A Bottom-up Framework to Understand Messaging Applications

The contribution of Messaging in the rapid proliferation of Internet usage & its adoption cannot be understated. Messaging has helped convert a Wikipedia-model (i.e. information-based) internet to a messaging-model (exchange-based) internet which has helped internet expand its reach to even uneducated & semi-educated people.

The exchange of broken text, photos, videos, audio dominates the conversation of internet and how it is being shaped.

We often tend to restrict messaging to email or Chat-type applications, but messaging is a much more complex term which spans other application areas. Pick up any of the top applications being used in formal or casual environments and you will find that there is a strong messaging layer in all of them.

As an illustration of the span of messaging & the complexities associated with it, we need not look further than Google. Google recently launched a set of new messaging applications which is in addition to the existing messaging applications that they already have and the ones they already had killed — multiple initiatives/ experiments by the Software giant are trying to decipher the messaging code (does anyone remember Orkut).

This post is an attempt to better understand messaging and its associated themes which have inundated us for the past few years. Perhaps then we can silo these different applications for what they truly are instead of clubbing them together under a common umbrella of “Messaging”. While coming up with a framework, there was an attempt to avoid two things:

• Firstly, there was a conscious attempt to avoid the use of “Social” & “Network” because these words tend to overpower the other moving parts in any system (though “social” has been used from a societal perspective)
• Secondly, to avoid using examples of Messaging/Chat applications while discussing the core Framework ideas so that emphasis is on thinking from Bottom-up instead of approaching it from the this-is-an-example-of-that-application method which tends to force-fit our thinking into existing patterns

With that in mind, we will attempt to build a bottom-up framework by breaking Messaging down into its three simplest parts — the Message, the Messenger & finally the interaction between the Message & the Messenger

1. Messages & the Degree of of “Chat-ness”

We often tend to use Chat with Messaging interchangeably. While there may be nothing wrong in that, for our discussion here, we would prefer to use “Chat” as a mental model in which we can communicate our “messages”

chat — an informal conversation / talk in a friendly and informal way

Chat is the primary method in which we would like to fashion our messages. Chat implies informality and informality implies a lower cognitive load. A lower cognitive load leads to greater adoption due to low entry barriers.

The implications of informality associated with Chat are many -:

• Content Creation (or Reciprocation) is simple: The need to write in sentences, much less paragraphs does not exist in Messages. Grammar rules do not apply, typos are ignored, and brevity is the norm. Acronyms, emoticons and finally emojis replaced phrases which themselves are a short set of words. Still more concise are options like “Like”/ “Dislike”/ “Favourite” which do away completely with the need to know your alphabets.
• Detachment levels with messages are high: The informality of messages lead to majority of our messages being forms of insouciance. While a blog might be a personal expression of intense thoughts implying freedom, a message is just an irrelevant “fuck man” expression. This increases the volume of content i.e. messages in a channel
• Signalling as Messages: Following on from the two points above, the actual message often is just a form of showing presence and acknowledgement and need not have much content. The expansion of “Like” buttons in Facebook can be considered as an example. Another variant of signalling is where the message actually does not explicitly carry any content, for example Missed Calls. The volumes can be high and the uses of this form are inventive
• Content is Contextual: The immediacy and nonchalance of messages combined with the ability to choose the channels make them extremely contextual. Also the high volume of messages in the channel tend to lean towards existing trends which tend to filter out (or more accurately drown) less contextual messages. While this makes individual messages less important, it also makes the larger overarching collective messages more visible. This often has unexpected uses and consequences but it definitely drives the adoption

By varying the four factors above, we can vary the degree of “Chat-ness” i.e. informality. This will determine the type of messages flowing in the system and accordingly the types of Messengers we would need to have. Our next step is to explore Messengers in a system and their relationship with each other.

2. Messenger(s) & the Degree of Control

While informality plays a big role in ease of adoption, the degree of control of Messengers in a Messaging System determines their affinity as it directly panders to our sense of self

Understanding Control of a Communication Channel

“Message” is such an open-ended term that it is easy to club multiple elements under it. A search from the internet gave this definition

message — a verbal, written, or recorded communication sent to or left for a recipient who cannot be contacted directly

Some key points which jump from this and are extremely relevant for this discussion are -:

• “sent to or left for” i.e. Asynchronous: The need to not engage in a prolonged exchange involving lower cognitive load leads to a certain immediacy which makes it easier to initiate communication. A Messenger decides WHEN to communicate
• “verbal,written,or recorded” i.e. Control on the Format: Want to ask something- send a text-based message, want to surprise your girlfriend- send a video with you in it, announce you meeting a celebrity- publish a selfie; A Messenger decides HOW to communicate
• “cannot be contacted directly” i.e. Indirect Contact: Perhaps replacing “cannot” with “need not” is more apt. “Indirect” communication plus the ability to communicate on a one-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-many basis and layered with the fact that you can communicate with people in & outside your social circle, the messenger can communicate differently with different segments without worrying about social constructs too much. The Messenger decides WHOM to communicate with & WHAT to Communicate

What is implicit from the definition of a message is that the messenger gets to be in control of the communication channel — he is the king

A higher degree of control leads to a feeling of ownership and the associated territoriality which comes with it

Understanding Relationships between Messengers

The other important part related to a Messenger is that the messenger includes not just the one who initiates the communication but also all those who are involved in the communication channel. This implies that different messengers in the same channel can have different degrees of control and hence their affinity to a communication channel depends on how much control (or participation) they are allowed to keep in channels not initiated by them. We get the following combinations based on the type of messenger and the degree of controls

• Everyone in a Channel has the same control: This is typical of group chats barring some privileges for users to moderate content or for administrative activities
• Initiator of Message has higher control than the rest in the channel: A common model where people tend to “follow” a person. The value of the channel is derived from the the person being followed instead of the follower.
• Initiator of Message has Lower Control than others in a group: Sometimes the participants in a channel collectively drive the value up through sheer volume where the possibility of the channel becoming larger than the person who initiated the channel. In this scenario, each individual component has the least degree of control but collectively are more powerful to sometimes even create a parallel larger channel

Understanding the degree of control of and between Messengers in a system is important for building repetitive behaviour in the system.

