The Engagement Obsession (I’m not talking about rings here)

Why are we so obsessed with engagement online?

Because we can be.

My experience has been mostly with news organizations, but I’m sure this is the case with many other businesses. We analyze the number of visitors, the length of their visit, the number of pages and links clicked, the number of people commenting, the number of people retweeting and any other number of “engagement” measurements.

This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Unless it’s used as an excuse.

From David Armano.

Example: Why should I invest precious time and resources into Twitter (or Facebook, etc.) when the number of users on that site is small? Isn’t there only a small reward?

I wasn’t in newsrooms when the Internet was the next big thing, but I’m guessing the fact that “not many people are using that darned Internet thing yet” was a frequent justification for doing nothing to address it.

No, not everyone needs to be tweeting or friending away. There are plenty of reasons not to. But not trying something because it lacks overwhelming audience engagement just seems like a cop-out. As information providers, shouldn’t we be ahead of the curve? And then, I begin to question the original premise.

How did we previously measure engagement? Before the Internet. Before Google Analytics. We looked at newspaper subscription and sales numbers. Did you care if your readers wrote letters to the editor? Did you monitor how many people mentioned articles to their friends? All you really knew was that the paper landed on the driveway. Who knows if it was even read. Did we ever question or fret about engagement? No. Because subscription payments came in and advertisers paid for the opportunity of exposure — not for a guaranteed number of viewers or clicks.

We’ve established a system online (when it comes to the $$) that relies on users interacting with our content and each other on a different level. One they haven’t been conditioned to. For decades, we’ve demanded those users be passive consumers. We wanted them to buy and read, and if they wanted to write a letter now and again we would humor them. But they weren’t allowed any real stake. So don’t throw your hands up and say “but they just aren’t interacting with us online!” You (the institution) probably helped create the problem. Can’t do anything about that except attempt to change it. Excuses don’t = change.

So back to the original issue. No, you can’t expect your Twitter followers to equal the number of households tuning in to your 10 PM newscast. But those viewers are slowly being reprogrammed.

My generation largely lives online. We participate and collaborate frequently thanks to easy tools like Flickr and YouTube. We, and those after us, will adapt more and more tools like these (and Twitter and Facebook) and you WILL have to be there in order to interact with us.

So if you are questioning devoting resources to auxiliary online efforts, I’d ask you to be a little more forward looking. Is this commitment today so financially damaging that the potential future good is irrelevant? If the effort were to fail, if Twitter disappeared, would you really lose so much investment that any gain would be mitigated? Otherwise, I see few excuses not to at least give it a try.

Additional note: If anyone knows of good data on social networking “engagement” metrics, I’d love to see it. This post is a direct result of a lot of questions from news folks about how many viewers are on social networking sites, the degree to which they use them and whether or not they’d like to interact with a news organization on them. I, obviously, have my thoughts but would love to have some data!

Better to be laid off or left behind?

I am so incredibly sick of hearing about the economy. It’s bad. I know it. But it wasn’t until this month that people I personally know were laid off. And then, this week, one of my colleagues who holds the same position/title as me was laid off. It hit a little close to home.

In the immediate wake, there was some panic. What would happen to me if I were the one on the chopping block? How would I pay the bills? Where would I look for another job? Etc, etc. But after a couple days, the frustration set in. It seemed like management didn’t consider how those of us “left behind” would handle the workload. I began to wonder whether it would be better to be laid off — get out early, have the chance to start fresh somewhere elese — or left behind. But, then again, I might just have a touch of “it’s always greener on the other side” syndrome.

So, I went looking for some advice on the subject. This was the closest thing I found. I guess it’s not much of a blessing after all

I think the view on this depends on the company situation. If this downsizing is a temporary action in response to economic factors beyond (almost everyone’s) control, then taking on more responsibilities to fill the void could be a great strategy for advancement. In companies are looking to do more with less, they could be more accepting of new methods, tools and ideas. I keep reminding myself that there really is opportunity out there.

Unfortunately, there’s a study that showed ineffectively managed downsizing bred resentment and resistance. The pleasant effects are decreased morale and innovation and – bonus – increased conflict and scapegoating. If this is your work environment, it isn’t difficult to image that being handed a fresh start isn’t so terrible after all!

But Kristin, being laid off still means no money. No guarantees.

Yup. I get it. I think that is what makes us Millennials unique. Our confidence/optimism/arrogance (whatever you want to call it) means we can tackle this sort of change head on because we have absolute faith that something else, something better will come along.

So, am I happier to be left behind rather than laid off? Jury’s still out.

Inside the box

I was having a G chat conversation with a friend today when she said (or, rather, wrote) something that that caught my attention. She was getting frustrated with a PowerPoint presentation she was working on because it was consuming her life. She said: “I feel like my life has come down to deciding whether things should be in boxes or arrows.”

Now, I have my own frustrations with PowerPoint as a communication tool, but I think there is a greater point here. As a young, entry level employee in a big company, my friend (and many like her, including myself) get brainwashed in templates, style, protocol, procedures and everything else that makes up a corporate psyche. Sure, those standards are necessary to make things run smoothly and ensure consistency. But we get so consumed with *literally* thinking inside the box that we forget how to be creative. When the boss turns to you and wants to see innovation, creativity or something new, it’s such a disarming feeling. And trying to propose any new innovation is almost impossible to do while still observing the litany of rules.

I think this goes way back, before our first jobs. I saw this post by David Armano a while ago, and it has stuck with me. We (millennials) are used to guidelines and rules like coloring within the lines. Playing by them guaranteed excelling on standardized tests, getting good recommendations, going to good colleges, yet were never did anything exceptionally well. By simply following the rules, doing what we were supposed to do, we progressed right along.

So how do we, as Armano said, let imaginations grow while still enforcing some basic ground rules? I’m not exactly sure, but as I’m contemplating a new internship program at work, I’m trying to keep that in mind. I think there should be opportunities to take on a pet project and devote time — an hour a day or five hours a week — to it. And I think fresh interns have a real opportunity to hear a problem and make some imaginative suggestions. Those of us with the ground rules can handle making it conform, if necessary. I’m just starting to brainstorm so other ideas are very, very welcome!