts of messages wherever they turn. For a message to be received, it must cut through that clutter – if it doesn’t, does the effort to communicate the message even matter? Messages compete against other messages in terms of grabbing attention. For a message to become organic, it must stand out so that it can be received.
- How intuitive is the message itself? If the message isn’t understood at an immediate and intuitive level, then it isn’t going to get through to the target. It is important that the packaging be memorable, but if the packaging is remembered and the core message isn’t, the message is not going to become organic. That is to say, if someone cites an ad because it is funny, or a promotional stunt because it grabbed so much publicity that it becomes widely talked about, or a web page that has great flash, but cannot reiterate those ideas or feelings that were the reasons for the communication effort in the first place, the message may have been delivered but it wasn’t received. The message needs to break through the packaging and break free of the distribution channel. To do that, the message itself must be intuitive and immediately understood.
- How constantly does the message get in front of the target? As I argued in previous posts in this blog, a message can become ubiquitous. I’ve also written, specifically in “The Death of the Internet,” that when peripherals or components become incorporated into something (the way the caller ID box has been incorporated into telephones and transistors have been incorporated into just about everything) they can become so ubiquitous that for all practical purposes they become invisible and “die.” That is the case for things, but it is not the case for ideas (messages and stories). When an idea becomes ubiquitous it can become a “myth” and thereby pick up the components of a true existence. New communications capabilities allow a message to be communicated through numerous distribution channels so that it can get basically ubiquitous for the people targeted for the message.
However, there is a risk of losing control of the message when different distribution channels are used because in most instances different teams are created for each distribution channel (e.g., an ad team, a grass roots team, a web team, etc.). Different teams equal different silos, and different silos mean lack of collegiality and coordination. That isn’t always the case, but the exceptions are aberrations. The way to combat that risk is by starting with a seamlessly integrated campaign approach from the start. That way, when measuring how frequently a message reaches an audience, there would be no need to discount for lack of consistency due to the fact that the message is being communicated differently (even if only modestly) from channel to channel.
Starting with a totally integrated approach also allows for another benefit: there is no need to avoid any distribution channel out of fear of losing coordination. In the world of information overload, for a message to become organic it needs to surround the audience, and that means using all relevant distribution channels. It would be a mistake to avoid using any distribution channel for fear of losing control of the message. It makes more sense to develop or acquire the ability to use the channel.
JUST AS “FREQUENCY” NEEDS TO BE REDEFINED, SO DOES “RELEVANCY.”
There has been an explosion in the number of messages hitting people in all their environments at all times. For example, unless you got a printed version of this article for some strange reason, you got to this point by being on the Internet. The chances are that you were hit with several messages on the way here. Maybe a banner ad. Maybe some ads at a search engine you used. If you used a search engine, you also got hit by messages from the listings themselves (some of which were on the first page of results due to deliberate search engine maximization efforts). Chances are pretty good you also have gotten some alerts about news or stocks or sporting events that interest you. And maybe some IMs from friends, business contacts or spammers. Is the TV on while you are reading this? Maybe the radio. Somebody may even be speaking to you or trying to get your attention right now. Whether for a nanosecond when you looked for a way to close or delete a banner ad or other alert or for longer if it actually grabbed your attention, numerous messages have been attacking you.
The only way for someone to cope with so many messages competing for their attention is to go through a prioritization process – very quickly and usually without thinking about it. Certainly a great presentation helps elevate the priority, as does the clarity of the message, as I mentioned in my first point above. But people also prioritize by virtue of relevancy. Imagine that you are a collector of baseball cards. Here comes a message about a sale on baseball cards. Here’s a better message because it’s about cards for the old Brooklyn Dodgers – that‘s my team. This one is even better – it’s about a sale on cards of players on the 1955 World Series team. Four messages hit you, one of which was more relevant that the other three. That’s the message that actually got through to you. That’s the message that has the chance of becoming “organic” with you.
Admittedly, the example about baseball cards is pretty mundane. But people go through the same process when hit by messages about which car they should buy, which new healthcare plan they should support, or which candidate should get their vote.
Thus, although relevancy has always been important, it is even more important today (and even increasingly so in the future) for two reasons: 1) more messages are fighting for attention so the message doesn’t have a good chance of getting through to the target unless it appears to be relevant; and 2) the ability actually exists to target audiences and personalize messages for a very high degree of relevancy – so that ability should be exploited.
THERE IS CREDIBILITY. AND THEN THERE IS “HYPER-CREDIBILITY.”
Regardless of how well a message is packaged and how frequently and clearly it is presented to a highly relevant audience, if the message isn’t credible it’s meaningless.
That statement is so obvious that it is very rare for an enterprise or a person to put their credibility at risk. And even when they do, the risk is considered so great that the effort is hidden or covered-up if discovered.
