James Pamment wrote an article called, Digital diplomacy as transmedia engagement: Aligning theories of participatory culture with international advocacy campaigns. The whole article focuses on applying transmedia storytelling and theories to engagement and surveillance in the case study of the Campaign to End Sexual Violence in Conflict. The article discussed ways to investigate how diplomatic advocacy campaigns cope with problems such as media repertoires, co- created content, collective intelligence, digital convergence, and stakeholder management ( pg. 1). Participatory culture was mentioned often as something that is relevant to the case and transmedia as a whole. In order to delve deeper into this article, digital diplomacy has to be defined. According to Pamment, diplomacy is representation ( pg. 2), so digital diplomacy would be digital representation. Pamment states that, ” diplomacy plays a role in monitoring and international political advocacy, directing international broadcasting channels, and facilitating international exchange. Transmedia, surveillance, engagement, participatory culture, socialized participants, and behavior were frequently used terms in the article. Pamment’s arguments were
1. Public diplomacy emphasizes the role of listening, particularly in terms of polling and discrete inquires with influencers, before a communicative campaign is conducted. The communicative practices include the continual, real time monitoring of stakeholders on the basis that the digital campaign assets are transparent and shared, while simultaneously providing the tools for monitoring producers/consumers ( pg. 5)
2. The use of social media must be understood in terms of a demand for actors to internalize and produce norms of behavior with elements of surveillance integral to that position ( pg. 5)
3. Transmedia engagement is viable for rethinking the rule of media campaigns in diplomatic influence, particularly around the notions of stakeholder management and message discipline. ( pg.5)
Analysis of Pamment’s Points and Counter Argument
“To sustain millennial loyalty to their brands, companies must engage millennials individually and in small groups through direct, two way communications”
- Listening and monitoring is important in order to engage audiences and get a response, however listening in order to understand and foster face to face relationships is more vital. Nowadays, the world is getting more digital that companies are losing touch with face to face interaction(s) with their customers. Using these same skills in order to go about a face to face approach with campaigns would bring back the reality part of transmedia. Instead of monitoring digital campaigns, face to face methods can be monitored and companies can come up with ways that they can get these same methods across to consumers by physically making them interact with the product. Giving consumers incentive to be active about the product outside of their screens would be more memorable to them. According to Face to Face marketing, businesses can take this method of polling and do face to face marketing by doing in store visits, sales events, product demos, and event attendance.
- Our behavior is being changed by transmedia. Some people can go an entire day with little to no face to face interaction with others. The way we have been resocialized is responsible for this known fact. Socializing behavior has been used in this article quite a bit. Technology is re-socializing people in different ways. This re-socialization has changed the ways people tell stories. Participatory culture is an excellent example of this. We have been socialized to participate with businesses online that tells stories that we can buy into. We can take these stories and make our own or participate by sharing, liking, tagging and recirculating. Businesses are now trying to bring back or continue to include face to face interactions so that their businesses are not lacking that important aspect. Miscommunication happens all the time, especially in transmedia storytelling so face to face communication clears up confusion. Using videos’s are a great substitute because the customer can put a face with the message. According to the Australian Institute of Business, face to face communication fosters engagement and innovation. This relates to the second half of his argument that talks about surveillance. Technology has been about sharing or knowing people’s thoughts and what they are doing. We have been socialized through technology to be connected in deeper ways and always be in the know, so businesses and companies have used that to their advantage. Although these methods foster engagement, nothing beats face to face communication which is the best way to foster engagement. Methods of including face to face communication helps companies, so that their transmedia story is not all digital, face to face diversifies transmedia. Examples of this are tradeshows, product launches, and different engaging events.
- Transmedia is highly influential. Focusing on the physical aspects of transmedia has a lasting impact and resonates with consumers more, especially with campaigns, stakeholder management and message discipline.
The Campaign to End Sexual Violence in Conflict ( focused on in the article) can greatly benefit from more face to face interaction. There can be events where survivors or speakers come and talk to people, there can be benefit concerts, there can even be promotional speeches of the campaign and more events connected to being around real people.
Overall, face to face communication is important because customers can be won over by personal touch, the reading of body language, effectively getting your message across without the hassle that technology brings, and physical display of passion. Consumers see all of that through face to face communication and that transfers to digital.
” Face to face marketing will remain as the primary marketing model for most businesses for years to come
– Anurag Madaan ( Co-founder and CEO at boothconstructions.com)