May I Have Your Attention, Please?
by Angie Macdonald
Social media is changing the way we do things and one of the issues involved is that of control. Control is slipping from corporates when it comes to promoting their products and from conference speakers and college lecturers, who are no longer regarded as the expert with the final say on the matter.
One example of this phenomenon is “back channelling”. In the social media context, this refers to people at conferences, or students, blogging and/or Twittering while listening to a speaker. It can also involve instant messaging or chatrooms and Internet Relay Chat (IRC) Channels. This is the “back channel”, where the audience engage in a different conversation, separate from the speaker directly in front of them.
At some conferences, a screen is erected behind the speaker, on which the audience can post comments directly from their computers. The speaker, facing the audience, cannot see the comments appearing on the screen behind him or her. From what I’ve heard anecdotally, the comments which tend to appear are generally negative comments on the speaker’s clothes, or how bored people are, rather than comments that further the debate. It is the equivalent of heckling, only here it is virtual and silent.
I’m sure there are some highly skilled people who are able to multi-task and keep with the programme. But most people are unable to give two things the same amount of attention at the same time. If you are trying to listen, analyse, remember, write and follow the conversation all at the same time, something’s got to give. You just have to think about the dangers of driving while talking on a mobile phone to realise that multi-tasking has its limits.
In an article published in the New York Times, David E. Meyer, a cognitive scientist and director of the Brain, Cognition and Action Laboratory at the University of Michigan is quoted as saying, “Multitasking is going to slow you down, increasing the chances of mistakes.” In the same article, René Marois, a neuroscientist and director of the Human Information Processing Laboratory at Vanderbilt University, when describing the ‘cognitive powerhouse’ that is the human brain, says “…a core limitation is an inability to concentrate on two things at once.”
What usually happens, is that by the time the blogger or Twitterer has finished writing or texting a particular thought, the speaker has moved on, the information that has been imparted in the interim is hazy, and the thread of the argument has been lost. This creates a knowledge gap which can result in misunderstanding, which in turn can lead to miscommunication.
Now, it’s fine if one individual has misunderstood. But what happens when that individual has published their misunderstood information online and millions of people around the world read it and get the wrong end of the stick? What are the repercussions? Where is the value in that communication?
Don’t get me wrong, I can see that there are advantages to back-channelling. It can be an inclusive behaviour too and means that those unable to attend a conference in person can follow what’s happening by reading updated blogs or receiving Tweets on their mobile phones.
It can also be a way to open up and encourage discussion and debate around a topic. So rather than information being delivered from one so-called expert in a top-down fashion, everybody who knows something or who has an opinion can join in and conference goers have an opportunity to learn from their peers. In that way, learning can become a more democratic process - a knowledge exchange offering instant feedback and reflection.
The danger is that in the process you may have to listen to people who think they are right, when they may be wrong, or people who love the sight of their words in print and subject everyone to their opinions whenever they can. As in the real world, sometimes conversations are inane, occasionally they are a waste of time.
We live in an age where children are being medicated for Attention Deficit Disorder and adults put their lack of success in life down to the fact that they were never diagnosed with ADD in school, and yet, here we are as adults, actively engaging in attention deficit behaviour. Not only that, but rather than being in the moment and giving it all our attention, we are taking a step back to observe and comment on what is occurring, analysing it as it is happening, rather than experiencing it.
There is no doubt that technology is changing social behaviour, communication and relationships. In spite of the advantages, I still think that in today’s attention-seeking world, perhaps the highest form of regard we can offer anyone, is to give them our full-blown attention.
I’m not sure if there’s going to be a screen for a back-channel at the EuroComm conference, but it will be interesting to hear what you think.
Photo: thanks to jean djinni on flickr.com (CCL)
December 8th, 2007 at 18:47
Thanks Angie for highlighting a phenomenon that is little understood but which will have huge impact on conference presentations in the future.
I used a backchat system at a conference last June on Social Media. It seemed like a good idea at the time. The conference was on the theme of the crossroads of Employee Engagement and Social Media, so we invited David Fairhurst, top People Director of McDonald’s, to present on how he is using video to combat the poor opinion of their employer brand. He was assisted in this by Pete Stevenson, Creative Director of The Edge Picture Company who made the award-winning programme.
The audience tended to share the public’s view of McDonald’s employer brand (or maybe confused it with the product brand). So they agreed with the video’s title: “Is your mother embarrassed about where you work?”
However, it was screening the video in its entirety that put the pickle among the mayonnaise. The film is a superbly crafted piece of emotional drama and the conference audience felt suitably manipulated. Suddenly the argument was not about saturated fats but the use of video as a propaganda tool.
David Fairhurst is an old hand at facing down opposition to his employer’s products, and sailed over the controversy. Indeed he was voted recently by HR Magazine as the 4th most influential HR manager in the UK (Number 3 was Charles Handy!) so he must be used to the arguments and took the brickbats (and the compliments) in his stride.
But the surprise was the strength of feeling about the video itself. Pete Stevenson found himself justifying the reasons for making a professional programme (the lead was played by an actress) that was so beautifully written, shot and directed.
Comments on te backchat channel included:
“A much idealised view I am afraid. emotionally strong messages can still be propaganda, doesn’t make it true”
“McDonalds the musical”
The speakers felt wounded and challenged by such instant criticism. I suspect that the audience felt rather liberated.
December 9th, 2007 at 22:04
Thanks for this interesting real life example of the back channel, Mark. Your description of the McDonald’s video was so vivid, I really want to see it now!