• by Tom Hespos , March 7, 2006

Cory wrote a good thought-starter on choice last week with an interesting underlying theme--that an individual medium is rarely destroyed or replaced, but instead is added to a litany of media choices available to people. Whenever a new medium is added to the already-rich palette of choices, reverberations are felt in all other media.

This begs the question: How much is too much, as far as media choice is concerned?

Our own experiences in non-linear media like the Web have taught us that some interesting and chaotic things happen when people are presented with too many choices. Some people look externally for guidance when they are confronted with an overwhelming number of choices, getting input from their peers to help them along. Other people cave in to their frustration, opting to ditch things completely due to the confusion that too much choice can bring with it. Many of us settle into new patterns, momentarily overcoming the inertia built up by old choices but quickly giving into it again.

Let's not forget that this is also happening on the marketing side, too. Advertisers have marketing budgets to spend, and for many of them, it's been a bumpy ride fighting inertia. Many advertisers are eager to settle on some patterns in the way they spend marketing and advertising dollars, but as soon as they latch on to something new, the landscape has completely shifted and they're starting over from scratch with the next planning cycle.

Last week, the WPP Group's Sir Martin Sorrell expressed uncertainty with respect to this concept, saying that he is worried about his company's ability to capitalize on new opportunities and adding that "no traditional business moves fast enough" to keep pace with change.

I disagree with the latter notion intensely, but will give Sir Martin the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the huge companies that his conglomerate typically services. The move from broadcast to conversation will come slowly and painfully to many of the larger companies that have spent billions on one-way advertising.

The most alarming thing about media choice is that, like many things on the digital landscape, the pace at which it continues to change is continually accelerating. So companies that advertise need to make choices concerning where to spend their time, money and effort most often.

If there's one common thread that runs through all, if not most, of new media choices that are eroding the old ones, it's interactivity. So perhaps if Sir Martin wants to hang in there, he should be concentrating his efforts on figuring out how to interact meaningfully. He'll find that trying to keep pace with time- and place-shifting fragmentation, and the chaos brought about by a multitude of choices, is easier when one concentrates on what the customer is doing when confronted by the same choices. Dialogue (in the sense of real two-way communication) has permeated just about every new medium that has debuted in recent memory.

I think that this common thread indicates that understanding dialogue is the key to understanding both choice and change.