My previous post about "social objects", described how your profile, what you publish and what share online determines the impression you make and provides topics or hooks for others to get in touch with you. The term social object is a convenient shorthand for describing such hooks, which represent many of the reasons people socialize with each other online; this theory is referred to by sociologists as "object-centered sociality".
Other ways to socialize include phatic communication, although arguably even small talk may be carried out for ulterior motives.
"No Man's Blog" has an excellent analysis of identity management and phatic communication through the use of Facebook applications.
My post garnered excellent, lengthy comments. Referring to Hugh MacLeod posts here and here, one of the commenters, Bernard Tremblay voices a valid, if strongly worded, objection on his blog to the use of the term "Social Object". Bernard laments that the term seems prone to profiteering by marketing "snake oil salesmen":
The moment draws nigh when we take one more step: “you came over just to chew the fat with Pam” … right. But what happens when we use “social objects” as our lens? We see that entirely social impulse in terms of transaction … the title of the piece is “marketing” and properly so: what we’ve done here is reduced the whole to an exchange between providers and consummers [sic].
Yet the trend is clear ...
There's plenty evidence that brands are investing heavily in online word-of-mouth marketing. According to PQ Media,
Spending on word-of-mouth (WoM) marketing jumped 35.9% in 2006 to $981.0 million and is expected to top $1 billion in 2007, making it one of the fastest growing alternative media segments. Driving the growth is the continued consumer shift to alternative media and the marketers' need for increased brand engagement and ROI. These are some of the findings of the first in-depth analysis of the emerging word-of-mouth (WoM) marketing industry released today by PQ Media, the leading provider of alternative media econometrics (www.pqmedia.com).
Helping to fuel this growth are a projected 3.5 billion brand-related conversations per day in the U.S., according to Keller Fay Group, with nearly 80% of consumers trusting recommendations from family, friends and "influential" persons over all other forms of advertising and marketing.
Need more evidence? According to Nielsen, vehicle discussions are up 40% since January 2007. Interestingly, the same article displays Nielsen's "Brand Association Map, which is a "a visualization tool to map how consumers naturally think and talk about brands online." This is how the social object plays out in conversations. Here's an example of a map of conversations about Nike.
So let's all hop on the word-of-mouth bandwagon, and let's do it by creating social objects for people to engage in object-oriented sociality, but under own terms, right? Not surprisingly, this type of thinking is fraught with pitfalls. Some examples come to mind:
Censoring or attempting to control the word-of-mouth is equally misguided, as in the case of Microsoft doing away with the Blue Monster; according to Robert Scoble: "@gapingvoid: yeah, someone inside Microsoft killed the Blue Monster. Sigh. Microsoft's committees kill everything cool." The alternative would have been to let the Blue Monster live its own life and retire itself when Microsoft does start changing the world again.
The Observer's Paradox:
Zero Influence points out that "Brand as a Narrative prevents the Brand existing as Embodiment. Brands need to live within the architecture of life, not on the perception plane. Trying to get a purchasing audience to care about a Brand is costly compared to using your Brands affordances to improve the infrastructure of life. In this case giving is cheaper than advertising."
In "The Gift", Lewis Hyde makes this point by describing an English fairy tale of a ...
"... Devonshire man to whom the fairies had given an inexhaustible barrel of ale. Year after year the liquor ran freely. Then one day the man's maid, curious to know the cause of this extraordinary power, removed the cork from the bung hole and looked into the cask; it was full of cobwebs. When the spigot next was turned, the ale ceased to flow.
The moral is this: the gift is lost in self-consciousness. To count, measure, reckon value, or seek the cause of a thing, is to step outside the circle, to cease being 'all of a piece' with the flow of gifts and become, instead, one part of the whole reflecting on another part."
Because life is grainy and each bit, the good and the bad, make up your experience. The things we love most may have lots of defects. When things are too easy, we take them for granted. And when things sound too rosy, we distrust them. And if you look into the source of your gift, you'll lose the shine in your own self-consciousness.
The same thing applies when designing spaces for consumer interaction with your social objects.
"There are two ways of building an institution. One way is to build a jewelry box to present objects and the other one is to conceive of it as an open market where everything is removable and you can change things all the time. ....
I think that maybe the idea of being relevant, of being useful, of being pertinent is more important to artists than just doing something new ....
Ten years ago, it would have been completely impossible to consider a DJ as an artist for example. Now, it's normal. Nobody would even think of saying 'you're already playing pre-existing records, so you're not an artist.' That's vanished. The idea of the artist as a kind of demi-god creating the world from a blank sheet of paper is something that has just vanished from our every day culture. The fact that the DJ or programmer or artist uses already existing forms in order to say what they want to say is something that is certainly the most important thing at the moment because it totally goes beyond the art world."
If you're a brand, consider becoming a DJ with your products and services. There are plenty of examples, including Radiohead's latest album, Amazon's customer service (“Jeff used to say that if you did something good for one customer, they would tell 100 customers”), and Dell's Ideastorm.
So Design for Hackability (pdf file, via PLSJ). Design for play and join your audience. Just don't make it slick and stop your bean-counting, if you want to build engaging experiences with your community around your social objects.
Powered by ScribeFire.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Social objects and the observer's paradox:
Really really really good to see Relational Aesthetics being mentioned within Web2.0ness and Branding.
And the Design for Hackability link is a great find. Thanks.
Posted by: zeroinfluencer | Jan 11, 2008 1:04:27 PM
Fascinating. I am really enjoying and learning from what you write and from the links you provide. Thanks.
I can see my Facebook and Twitter experiences in a more conscious way, and because I am interested in the phenomenology of the experience, as well as the pleasure of the experience, for me there are no cobwebs, and the ale has become fine scotch;-> But that doesn't deny the observer's paradox; in my limited experience, you're really on to something here.
Posted by: Joan Vinall-Cox | Jan 11, 2008 5:01:11 PM
Indeed ... yes ...
What I'm working on right now is how it seems that solipsism, or a sort of solipsism, seems to be the precursor to sycophancy.
Posted by: Ben Tremblay | Jan 13, 2008 5:27:27 PM
Alex, I've finally cleared the decks enough to give your piece part of the attention it deserves.
You've done a masterful job of mapping the territory!
I'm trying to grapple with one part of that; when individuals as citizens are mindful of those who are trying to mislead and manipulate they then very naturally act in ways that at once defend their interests and un-mask the deceiver. (I don't think commercials are evil or anything like that, but the constant association of consumption and blissful happiness ... that's brain-washing.) I'm thinking of the sort of exchange that might take place in a forum of blog where one party is being paid to participate with the sole objective of (what? infecting others with a meme?) pushing a simple agenda. That gives me the jitters, imagining how those I try to meet as peers online might a) be false or b) be cynical because of some previous exchange.
I like this bit from your piece: "To count, measure, reckon value, or seek the cause of a thing, is to step outside the circle, to cease being 'all of a piece' with the flow of gifts" ... I think there are alternatives to being naive and unthinkingly innocent, and yet hope that we can get through our days without becoming too self-consciously skeptical. What concerns me most is that those who are intent on amplifying their interests are so methodical and systematic and even lucid compared to the typical individual ... bearing in mind always that there's nothing necessarily wholesome about marketing techniques.
Meh ... I wanted to leave my mark on this today but feel I've just rambled pointlessly. HeyHo, and so it goes, that's front of mind right at the moment.
FWIW I think heh you've got enough material here to unpack into a whole series!
Posted by: Ben Tremblay | Jan 14, 2008 1:28:10 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.