[governance] ICANN ads for "general public" (new subject header)

[Dan Krimm]

Okay Adam, thanks for your response.  Here are some comments (not
necessarily in the original order).


First this :

>Basic content of the ad was agreed by the NomCom and finalized with
>the help of staff from a media agency ICANN uses.  The agency also
>advised on placement (Economist considered best, a well read
>international mag, used by many large international organizations for
>similar types of advert).  Thoughts on improvements very welcome.

This is backwards, as a process.  The *ad professionals* should begin by
exploring the reality of what ICANN is and does and where NomCom fits into
the picture, the purpose of the ad, and finally the target audience and an
appropriate substance and form for the message.  Then the ad professionals
should craft possible messages, with feedback from NomCom.

But even more, ICANN should have its own marketing department that
participates in this activity to ensure consistency, educate the ad
professionals, and proceed through its own learning curve to develop
growing in-house expertise in the task of marketing ICANN in a variety of
specific circumstances.

NomCom members are generally not advertising/marketing professionals and
they frankly should not be expected to be prepared with the requisite
expertise in conceptualizing how ads should be created for maximum
effectiveness.  Confining ad professionals to a final-tweak role ties their
hands, and basically absolves them of the responsibility of actually
understanding what the ad is intended to accomplish.  My guess is that they
were probably entirely oblivious to the fact that ICANN's work has any
general public policy implications, and thus they had no chance of knowing
that *that* should be at the core of the message.

Placement also involves choice of context within the vehicle.  Even though
NomCom is a pro bono form of participation, it is more closely associated
with job listings, thus even though you might get more "raw impressions" on
a front cover page, you might get *better targeted* ad viewing in the
classified/jobs section.  After all, people looking to improve their
professional standing might well consider beefing up their experience with
pro bono work.  Even within a single vehicle, the context of page placement
within the  makes a big difference.


Next this:

>Where would you suggest the Nominating Committee placed the ad for
>positions,

Let me fist ask you: what do you think the most likely target audience is
for NomCom reps?  How would you describe them in terms of
personal/professional profile?

Once there is a profile in place for the target audience, then one goes to
media research (large syndicated annual studies of print media audiences,
or even just the vehicles' own independent subscriber studies), and looks
for the top vehicles that match the desired profile.

You may well come up with the particular vehicles you used, but the
messaging in the ad still has to speak to them properly.  In this case, the
messaging seemed wrong:



> ... how would you have written it differently?

I would start by focusing on the aspects of ICANN's work that pertain to
general public policy, not focus on the "party line" of the technical
mandate.  People are more interested in general public policy than
technical oversight, and the ad you sent made utterly no mention of it.
That's the first hook that will get people interested.

Also, there's way too much text in the ad.  It turns people away, because
there's no obvious hook to catch the eye immediately, and it takes some
detailed concentration to chug through the verbiage to (a) make sense of
it, and (b) find the hook that might grab attention.  It looks like one of
those "legal public notice" postings in the back of a neighborhood
newspaper.  Perfunctory according to some mandate, but ineffective in
conveying a quick and pithy message.

Since you *already* decided to use a URL to link to more detailed info,
leave more of those details to the web page, and confine the print ad to
the very basic message, and that must be phrased from the point of view of
the reader: what's in it for *me*?  The answer to that question goes first
in biggest type face.  A few contextual details follow.  And since many
people don't know what ICANN is, it would probably help to have bit
somewhere that defuses the hesitation from lack of familiarity (to the
effect of: you don't have to be an ICANN insider to help make a difference).

What are the perks?  (Note: I'm using very boring verbiage below -- once
the items are settled, then their expression has to be made more active,
and well-targeted to the context and sensibilities of the target audience.
Once you choose your placements vehicles, talk directly to their own ad
sales folks to get their advice on what their readers respond to the best.)

