Matthias Zehnder: Between Sender and Receiver

m&k: Matthias Zehnder, if I were to ask you what you mean by «successful communication»—what answer would immediately come to mind?

What is often completely overlooked is that communication is a social act involving two partners. In other words, it involves not only an active sender but also an active receiver. And for the two to interact with one another—even if it’s «one-way communication»—they need a shared reality in which they operate. Especially in the digital world, I must first establish this reality through communication so that we can meet there. So: When we ask about the success of communication, we’re actually asking whether we share a common reality and whether we’re truly operating within it together. As the sender, I must take the receiver seriously, listen to them, and include them. Otherwise, I’m sending my message off into the void, and it may never reach its destination.

So why do we, as communicators, so often tend to just «start communicating» without thinking? Is it because we’re biased and convinced from the outset that people will understand us anyway?

I think there are several reasons for this. The first reason—especially in the media—is that traditional media outlets had no choice but to broadcast. A newspaper, a radio station, a television station: these are broadcasting organizations; they’re broadcasters. They’re machines and machinery—often industrial operations focused solely on broadcasting. Second: especially in companies, communication often revolves heavily around itself. The recipient is «somewhere out there» and isn’t really taken into account at all. And the third factor at play here… you know, it’s much more uncomfortable to include the recipients in my thinking (laughs). Because then I have to question myself or try to anticipate the image the recipient might have of me and react to it. It’s much more comfortable just to send the message.

Aren't companies also increasingly becoming recipients? On social media, for example, they now hear feedback on their actions. That didn't happen in the past.

May I correct that slightly? Reactions like that have happened before. It’s just that companies generally didn’t notice them. Today, companies can no longer avoid addressing these reactions. Fortunately. Because this allows them to manage their communication much more precisely and truly understand their customers.

You are a recognized expert in digitalization and communication in virtual spaces. This field has experienced an even greater boom during the pandemic. In your opinion, how has this changed the way we communicate with one another?

Over the past year and a half, we’ve witnessed an «implosion of channels.» Suddenly, everything has converged on that glowing rectangle—the screen—in our home offices. All communication. Professional and personal, commercial, family, internal, and external. It all took place on the same medium. For companies, this posed a major challenge, even just in terms of internal communication.

Could you give us an example?

The two of us are sitting here talking in my office. Across the street, you can see the Roche skyscraper. Before the pandemic, Roche was able to make a strong impression on its employees simply because of this location. In the morning, they’d drive onto a large company campus; to their left and right, they might see the executive team’s fancy cars, and they’d enter a fantastic skyscraper—the tallest in Switzerland! Then they’d take the elevator up to the twentieth floor and enjoy a fantastic view of Basel. Even before they’d even booted up their computers, they’d already thought to themselves: «Our company is the best!»

«The recipient gives me the most valuable thing he has: his time. He is entitled to something of equal value in return.»

None of that is necessary at home …

Yes, now the employees are sitting at home, and their great employer is reaching out to them through the same platform as Farmer Meier, who wants to sell them firewood (laughs). It’s infinitely harder to keep people engaged. I’m in touch with programmers quite often—they’ve all been sitting at their kitchen tables at home for the past year and a half, coding. Several of them have told me, «You know, it doesn’t matter at all whether I’m working for Microsoft, Adobe, Google, or Apple right now. I’m always sitting at my kitchen table anyway, and it’s all the same.» That’s disastrous for the companies.

And how has the pandemic affected external communications?

As we can see from the example I just gave, we’ve always said, «Come on! Go digital!» But if we take everything else away and are left with only one digital channel, it becomes incredibly difficult! Because it’s harder to create a shared reality through that channel. If we only have this one channel left, it quickly becomes completely clogged, like the Gotthard Tunnel before summer vacation. Everything has to pass through it, and the individual’s perception suffers massively as a result. Of course, there are positive effects as well: in some areas where we’ve been waiting a long time, we’ve suddenly seen digital transformations. Acceptance of digital interactions is much higher today. Digital payments, e-commerce, and digital interactions in general have increased dramatically. That’s wonderful. But the challenges for communication are actually greater than before.

This makes it all the more important, in my view, for companies to focus on maximum relevance in their communications. Very often, however, they go public with details that are as uninteresting as can be. Why is that?

I think it’s always been that way. Maybe because the communications department first has to sell itself internally, establish its case, and secure a budget… A good example is commercials on local TV: how effective they are is often highly questionable, but «the boss sees himself on TV, and that’s always a good thing.» This is an effect we’ve been seeing for a long time. And it’s no different in the digital world. That’s why I believe that when we ask about the success of communication, we must first and foremost ask: «What is the goal of communication?» And that goal can’t just be a goal from the company’s perspective—the sender’s perspective. It must be linked to a goal or benefit on the recipient’s side. I can’t engage in a one-sided exchange in communication, because then it wouldn’t be an exchange anymore.

Both sides have to make a compromise.

That’s right. The recipient gives me the most valuable thing they have—and that is their time. I can always increase my money, I can increase the number of houses I own, I can increase the number of cars I own. But I can’t increase my time. When the recipient gives me their time, they’re entitled to something of equal value in the form of a tangible benefit. That could be an interesting fact, it could be entertainment, it could be a discount. Whatever it is, the recipient must always feel that it was worth their while to invest their time.

