It's amazing that not many journalists talk about the "Feedback Loop." I have never heard one mention it, other than myself. When I was first taught communications theory, many years ago, that was one of the first concepts I was taught.In essence it goes like this: With any communication there is a rebound - an echo - a response. Something comes back. Or nothing comes back. In either case, there is a feedback loop. If nothing comes back - then the feedback loop tells you that you bombed. Stony silence. Your joke fell flatter than a squashed armadillo on a Texas highway. You still have feedback, though. You learn from it.
Many disciplines talk about the feedback loop. You hear of it in economics, medicine, psychology, electronics, teaching (especially teaching) and many others. It is applied to about everything - it just makes sense. Take a look at Google's image search results of charts from various disciplines which reference it. The images alone give you the idea.
Important is the concept that the communicator must be a listener as well as a speaker. The feedback allows you to modulate your message so that it is properly received. Without feedback you cannot do this.
The feedback loop on the Internet is fantastic. Not only is there the option for open feedback, in the form of comments, posting of your communications on other blogs or in other stories, email to you, and so forth; but there is hidden feedback in the form of metrics which tell you how many people are reading you, how long they stay on your site and where they came from. It is an amazing advantage to the modern communicator that very few journalists use.
When it comes to multimedia, it is even more powerful. When my message is communicated with various forms of storytelling - video - blogging - transcripts of interviews - whatever - I can look and see what people are paying attention to. If I listen and learn, then I can improve my storytelling art and become a much more listened-to journalist.
hi Alan,
ReplyDeleteI'm not familiar with the term "Feedback Loop". But I like the way the internet allows you to measure people who read or see your material - in ways we've never had before in journalism. I've been in TV news for 30 years and we have always used ratings to measure the audience. But it's an inexact science with people (for years anyway) filling out diaries about what shows they watched and when. We always suspected they filled them out at the end of the month before they had to turn them in - as opposed to doing it each night.
But I send a word of caution about relying on consumer messages to your story as a major measuring stick. I interviewed an NBC digital journalist recently who said the majority of people who feel motivated to write and tell you something about your story - have negative things to say. People who liked the story - found it interesting - tend to think it to themsleves and move on in their search for news and information.
But mixing that feedback with the internet's measuring tools - might help give journalists a realistic picture of how much their work is being viewed.
Thanks for the story.
Sheila
Hi Alan!
ReplyDeleteI think it's hard for traditional journalism to think about the Feedback loop b/c for SO LONGGGGGG they were concentrating on feeding news to the public. They would report on what the public and society is feeling/doing at that slice of time. But they wouldn't necessarily be on the lookout for REACTION/CONVERASTION and feedback from the public. And to top it off, they were not even ready to RESPOND to the public.
Talking to the audience was just a "conversational style" form of writing. It really wasn't until the MYSpace star, Tila Tequila, who had the MOST friends on that social network...that the news realized how powerful it was to TALK BACK/RESPOND to the public in the digital era. Tila says she got the most friends not b/c she was the most beautiful/hot..etc. She got the most friends b/c she CONSTANTLY talked back/responded to her comments. So essentially, she was having a conversation with these people...not merely asking for reaction.
Elizabeth:
ReplyDeleteVery interseting observations. I and others got into some online conversations last winter with Scott Monty, Global digital commnications director at Ford Motor Company. He was (and still is) out on public spaces like Twitter and other forums actively talking to, answering and engaging regular people. All the people I knew who were part of the conversation loved it and ended up learning MUCH more about what Detroit (at least Ford's corner) was doing in the current crisis. He also got hit with hard questions and made some news as well. Look up "Monty Ford TCOT" on Google and you'll get some good links to parts of that exchange.
The feedback loop is an interesting process, and multimedia tools can certainly enhance it considerably. But "interesting" is one thing. "Useful" is something else. The ultimate impact on the audience seems to be most important, and process is only secondary. The feedback process can be overdone by too much multimedia that in the end, the audience is lost and bored. The goal then seems to be to tailor the feedback loops and the choice of multimedia tools to the goals we want to achieve, which relates to the larger question:
ReplyDeleteWhat is our journalistic purpose? Once that is clear, we can decide on which multimedia tools will help us deliver the impact most efficienctly and effectively, and maybe we need only one or two, not the whole smorgasbord.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNot thrilled yet with the blogging....see you tomorrow
ReplyDelete