And that is the point. It’s an old metric; a tired measurement. Yet, it is one that is still used – even in digital channels where the implied promise of connection is up close and personal – not aggregated and public.

I recently participated in a roundtable, with a number of well funded Digital Start-Ups, where CPM was the key topic of discussion. Most of the companies were focused on analytics of one sort or another or delivery of content using analytics. Each professed to be able to make the user experience more intimate and more individual. To finally help fulfill the full, and so far not delivered, potential of the Internet and all of its digital siblings and offspring.

Also present was the “money” the majority share holders; the funders; the nurturers of promising start-ups with big exit potential.

The discussion was around CPM but it was around a fear that other metrics based on performance would supplant CPM and the concern was that it would limit their revenue and earnings; lower the valuations of their companies and make their exit strategies one day less lucrative.

I pulled out my soapbox and my megaphone and began to wail on them!

CPM? More justification for the useless term “EYEBALLS” that investors created at the beginning of the boom (and some still use) to justify ridiculous valuations and stupid amounts of money paid to companies that have been long gone and forgotten – and to some that are still here and have yet to pay out…

CPM? As bad as cost per-click-through or cost-per-view, other measurements that can be manipulated as sites know how to drive user or create funnels of travel that force inflated and meaningless traffic by and through meaningless pages of irrelevant content.

And, no matter how hard I pushed – and I pushed – the crowd was on the side of numbers for building revenue, i.e., pay-out for the deal

That said, there were a few people who passionately talked about transactions. And read transaction as whatever final action your engagement is looking to consummate. It could be a sale; a download; a sign up. It could be getting someone to share with a friend or agree to a face to face visit. It could be signing up for a credit card or booking a test drive or buying a burger. But it isn’t based on CPM.

What really got me – or brought me to the “AHA” moment if you like – was the notion that this crowd of Generation Internet began talking about branding and looked at in isolation. A few even (shudder; shudder; shudder) used the term above the line and below the line (more shuddering).

Yet they are selling analytics tools or systems that are designed to bring the message home to create the relevance of personalization that just doesn’t lead to or induce sales – or merely create a positive atmosphere for a sale. Rather, it allows a “sale” (transaction) on the spot and in a context that is relevant and brand powerful in a way that CPM based messaging cannot be,

And that lead me to this thought.

We say we are about conversations – impactful conversations – right? Yet what really separates us from advertising agencies (many of which now believe they need to be in the business of analytics; ROI and measurement as we are)?

Then it struck me:

Most conversations are simply monologues delivered in the presence of witnesses.
- Margaret Millar

CPM: a monologue delivered in the presence of witnesses. If ever there was a filter by which we can judge our work and its relevance to what we say we do, here it is.

By the way,I think we can apply this to our own personal behavior as well. It makes a great and humbling filter…

So, conversations or monologues with big audiences, CPM or something else…

You tell me…

So what is communication or communications all about? And why does it so often fail?

You can check this for a starter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication. Interestingly, one of the definitions: “Communication can be seen as processes of information transmission“ seems to encapsulate the problem.

If all we are doing is transmitting information, we should not be surprised when we fail to connect beyond the transmission. Too often, we declare victory because we “communicate”—we get a click through, an open and read, even a response (as meager as they still are—and we wonder why? Beyond the physical indication, have we actually connected?

I always have this picture in my mind of the World War II communications specialist with the big clunky box on their back; and the handheld phone or Morse code key attached by ground wire to some HQ functionary somewhere out of the line of fire. At great personal danger a line was laid, and with bullets whizzing and bombs flying they yell or tap madly away hoping someone actually hears them and if so responds.

That picture might be a good metaphor for so much of what happens in marketing today. Many companies are like those Comm specialists. They are in the line of fire—sustaining attacks by relentless competition—battered by their rivals and at war in the great struggle to acquire and retain customers/users/buyers/clients/consumers too and in their franchise.

They bob and weave and duck and take cover, all the while trying their hardest to advance and yelling ever louder into their handsets or pounding away ever madder at their keys. They know that in one sense they are connected but they have little or no clue if they have connected. See the difference?

In our day and age, communications is about process and technology. It’s an efficient and growing ever more efficient practice, but it’s not enough.

We need to connect, not at the tech level, but rather at the emotional and personal level. And, to do that we have to change our orientation:

Let us make a special effort to stop communicating with each other, so we can have some conversation.
~Judith Martin

Think about it. It’s not just semantics. Conversations are real. They are created through emotional contact. Yes they can be informative but they don’t stop there – check this out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversation and this line from the entry: “Conversations are the ideal form of communication in some respects, since they allow people with different views of a topic to learn from each other”.

