Interacting with Interactivity

OK, so I’ve been pretty inactive the last month (I blame it on house and job moving). Anyways, given that I’m now getting my hands dirty in the digital world I thought I’d better have a bit of a read up on interactivity. So I read one of the most un-interactive overcomplicated titled articles in the world –

“Social psychology of interactivity in human-website interaction” in the “Oxford Handbook of Internet Psychology”.

(To be fair, once de-academicised it’s pretty good reading.)

Here's what struck me...

It’s generally agreed that there’s a basic advantage to digital methods of communication: it encourages active participation and not just passive reception. You can get involved more with it. It’s interactive.

Take a look at “interaction” in the Oxford Compact and you get two definitions:

1. Influencing each other
2. (of a computer or other electronic device) allowing a two-way flow of information between it and a user, responding to the user’s input

The second definition will carry no surprises for digi advertising folk but the first is interesting. Can simply making something interactive make it more influencing?

There's a solid argument to suggest so:

• Numerous studies (especially by Sundar) prove that there is a direct correlation between amount of interactivity and positive appraisal of a website. Basically, more interactive stuff makes people like the site more.
• Secondly, interactivity increases involvement which leads to greater engagement with the site's content. This, in turn, increases scrutiny of the site. People become more focused and form more considered opinions.

So are we saying that if we increase interactivity people will like our stuff more?

Not necessarily. There’s a few things to consider:

• Site vs Content – A positive opinion of a website doesn’t always mean a positive opinion of the actual content. I might think a funky new agency’s website is brilliant but it doesn’t mean I think they have something interesting to say.
• Navigation – What if interacting is a pain in the arse? Sure, there are loads of things I can click, tweak, drag, etc but if it’s too much of a hassle it’s a turn off.
• Cognitive Burden – If I’m using so much of my brain interacting and determining how to best digest the site have I got enough of my little brain left to absorb the actual content properly?

It’s funny really. People claim that more interactivity makes them like the site more. Yet, when it comes down to engaging with the actual content or message of the site there’s less of a correlation. Too little interactivity and no-one wants to get involved, too much and they miss the actual content. ‘Medium’ interactivity seems to be the way forward and results in more positive appraisals.

Of course, getting people to like your content is also dependent on the construction of the message itself not simply on the cleverness of the interactive design. Nonetheless, interactivity has the potential to generate greater involvement and engagement. There must be a sweet spot somewhere.

Finding this ‘sweet spot’ is one of the keys to making successful digi campaigns in my opinion, but it can be tricky. And does this spot change based on type of content (eg entertainment vs news)? Or by gender, relationship with brand (prospect vs advocate), motivation for visiting and so on?

Either way, maybe content isn’t always king after all…