This week’s Monday Morning Memo (you can also listen to it) from Roy H. Williams takes issue with Marshall McLuhan’s famous line, “The medium is the message.” I, too, have been at odds with this oft-used McLuhanism, especially when guys I respect are so high on it. Branding Faith author Phil Cooke and recent Q conference presenter Shane Hipps are two recent examples of people I’ve run into that echo McLuhan.
Roy H. Williams says that McLuhan’s “the medium is the message” is at best a Japanese koan. In other words, “a silly attempt to sound profound.”
Williams says “Enough. The medium is the medium. The message is the message. Ad campaigns don’t fail because someone chose the wrong media. Ad campaigns fail because someone chose the wrong message. The job of the media is to deliver your message. Your job is to give the media a message worth delivering.”
Although I’ve tried, I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Free bonus: The rest of the Monday Morning Memo from Williams is a comparison of nine different mediums. Good stuff.
Adam Lehman
June 9, 2008
while the medium is not the message, it is part of the message. It adds to the message. You cant convey a message using a contradictory medium. One person can’t lead a church and then convey that everyone is part of the church. When a church hires the best worship leader possible to do all of the worship music, that church is communicating that only the best musicians are able to lead worship in that congregation. The medium isn’t the message. The medium is part of the message.
Tim Good
June 9, 2008
His attempt to dissect “the medium is the message” seem to betray the fact that he has never read any beyond that quote from McLuhan. It is not so simple that the medium says more than the message in the medium – but how the medium effects us more than we pay attention to – the “ground” that the medium is built on changes our perception. I suggest that people that don’t understand the “medium is the message” quote read “Laws of Media” or at the very least read Shane Hipps. He made McLuhan directly relevant to the church and Christian culture.
Steve K.
June 9, 2008
I second that recommendation of reading Shane Hipps book “The Hidden Power of Electronic Culture: How Media Shapes Faith, the Gospel, and Church.” Excellent unpacking of McLuhan’s ideas and how they directly relate to how we do church.
Any attempts to downplay or discount McLuhan will prove themselves futile every time. The man’s ideas are remarkably relevant and challenging to us today, as they were way before their time when first delivered.
So Brad, please read the Shane Hipps book and then get back to us on the whole medium/message thing ;-)
Jesse Phillips
June 9, 2008
I disagree, sorry Brad. There’s so much evidence of this. It’s the same reason that brands have more success when they dress-up their product. This is virtually indisputable.
We, as humans, have great, great difficulty extracting the message apart from medium. It’s why tone, and body language are actually 80% (according to studies) of communication, and actual content is only 20%. Similarly, the medium you use to communicate – your flyer, website, etc, will strongly influence how your message is received – so much so that the medium may dominate the message.
Perhaps “the medium IS the message” is too strong, but I believe it is still a helpful phrase and mostly true.
Jesse Phillips
June 9, 2008
Brad, why do you disagree with the phrase “The Medium is the Message” ?
Brad Abare
June 9, 2008
Uh oh, it looks like I might have opened up a can of consternation on this one. (Steve K.–Shane Hipps’ book is on order.)
I completely get the point that HOW the message is delivered certainly affects the way the message is received. In that sense, medium and message are definitely related.
My frustration comes when we jump to the medium first before the message. Instead of figuring out how the iPhone can help feed more people (which I am all for), I’d rather figure out how to feed more people. If the iPhone can be a tool in that pursuit, great!
Phil Cooke
June 9, 2008
I find it interesting that Williams contradicts himself in his article. He tries to convince us that the medium doesn’t impact the message, but then proceeds to explain which media is best for different types of messages! I like reading Williams, but on this point I’m afraid he completely misses the argument. For Brad’s readers who are church and ministry communicators, you’ll know that the biggest criticism of Christian TV isn’t about the message – it’s about how badly they use the medium. Most pastors preach a great message – but how few of those pastors actually translate effectively on television. I feel very strongly about this because it’s where Christian media people so often miss it. Williams is correct that the message matters. But it’s especially important to note that now more than ever, as we enter the digital era, we need to be very careful how that message is delivered.
Chris S.
