Media choice behavior

Media choice behavior is an academic term from the Information Systems field that studies the communication processes and tools used in relation to different variables in a range of environments, in turn based on communication concepts such as media richness theory or psychology’s information processing theory.

Media choice behavior theorists must be having a hard time of it right now: the number of ways we can communicate, the trends based on age, fashion and access to technology, and the development of new tools are constantly evolving and appearing. In the case of personal communication the social networks play a key role, while in the business world factors such as company policy, security, or the extent to which systems are integrated are among the main determining factors.

Personal preferences are obviously a factor. Over time, we are seeing how younger generations prefer to use instant messaging over phone calls: we have seen how tools like Blackberry Messenger are able to make a 180 degree turn in positioning the brand, extending its use from the purely corporate to pretty much giving the device away at school gates. Then came WhatsApp, which has been taken up by huge numbers of people. And while the phone seems to be used only for emergencies and conversations between the over-sixties, we are seeing how new tools like Snapchat are replacing social networks like Facebook or WhatsApp, which have been taken up by the older generations.

Just as important as the need to be using the same communication channels as our friends are our personal preferences. For example, my wife hates talking on the phone unless it is with her close personal friends: anything professional has to be put in writing. I find calls a hassle, but more because of the interruption they suppose, rather than simply having to talk to somebody, which I don’t mind; although for anything professional it’s best to put it in writing, otherwise I will simply forget. If we’re setting up a meeting or anything that involves scheduling, the phone is a waste of time.

Different channels are built differently. I have nothing to do with WhatsApp: I don’t like the tool, nor the company that has developed it, and I simply can’t manage it, but I pay a price for this in terms of my social life. You can always find me on GTalk, now Hangouts, but only for a few people, generally close friends and family. Skype? only by appointment, otherwise I am “disconnected”. But I do tend to reply to my emails punctually.

Meanwhile, in the corporate world, we seem to be approaching the end of the cc age, whereby half the company was copied in to mails, generating successive tidal waves of corporate spam. Tools such as Yammer, which Microsoft bought in 2012 and that now is included in Office 365, are now increasingly being used in the business environment, while others, such as Cotap, created by two of the cofounders of Yammer — the third cofounder left Microsoft last year — or other competitors such as Slack, Zula, or Spain’s IMBox.me are fighting for a slice of an ever-more promising communication and innovation market, within which people still continue to use utterly inappropriate tools for corporate environments such as WhatsApp.

The way things are going, communication is fast becoming one of the dark arts: remembering which friends use which social network, or whether this or that system is better for voice, written or otherwise is becoming increasingly taxing. Something as simple as the blue double check for WhatsApp becomes problematic, not so much for the process involved but the way it was introduced. When a tool changes the way it works without giving us alternatives, it creates problems, uncertainty, and misunderstandings.

Within a few decades, we have effectively done away with the written and posted letter, redefined the telephone, created and then buried all sorts of tools, and have established all sorts of uses without time to really consolidate any of them. The outcome is an amalgam of channels, tools, and customs that are increasingly difficult to manage. In practice, mistakes in communication protocols or in the choice of medium tend to be seen as relatively unimportant, but in reality they often determine the type of reply we get, if we get one at all. Indications such as Linkdin’s “advice for contacting” that can be used to define these communication preferences have limited uses in both senses, while traditional approaches such as the business card or the contact page through resources such as About.me are being used less and less.

How have our communication preferences changed in recent years? What communication models do you think are acceptable or unacceptable? Can you see any significant trends emerging?

(En español, aquí)