contentious.com

(UPDATE FEB. 15: Read the followup to this article.)

As you might imagine, in my work as a content and communication consultant I often get asked for research and statistics on various topics in my field.

I’ve gotta admit, I dread those questions. First of all, research and statistics are practically useless when it comes to demonstrating the value of good communication practices – since that value is generally realized in ways which, while significant, is not easily quantifiable or traceable. Secondly, most of the research and statistics I see getting tossed around in this realm are of specious quality or relevance, once examined closely.

Today I had an exchange with my colleague Toby Bloomberg of Diva Marketing that touched on this issue.

Here’s what she asked me…

Toby wrote (via e-mail, published here with permission): “Wondered if in researching your post on Handling Online Vermin series (excellent!) if you came across any research, case studies, specific examples regarding the risk of negative/unwanted feedback – and the administrative costs to monitor corporate blog posts.”

I responded:

Nope. My intent was to give general advice on communication based on my own extensive experience, so this series isn’t a research piece.

I find myself generally disenchanted with quantitative research about communication issues. I understand why organizations want statistics and cost figures. I don’t blame them for asking. However when it comes to communications it seems to me that the most significant benefits and costs are rarely quantifiable or direct.

Also, not all interactions are equal. For instance, a blog post might attract 100 comments, but only two of those might be significant for whatever reason – and they might be VERY significant indeed.

I think statistics in the aggregate sense end up confusing the field of communication and distorting the cost/benefit considerations more than anything else. Anecdotes, real-world experience, case-specific analysis, and common sense are far more useful to business decisions about communication channels and strategies. Just my opinion.

That said, I do think that costs, evidence, and numbers matter – especially in business. However, I don’t think with most types of communication you can draw a direct line from the cost to do something (such as monitor responses to blog posts) with the true results of that effort, positive or negative.

To relate this back to your query more directly, I think that if organizations offer a blog and decide to allow comments, they should read those comments and respond appropriately as their time and resources permit. In other words, they should do what they can to monitor and respond to posts, and use that experience to hone their ability to zero in on which comments are most significant and warrant a response. That’s something you only learn by doing. When that ability gets honed, the return on investment (tangible and intangible) for that effort increases steadily.

I know that there is an awful lot of research being done into communication, and the economics of different communication channels and strategies. I should delve into that again to see whether there are any jewels in the latest findings.

But in the meantime, for those of you who are struggling to find a quantifiable justification for improving or changing how your organization communicates – I challenge you to set your faith in numbers aside and think about this peculiarly human issue in human terms first.

…Many thanks to Toby Bloomberg for asking a question that triggered me to say something I’ve been meaning to say for a long time.