See it?

It’s a value exchange. It’s not a mere connection; or some flow of electrons or digital signals. It’s not that poor private holding his helmet; with a finger in his ear as the dirt cascades down on doing his best to be heard over the din of war.

Rather it’s all about people—their needs and wants, their emotional hot buttons, their ideas and wishes. It’s about being insightful enough to create a value exchange that benefits you and the person or people you are trying to connect with.

It is about impact, because only conversations can be impactful, while communications is all about efficiency.

It takes insight; sensitivity and great listening skills to create conversations.

And it takes even more to create Impactful Conversations. But do that and “the failure to communicate” remains in the movies…just gave you a hint…

And that is the challenge.

Norman Rockwell, the famous American Artist who created this, didn’t know about viral communications. He called it Gossip…

Rockwell’s neighbors in Arlington, Vermont modeled for this picture. Norman Rockwell included himself in the painting in the bottom row (he is the one pointing to himself). Rockwell’s wife Mary is one of the gossips – she is the second person from the left in the third row. There are two views of each person: first listening and then passing along the story.

“I used my neighbors in Arlington as models for the gossips cover. ‘Gee’, they said when I showed them the sketch, ‘we’re not gossips, are we?’ So I put Mary and myself into the cover to avoid any suspicion that I was insulting my neighbors.” — Norman Rockwell

His message was pretty clear: the power of the pass along viral but its inherent danger as well.

Funny, isn’t it—that the word viral has so much negative meaning at its core.

We shudder thinking about viruses. We have software and protective systems to shield us; the obvious bio references are clear. What many consider Viral others look at as spam and clutter.

Think on this definition of Virus:

“Something that has a corrupting or poisonous effect, especially on the mind”

Now take a synapse leap with me to Metcalf’s Law:

Robert Metcalf’s law states that the “value” or “power” of a network increases in proportion to the square of the number of nodes on the network.

In other words, if you have four nodes, or computers, on a network, say, an office intranet, its “value” would be four-squared (4^2), or 16.

If you added on addition node, or PC, then the value would increase to 25 (5^2).

Above is an example of a four-node network. The math actually works out to
value = node^2 – node. Or 4^2 – 4 (12).
This can also be expressed as node * (node – 1). Or 4 * (4-1).

Marc Andreesen, one of the founders of the web, said:

A network in general behaves in such a way that the more nodes that are added to it, the whole thing gets more valuable for everyone on it because all of a sudden there’s all this new stuff that wasn’t there before. You saw it with the phone system. The more phones that are on the network, the more valuable it is to everyone because then you can call these people. Federal Express, in order to grow its business, would add a node in Topeka and business in New York would spike. You see it on the Internet all the time. Every new node, every new server, every new user expands the possibilities for everyone else who’s already there.

(Quoted from the Smithsonian Institution Oral and Video Histories.)

Now look again at the Rockwell print…and imagine the conversation…but more importantly imagine all the people now involved that you don’t see as each one of the “nodes” pictured moves on to attach themselves to other nodes and on and on…think about the definition…

One more jump.

E-mail.

The kind you and I send all day. The kind that has a “To” box; a “CC” box and “BCC” box.

E-mail is our viral contribution to the digital world every day; every few minutes I imagine — and like all that is viral it multiplies and multiplies and the exponent grows with the cc and bcc…

And like all that is viral it can do good and it can do bad. In fact, the exponential effect (Old Robert’s Law) makes the “good“ really good and the “bad” really bad.

The good effect is clear; the bad should be clear.

Think about the consequences of any e-mail you send, and the Metcalf effect of the cc or bcc list.

Think about what happens when you ask about; or simply just pass on information that is inaccurate or worse – just plain wrong.

Think about what happens when you accuse based on information you receive this way and add more names to the list.

Now think about the scurrying around and the wasted time and the waste opportunities that multiply as angst increases; as more e-mails get sent; as more people get involved…Metcalf got it right.

Bottom line

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
~ John F. Kennedy

John F. Kennedy was of the Rockwell generation. He didn’t know about viral and probably never thought about the Metcalf effect. But he understood the issue.

Think on it. The danger is the opinion without thought. The Viral effect…

Looking for a viral program to be successful – really successful with a positive ROI – look no further than your own-mail…

What’s your view?