Are "target audiences" a problem?

Wow, I'm gratified that my recent post on strategic commenting attracted so much attention -- including praise from the famous Apple-maven-turned-venture-capitalist Guy Kawaski!

I've been slamming on several client projects lately, but right now I'm going to take a few minutes to address some of the points raised in the rich comment thread that article spawned.

On May 2, Jeffrey Treem of Edelman PR spoke up to disagree with my use of the "target audience" concept. Here's what he said...

Jeffrey Treem commented:

"While I agree with your analysis about the value of strategic commenting, I wish you would have used a different phrase other than 'target audiences.'

"Audiences are a passive, static group subject to the traditional linear sender-receiver model.

"I think we need to think more in terms of communities of interest. After all, we don't want these people just to read the comments, we want them to become engaged.

"Semantics? maybe. But I think we as communicators need to move away from the restrictive view of targeting audiences that was coined by advertisers."

Jeffrey raises a very good point here. Since my background is in journalism rather than advertising, marketing, or PR, I think the word "audience" probably carries different connotations for me than for someone from PR.

I know when I think of an "audience," I envision not a passive, absorbent blob, but a fairly active and interested community. I think this perspective comes from the journalistic ethos that the primary purpose of our work is to help audiences understand their world better so they can operate in it more effectively -- not to placate or manipulate them. (OK, I know not all journalists and news organizations live up to that ideal, but that's the goal most of us at least claim superficially.)

Also, the news media field is strongly driven by the concept of a "target audience." Entire publications and shows, let alone individual stories, are structured around who we want to read, watch, or listen. That's why the phrase "target audience" is rather ingrained in my professional DNA.

Therefore it's encouraging to me that a PR pro like Jeffrey would recommend focusing more on "communities of interest" rather than the relatively passive-sounding "audience." I think that approach is more likely to yield constructive PR, and constructive communication in general.

Yes, it is splitting linguistic hairs to some extent -- but we're actually talking about loaded words here, so we should be careful what we load them up with.

So: Point taken, Jeffrey. I'll try to adopt your suggested language in the future.

...That said, I still believe that most of the time, most people who encounter any particular item of online content will take a more traditionally passive role. They'll read, watch, or listen to the content, absorb it to some extent, and then move on without offering any response to the content creator or anyone else.

It takes effort and energy to interact, so for any given bit of online content the interaction that results will represent a small and especially interested minority. Yes, the size of that minority can -- and should -- increase, especially with effective use of online media. And yes, that vocal minority often is disproportionately influential. But I'd be very surprised if true interaction became the norm for most of the online audience at any point.

In other words, we're still going to mostly have a fairly passive, traditional audience, even online. That passive majority will remain a key consideration for media -- just not the only one, not anymore.

I could be wrong about that, but that's my bet.

Respect The Audience: Remove The Target

In a nice bit of cross-blog conversation, David Burn suggested in his blog Adpulp  that "audience" wasn't a problematic concept, but that "target" was.

...Yeah, OK, I can see his point. It does sound like you're hanging a bullseye around some guy's neck and lining him up to get shot. It implies forcing your messages in an invasive way. It implies a power relationship -- and a slightly sinister one at that. Even though "target" can mean "goal," that's generally not the visual metaphor that leaps to mind.

In a nice bit of strategic commenting, Spike Jones left a comment to the Adpulp post that referenced a relevent May 2005 post in his Brains on Fire blog: We have the customer in our sights, sir! There, Jones wrote:

"Customers know that they’re 'targets.' And nobody wants to be a target -- even to the point of going out of their way to avoid your message."

Very true, in the case of messages meant to persuade or manipulate people. But I suspect that's less true for communication efforts that are more geared toward forming, supporting, or serving a community.

Or, to frame that more cynically: people do always want to know "what's in it for me?" right up front. In effect, that means they want to determine whether a message is on-target for their immediate and unique needs. So the targeting works both ways.

But yeah, I agree that military metaphors generally undermine constructive, mutually beneficial conversation. So I'll try to be more aware of that.

...All of which means I'll probably try to say something like "attracting core communities" more often. I'll probably lapse back into "target audience" sometimes, old habits are hard to break. But I won't go back and re-edit my strategic commenting article to reflect that change, because otherwise this great discussion wouldn't make much sense. I'll just start where I am and move forward.

Anyway, that's my current thinking on this topic. What do you think? Please comment below.

Comments

[Spike Jones]

Amy,

It's so easy to lapse back into the old ways and it's something that I always try to mindful of. Not only the old, ineffective advertising techniques, but the language as well.

Thanks for the link love...

[Clair Ching]

The mindset, the language:

I think that when one has certain notions and words for those notions already, it sometimes becomes a dilemma. Like the example you gave about using the term target audience. There are connotations.

I guess that in this time wherein certain concepts are changing, it can't be helped that sometimes we get those moments of 'weirdness.'

[Heidi Miller]

I agree with David Burn that the issue is more with the word "target" than "audience." "Target" does make it sound as if we're taking aim at a faceless demographic statistic rather that engaging in a discussion with an interested party.

[Dave Ferguson]

As someone who's more often in the audience than not, I think that with some exceptions that's true for most of us: we're not the initiators of the majority of the exchanges we participate in. (When you ONLY initiate, trust me, fewer and fewer people want to be in those exchanges with you...)

I tend to see "target audience" as convenient shorthand rather than a Procrustean bed. Not everyone will, of course; still, it's good to balance denotation and connotation.

[vonjobi]

"target audience" is causing problems? i think most people will understand what you mean. i don't know that "communities of interest" will be as easily understood.

re "target" as a visual metaphor, i don't think anyone has ever called advertisers and marketers on the fact that they use the term "target market."

but no, i'm not picking a fight with your commenters. just couldn't resist =)