I’ve mentioned a few times that I’ve been thinking about
“communication products” lately. This is mainly because I’ve noticed a
hyperbole of activity in marketplaces around the world: activity centered
around “innovation” and activity directed towards making things. Many of these things are tech-based
products like mobile apps, and new digital platforms of myriad sorts.
And then I’ve noticed a second hyperbole of activity, around
promoting these new products, promoting them for the purposes of securing
funding to develop them, then promoting them once in beta mode to garner early
iteration and promoting them once live for revenue.
So it seems that we have a proliferation of innovative
things being made, and a consequent proliferation of promotion surrounding
these things. And this is all contributing to the already unprecedentedly (new
invented word) difficult current environment in which to stand out.
So we have “products”: made-things like an app, a digital
e-commerce platform, a film, an album, being made… “things” that might well be
of value to someone, be fun and compelling, be revenue generating positive
contributions to the market system and the makers. But the airwaves are
overwhelmed with promotional pathways.
Overwhelming on Twitter, Facebook, in radio spots and TV spots, in
events, cross-promotions, and so on and so on.
And hence that thinking about I’ve been doing a lot of
lately. What if we built more “communication products”?
So, what is this “communication product”?
It’s an
ingoing intention, by-design, whereby the communication of a product is
completely and proactively, upfront, integrated into the development of said
product.
So where now we build and then we promote, with a
“communication product”, these two activities come together, whereby the
communication of the product is an essential part of the product itself: the
“story” of the product is a fundamental component of the product itself.
A “communication product” would, by-design, in development,
bridge a connection between the made-thing and its potential audience,
creatively, meaningfully, in a compelling way.
How to get there? How to introduce this possibility into the
development of made-things?
- First
answer what you make? Take a game; it may
be a game, but is it a way to pass time? Is it a way to build cognitive skill?
Is it a way to bond parents and kids? Is it a journey into the imagination? Is
it a means for competition?
- Second
answer who you make it for? Is it for
older women who might be lonely? Is it for intellectuals? Is it for dads and
their daughters? Is it for creativity fanatics? Is it for competitive
extremists?
- Then
think about the communication bridge? How
can you integrate a communication bridge that conveys a story about passing
time to older women who are lonely? How can you integrate a communication
bridge that conveys a story about building cognitive skill to intellectuals?
How can you integrate a communication bridge that conveys a story about
parent-child bonding to dads and their daughters? How can you integrate a
communication bridge that conveys a story about the imagination to creativity
fanatics? How can you integrate a communication bridge that conveys a story
about competition to competitive extremists?
And the key thing? Think about this in development, by-design, not after the fact. Make it an essential component of the building of the made-thing.
In the possibility proposed, the made-thing takes on a
broader meaning right from inception. The story is an essential part of the
development. So there’s no need
for the build-then-promote strategy because the made-thing already has the
pieces built into it for cultural salience; it already has the components that
will stimulate story-telling. And the made-thing comes along as the principal
rider. That’s how a made-thing becomes a “communication product”.
Is it feasible? Would it work? What do you think?
