Why agencies should focus on reciprocity rather than engagement
The nature of communications planning has changed dramatically in recent years, Naked Communications cofounder, Will Collin argues that agencies need to focus on reciprocity rather than engagement if they are to win the fight to capture consumer attention.
Communications planning, or connections planning, or whatever you call it, is a discipline in crisis. I say that as someone closely involved in its development, with no small amount of my professional life spent promoting its cause to clients and industry alike.
So it gives me no pleasure to condemn it.
On the other hand, the good news is that the very forces that wrought such change on the industry and so caused the crisis in communications planning have at the same time created the opportunity for the discipline to assume a more important role than ever, and move to the very heart of campaign strategy.
Nice argument unfolding one of the Cialdini’s Laws of Influence nicely, although not entirely a new thought. As Cialdini demonstrated the Hare Krishna’s have been doing this for decades (giving out free meals and flowers) There are many successful models of giving content in exchange for email addresses (to be marketed to) particularly in the SME space.
If it is centred around a value offering, then the integrity of this method is appealing.
Somehow I wonder if there needs to be a mix of engagement (liking?), reciprocity, participation, social proof, consistency & commitment, authority, scarcity, free AND contrast – rather than one or the other.
Lovely piece. Not sure i agree, as engagement still remains the desired end goal (prior to sales) of a reciprocal process. But still a great read.
I appreciate the effort you made to give some history and context to why you hold your current opinion. It was a good read.
Have to agree with your general argument that the key is going to be delivering a lot to the audience in order to generate reciprocity. Its an argument based on human nature, which is an ingredient often overlooked in planning “ideal” solutions.
What’s going to be a struggle is persuading people to have the courage to give a lot. Historically we’ve seen some pretty craptastic rewards offered, the best example I can think of – gamification – is already in the piece. Who has the courage to offer genuine rewards to audiences, especially if they aren’t cheap? Then again, who can afford not to?
Sorry Will, it’s not a good read. Dude, it needs a big edit IMHO. That said, I am so glad you mentioned my pet rave – reciprocation. It’s a huge concept on every level. It actually defines relationships. It separates the have-a-relationships from the haven’t-a-relationships (highly pertinent to brands and marketers). It is a barometer with which you can measure trust and predict future security (and why the PNG tribe fact was fascinating, thanks)… Mates reciprocate, BFF’s reciprocate, lovers reciprocate, allies reciprocate, good clients reciprocate, family reciprocates… it means something coz it’s primal.
Very interesting piece. Thanks also for a refreshingly clear explanation of what comms planing really is.
One of the challenges will be for clients and agencies to see this from people’s perspective. While few may disagree with your argument, the fact remains that value is relative, and that marketers and people out in the real world will continue disagree as to what constitutes value.
Andrex and Kingsmill failed to realise that toilet paper and sliced bread weren’t at the centre of their customers’ universe the way it is for them, and thus believed they were actually delivering the value you talk about.
It’s up to agencies to tell them they’re wrong.
Good (but long) read.
My take on this is that although the way we as humans communicate is changing, the essence of this communication is the same as ever.
Reciprocity, in my mind is the essence of any type of communication. Otherwise how do you know if anyone is listening?
Hi Will, I loved the read (and didn’t mind the length) – really clear and some good explanations and thought pieces, and refreshingly Kool-Aid free. I especially like the fact that ‘reciprocity’ has a clear definition, whereas ‘engagement’ has been deliberately blurred. Thank you.
I will say that although sucess for brands is less predicatble than before, I believe it is still largely predictable i.e. spend more on advertising/marketing, return more on sales growth. But I understand why we might want to encourage clients that they could buck the trend.
So boiling down the verbiage and high school essay language: you’re suggesting that people respond to any interaction with the question “what’s in it for me?”
i think it’s the “actively reciprocating” – the deliberate act of paddling up stream to the neighbouring tribe – that is the salient bit, the bit that’s news – or insight (sic)