January 9, 2005

not all conversations are verbal

zzzzazzdggg44.jpg
1. Gene­ral Motors has star­ted blog­ging.
This. Is. Huge.
2. “Mar­kets are con­ver­sa­tions.” –The Clue­train.
“Not all con­ver­sa­tions are ver­bal.” –Me.
Think about it. Most com­mu­ni­ca­tion bet­ween peo­ple is non-verbal. Body lan­guage, tone of voice, appea­rance– these all send vast quan­ti­ties of mes­sa­ges our brains are hard­wi­red to inter­pret. Some­body with a PhD in these mat­ters can explain it bet­ter than me, but…
The whole “Mar­kets are Con­ver­sa­tion” metaphor con­fu­ses a lot of online folk (not to men­tioon adver­tiisng folk), because they inter­pret the word “Con­ver­sa­tion” far too lite­rally. They ima­gine it like two bar­flies yak­king on. Or two cha­troom no-lifers yak­king on.
The dyna­mics are much dee­per, broa­der and, yes, richer than that.

13 Responses to “not all conversations are verbal”

  1. Robert Paterson says:

    So right Hugh. Maybe why email is so poor at dea­ling with com­ple­xity — why Skype with bet­ter voice qua­lity can get over more tone and hence more mea­ning. Why video will make it bet­ter and why in the end there is nothing bet­ter than face to face.
    What seems to work well with blog­ging is the two way flow and the abi­lity to get to know the thoughts of the other without inte­rrup­ting them. IE I can visit your site for months before com­men­ting and then only com­ment gently for a while.
    Blog­ging can be very gentle.
    PS
    Tal­king about face to face — we can also expe­rience even sex in a dif­fe­rent way if we can see it as a con­ver­sa­tion in your broa­der con­text. It can be get­ting your rocks off  — nothing wrong with that. But if we also see its poten­tial for com­mu­ni­ca­tion it pro­vi­des us with surely the ulti­mate way of exchan­ging energy and emo­tion as well

  2. GM “Gets” Cor­po­rate Blogging

    GM leads the way in how cor­po­rate blog­ging should be done.

  3. mamagiggle says:

    What is an appro­priate metaphor for the kind of con­ver­sa­tion you’re tal­king about. Eyes across a room? Shugy boo­gie dan­cing? Shou­ted lyrics from a stage to willing recep­tac­les, what now?

  4. rich says:

    I don’t mean to sound sar­cas­tic when I put this to you, but have you not read any Marshall McLuhan?

  5. Douglas Philips says:

    Actually, its a lot more like the dis­tinc­tion James Carse makes in his book “Finite and Infi­nite Games” (1986, Free Press). Tra­di­tio­nal busi­ness is a finite game. I win when I get you to buy something. I outsource sup­port (if I have any at all, which as a paper-clip maker I might not) to some country half way ’round the world cause its “chea­per” there, since an ongoing rela­tionship with the ‘cus­to­mer’ is a cost-center for me.
    Pla­ying an infi­nite game with the cus­to­mer trans­forms everything into a long-term (as in never ending) con­ver­sa­tion where both sides lis­ten… But there is a lot more to it than can be sum­ma­ri­zed in such a short space here (or on the blog pro­per even).

  6. David Burn says:

    I can’t speak for Hugh’s rea­ding habits, but I can say McLuhan was close friends with Howard Gos­sage, the legen­dary San Fran­cisco ad man.
    He also said, “All adver­ti­sing adver­ti­ses advertsing.”

  7. Hang on a second, mam­ma­gig­gle, if that is your real name. ‘A con­ver­sa­tion’ is the metaphor.
    McLuhan: each new tech­no­logy is an exten­sion of man. A car repla­ces his legs, a tv sup­plants his mind, the inter­net gives him voice. Hence, the con­ver­sa­tion.
    Gos­sage: Go buy The Book of. And unders­tand that the con­ver­sa­tion is cybercouponing.

  8. mamagiggle says:

    I think I get it
    “Mar­kets are con­ver­sa­tions”
    Yep, a metaphor.
    +*hiccup*+

  9. Don’t worry, mama, it’s merely an invo­lun­tary note sig­nif­ying a diach­ro­nic irri­ta­tion deep in the diaph­ragm. Gesundheit.

  10. Jon Strande says:

    It’s been far too long rea­ding without com­men­ting — so here goes…
    I’m one of those peo­ple. I take it far too lite­rally. Because (I am a tigh­tass) the defi­ni­tion of the word con­ver­sa­tion actually means oral or spo­ken com­mu­ni­ca­tion. There are those of us who have read Clue­train, and we get it what you’re saying (and agree with it).
    But perhaps you’ve addres­sed it here per­fectly:
    Smar­ter Com­mu­ni­ca­tion.
    Com­mu­ni­ca­tion is a much broa­der term and it’s really what you are refe­rring to: The exchange of thoughts, mes­sa­ges, or infor­ma­tion, as by speech, sig­nals, wri­ting, or beha­vior.
    To me, the smar­test “con­ver­sa­tion” is the one that NEVER takes place. And it doesn’t need to take place because we share a con­nec­tion.
    We Con­nect. We Com­mu­ni­cate. And We Repeat (as long as it feels good).

  11. hugh macleod says:

    Not sure I agree with you, Jon. “Con­ver­sa­tion” is more metapho­ri­cal to me than “Com­mu­ni­ca­tion”…
    “Com­mu­ni­ca­tion” is more desc­rip­tive, ergo, less inte­res­ting.
    Plus, “Com­mu­ni­ca­tion” has a lot of big media bag­gage as well (“the com­mu­ni­ca­tion industry” etc)… his­to­ricly with these chaps com­mu­ni­ca­tion pre­fers to be one way etc. Hardly con­ver­sa­tio­nal etc.
    With Clue­train, “Con­ver­sa­tion” is a metaphor. Which is why it con­fu­ses so many folk.

  12. Jon Strande says:

    It doesn’t con­fuse me, I just don’t agree that it is the best word. As I wrote in the email, the fear being that others take it lite­rally and want to talk with us more… and we know what kind of con­ver­sa­tion most of them want to have: “where is your money?”
    What I do agree with is the Smar­ter part. I’m always inte­res­ted in good con­ver­sa­tion about something that I care about.

  13. fouroboros says:

    To speak [sic] perchance to dream.
    I’m get­ting an embo­lism from all this seman­ti­cal gyra­tion. Customer-people are ana­log. Com­pa­nies are digi­tal. The ana­log employee-people within com­pa­nies trying to res­pond to ana­log customer-people, and vice versa, would really appre­ciate it if the damn digi­tal black­box would park itself in the cor­ner and just count the receipts while peo­ple get on about the busi­ness of reaching out to one other and bon­ding the way they were built to do before Adam Smith came along and got ever­yone twis­ted in their own knic­kers.
    They can sing each other songs, argue, blow kis­ses, arm wrestle, or just bathe in each other”s glow. Beau­ti­ful, self-organizing mar­kets of free choice. The medium is the mes­sage. The mes­sage is: *direc­ted* com­mu­ni­ca­tion is NOT con­ver­sa­tion.
    There. I’m done. I’ll go stand in my cor­ner now.