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

[Adam Peake]

At 4:13 PM -0700 9/10/07, Dan Krimm wrote:
>Okay Adam, thanks for your response.  Here are some comments (not
>necessarily in the original order).
>


Dan, thanks.

I'll pass your comments on to the NomCom's staff support and ask them 
to keep for the 2008 committee chair.

Adam



>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

____________________________________________________________
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