June 9, 2008
I was stopping by to mention Shane Hipps book as well but it seems I am a little late :-)
Brandon Riley
June 9, 2008
I agree with Phil…
I ran into this situation when I was trying to help a church understand the importance of media and different mediums to convey the message. The problem for me was that I was a college film student at the time who lived and breathed movies. I saw film as an incredibly powerful way to communicate truth. It was a medium that could connect with people in ways that a preacher never could. At this point in my life I was made to feel that the way I connected through media was not important. The oral tradition that was built on modernity was still supreme and therefore I had to exist in a culture where the medium of oral tradition was speaking to a modern culture and so in doing failed to speak to my culture.
Charles Lee
June 9, 2008
Thanks for the conversation Brad.
I think this conversation hinges upon what one means by “is”.
In philosophy, the word “is” can carry numerous nuances, modes, and intentions. For example, when the Bible states that God is love, the “is” highlights love to be an attribute of God. It does not use “is” as one would in the law of identity (i.e., If A (God)=B (Love), everything of A must be true of B and vice-versa.). We could say that love is an attribute of God, but love is not God.
Forgive me for the philosophical clarification…I think it could help clarify this current conversation.
I believe that the medium may be a significant part or attribute of the message, but it is not the message in the same way as in the law of identity (A=B). If the medium is the message, then everything that is true of the medium must be true of the message and vice-versa.
There are properties or attributes of the message that are not true of the medium. E.g., the message contains immaterial thoughts while the medium carries more physical attributes.
Maybe the two sides are having two different conversations…one emphasizing the importance of medium and the other the importance of distinction…
Just some thoughts…
Yu-Ling
June 11, 2008
Hi all,
I’ve come to really appreciate this site. I’ve also been reading a lot of McLuhan because I believe he has some great insights for us. I want to point out this quote from his biography (Marshall McLuhan – escape into understanding) to add to the discussion.
How was Jesus cool? The Father was in him, yet he emptied himself. God was veiled, hidden. His glory was anything but explicit; for the most part it was implicit, cool. Whether or not Jesus knew he was the Christ of God… he saw no need to shout it from the house-tops… Jesus taught in aphorism, parable, story, parallel, pun, word-play… all cool techniques… In Christ, Medium becomes message. Christ came to demonstrate God’s love for man and to call all men to him through himself as Mediator, as Medium. And in so doing he became the proclamation of his Church, the message of God to man. God’s medium became God’s message. (422)
Josh Asbury
June 11, 2008
I think that the medium is part of the message. For example, what does a simple PowerPoint slide with a white background and bold black text used during a church service say vs. the creation of something truly compelling that is eye-catching and proves that whoever put it together cared enough to spend time on it. The *way* you present something is sometimes just as important as *what* you are presenting.
With that said, though, if the message isn’t clear, concise and useful, it doesn’t matter how much lipstick you put on it.
Garr Reynolds has some interesting thoughts on the power of presentation at PresentationZen.com that can drive the point home that how is sometimes as important as what.
Steve G.
June 12, 2008
Am I going blind? Or am I missing the point? The title of the book displayed is ‘The Medium is the Massage’, not ‘The Medium is the Message’. Or perhaps there’s a joke here that I’ve never bumped into…
Yu-Ling
June 12, 2008
Steve,
you’re not going blind ;). McLuhan’s famous PHRASE – the medium is the message came out in his talks. But it was becoming passe, so in typical McLuhan fashion, he wrote a book entitled ‘The Medium is the MASSAGE’ as a play on words/message and to further the discussion that he raised earlier in his life.
Michael Pruitt
June 23, 2008
Yu-Ling, from wikipedia: The actual title was “The Medium is the Message” but it came back from the printer with the first “e” in message misprinted as an “a.” McLuhan is said to have thought the mistake to be supportive of the point he was trying to make in the book and decided to leave it alone.
Brad: If the medium is the medium, and the message is the message, a naked homeless man should be able to use the same words as Billy Graham with the same effect, no? Since that’s not the case, I must agree with McLuhan and state that how you choose to deliver a message (at least to some extent) is the message received.