 - help choose policy makers who will help decide matters of important
public policy, and participate in some working groups directly yourself
 - beef up your professional network in the Internet world and your CV
 - add to your first-hand knowledge of the increasingly important field of
Internet governance by observing and participating directly

Describe ICANN as a policy making institution, not a "technical
coordination body".  Technical coordination sounds like grunt work.  Policy
making sounds exciting and influential.  The stuff listed above in buried
in your third-to-last paragraph.  The bullet points highlighted in your ad
are virtually irrelevant for the initial message, should only be on the web
page, or at best briefly/generically summarized in the ad as "Board members
and other important policy making positions."  You're reaching out to ICANN
non-insiders, right?  So don't include anything that only an inside would
know or recognize as important.

If you're only reaching out to ICANN insiders, BTW, then don't advertise in
mass media in the first place.  So, you have to get your purpose/audience
clear first.



>Note, the purpose was to encourage people to apply for positions the
>NomCom had to fill, not conduct outreach for ICANN, not to increase
>awareness.

Of course, this whole sub-thread came about because there was a general
claim being made that "ICANN ads don't work because nobody is interested in
ICANN" (I paraphrase).  I was talking about advertising the public comment
periods in general mass media, if one wants to get members of the general
public to participate.  And then you presented this as an example of why
ads don't work.

One of my main points here is that each ad has a distinct purpose and its
execution is unique, thus this experience does not generalize to "all ads
that ICANN might place" -- the failure of this ad does not predict that any
other ads would necessarily fail.  All it says is that this ad didn't get
much response, and it doesn't even demonstrate the specific cause.

IMHO, the cause in this case was bad messaging and design, not lack of
interest of an appropriate audience.  You just gotta (1) identify the
audience clearly, (2) find them in the right vehicles, and (3) talk to them
in a way that makes sense to them.  I think that items (1) and (3) here
were not executed effectively, partly due to the wrong people being
primarily in charge of the process.  NomCom should not be in charge.
NomCom should consult to educate advertising professionals who should be in
charge (and *responsible* for the result, not simply contracted out to
perform a relatively mechanical function).

ICANN should have marketing personnel of some sort, staffed with
professional expertise in advertising and/or marketing (not journalism or
public relations).  I see no such person on the ICANN web site staff page.
This is an egregious vacancy, IMHO.



>I think many people are interested in ICANN, that's why the press
>cover it.  ...  But it is certainly true that few people want to volunteer
>to do work.

There are always *some* people for whom it is a win/win proposition.  I was
one of those people this year, WRT the Whois WG (and I don't know if you
count the Keep The Core Neutral campaign, but since it is associated with
NCUC via one of its member orgs, IP Justice, I would count it, myself).

I've done lots of volunteer work in the past when it served my purposes
(mainly getting more experience in a field or networking opportunities --
you get the best networking when you actually *work* with people).  There
are actually *lots* of people out there who volunteer for a whole variety
of reasons -- many NPOs depend utterly on them to do good work that public
governments have recused themselves from in the last several decades.

But perhaps the key word you used is "work" -- people want to volunteer for
all sorts of reasons, but to do "work" is low on the list.  If you think of
ICANN policy making as "work" then your mindset will immediately turn
people off who might otherwise be more attracted to participate.  There are
a lot of things that take effort that are not "work" in peoples' minds
because they are *rewarding*.

Focus on the reward, not the effort.  If there is enough reward, the effort
will come easily.  And the direct reward for volunteering is generally not
cash or other tangible assets, but the indirect rewards can be considerable
and cash may come as an indirect result (beefing up the CV, etc.).



  But if you look at most standards making processes (ITU,
>IETF, ATIS) they face the same problems, when it comes down to people
>doing sustained work (i.e. drafting) the numbers are very few and
>often the same people.

If you continue to think of ICANN as simply a "standards-making body" you
will tend to repel the people who care about the general public policy
issues that ICANN is addressing as we write.

This is the cognitive dissonance I cannot resolve for ICANN simply by
stating it outright as I've now done repeatedly.

ICANN has to believe this down deep, and integrate it substantively and
meaningfully into both its internal and public rhetoric.  Otherwise many of
the best people who might otherwise be attracted to it will not know that
there is anything to be attracted to.

Dan
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance