Interesting article by Gord Hotchkiss called The Two Meanings of Engagement.
Mr. Hotchkiss goes on to explain that the problem with using the term engagement is that the marketer’s definition of engagement is very different than the customer’s definition of engagement.
Here’s how Hotchkiss describes the customer’s definition of engagement.
“Customers, on the other hand, define engagement as giving them a reason to care. They define engagement as it would relate to a conversation. Do you give me a reason to keep listening? And are you, in turn, listening to what I have to say? Is there a compelling reason for me to continue the conversation? I will be engaged with you only as long as it suits my needs to do so. I will give you nothing you haven't earned.”
I know that media agencies keep promoting how they can deliver higher engagement levels.
But as Mr. Hotchkiss points out, it’s the message that’s engaging (or not), not the media.
The media agency’s job is get the message exposed to the greatest number of relevant people as possible.
The creative agency's job is to earn the customer’s engagement in that message once they’re exposed.
Exposure + Engagement = Effectiveness.
Pay your media and creative agencies for what they do, not for what they don’t.
I especially like Mr. Hotchkiss’ line, “Do you give me a reason to keep listening?” That, in a nutshell, is the creative agency’s job, right there.
Since marketers can now measure whether customers kept listening or not, the can start paying their creative agencies accordingly.
The million dollar question is, why aren't they?