Passivity ≠ interactivity
Here’s a spot-on observation from Jeff Jarvis, in a post entitled Interaction vs. reaction: But enough about you…:
The problem with media’s definition of interactivity is that’s all about controlled reaction to media’s agenda: Come talk about our stuff. It is designed like a children’s museum, with buttons you can push to keep you busy and happy. That may not be the intent, but it is the result and message of forums and chats and blogs that are about what the newspaper publishes. And it misses the point.
This applies, of course, not only to media. The same could be said for about 99% of the business and advertising world’s definition of interactivity. It tends to go something like this…
Come to our website and download our ads!
Come to our website and play a really cool game about our products!
Come to our website and make our logo your desktop wallpaper!
Come to our website and download a screensaver of our mascot chasing our logo!
Etc. There is nothing interactive here, not really. And unless your ads really are something special (I’m thinking the Super Bowl ads that people go nuts for), the offer to watch them on a computer screen is probably not hugely tempting.
The stunning thing is that, for less money than is routinely ploughed into creating Flash games and suchlike, companies can offer something genuinely valuable. What that is depends on your business, but it probably has very little to do with your logo.
In: Engagement vs Interruption • Marketing •