The Elevator Speech for Conversational Media
My good friend and mentor Catherine Dold pointed out to me yesterday over lunch that the phrase "conversational media" means little or nothing to most people.
Damn it, she's right.
So I'm trying to figure out a very sort way to convey the core concept and value of conversational media in, say, ten words or less.
Here's what I've come up with so far -- but I could sure use your help...
(UPDATE JAN. 13: See the progress I've made so far on crafting this definition...)
CONVERSATIONAL MEDIA IS (where)...
- Mass communication that's a public forum. Everyone can talk. (9 words)
- The "audience" gets heard alongside the publisher. (7 words)
- Audience members publicly converse with the publisher and each other. (10 words)
- Mass communication that empowers people anywhere to create a public conversation. (11 words)
...OK, I need more caffeine, so I'll add to this list as I get more ideas. In the meantime, what elevator speeches can you devise? Comment below!
Okay, first crack at it:
Conversational media is where...
Two-way communication builds trusted relationships, ultimately increasing sales.
Posted by: David Brazeal | January 05, 2006 at 09:10 AM
1) Two-way, or multiple-way media, that facilitates participation.
2) Media that helps people talk with, not at, each other.
Posted by: David Burn | January 06, 2006 at 02:46 PM
I like "Audience members publicly converse with the publisher and each other" with the tiny substitution of "writer" for "publisher," which tends to conjure up images of a big, old-fashioned publishing house in my mind a la Harcourt Brace.
The reason I prefer this one over the others is that it uses the most active verb, "converse." "Is" and "gets heard" in the first two are too passive for my taste, and "empowers" is a little too corporate-speaky for me.
Posted by: Heidi Miller | January 06, 2006 at 03:21 PM
I'm going to toss a sabot into the gears here and question the utility of a canned "elevator speech." Doesn't it assume a uniformity among the people you'll give it to, a uniformity that's unlikely to exist? I just read a newsletter from a marketing guy named Michael Katz (bluepenguindevelopment.com) in which he said this about elevator speeches: "What I eventually decided however, was that my pat, highly polished statement was both hard to understand and too slick for the recipient to hold onto. Like wedding china, it was the kind of thing I would trot out of the cabinet whenever company came over, but as a practical matter, it wasn't quite right for everyday use."
Anyway, it seems to me that you need to think through a few different "elevator speeches" for different situations and audiences, and then try to pick the right one for each situation.
Nobody ever said this communication thing was going to be easy.
Posted by: Roy Jacobsen | January 06, 2006 at 07:06 PM
FYI, I'm not necessarily endorsing Katz's views; I just subscribed to the newsletter, and he's still on "probation." It just seemed to be something to consider.
Posted by: Roy Jacobsen | January 06, 2006 at 07:08 PM
Hi Amy,
Thought I would add that I thought "conversational media" as a term was brilliant. I get it, and like it much better than its relative - "social technology" and the like. Always love a new useful term to communicate, yes, complex (and new) ideas.
Posted by: Amy | January 09, 2006 at 06:24 PM
When Internet writers talk to readers and readers talk to writers and harness the intelligence of crowds.
"harness the intelligence of crowds," is a Ray Kurzweil quote.
Posted by: Harry Chittenden | January 16, 2006 at 01:52 PM