Procter & Gamble has declared that mass marketing may not be completely dead, but it sure is sick—mainly because the media is fragmenting and consumers increasingly control the experience. So the company is trying all kinds of new ways to reach people, including creating advertisements that seem a lot more like service editorial than traditional “buy it” ads.

The latest variation on this approach can be seen by linking to http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/03/business/media/03adco.html?oref=login&pagewanted=all). P&G is combining compelling elements of celebrity involvement (in this case, Hilary Duff), with web logs and social networks.

It’s not about hitting consumers over the head with product attribute messages; it’s about creating an environment in which people want to spend time.

Naturally, I think this has significant implications for employee communication. Many organizations are still operating on the premise, “If I send this message, employees will not only read it, they’ll understand it, believe it and act on it.” But the captive audience is a thing of the past. We’ve got to give employees a reason to pay attention—they’ve got to get something out of the experience that helps them meet their needs.

Procter & Gamble gets this, at least when it comes to marketing to customers. (I don’t know how P&G approaches employee communication, and I’d be interested to see whether the same philosophy applies.)

What have you done to approach communication differently?