In earlier articles, I addressed the importance of soft skills in virtual interactions and how to structure and staff a larger virtual presence. Here, I’ll discuss the context in which those concepts apply in the practical sense, namely within live programs themselves. It all starts with the program model. Individual virtual programs can be built in any fashion to serve various purposes and how you combine models creates different contexts for audience engagement.  

A good starting point is to use a time-tested children’s toy as an analogy: Legos. The beauty of Legos comes down to two basic concepts. First, the technology is simple and integrated - the blocks all have the same connection points and it’s easy to fit the pieces together. Second, Legos are modular. They stand alone as individual pieces but can be combined in any number of ways to build more complex structures limited only by one’s imagination. Building virtual programs and series of programs should follow a similar logic, in that their effectiveness ultimately relies on how individual programs are structured and how they complement each other within a broader engagement strategy. 

Effective program models tend to have three things. First, the programs are template-based to promote organization, accountability, and ease of management. Second, they’re open, transparent, and appropriate to the audience to facilitate conversation. Third, program models are intentionally designed to integrate with each other to create several levels of interaction.   

Oftentimes, single virtual programs are customized projects requiring considerable production resources. That’s to be expected as productions are complex and detail-oriented. But even if the program is indeed interactive, circumstances often impact the number of people watching and reduce messaging reach. The timing of the program, the media environment in which the program is competing with other content options, and any number of other factors can impact the program’s effectiveness. In fairness, many of these factors are beyond the control of program producers. Regardless, the end result is the same: the audience fails to receive the message and the interactive capability of these programs underperforms. The cost-benefit analysis here is lopsided with much effort being expended to achieve less-than-stellar outcomes. 

The solution is to rethink the program models and how they fit together. Individual virtual programs models differ primarily by the level of interaction between the audience and the speakers. The key question is finding out what draws people in and holds their attention and then, based on that feedback, selecting the best program model.

Program models are defined by interaction level, access points, content integration, and other elements which vary from case to case. In all cases, however, program models should share three basic elements. First, models should be template-based. Using templates gives you a common set of instructions so that your team is working from the same page, easing internal communications and facilitating efficient program planning. But more importantly, templates provide a benchmark against which program effectiveness is judged. In the virtual programming environment, this is a crucial element that promotes flexibility and allows teams to adapt templates, staying a step ahead as communications environments shift. 

Second, program models should facilitate openness and transparency with the intended audience. With the exception of large-scale broadcast productions where interaction may be limited to a chat space, effective program models create contexts for serendipitous exchanges. This openness is critically important to audience relationship-building and where conversational soft skills come into play. As any producer will tell you, programs rarely unfold exactly as planned and surprises can be expected. In an open, interactive space the ability of the program leader to keep calm and focused can make or break a program. Those same soft skills empower a savvy moderator to facilitate a great exchange that creates unforeseen benefits for the audience and the message.   

Finally, program models should be purposefully designed to integrate with each other. This integration follows an ecosystem approach where outputs equals inputs. For example, in my work at GPA I often use listening sessions as part of the pre-production process. The outputs of those sessions, such as clarification of topic interests and interaction preferences, are all used as inputs into program model design. Listening sessions are intentionally designed to be informal with no strict agenda. In that sense there is no objective, except one: ask questions of your stakeholders and empower them to lead the conversation. Properly engaged, stakeholders will provide all the insights you need to design effective program models. In turn, the results of large public-facing programs provide the basis for additional listening sessions. This cycle of input and output, over time facilitates a co-creation dynamic and builds audience relationships.

Virtual programming is an ideal space to create public diplomacy ecosystems that are co-created with stakeholders. It all starts with program models that are simple to manage and that integrate with each other. One might indeed call this the “Lego Theory” of digital public diplomacy, where virtual programming efforts are modular in nature. This principle applies whether you are doing a small series consisting of two programs or building out a regional virtual presence with hundreds of stakeholders. Any given program may be produced on its own and achieve some success. But when purposefully combined as part of a larger engagement ecosystem, virtual engagement campaigns can result in an ongoing upward spiral of community understanding and insight. 

All Posts