In today’s world, it is almost impossible to go an entire day, or even half a day, without using some sort of technology. That might sound sad but it is our harsh reality. Interactivity and interactive features are more relevant than ever.
An article titled “Effects of Web Interactivity: A Meta-Analysis” states “ The use of interactive features on website interfaces has significantly expanded the reach and strength of computer-mediated messages. A message on an interactive website can be drastically different from a print message…” (Yang, Shen, 2017).
Being able to understand the impact of interactivity can help PR professionals understand why some media is easier to connect with which in turn allows the professionals to create media that has this effect.
What is Interactivity? Technology + Human Communication
Interactivity is a concept that is more relevant in the newer generations due to technological advancements that have made the internet and technology in general more accessible. Interactivity can be rooted in a mediums ability to create interactions and generate conversation or even engagement (Kiousis, 2002, p. 356). The concept of interactivity is also studied in a number of different contexts. For example, a study in an article titled “Brand value Co-creation in social commerce: The role of interactivity, social support, and relationship quality” puts a focus on how interactivity is an important aspect of social commerce (Tajvidi et al., 2017, p.3). This specific study investigates how consumers engage in social shopping and then share information with eachother to create a sort of social networking environment (Tajvidi et al., 2017, p. 3). Outside of that context, a more relevant example that would resonate with the current generation would be playing a video game with other players or interacting with comments on different social media platforms.
Engagement and Interactivity: Similar, but Different
Although similar, interactivity and engagement are not the same. They both have to do with consumers of media interacting and engaging with media in a significant way. There is a distinction between the two. Engagement puts more of a focus on the involvement a person feels with a certain concept. Whether that is social media, school or work, engagement is more about the connection you feel to something. Engagement can be anything from your willingness to do well in school to wanting to make a favorable impression at work (Hollebeek, 2011,p. 557). An example to understand engagement easily would be thinking about how you can watch your favorite movie over and over again but you don’t necessarily interact with it. Interactivity is more of a two-way street. Communication between the audience and the message can go back and forth instead of only observing (Kiousis, 2002, p. 359). While the concepts both deal with involvement, interactivity is about the potential for communication and engagement is about the feelings and perception a person has with a message.
The Power of Interactivity
Interactivity truly is how technology and humans connect. While similar to engagement, interactivity focuses more on the exchanges we have with media. PR professionals being able to use interactivity to their advantage can be a huge tool and a huge factor that determines whether a not a message is successful or not.
Keywords:
Interactivity, engagement, technology, communication
References:
Hollebeek, L. (2011). Exploring customer brand engagement: definition and themes. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 19(7), 555–573. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254x.2011.599493
Kiousis, S. (2002). Interactivity: a concept explication. New Media & Society, 4(3), 355–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/146144480200400303
Tajvidi, M., Wang, Y., Hajli, N., & Love, P. E. D. (2017). Brand value Co-creation in social commerce: The role of interactivity, social support, and relationship quality. Computers in Human Behavior, 115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.006
Yang, F., & Shen, F. (2017). Effects of Web Interactivity: A Meta-Analysis. Communication Research, 45(5), 635–658. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650217700748