Engagement is the cool new word for communicators and why not? It sounds great and really gets to the core of what we're trying to do. I do think we could use a bit more focus, though, in terms of how we think about who we are trying to engage and what that means.
As I've said in the past, I don't think there is any such thing as THE public, but rather there are a range of publics (plural), that have different interests, needs, and levels of awareness. When you don't segment or differentiate them though, they look to be one big mass ("the public"). A strategic public relations program is focused on getting groups of people to do certain things (awareness is good, action is better) so, similarly, our engagement efforts need to be targeted.
Talking about engagement without segmenting those we want to engage and defining what that deeper engagement looks like is a recipe for frustration and false indicators of engagement (likes, fans, etc.). These things are important, but do they really indicate a desire to do those things that help move the needle (apply, enroll, volunteer, give, purchase... whatever your business model may be)?
Perhaps there is a more focused and transparent way to go about enhancing engagement. If we start by identifying those things we want to accomplish as an institution, then look at the ways our constituents can positively impact those things through deeper involvement/giving/activity, we can identify what the current level of awareness and engagement is and then plan for increasing both - and do so by clearly telling folks what we're trying to accomplish and how they can help us get there.
Easy to say and not so simple to do, but what is?
Comments