“Engagement” is so universally praised in the media space that it’s easy to miss an important distinction between types of engagement. Specifically, is the publisher pursuing engagement exclusively for its own bottom line, or for the consumer’s enrichment? As I’ll explain further below, it’s not always one or the other, but studying the distinctions can help shed light on your engagement strategy.
Here are the two categories.
“For them” – Aligned Engagement is engagement for the consumer’s benefit.
“For us” – Revenue Engagement is engagement for the publisher’s benefit.
In this article I’ll outline the characteristics of each type of engagement, then suggest a path forward.
Aligned Engagement
In this scenario, engagement is a proxy for how well the content or experience is serving the audience’s real needs. The publisher’s success is contingent on delivering genuine value, and the audience’s engagement is a reflection of that success.
Characteristics of aligned engagement include:
- There’s a mutual interest between the publisher and the consumer.
- Engagement creates a sustainable, loyal relationship because the consumer feels enriched, not manipulated.
- The activity the consumer is engaged in has intrinsic value.
Here are some examples of aligned engagement.
- Entertainment. A good game, TV series, a compelling book, or podcast engages the consumer because they enjoy it.
- Learning and skill building. An engaging interactive math tutorial or a lecture on a scientific subject keeps the consumer’s interest and also helps them master (or at least understand) a subject.
- Behavior modification. An engaging app that helps people meditate, pray, read good books, eat well, or exercise sustains motivation to do something positive the consumer wants to do.
The key takeaway is that aligned engagement is a measure of the success of a mission that the publisher and the consumer hold in common.
Revenue Engagement
In this scenario, engagement is primarily an input to the publisher’s revenue model, with little regard for whether it benefits the consumer. The publisher’s goals and the consumer’s best interests are often misaligned, and sometimes they’re directly opposed.
Characteristics of revenue engagement include:
- Engagement is optimized under a revenue-first mentality without respect to user benefit.
- Features are designed to create addiction without adding any real value.
- Time = money, not benefit. More time spent does not signal a better experience or any genuine value for the consumer.
Examples of revenue engagement are all around us. Here are a few.
- Maximized ad exposure. Articles are split into multiple pages, not for the reader’s benefit, but to get more ad impressions.
- Attention traps. When publishers exploit intermittent reinforcement by delivering unpredictable rewards at irregular intervals – following strategies developed in Vegas.
- Endless scrolling, with no obvious stopping point.
- Pull-to-refresh, like pulling a slot machine lever.
- Autoplay, which removes exit points.
- Outrage-driven content, which exploits darker sides of human psychology.
The key takeaway is that revenue engagement extracts efficiency and burns resources rather than offering anything of value.
It’s Not Binary
While it’s good to reflect on the differences between aligned and revenue engagement, they’re not always or necessarily opposed. It’s possible to use “revenue engagement” tactics in a non-predatory way.
For example, let’s say there’s a genuine need for content on a particular subject, but the market has shown steadfast resistance to paying for that content. In this case, it’s a choice between a content desert and content displayed in a “predatory” (revenue first) environment. This may require publishers to find a way to monetize content on a “free” site, which might necessitate splitting articles into multiple pages, continuous scroll, or some other revenue-engagement tactic – simply to pay the bills.
In that case, the revenue-engagement tactic is aligned with both the consumers’ and the publisher’s needs, even though the reader experience is less than ideal.
“But They’re Not Complaining”
“It’s all well and good for you to call continuous scroll ‘predatory,’” some VP of Internet Content will complain, “but we implemented it on our site and there wasn’t a peep of protest. And we doubled our revenue.”
Right. And teenagers don’t seem to mind that they’re wasting their lives away on their smart phones.
I’m not asking you to be a paternalistic bore and decide what’s good for everyone else, but it’s very easy to drown out the “still, small voice” of conscience with the loud, demanding voice of profit. It’s hard to give up a profitable tactic because it’s not good for people. It’s easy to put more nicotine in the cigarette.
If You Give a Mouse a Cookie …
If you measure and reward the web team by their financials, and you give them free rein to deploy revenue-engagement tactics – because you have to make a buck – you’re going to find yourself on the dark path.
Yes, you do have to make a buck, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But we’ve seen where unrestrained “engagement” can lead. You need to pay attention and label your engagement strategies honestly, for two reasons.
First, you have a soul.
Second, if someone else finds a way to offer the same service with more aligned engagement and less revenue engagement, they’ll eat your lunch.
Here are takeaways.
- Before succumbing to the allure of revenue engagement, make every effort to see if you can achieve the same financial goals through aligned engagement.
- Evaluate your efforts by whether you’re improving or degrading the human condition. Is it worth making an extra buck if you’re also making a few more zombies?