The Dos and Don’ts of App Messaging: Communication Models
App messaging is a tough cookie. We all need frameworks and models to simplify, abstraction and extend our understanding. Baseline knowledge reduces risk and achieves consistency.
Frameworks and models matter. Framework unawareness limit a product manager’s tool-belt. A Product Manager in the context of carpentry should know when to use a circular or a table saw. Frameworks matter; and, they are craft agnostic. A novice baker knows dough won’t rise without yeast.
All organizations – regardless of size, need frameworks and guardrails. Frameworks are useful because they simplify large and complex domains. Guardrails matter because they empower less-senior members of the team move at speed. Without frameworks or guardrails there' will be inconsistency in operating principles, records and service quality.
The goal for this article is to introduce a simplified framework. Complementary techniques like Service Design, Design thinking and Domain Driven Design will be covered in a separate post. This post describes the rationale and definitions inspired by multiple communication models.
The law of the Instrument is a cognitive bias that involves over-reliance on a familiar tool. You’ve heard the expression, If the only tool you have is a hammer, it is tempting to treat everything as if it were a nail. While the author is contested between Kaplan and Maslow, it doesn’t ring any less true.
Communication Models
Communication derives from the latin word communis or “Common”. The goal of communication is to develop commonness or shared understanding. This understanding takes the form of new information, ideas, attitudes or action. Communication can be classified into multiple types like verbal, non-verbal, written, visual etc. App messaging is a type of communication.
Aristotle Rhetoric
Aristotle proposed a 3 part model, a speaker, a message and a listener. An important detail for this model is that the listener defines whether a conversation will take place. The person that initiatives the conversation will try to get its point across, at times without consideration for the recipient of the message.
Lasswell Model
Harold Lasswell was a political scientist and communication theorist. Lasswell was interested in the effects of communication. He wrote multiple dissertation papers but is mostly known for the Lasswell communication model, published in 1948.
Lasswell postulates that communications should answer 5 basic questions: “Who?” “Says What?”, “To Whom?”, and “With That Effect”. This model has been criticized for being overly simplistic, and for not considering context or feedback.
Schramm’s Model
Wilbur lang Schramm was one of the most influential figures in communications as a field of study in the US. He is considered the father of Communication Studies.
Schramm’s model is similar to Aristotles. Communication requires three elements: A source, a message, and a destination. A message is encoded by the source; the encoded message is then sent to the recipient who then decodes the message. Schramm introduced a communication feedback loop. In order for a message to be encoded or decoded there must be an overlap of context and experience between the source and the recipient.
Remixing the Models
The previously defined models overlapping points. In the simplest of forms there is an issuer, a message and a recipient of the message. For communication to be effective a message can travel in both directions, transforming the recipient into the issuer of the message. However, each of the authors introduce components. Schramm proposes the need of shared contexts; and, Lasswell the concept of Effect.
For app messaging, I propose extending the model with: Message Intent and Message Origination. Message Intentionality is similar to Lasswell’s effect. Message Origination borrows from Schramm’s Source and Destination.
Message Intent
Message intent is the purpose on which the source is sending the message. These intentions may have informational, actional or conversational motivations. Intention and purpose matter because the intent will be defined by context.
Informational Messages: These types of messages are meant to inform the user. No action or feedback is required.
Transactional Messages: Messages that are sent automatically as a way to confirm system action. These messages are sent as a response or confirmation of an interaction. These types of messages are acknowledgements. Think of a transfer confirmation sent to your email, or a toaster message with a success status, or a micro-interaction indicating a change of status. These are triggered by a system event.
Informational Messages: Communications sent to notify of a situation that happened outside of the system. For example notifying your users that there will be scheduled downtime.
Actional Messages: These types of messages are meant to inform the user and motivate action. User action and feedback are desired.
Activational: Communications sent to the user with the intention of making the user react. These types of messages motivate the user to take an action. Some examples are security confirmations and on-boarding communications.
Promotional: Messages sent to the user with the intention of making a sale.
Conversational Messages: This type of communication is meant to have an ongoing flow of messages around a specific topic. Note that informational and actional messages could eventually become conversational messages.
Support Messages: Messages that can be originated by the company or the user in order to answer a question or solve a problem.
Sales Messages: Communications where there is a conversation around a potential transaction. These types of messages differ from promotional messages in the sense that there is a feedback loop.
Message Origination
In Schramm’s model, the source became the recipient when the feedback loop was initiated. This may be confusing as we design out communications. Origination is a way to signal which entity started the conversation. Message Origination is divided into Inbound and Outbound Origination.
Inbound Origination: Communication was initiated by the other entity. For example a customer reaches out to support. The source is the external party, while the recipient is internal
Outbound Origination: The first message was sent by the internal entity. For example the system sends a confirmation message to the customer. The source is internal, while the recipient is external.
Closing remarks
This post mixed-and-matched communication models. It then tried to complement these models with Message Intention and Origination. The information shared in this post will be useful as we approach when to communicate, how to design communication triggers and messages, and how to measure performance.
This post was extremely academic, and only loosely connected to product management. Please note that I am not preaching for an academic approach towards product management. I know execution is everything; however, I advocate for being intentional. Theory will help you start painting on your own. It will also transition from paint-by-numbers into being strategic and intentional.