MediaPsyched.com

More from the book Words That Work by Frank Luntz. Dr. Luntz ends his book with 21 words and phrases that he predicts will be relevant in media messages over the next two decades:

These words cut to the heart of Americans’ most fundamental beliefs and right to the core values that do not change no matter how we vote or shop, or what delivery devices we use to play music, in the year 2020…

• Imagine (allows personal definition)
• Hassle-free (we want it to work!)
• Lifestyle (self-defined and aspirational)
• Accountability  (provides what is promised)
• Results/Can-do Spirit (the bottom line)
• Innovation (imagining the future)
• Renew, Revitalize, Rejuvenate, Restore, Rekindle, Reinvent (takes the best of the past and applies it to the present and future)
• Efficient/Efficiency (getting more for less)
• The Right To… (is essential)
• Patient-centered (places the focus on us not the corporation)
• Investment ( responsible handling of resources; “spending” can appear wasteful)
• Independent (No ties or conflict of interest)
• Peace of mind (a positive state vs. “security” which implies having to be on guard)
• Certified (official guarantee)
• “All-American” (pride rather than patriotism; more weight placed on by older population)
• Prosperity (sense of overall well-being and wealth)
• Spirituality(implies morality and seriousness without going into particular denominations)
• Financial security (cautious about change and protective of what is; can maintain)
• A Balanced Approach (rejects radicalism)
• A Culture of… (lends weight to a subgroup)

All of these words produce some form of emotion in the message’s recipient.  In our abbreviated, high-speed world, we want guarantees and the ability to visualize the outcome.  It is interesting that the word “imagine” is so strong but it makes sense.  In our visually-driven world, we want to “see”.  When we imagine we can personalize the message specifically for ourselves.

Good phrases to keep in mind whether producing media or just attempting to persuade someone in conversation.

The subtitle for Frank Luntz’ book Words That Work is “It’s not what you say, it’s what people hear.” How true. How many times have you had to say, “But that’s not what I said!” ?

Although many will consider this a partisan book, there are some very good points that should be considered whenever a message needs to be successfully delivered. 

The book begins with the Ten Rules of Successful Communication: 

1. Simplicity: Use small words.
2. Brevity: Use short sentences
3. Credibility is as important as philosophy
4. Consistency matters
5. Novelty: Offer something new
6. Sound and texture matter
7. Speak aspirationally
8. Visualize
9. Ask a question
10. Provide context (frame) and explain relevance

Sounds like basic advertising.  But how often do we actually incorporate these rules into our own messages? Take the time the next few days and look and listen to the messages bombarding you.  What makes one phrase stick in your memory over another?  What emotion is stirred?  When we speak are we successfully communicating our message to where our listener actually hears what we’re trying to say?  How do we know if they’re hearing something completely different?

Continuing with Andrew Keen’s book “The Cult of the Amateur: How the Internet is Killing our Culture”….on page 161 Mr Keen addresses the virtual Second Life phenomena. Again, on the surface Second Life sounds fun: creating an avatar and creating identities and creating an alternative life.  For the visually driven person it is a dream.

However, as with anything there is a darker side:

And because, in true Web 2.0 fashion, Second Life is virtually unregulated and unsupervised, it has become a channel for all kinds of social and ethical vices. Though there are (largely unenforced) rules against inappropriate behavior in public (virtual) spaces, users can act out all of their most base or prurient instincts in virtual privacy.  For 220 Linden dollars, one can even act out virtual rape fantasies; options include “rape victim,” “get raped,” and “hold victim.”

Delightful.  I wonder if those who are so active in Second Life, especially those channelling their real dollars into play money (another way to mask the reality and pretend it is just a game and make-believe) comprehend that they are supporting and condoning this type of behavior by their participating in a virtual society that permits this behavior?  Or is rape between two avatars a private choice that society as a whole should not judge?

I am feeling my efforts are redundant! So much of what I envisioned addressing on this blog has been succinctly addressed in Andrew Keen’s The Cult of the Amateur. Mr. Keen is a Silicon Valley pioneer and had a cultural awakening during an exclusive retreat at Tim O’Reilly’s (who coined the term “Web 2.0″) FOO Camp.

Back in June, I first became aware of this book after reading, what I felt, was a rather condescending review in the LATimes. This was enough to grab my interest because the reviewer attempted to minimize Mr. Keen’s efforts. Since then I have come across other references.

The book was shorter than I expected but an interesting read that can be finished in a day or so non-stop.  It is impossible for anyone to write without some of their personal ideology seeping forth, and although I may disagree with Mr. Keen on some issues, he has written a very even-keeled treatise on the negative implications of Web 2.0 and not trumpted his personal views in an effort to win converts to the right or left.

All media psychologists, as well as anyone who has even heard of the Internet, need to read this book. Mr. Keen’s recurring point is that Web 2.0 allows the “amateurs” to become the expert.:

What the Web 2.0 revolution is really delivering is superficial observations of the world around us rather than deep analysis, shrill opinion rather than considered judgment…(we) are being seduced by the empty promise of “democratized” media.

I am not Chicken Little in promoting this book.  But as media psychologists, we are under an obligation to consider all aspects of what affects behavior, good and bad.

I leave off today (I definitely am writing more about the thoughts considered in this book) with a quote in the book attributed to Richard Edelman, CEO of Edelman PR, the world’s largest privately owned public relations firm:

In this era of exploding media technologies there is no truth except the truth you create for yourself.

Psychologically chilling!

This article on CNETnews.com is on how universities are now turning to the “me” part of Web 2.0 in order to secure commitments from accepted students and once enrolled keeping the students engaged.  On the surface there are many positive aspects in utilizing an additional mode of information exchange. 

Good teacher education stresses the need to provide learning in three different modes: visual, audio and tactile.  This ensures that the learner grasps the content in the method they are most proficient. Online experiences can incorporate all three.

However, something troubles me with this obsession with tailoring everything to Web 2.0 formats.  Web 2.0 breeds narcissism.  It is a very singular experience -despite the allusion that one is networked into a huge group of others- and the “how I want it” aspect feeds the narcissism of self-importance.  The environment has become one of narrow definition determined by the user.  The benefit of any group activity or process is ignored for the desire to create individual self-realities.

I am finally finishing the book Cult of the Amateur by Andrew Keen.  I will be discussing this book over the next few posts.  Mr. Keen critiques the negative parts of the social implications of Web 2.0. Even if a technological development has positive aspects, don’t we still need to consider at what point the detriments outweigh the benefits?

Found this article about the online site MyDeathSpace. The article goes into detail so I recommend reading it. This site is basically the virtual graveyard for pages of dead MySpace users.

Is the perusal of this site one of a healthy awareness of our imminent end no different than reading the local death notices in the newspaper?  Or does it take it past a respectful acknowledgement to one of voyeurism enticed by the titillating headlines?

If anything, an interesting reminder that, once online, our photos and words exist forever beyond our death.  And that once we die those pages can be manipulated by others.  In our zeal to exist online, do we need to consider the arrangements for our virtual funerals?