The truth about engagement

  • 5 of 5
  • next
  • Sign in for single page

A three-step engagement template

Creating and keeping engagement and delivering a renewable effort-based reward are easy to do. Three steps are involved regardless of perceptual load, and these steps make use of how our senses, our predatory wiring, and emotional engagement work together.

Tease the senses
Remember the cat preparing to pounce? That preparation occurred because the cat's senses were being teased by the mouse. It could hear it but not see it, see but not touch, touch but not taste, and so on.

Preparation is anticipation, and few things are as engaging as anticipating a reward for our efforts, so provide that visitor with a mix of sensory data and remember to mix it up!

Don't provide all your sensory data at once: When you do that, the "desire" {C,B/e,M} shuts down because there's nothing to anticipate. Tease the cat. Get it ready to pounce.

Close, but no cigar
A large part of anticipation involves being close to but not having, or, in the words of Hannibal Lecter, "We begin by coveting what we see every day."

We covet what we see: Our eyes seek out what we want but do not have.

There is an old axiom that the value of a service decreases exponentially after the service is rendered. That's because the {C,B/e,M} driving anticipation and desire has been replaced by a {C,B/e,M} that includes neither. Once the coveted object is attained, there's nothing left to covet. (Think of Groucho Marx's famous quip, "I don't want to belong to any club that would accept me as a member.")

So, step two of engagement is to keep your prospects close -- but not too close.

But wait, there's more
I mentioned delivering a renewable reward above. Engagement is maintained when we know there will always be something just a little bit further away, just a little bit better, and just a little bit more enticing than what we have right now.

So, fulfill your customer's immediate desire, but when doing so, replace it with another desire. Sell them the car, but make sure they know about next year's model, or the next model up, or the latest sound system, or onboard assistant that's right out there, waiting for them, and just a little bit beyond their immediate reach.

The only difference between high and low perceptual-load -- mobile versus TV -- is that the mobile method must be obvious and easy to understand ("No thinking allowed!")

Conclusions

Engagement is easy to create and maintain and doesn't require expensive hardware, fancy headgear, advanced analytics, or isolated environments to monitor and measure.

Here's another way to describe the simple three-step engagement process:

Use their senses to entice them. Make sure the senses you're enticing -- vision, hearing, taste, touch, smell -- are specific to your brand offering. You can even stimulate taste, touch, smell, and more online via images, music, animation/video, text, and so on.

Keep them sensorially active. Bring your consumers closer, closer, closer, but not close enough to "get" it until you're prepared to...

Give them what they want. But promise them more. Replace "this" desire with a new desire and you'll keep their engagement muscles working for you.

I mentioned above that engagement is easily measurable. Currently, patented technology is being used to develop a "Love/Like" tool that determines how many visitor's "likes" will turn into how many dollars and when.

Joseph Carrabis is the founder and chief research officer for NextStage Evolution.

On Twitter? Follow iMedia Connection at @iMediaTweet

"Human intelligence" image via Shutterstock.

 

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!