The new Pew
Internet study on the use of the Internet to cultivate social networks was
greeted with cynicism in some quarters. Technophiles immersed in the Web 2.0 world of consumer generated media
and collaborative content creation expressed a collective “duh” in response to
the findings. Diva Marketing offered a
more sympathetic (and thoughtful) analysis of the research and its implications
for interactive marketing. She talks
about the layers of networking available to customers to learn about product
and services, and the translation of word of mouth relationships from a
physical center of gravity (e.g.: the
corner grocery store) to a virtual one.
I have to
say that I’m not impressed or even surprised by the Pew study. I’ve been experiencing the effects of
“networked individualism” since I got my first MCI Mail and AOL accounts back
before the turn of the century. Though I
agree with Diva Marketing, I would offer an alternative framework for thinking
about the implications of networked individualism.
Before the
advent of digital technologies people grouped themselves in networks based on
two factors: geography and personal relationships (e.g. friends, families,
coworkers, etc.). While personal
relationships remain crucial, as the Pew study shows, geography has become
largely irrelevant. Even though there is
a tremendous amount of activity in the area of “hyperlocal” or “glocalized” online
services, the reality is that personal interests and behaviors have become the
dominating factor in our choice of social networks. We look for people whose areas of interest or
expertise intersect with our own and form new social networks based on that
collective behavior. My social networks
might include theater and cooking. Your
social networks might relate to a disease afflicting a loved one or a passion
for antique books. And because we are
complex individuals with the capacity for multiple, asynchronous, digital
conversations, we engage in many social networks.
What are
the implications of this to marketers? First and foremost we have to stop thinking in terms of demographic
segments of consumers (e.g. men age 18 – 25 as targets for prime time
television shows). Consumers aren’t
static and they aren’t passive targets. We
need to view them as producer-participants, who are actively engaged in a
variety of networks based on different areas of interest. We need to understand these active networks
and tap into their collective creativity and intelligence. We need to view brands in the context of the
myriad of individual interests, not the other way around. We need to empower these networks to
collaborate on product design, provide feedback on service needs and even act
as evangelists.
This isn’t
the new interactive marketing … it’s the new marketing.
Comments