Comments for Taking Aim

Comment on Marshall McLuhan is Still Wrong by avoidingthevoid

avoidingthevoid — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:44:55 +0000

The marbles example doesn’t quite work. In a game of marbles, the message of the game is not the marbles but the actions, positions and possibilities of the marbles during a game. The marbles and the table are the medium as they are the ground against the message of moving marbles. The ground is also the rules of the game, which when in full swing, recedes into the background as the focus is placed on figures at play. Thus the message or content of the game itself is arbitrary (who wins or loses, the thrills and spills). The point is that people are engaged in an inter-subjective mode of activity demanded by the medium of the game which pulls the players and audience into a mode of abstraction towards each other and their environment. The only time the marble itself is in view is when it breaks, preventing the game being played, thus bringing the hidden ground of the marble into view as figure.

McLuhan wanted us to be aware of the ground not by itself but as constituted by figures (thus the medium is the message), how these heat up and cool down, enhance, obsolesce, reverse into and retrieve other figure/ground relationships by their use and abuse.

You emphasis a “multi-pronged approach to communication”, which means that you have focus across multiple mediums, where your message can be presented in the context of the medium you select and, more tellingly, from those you don’t select (I’m not sure how your message would impact people if it was delivered by carrier pigeon, town crier, or barber shop quartet).

I really do recommend reading ‘Laws of Media’, it’s quite short, and could be shorter, but it’s full of some fascinating ideas. If you disagree with my analysis, don’t hesitate to correct me. I’m fairly new to McLuhan but I can see how easy it is to put his catchphrase into the wrong context.

NB – Your metaphor of the gift is also mistaken. As the medium is the gift-as-social gesture, of social recognition, debt and obligatory reciprocity. The message is the gift-as-specific thing which could be a car or a teddy bear. Were you never told: “it’s the thought that counts”? It would be more accurate to say, McLuhan was all about the gift-as-social gesture rather than the gift-as-specific thing.

Comment on What if You Said Nothing? by equalman

equalman — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:54:21 +0000

Roger:

Thanks for the kind words and for the very well written post. I love the look& feel of taking aim too btw. I love your last sentence:

In fact, I’ve stopped explaining the ROI of public relations and choose instead to ask “what do you think the cost would be if you failed to communicate with your stakeholders?”

Best,

Erik Qualman
Author of Socialnomics

Comment on The Cost of Copy Editors by Laura

Laura — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:23:32 +0000

Is it fixable, I wonder? Or has all of the talent gone to blogging, an entire other subject of course.

Comment on If Someone Asked You to Explain Web 2.0 Would You Have an Answer? by stress management tools

stress management tools — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:53:55 +0000

Thanks for keeping the interest on this topic, subscribing to your RSS,

Comment on The Ball(oon) is in Their Court by Roger Pynn

Roger Pynn — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 14:56:03 +0000

With the mother’s confession it looks like the ball is likely to be in their cell. If at first you practice to deceive …

Comment on Marshall McLuhan is Still Wrong by Roger Pynn

Roger Pynn — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:38:55 +0000

Oh, contraire, Mr. Blechman. Where did McLuhan ever correct the widely held perception that he was, in fact, predicting the day when the shiny balls on the table would attract more attention than the game of marbles?

McLuhan was all about the wrapping rather than the git.

Comment on Marshall McLuhan is Still Wrong by Robert K. Blechman

Robert K. Blechman — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:23:25 +0000

Of course that should be “you’re”!

Comment on Marshall McLuhan is Still Wrong by Robert K. Blechman

Robert K. Blechman — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:22:28 +0000

I think your confusing long term messages from short term messages. McLuhan never meant that the content or message of a medium was unimportant. Certainly the words “Give me liberty or give me death!” will have an impact with the right audience regardless of the communication medium. What McLuhan meant was that the structure of a medium contains hidden biases that change our assumptions, manage our behaviors and manipulate our beliefs — over the long term — that have far more importance than the momentary call to arms.

Comment on Invective & Social Media by Experts. Or Not? « Taking Aim

Experts. Or Not? « Taking Aim — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:53:09 +0000

[...] while back I wrote about invective and how the volume of online conversation is making life in the digisphere more and more [...]

Comment on The Big Difference by The Ball(oon) is in Their Court « Taking Aim

The Ball(oon) is in Their Court « Taking Aim — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:49:36 +0000

[...] My associate Roger Pynn just blogged about being honest, candid and transparent. [...]