The degree to which a Messenger wants to and then gets to control the narrative is something which cannot be emphasized enough.

Having looked at the two entities i.e. Messages & Messengers in a system, it is time to finally move to the interaction model between the two which determines the use case of the entire system

3. Messenger(s)-Message Interaction & Degree of Consistency

We know from the Degree of Control and the Degree of Chat-ness that the levels of control and informality shape the communication in a system. High levels of both tend to create channels with high number of users (Keep in mind that a single Messaging system can comprise of multiple communication channels). Low levels of both imply that the purpose of the system i.e. the nature of messages and behaviour expected from the Messengers is different. By varying the two degrees,we can shape the type of system we want to build. This interaction of the two degrees to determine the type of Messaging system is known as the Degree of Consistency.

The Degree of Consistency determines if the Degree of Control of Users, Degree of Control between Users, the Degree of Chat-ness are all aligned with the objectives of the system we are planning to build.

Unlike the Degrees of Control or Chat-ness, the Degree of Consistency needs to be necessarily high because it is tied with the objective of the Messaging Channel and hence with its core functionality.

Keeping this in mind, let us explore the various Interactions of the first two degrees and see when and where they have a high degree of consistency.

High Degree of Control across all Users with High Degree of Chat-ness:

• High Degree of Consistency achieved when the objective is to get high number of users in a short period of time
• The medium is more important than the message
• Low persistence & value of individual messages; value is in the volume which indirectly exposes personal data by providing insights into people & their environments
• Typically true with multiple communication channel systems with each person owning high level of control in atleast one channel (mostly personal) and having the ability to enter & exit other channels with low entry barrier

High Degree of Control across all Users with Low Degree of Chat-ness:

• High Degree of Consistency achieved when the objective is to create formal flows of communication
• The quality of individual messages determine the quality of the overall system
• Useful for information gathering and dissemination, tend to align well in structured environments or to impose some semblance of structure in unstructured environments
• Typically true in official communication channel systems where sharing of information is needed

High Degree of Control in few Users with High Degree of Chat-ness:

• High Degree of Consistency achieved when the objective is to communicate on personal areas of interest and use that as an epicenter to drive discussions
• Messages tend to be larger and significantly impact quality; often the discussions of other users increase the value of the channel
• Useful for brand building but typically the channel gains volume not due to the content but more because the brand already exists
• Model aligns well with Thought Leaders and their followers and hence well suited for blogosphere environment

High Degree of Control in few Users with Low Degree of Chat-ness:

• High Degree of Consistency achieved when the objective is to get the message out with lower value placed on immediate feedback loops
• The Message is extremely important, with temporality often being an important attribute
• Alongwith the message, the Originator of the Message is equally important to assign higher value to the Message. The originator could be an individual or could reflect a controlled channel which needs to thrive on credibility
• Typically true with news-based environments

Low Degree of Control across all Users with High Degree of Chat-ness:

• High Degree of Consistency achieved when the objective is to force users to stick to a very narrow topic and discuss that freely & independently
• Some level of classification of messages is done to collectively represent a common message about the topic
• Value is in the aggregated message which gets created from the volume of messages and this tends to drive the value of the topic’s channel
• Typically true with feedback & review related elements of a larger system, often used in anonymous user channels as well

Low Degree of Control across all Users with Low Degree of Chat-ness:

• High Degree of Consistency achieved when the objective is to get structured responses away from free flowing discussions
• The structure is imposed by the format of requests which enforce a fixed response mechanism
• Aggregation of information is more important than individual messages
• Typically true with opt-in based communication channels and most often used for surveys

Low Degree of Control in few Users with Low/ High Degree of Chat-ness

• These two states are inherently unstable with High Degree of Consistency being difficult to achieve as not only do we take away the feeling of Control but we also restrict the number of users in the channel who need to interact
• We could perhaps consider some Degree of Consistency in the model where the Degree of Chat is high for anonymous surveys but it is not a channel conducive for communication

Closing Thoughts

This framework comprises of degrees of three elements — Chat-ness (of the Message), Control (of the Messenger) & Consistency (between the Message & Messenger). Taken together, these can help shape the Messaging application — when extended, it actually is a framework for any communication channel we are planning to build.

It is however not comprehensive and will work best when used in conjunction with a top-down approach

• It maps the existing state or idea of an application into which spectrum (i.e. Degree of Consistency) it currently falls and should fall
• It acts as a filter of features to see if they are contributing to the correct Degrees for the functionality they have been built for

Because examples have been consciously avoided in this post, there is a possibility that the framework presented here is interpreted incorrectly in places and differently in others. Some of these interpretations will be valid enough to include modifications in the framework especially around the Degree of Consistency and I look forward to incorporating those improvements.