If you attended one of my sessions about Web 2.0, seen my presentation files or read my article published in the March issue of CASE’s Currents, you might have a vague idea of where I’m going with the headline of this post.
But, if you don’t – here’s just a quick excerpt from the initial draft of the piece I wrote for Currents:
In 1964, Herbert Marshall McLuhan, a Canadian professor of English Literature and a communication theorist wrote Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. In this book, he developed the theory that media have an impact on society beyond the content they delivered. McLuhan coined in this book the famous and sometimes over-used phrase: “the medium is the message.â€
If McLuhan was still among us today, there’s no doubt he would have followed closely Web 2.0. Unfortunately, he died in 1980. As a result, we can only speculate on how he would have described this paradigm shift in communication.
Traditional media such as newspapers, radio or TV can deeply transform messages. With the rise of Web2.0-driven social media, the traditional communication schema — a message crafted by an organization and delivered via a set number of identified media to target audiences — has become obsolete.
Today, the conversation is the message.
I came up with “the conversation is the message” in August 2006 when I was working on the presentation for the CASE conference. I studied McLuhan’s work in graduate school, and his catchy phrase stuck after all those years (well, it was not THAT long ago).
Anyway, “the conversation is the message” has come back at me this week in an email exchange with Andrea Jarrell. She’s working on a follow-up piece for Currents focusing on the Web 2.0 denial syndrome (my words, hers were “fear and loathing in Web 2.0”) in higher ed communication offices.
I can’t wait to read Andrea’s article in the September issue of Currents, because she’s definitely right on target. People always fear change, and Web 2.0 is a big change for marketing, PR and communications folks.
For some, the denial stage — it’s just a fad — has just begun. So, it might be helpful to look at what some editors and reporters covering higher education have been doing lately:
- The Chronicle of Higher Education has started to offer some excellent online video reports produced by Jeff Young. In July, it will launch Tech Therapy, a podcast based on questions asked by readers. And, they’ve been blogging for a while now.
- US and World News Reports has launched a blog to
defendexplain its college rankings: Morse Code. Comments are still off, but I’m hopeful the magazine will finally get the memo on blogs and comments - Inside Higher Ed has hired Dean Dad as one of their in-house bloggers.
- At University Business, Editor Tim Goral has invited readers to write a whole issue of the magazine about the state of higher education (BTW, you have until August 6 to submit a piece). What better proof that the conversation is the message when it starts to be printed?
- Even CASE’s Currents might soon go 2.0 as a group of alumni professionals are using a wiki to research and write an article on how the Internet is changing alumni communications, article that will be submitted for publication this Fall.
The Conversation is the Message.
The Experience is the Marketing.
As I work with college admissions offices, it’s clear that 30-40 years of doing it the same way is no longer viable. It’s all changed. It’s part Internet and part Millennials. Those two forces coming together are calling for a change in communications. For them I call it the Recruiting Revolution … or to use the moniker, Recruiting 2.0.
While I don’t doubt that “the conversation” may be the message, it is only PART of the message. We seem to have forgotten the critical role of editors in making the billions of bits accessible and in most cases, palatable.
There’s a reason I get my news from ‘trusted’ sources and not Wikipedia. I also like getting information from experts — people I trust; those with hard-won experience; fantastic writers, etc.
Moreover, collective experience (or representational experience) is often far more “true” than one-off blogs by students, etc. In addition to personal stories, give me some hard data as well (provided it is well explained). I read Consumer Reports before I buy a product (as well as the Amazon.com reader reports — which are woefully inconsistent and often impossible to collate into something coherent).
I think we do students a disservice if we let others do the work for us (i.e. Communications/Admissions experts). Consistency matters — as does getting the the right answers to questions. Sure, a student blog might help someone decide what classes to take, but ultimately, the student should also speak to a faculty adviser, dean, etc. (someone who knows the real requirements, etc.)
Moreover, I think there has always been a role for individuals to ask questions, chat/meet with students, visit campus, get inside-insights for other sources. Those are all 1.0 methods and quite effective. A prospective student needs to step onto the REAL campus, not the Second Life one.
As an editor, I want to present a clear vision of my institution — with the goal of attracting other like-minded individuals. If I am doing my job well, such a vision is not a one-way conversation (but a collective one, among my peers, deans, faculty, students, alumni, etc.). I think students recognize that (we want to say, “this is how we see ourselves” and stand behind it).
So the apparently “controlled” message is in fact a neatly packaged version of myriad conversations, all adding up to something bigger than solo artists all shouting, “look at me!”.
Great points, Michael. That’s what makes blogs so powerful. Comments help you fine tune your thoughts. I always think of my readers as thousands of editors… I’d like to follow up on a few points:
“I also like getting information from experts — people I trust; those with hard-won experience; fantastic writers, etc.”
For most students, these experts will probably be their friends on facebook or blogs. We might see expertise in different places that they do.
“Sure, a student blog might help someone decide what classes to take, but ultimately, the student should also speak to a faculty adviser, dean, etc. (someone who knows the real requirements, etc.)”
Even if my original post didn’t make it clear, I actually don’t think blogs should only relay students’ voices. Students said to be interested in reading blogs written by faculty members too in the last “E-Expectations” study conducted by Noel-Levitz.
“So the apparently “controlled†message is in fact a neatly packaged version of myriad conversations, all adding up to something bigger than solo artists all shouting, “look at me!â€.
Good point. However, I’m not sure if “neatly packaged messages” are what this generation only wants to hear about an institution. People (including students) are craving for (perceived) transparency. That’s why more and more institutions and corporations are trying to get the myriad conversations — usually taking place behind the scene — in front of their target audiences.
Thanks again for your very thoughtful comment.