The truth about engagement

  • Previous
  • 1 of 5
  • Sign in for single page

Introduction

This article will focus on the neuroscience of engagement and how best to think about it in digital marketing. This is easy enough to do, providing that readers forget all the hype they've ever read about engagement.

The next few pages will:

  • Define "engagement" as most people recognize it in their everyday lives
  • Discuss what happens in the brain -- the neuroscience -- when we're engaged (with a brief foray into the neurology of a "like" in social media)
  • Tie that brain science back to everyday life
  • Use what we've covered to create an engagement template to use with digital properties.

The truth about engagement

What is engagement?

Let's start with some forms of engagement you may already be familiar with.

Have you ever been engaged to someone (as in "planning to get married")? Have you ever heard someone described as a "very engaging speaker?" Have you heard of someone referred to as being "very engaged in their work?"

How about yourself: Have you ever been very engaged by a conference presentation or presenter? Or told someone you can't talk because you have to focus on something? Or because some task is requiring all your attention? Or asked someone to wait a second while you finish something?

Let's go simple: Have you ever told someone "Shhh!" during the final seconds of a televised game? Or asked someone to give you a few minutes so you could finish a section of a book?

The list can go on. What is similar about each item on the list is that attention is focused on one thing and one thing only.

When we're engaged to be married, we're publicly stating that we're focusing our romantic (and other) attention on one person only. An engaging speaker is one who causes his or her audience to focus their attention on him or her. An engaging presentation is one that focuses our attention on itself -- ditto a presenter. Someone who is engaged in their work is focusing most, if not all, of their attention on whatever task they're doing -- ditto an exciting game or book.

When we focus, pay attention to, need to finish something, or concentrate on one thing and one thing only, we're devoting more and more brain function (conscious and non-conscious resources) to performing two things and two things only.

 

Comments

Joseph Carrabis
Joseph Carrabis June 26, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Hello Ms. Hanke and thanks for the kind words.
"Cost-per-engagement"? I'm probably not the correct person to answer this question as my first response is the counter-question, "How is 'engagement' being defined?"
Part of NextStage's work and research involves rigorously defining things with the purpose of being able to defend measurements and the actions they suggest. A by-product of this is that our definition of 'engagement' is static (unchanging) across all clients; "Engagement is the demonstration of Attention via psychomotor activity that serves to focus an individual's Attention." (see "Attention, Engagement and Trust: The Internet Trinity and Websites" http://www.bizmediascience.com/2007/10/attention_engagement_and_trust.html). You can see that the definition I gave in 2007 is pretty much the same as the one I used in this iMedia article. Other advantages to having a rigorously defined and universally applicable definition are
* There's no re-engineering required from client to client
* One can quickly determine if a client's specific goals are achievable
* Any applications/tools resulting from the definition are both commutative (what causes engagement "here" will cause engagement "there" with all relevant factors equal) and transitive (the engagement measurement methodology "here" is the same as the engagement measurement methodology "there").
This rigorous definition allows clients to find value in several ways (specific reasons pages aren't working and how to fix them, search term/landing page incongruities, where audiences can be broadened or abandoned and how, ...)
Applying definitional rigor to a CPE concept is simple to do -- we need to know if all networks and publishers use the same definition and apply it the same way. Applying universal validity is equally simple -- we need to know if the definition and application of same are commutative and transitive.
To the concept of trends...I shy away from trends. Anybody who's using the same measurement definition today that they were using five years ago isn't following trends (see "Joseph Carrabis - Fear Álainn", http://www.emerkirrane.com/2011/01/28/joseph-carrabis-fear-alainn/, specifically my response to Q3: What the heck is a NeuroMarketer?).
Will CPE replace CTR? It depends how well it's promoted and how successful it is at generating ROI. Agencies, networks, publishers et al can promote the heck out of it and if, in the end, it's not more successful (demonstrates positive ROI) than any other metric then it, too, will be abandoned when the next trend comes along. This "trending" brings us back to a universally applicable, rigorous definition: it may not be pretty, it may not be trendy, but the engagement values you get today are the values you got yesterday unless something changed, hence you have a good fix what changes on your digital property worked, how much, which way and why.
Or, as one of our NextStageologists said, "When you've captured someone's imagination you've co-opted their mind and made it work for you."

Marielle Hanke
Marielle Hanke June 25, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Joseph, what a wonderful piece! Really enjoyed it.
As I'm sure you are aware, a growing number of ad networks and publishers have begun offering a new pricing model call cost-per-engagement (CPE). (Full disclosure, my company Cloud Nine Media is one of these networks and we sell our inventory almost exclusively on a CPE basis). Do you support this trend and how likely do you think CPE will establish itself as an alternative to CTR for measuring the success of online campaigns? @CloudNineMedia

Joseph Carrabis
Joseph Carrabis June 22, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Hello and thanks for the nod, Mr. Troja.
Re fans to fanatics and keeping the love alive, one of the things we're researching currently is how to create a "Steve Jobs" on demand for different brands. One thing we've documented so far is that people will accept (even applaud) a messianic (extremely charismatic) figure's eccentricities provided trust between icon and audience remains intact. We wouldn't be iPhoning, iPading and iPoding our way into the future if Steve Jobs ever "broke faith" with Applenauts.
We think the fans->fanatics link is in such things. I'd appreciate your (and others') thoughts on this.
Thanks again,
Joseph

Tom Troja
Tom Troja June 22, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Great article that gets to the core of what we should do and why... liked the clarity of the goal of marketing is to create high engagement in "low perceptual-load conditions.". Love to hear more around building long term social relationships, keeping people loving brands after the purchase and turning fans into fanatics for the brand. How does the brain work around that?

Joseph Carrabis
Joseph Carrabis June 22, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Thanks for the nod, Mr. Emery. I *like* the term "serial likers" (gave me a chuckle over my morning coffee). - Joseph

Brant Emery
Brant Emery June 22, 2012 at 12:42 PM

A brilliant article! Nice to research clearly applied and related effectively. I like the idea of being able to algorithmically assess lovers from 'serial likers' - certainly reflects reality and is a next step in helping brands focus their strategies further. Good stuff!