If we now shift our focus from the content level to the medium—does it really matter whether a message appears, say, on a cell phone screen or on paper?

As I said: I’ve been working in the field of digitalization for more than thirty years, and for all that time I’ve been talking my head off in boardrooms, saying, «Look at the digital world—pay attention to it!» But there’s also that huge «but» that comes with the digital channel becoming overcrowded—and it’s only getting bigger today. That’s why, so far, nothing has as much positioning power as print. If I land something in a mailbox—and that something might even make it onto the kitchen table—I have a presence in a household and can position myself within that household. That doesn’t necessarily mean the communication will succeed. But it’s a prerequisite for it. The prerequisite for successful communication is the recipient’s attention. And I can likely capture that attention more easily and sustainably with well-designed print than with digital communication. That doesn’t mean print is better than digital—or vice versa—but print can continue to play—and will continue to play—an important role in the communication mix.

And, of course, print still has that tactile element. Or is that just a nostalgic argument?

You’re right. In this regard, print is more powerful than any form of digital communication—in one way or another. A product with a certain design, a certain feel, or a certain smell can, of course, also be perceived negatively—for example, if foul-smelling inks are used. But: From the very beginning, print gives me a sense of what’s inside—where it begins and where it ends. It’s different with digital communication. There, you need design elements to convey that. For example, online articles have a feature that shows what percentage of an article I’ve already read. Or in e-books, where a progress bar fills up on the page as we «turn the page.» These are aids designed to bring the product aspect back into the foreground.

Do AI-generated texts or «automated personalization» diminish the impact of digital communication?

The machine has little to do with meaning. Automation can be a very useful and powerful tool if I establish a dialogue with the recipient from the start, rather than just sending something out once. If the dialogue is good and regular, then it can certainly be automated; I can use it to initiate initial interactions that can be deepened. Communication remains a social act even if, on my end, there’s initially just a robot.

«You need precision—both in terms of the audience and the message. Courage often means leaving everything else out.»

Will we enter an era in which we can fully automate the vast majority of communication tasks—including those related to content?

Let me ask a counterquestion: What is human about communication? I believe … the mistake. The deviation. The unexpected stumble. The change in rhythm. When you hear a heart beating. And that kind of immediacy—a computer can imitate and simulate it in hindsight. But it can’t create it. Computers aren’t creative. They’re just incredibly good at collecting data, analyzing experiences, and reproducing patterns. Which can certainly be problematic, as we know. Because when you let computers learn via the internet, it leads, for example, to racism and sexism, because that’s how people express themselves. I think it’s good for computers to take over part of communication—namely, the part that can be automated, the part that doesn’t require us humans, the human side of us. Then we can focus on the human side. We’re already seeing this trend in the media—many results pages, anything data-driven—computers can generate these more efficiently. That’s a good thing; then humans can focus on the creative element—capturing or selecting that surprising image and writing the compelling story to go with it. What’s important is that there are still people who can do exactly that—and that they have the freedom and the resources to create value in this area. But it’s clear that computers will play an increasingly larger role in media and communication.

You help companies with straightforward communication assessments. What exactly are these?

For many years, I served as an editor at major newspapers, was responsible for electronic communications at a large company, and was involved in startups … and I share these experiences in an external expert review.

What communication mistakes do you notice most often in your «checks»?

It is precisely these fundamental mistakes that occur time and again. Instead of starting with what matters most to the customer, they focus on what the organization or company currently considers important. Many companies treat their readers’ attention very carelessly. Many also focus too much on individual elements while neglecting the overall structure. When I pick up a magazine, it has a structure. It has a front and a back, and you should be able to read it in both directions—both should be planned for. This includes a certain rhythm: sometimes a long piece, sometimes a short one… The same applies to corporate communications. It must be designed as a complete product that makes conscious use of the time the customer has made available.

Does communication have to provoke or stir things up in order to reach a wide audience?

Above all, communication requires precision. I need to be clear about who I want to reach. And I need to know exactly what I have to offer these people. It’s no use if almost all of Switzerland is talking about my message, but the very people who are supposed to become my customers aren’t. Precision is absolutely essential—both in terms of the audience and in terms of the message and its impact. Courage often lies in leaving everything else out.

Dr. Matthias Zehnder (*1967) is a freelance journalist, consultant, and author based in Basel. He studied German language and literature and philosophy in Zurich and earned his doctorate in media studies in Basel. Zehnder has founded or co-founded several internet-related startups and publications. From 2007 to 2012, he was editor-in-chief of the «Coopzeitung,» Switzerland’s largest print publication. From 2012 to 2015, he was editor-in-chief of the daily newspaper «bz Basel.» Since early 2016, he has been working independently as an author, researcher, and consultant. As a journalist, he has been writing about digitalization and its consequences for 30 years.

Are you interested in the Topics Matthias talks about Zehnder in this interview said? Something similar, but also thoughts on Reading Politics and Philosophy Use it regularly if you his «Weekly Commentary”» Subscribe.