Brand Engagement is a Myth, Like Bigfoot

The following is also my column in this week's Advertising Age...

You Might as Well Be Searching for Bigfoot
In Other Words, the Truth About 'Engagement' Is It's a Myth

Attend a few marketing conferences or read enough ad trade pubs and blogs and you will quickly bump into the "E" word -- engagement. Buzzmetrics, the Advertising Research Foundation and the American Association of Advertising Agencies even launched a blog on the subject last week.

Engagement is, quite frankly, hot air. It's indicative of a systemic issue in the marketing community. We love to create buzzwords to describe new marketing methods when the good ol' outdated ones like blunt interruption don't quite work anymore.

Can anyone really define what "engagement" means? Have you seen it? I Googled "engagement marketing" and found lots of blather written on the subject. It seems to me like no one can really nail it. The closest I could come to a "definition" is the ARF's "Engagement is turning on a prospect to a brand idea enhanced by the surrounding context." Ahh, I get it now!

Yeah, right.

The truth about engagement is that no one can define it because it's a myth. It's sort of like a magical marketing unicorn or Bigfoot. Sure, there are a few fuzzy pictures of it on the internet, but no one has classified the species.

The engagement myth is built on an insatiable desire to get consumers obsessed with our brands. That's because TV advertising ain't what it used to be. Often "engagement" is achieved through digital technology. Problem is, consumers don't want to be "digitally engaged" with us. They're only into each other.

As marketers, we shouldn't care about brand engagement. Instead we should focus on how we get people connected with each other and measure the number of times we helped them do so. That's why venues such as Second Life, YouTube, Facebook and other social networks are so hot: They allow people to connect with each other.

If you want to see engagement, find the right communities, build programs that empower people to connect, then get out of the way. Your brand will get a lift purely through association. Don't search for Bigfoot.

Comments

[Jitendra]

Good piece. Check out the article in NYT, which seems to be talking mostly about engagement marketing without really getting too specific about "how to do it".

[Jitendra]

oops forgot the URL for the NYT article

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/09/business/media/09adcol.html?_r=1&oref=login

[American Copywriter]

You have no proof Bigfoot is a myth.

[David Burn]

Ed Cotton has seen engagement in action. Just this past weekend, in fact.

"Red Bull has circumvented the traditional ad process by creating their own immersive brand experiences."

[Mike Abundo]

In some very primitive markets, blind brand loyalty still challenges superior social media systems.

God help you if you work in such a market.

[nalts]

If brand engagement isn't what energized a dead candy mint (at virtually no cost) with Diet/Coke mentos videos springing up everywhere... than nothing is.

Mentos didn't create the fad, but they embraced it. And consumers are engaging in the brand and sharing their stories.

Methinks we have a Sasquatch siting.

[Rajan Sodhi]

One way we view brands is the emotional connection its customers have with it, what they believe the brand stands for, and how it resonates with them. An opportunity for customers to engage with the brand in a manner that reinforces those beliefs can only help solidify the brand meaning. Will this translate in to more sales? Not necessarily. Will it increase brand loyalty? Who knows, loyalty is scarce these days. The challenge with these 'new' forms (or terms) of marketing is they are difficult to measure and as a result, cannot be completely relied upon as a strong, viable marketing channel. However, testing it as part of a more comprehensive marketing strategy and see if there is a measurable impact can't hurt.

[Lauren Vargas]

I don't think engagement is defined as narrowly as you post. Engagement is bringing customers into the loop, allowing them to have control and then spread the word. The only thing mythical is expecting immediate results!

[Lev]

Steve, interesting post. When I first read the title I thought "This guy is off his rocker." But while reading it I thought you put across some good points.

I think engagement is as flexible a term as there are types of personality that want to engage (or not) with a brand.

You may not want to engage with the manufacturer of your new car, but there are plenty people who do.

The way forward, in my opinion, is to create an audience around your product that you know wants to engage. The only problem is that more often that not, being this selective is uneconomical.

However, where we deal with new brands or companies there are often pre-planned and built-in channels that allow for two-way communication. Traditional companies will struggle to change their ways to truly allow for this, be it because of company structures or its management team.

The reason why engagement is so difficult to define, is because it requires a whole new generation of companies to truly implement it before it can really work.

Having said that, I agree with your point that sometimes users want to engage with each other and be left alone.

[darryl]

Bigfoot does exist. I've seen him while I was engaging with the JackLinks brand at http://www.messinwithsasquatch.com/

[Asi]

I beg to differ:
http://nomansblog.typepad.com/no_mans_blog/2006/10/engagement_is_n.html

thanks
Asi.

[David Levy]

Language doesn't work that way.

Is the word "engagement" misused, or overused? Sure it is. That doesn't mean hoever that it does not or could not have deeper meaning, and a definition. The word "engagement" will only have meaning when it obtains the kind of significance that, say the word "chair" has. Say "chair" and people know you are talking about a thing with four legs, a seat and a back that helps me sit at a table. As it stands "engagement" evokes no permanence or even commonly shared meaning. Keep in mind that even words that we think DO have a commonly shared definition, such as "love," "democracy," "war" and "terror" have many nuances that, in the eye of the beholder, change the meaning of those words.

I define engagement as a consumer experience comprised of a series of calls to action that are designed to move consumers down a decision making process from awareness to purchase to loyalty. In the interactive realm, that consumer experience generates lots of data that enable us to understand who our consumers are, what they like or don't like, and help us build relationships with them.

There's a definition for "engagement." If you like it, use it. If not, substitute the word "involvement" (a more commonly understood term) in its place and maybe that will clarify things.

[Peter Olsen]

Nice

[Aaron Gasperi]

I agree. There are exceptions, but they are never based on communication alone. Google does a good job of immersing and engaging it's audience with new products. But this is related to what it means to be a brand. Google stands for something which is communicated in product innovation as much as any blog or strategic communication.

[Lewis Green]

Engagement exists, and, as a Supreme Court Justice was fond of saying: "I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it."

Engagement is not only about consumers. In fact, it is mostly about employees.

Engagement is a Starbucks parner tattooing the logo on his shoulder.

Engagement is YouTube.

Engagement is every reader who comments on this blog.

And apparently engagement is not alive and well at Edelman. A caution to all who might dream of working there or who might consider hiring the firm.

Those who are disengaged likely work only for the money and may care little how they achieve success. And those who don't believe in engagement are likely never to discover it.

[Marivi]

I first spotted Bigfoot when GM launched Saturn and fueled evangelism by hosting reunions for Saturn owners. Overused buzzword? Yes. Myth? No.

[Tom Asacker]

There is a definition, and it's simple:

Awareness + Value = Engagement

[The Engagement Principles]

Please. Engagement is real. Certainly more real than bigfoot.

In some markets, it's not even a complex concept.

If I sell camping gear, then I engage my blog readers around the concept of what it's like to live the camping life.

The blog (or social network, doesn't matter) creates a community where none existed.

And while the community isn't focused on products, it is centered around shared passions and values - which the company has just demonstrated it also holds.

How do consumers react when they know a company shares their passions?