The truth about engagement

  • 2 of 5
  • Sign in for single page

Two for the price of one

In the above examples, did you notice we went from "one" to "two?" From hippocampus to dorsolateral prefrontal cortex to working memory to behavioral centers, our gray matter is rerouting blood flow, oxygen, complex sugars, proteins, and enzymes to do two things. One of these things is focusing our attention (keeping us "engaged").

So what's the other thing? Equally important yet seldom recognized is that we're ignoring what's not engaging us.

In order to focus our conscious attention on something, we must create non-conscious filters to exclude ("ignore") any information not relevant to what our conscious mind is focusing on. Some filters are learned from parents, friends, and teachers. Others we create on the spot.

Excluded information is a distraction, and we need to put as much, if not more, energy into ignoring distractions as we do into staying focused ("engaged").

In fact, the effort we put into focusing and ignoring is directly proportional to how important our conscious minds believe the task is and how important our non-conscious minds believe the distractions are.

Have you ever seen a cat preparing to pounce on a bird or mouse? That cat is engaged. Being a predator (however cute and furry) is incredibly engaging. It requires a lot of focus, rapid evaluation of information as either relevant or distractive, and quick action based on those evaluations.

Cat pouncing and predation plays into solving the engagement puzzle because engagement is how our modern minds make use of all that hunter-gatherer wiring evolution designed in us over the last 7 million years.

Let's bring this back to marketing. You want engaged consumers? Give them something to hunt.

Our clever, clever minds

Our non-conscious mind is smarter than our conscious mind. It knows there are some distractions that must break our focus and concentration.

Neuroscientists call these important distractions "meaningful noise." Examples include our child's cry of pain or fear, a car speeding towards us, and anything from The Beatles' "Abbey Road" album.

Did that "Abbey Road" reference stop you -- anything from a full stop to a furrowed brow to a subtle "Huh?" to a mild chuckle? That's an example of meaningful noise.

If you just kept on reading and never noticed it, then you're not focusing on this column, and I'm not doing my job of getting and keeping you engaged.

The "Abbey Road" reference is meaningful noise because our conscious minds flag it as possibly incongruous information, the non-conscious rears its head (forgive the pun) to determine what got through the filters and why, and the end result is a "confusion point."

The incongruity creates noise that our minds attempt to filter (rapidly evaluate) as relevant or distractive information. We experience those confusion points as anything from full stops to amused chuckles.

Confusion points can be used to decrease or increase engagement (an example of relevant and engaging meaningful noise is described in the article "When it's OK to confuse your customers").

Marketing's goal is to cause our clever, clever minds to evaluate information rapidly as relevant and actionable ("engaging").

More specifically, the way marketers want to use the valuation is to create conversion, branding, and -- a recent development -- to provoke the consumer to "like" the brand within social media.

 

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!