But over the course of my career in communications I’ve discovered that credibility can be extended from the past and present into the future and thereby help create a self-fulfilling prophecy. In making this point in the past, I’ve referred to 1968, at the Mexico Olympics, when Dick Fosbury made history not only by winning the gold medal for the high jump, but for creating a whole new way of doing the jump, which has become known as “The Fosbury Flop.” You can see a clip (little more than one minute) by clicking this link. What interests me is not so much the radical change in jumping style that Fosbury created (which has become the standard among elite high jumpers), but what he did before he jumped. What the video to which I linked above shows only a hint of was his preparation at the starting line (see the clenched fist and the way Fosbury is seen rocking back and forth slowly on his feet). In fact, he stood there for a full four minutes before starting his run. He did not start to run until he completely rehearsed every nuance of the jump in his own mind.
Of course, the visualization of the jump by itself would not be enough for Fosbury to win a gold medal. But the combination of his skills and practice plus his visualization of the jump before the actual event of the jump could make the visualization become reality. In this instance, the credibility that has been projected into the future translated into the future reality. I believe the same thing can happen with ideas.
In my first post about The Organic Message, in the section titled “AN INVESTOR RELATIONS PITCH THAT FAILED TAUGHT ME ABOUT HOW TO CREATE IDEAS THAT CAN REALLY EXIST,” I described how a meeting with an investment analyst led me to understand how Genentech used credibility to present themselves to him and other investors as a smart investment. They painted a picture of their future (not unlike Fosbury visualized his jump), and then they described that picture with such credibility that it gained “existence” — and then the viability of the existence of that idea “pulled” the current reality in the direction of the idea/vision, just as the visualization of clearing the high jump bar helped Fosbury win the gold medal.
When credibility is so strong that it can be leveraged to the degree that it enables and accelerates the realization of a vision, I consider that to be more than credible. I consider it “hyper-credible.” And “hyper-credibility” – as difficult as it may be to acquire – is absolutely necessary for a message to become “organic.” This begs for a more complete explanation, and I will provide that in an upcoming post.
TO BECOME “ORGANIC,” A MESSAGE MUST EXIST WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF A STORY.
Consider the properties of a story. There are some characters and events with which you are already somewhat familiar (a past). Something is happening now (the present). But what intrigues you and keeps you from walking away from the story is the prospect of what is going to happen in the future. The TV show “American Idol” is the perfect example. Each season thus far, the show has established a life of its own. It isn’t a single event. It has a beginning, middle and most of all it has an end that is so compelling that once you get into the story you’re going to stay in the story to see how it unfolds.
I really came to understand the importance of “the story” when I was focused on investor relations (a period of about 20 years). In fact, investors very often sum up a company in terms of its “story.” The earnings and releases that have been issued constitute the past. This quarter’s earnings and the achievement of events that are expected to happen at the current time (for example, a new product release) constitute the present. The vision is the future. That’s the story. That’s what investors buy.
Once I gained that understanding, I learned that I could add life to the story in direct relation to how much I related episodic events to the story. Consider, for example, the crafting of a fairly mundane release for the announcement of a new VP for HR for a software company. Here’s the episodic version:
ABC Software Inc. announced that John Smith has been named its new VP for Human Resources. Prior to joining ABC, Smith was Director of HR at XYZ Corp. He graduated from this school etc. etc.
Here’s the story crafted in the context of a story:
ABC Chairman Tom Jones said today that the company was advancing its goal to attract the best database software engineers by naming John Smith VP for Human Resources. Jones said that database engineers are highly recruited and that ABC wants to maintain its reputation for being a great place to work. He said Smith was recruited from XYZ Corp. because of his success there in increasing employee morale that translated into a significant increase in efficiency etc. etc.
That’s a pretty simplistic example and rather obvious. However, when it comes to announcing or discussing events that are more complex than the announcement of a new VP for HR, what should be obvious often becomes overlooked. Consider earnings releases and the conference calls associated with them. There is no question that the numbers are important – but their importance is not simply in terms of the actual numbers, but how those numbers relate to the prospects for when and to what degree the future that is anticipated will be realized. That’s why earnings are discounted when inflated by a one-time non-operating beneficial event that has no relationship to future results. What is true with earnings news is true of all events – they do not exist and cannot be readily understood in episodic terms, as isolated events. They should be communicated in the context of how they relate to the realization of the future vision. How they move the story forward.
The more episodes that are communicated in the context of the story, the more intriguing the story becomes. The more intriguing the story, the more the person who is exposed to it becomes concerned about it and follows it. As that happens the story becomes more palpable – it becomes real. It acquires its own existence. It becomes organic.
In an upcoming post, I will relate these four components to the success of the Obama campaign for President. Obama won the election, but I do not believe the campaign is over. I believe he has an intrinsic understanding of the organic message and will continue his campaign throughout his Presidency – unlike anything we have ever seen before. Remember: the rally on election night in Grant Park was far from impromptu. It was a part of the ongoing campaign. If you want an alert about when that is posted, send an email to dporetz@qorvis.com, or use the email link above.
Return to Death Of Time Homepage