We like to focus on the tools we use to communicate more than the messages we are trying send. We don’t say, “I’m going to spread my message,” we say, “I’m going to send an email,” or “I’ll make a call.” It is the universal error of our technologically hypnotized age. And it makes things like Social Media much harder to understand.
Strip it all away for a moment. Superbowl ads, text messages, billboards, emails, tweets, FB posts and ransom notes — throw them all out and what is fundamental to communication remains. There is a sender, a recipient, and a message. Lose any one of these three things and communication does not take place. All media exist so that a person can communicate with another person. And the way that people attempt communicate is through story.
So, why don’t we all start with the story? Sure, you can use Powerpoint or Keynote to help you communicate, but if the story you are trying to tell isn’t very good then, no matter how many animations you add, your presentation is going to be crap.
This equally true for an ad, a book, a twitter stream, a conversation on Facebook or a phone call with your long-lost college friend. If you don’t have anything to say, technology can’t make it better. As Exhibit A, I cite the entire Internet.
If you work with me, we start with the story and find manifold ways to exploit your story to it’s maximum advantage.
And if you are not working with me, you should start with your story anyway. Because nobody cares about the bells and whistles. Nobody falls in love, goes to war, changes their mind or buys anything because of a medium. They do it because of a message.
I contend you need 4 things, the three before-mentioned items, and a method of delivery for the message. Whether it be vocal, written, telegraph, sign language, semaphore flag, or one of the more technological methods, there must be a way to get the message from the sender to the recipient.
So, in summary – sender, recipient, message, method.
Thoughts/questions/concerns?
Yeah, fair enough. My rage for simplicity got away from me while I was trying to make my point. Which is — the message is more important than the method? Yes? No? Maybe?
That was rage? I see. Please kindly remind me to never properly aggravate you. =)
Kidding aside, you do have a valid thesis. Content over delivery should be a, if not the, primary focus.
Tales of fiction, non-fiction essays and newsworthy stories – because of their size – can be complex and intricate.
Twitter, Facebook, et. al. – as they are shorter snippets of content – very often lack significant content and tact.
I believe I do concur with your thoughts, but was misunderstanding in my original reading. I hope I am on the right path now.
Be well.
I entirely agree. When Twitter came out it was really big in my profession. I signed up and followed one of my buddies who had a smart phone and updated his account 5-10 times a day.
After about 4 days of reading his posts, I got depressed. It was a litany of ‘standing in line for a burger’, ‘driving home from work’, ‘surfing the internet’. It wasn’t anything different than what I was doing. It was a reminder of how each day was slipping away, and I was spending it reading about him. There was *no* story being told, so I turned it off.
On the other end of the spectrum, I’m now at the same point with the news. Between talk radio and news web sites, I can read or hear the same scandal 3-4 times in the same day. And in the end, the news doesn’t change anything I do. I don’t go out and march, or call officials, or campaign. It’s a story, but it doesn’t *affect* me. It really doesn’t mean anything.
There was an awful speed metal band in the 90′s called Bad Religion, and one song was about the 24 hour news cycle. I always think of the line “it’s episodic currency that everybody needs.” I always think of that when I hear about a scandal, or a trial, or a disaster that doesn’t affect me or my loved ones. It’s Jerry Springer writ large.
(said the guy in the blog comments)