Why The “Screens Theory” Doesn’t Hold Up
A few years back, Kevin Roberts published his book, Sisomo: The Future on Screen.
His hypothesis was simple and widely embraced — the future of brands lies in distributing branded content via an endless range of new “screens,” each of which provides yet another outlet to capture the hearts (and occasionally minds) of a brand’s core audience. The key, explains Roberts, is utilizing the tools of “screen” media: sight, sound and motion, or “sisomo.”
Ok, sounds harmless enough. Advertising is, after all, built on emotional appeals. So let’s just… blow that out across all of these new channels. Right?
Well… not exactly.
The problem is that digital is not just another content distribution channel. It’s not that consumers’ core expectations and behaviors have changed dramatically, but that Digital itself is fundamentally different from other media in its very use and purpose.
The web and the mobile web were not built to rebroadcast a message, or a passive emotional experience (“sisomo,” if you will). And unlike television, print, and radio, the internet and mobile phones weren’t built with advertisers in mind. The web was created to facilitate a remote connection with another person’s computer, allowing for peer-to-peer communication in a way never possible before. And most of us can remember a time when a phone was, well, just a phone.
Truth is, there’s a reason why 99.98% of people haven’t clicked on your banner ad, and it’s because the fundamental purpose of the web revolves around utility, community, and democracy. The way in which information travels through these channels can no longer be art directed or copywritten.
The inherent flaw of the “Screens Theory” is that once we view the web as a “second screen” and mobile as a “third,” we lose sight of the unique power—and potential pitfalls—of each these channels. The Internet and mobile aren’t passive “screens” at all, but unique pathways into your consumers’ life. You can’t simply bombard consumers with sight, sound, and motion. They’ve offered you a seat at their dinner table. You need to behave as such.
The web is a place to build relationships, encourage participation, and create lasting connections with consumers. A campaign can no longer end with when a media flight does. A “big idea” is only big if it’s not temporary or disposable.
These days, consumers want and expect more, and it’s up to us as marketers to deliver on that demand. “Sisomo” and the “Screens Theory” may look good on a glossy, hard-bound book page, but today, all that matters is how it holds up to the reality of public opinion—online.
(Headline image credit: sisomo.com)Follow the author: @alexgmorrison Follow AgencyNet: @agencynet
Stéphane…
Do you think that the Nike+ campaign (http://nikeplus.nike.com/) is a good example of what you are stating ? This campaign builds relationships, encourage participation, and create lasting connections with consumers.
Alex…
Nike+ is a good example for a lot of reasons, most notably because it truly has branded utility at its core. As I understand it, this idea originated from within the products group at Nike, and it shows in the brilliant integration between .com and physical product. The recent “Human Race” initiative within the larger Nike+ campaign was an interesting way to begin to bring community-centric activities in the campaign, but I think there’s still room for improvement in this regard. Nike has accumulated a critical mass of passionate athletes and runners on Nike+.com, what more can be done to open up the lines of communication between those athletes? Nike stepping into the role of facilitator and “matchmaker,” if you will, would be a natural evolution here.
Stepping beyond “sight, sound, and motion” to offer true branded utility can take many shapes, and it’s why the next few years, though potentially daunting, are particularly exciting for the world of “advertising”.
Sobre o uso de novas tecn…
[...] uma readaptação de formato do conteúdo gerado no offline. Acessando o blog da Agency.net li um texto bem bacana que explica porque a teoria das telas ou Screen Theory (baseado no livro de Kevin Roberts prevendo [...]
Marie Poulin…
OOhh so very well put: “You can’t simply bombard consumers with sight, sound, and motion. They’ve offered you a seat at their dinner table. You need to behave as such.”
One of the single biggest challenges as a freelance designer/developer is educating clients about these principles!
Great post!
Brian…
@Marie: I think the reason it’s so difficult to educate clients is because we haven’t developed an effective language to communicate what the web is.
Think about the metaphors we use to describe media. We often refer to them as “channels,” which brings to mind the old conceptual model of the internet of “like the TV, but better!” Sometimes we call them “pages.” Which sounds an awful lot like print.
The other set of metaphors focuses on locomotion – “super highway,” “conduits,” “portal,” and “sites” are all places we travel to (or mechanisms we travel by).
Notice that NONE of them have anything to do with two-way communication or dialog. We’ve been living in a world of one-way media for so long we just haven’t developed a language to talk about two-way media.
Makes the job of adapting double-tough. The best thing I’ve heard so far is “community,” but it’s always used very esoterically. How do we refer to the tangible aspects of the internet in a way that reinforces what they truly are? Maybe if we called social properties “congregations” instead of “websites” people would understand how it all fits together.
Anyone have any great metaphors to describe the internet?
Stéphane…
@Brian: The old conceptual model of the Web has been useful to me in the past to explain how to display information on screen by using “mechanism” that people already know such as found in print.
Although, I agree with you and your comments makes me realize that the “print metaphor” only supports one way communication.
If I come across something great, I’ll let you know. : )