Carman Pirie's Blog

Social media and cyclicality

Social cycle theories have been around for quite some time, arguing “that events and stages of society and history are generally repeating themselves in cycles”. I see this theory applied to Web 2.0 all the time. At its worst, I’ve heard otherwise reasonably intelligent people say that Web 2.0 is ‘just another channel’.

As I see it, this way of thinking is really quite convenient for many. It provides a certain level of comfort to us… the notion that everything works in cycles, we’ve seen it in some fashion as a society before, and therefore we’re somehow magically, inherently capable of handling the next stage in the cycle as a society with minimal effort. After all, we’ve been there before.

The global warming debate faces this all the time. On one side is a group of people who view global temperature fluctuations as simply cyclical – “we’ve been here before, no reason to worry”. On the other side are the folks who say “we’re collectively impacting our planet on an unprecedented scale, and it’s about to bite us in the ass if we don’t shape up.”

I believe that Web 2.0 is not even evolutionary but, rather, revolutionary. What’s happening on the Internet ‘these days’ and how it progresses will have a dramatic affect on our businesses, our economy overall, and how we organize / interact / come together as human beings. The times they are a-changin’. And it’s still very early days.

Thinking about Web 2.0 in the context of a small, intimate local market is helpful because many choose to behave differently in this situation versus when it is thought nobody is watching. But we shouldn’t be lulled into thinking that Web 2.0 is simply another stage in a grand cycle - that we’ve been here before. I don’t think we have.

Social media and how humans work - take 2

Yesterday's post sparked some interesting comments from Rob Paterson and Mark Dykeman.

In referring to my comparison of a Facebook social graph to the Halifax Farmers' Market, Mark said:

The resemblance between the two pictures would be even stronger if everyone in the Halifax Farmer's Market was wearing a sandwich board that advertised their interests, their friends, and their contributions, much like the stall owners do.

This reminded me of something I heard from Seth Godin recently while watching his new DVD set. Seth was contrasting the way humans historically have processed information as members of tribes versus how we deal with everything in today's connected world. He said (and I'm paraphrasing quite a bit): "When we were in tribes and saw someone who needed help, we knew what to do. Now, we see someone on TV who is in distress and needs help, and we struggle as humans to know what to do with the information."

Then I think of how Hugh has said on occasion that "human beings don't scale" or how Doc Searls quoted a friend a while back saying something to the effect that "while technology may enable you to have 3000 friends, your brain doesn't".

So, I guess I feel that Mark's concept of everyone in the Halifax Farmers' Market wearing a sandwich board advertising their interests, their friends, and their contributions, much like the stall owners do is something we've seen before the days of Web 2.0. In the small town where I grew up, this was exactly the case - although we didn't need the sandwich board. Everybody knew everyone. You knew what they did for a living, their family, their 4th cousin twice removed, etc. Vendors in market stalls knew everyone they served on a first name basis. Everyone. Whether we go back to our tribal days, or simply think back to when we were organized largely in communities of geography, there was a level of connectedness and community that was somewhat baked in.

Perhaps many people viewed Web 1.0 somewhat like a large city - you could go about your business in blissful anonymity. I think it is likely quite useful to think of Web 2.0 more like the small town market where everyone knows each other.... and it seems to me that this is closer to how humans naturally function and interact with each other. What do you think?

Does social media simply amplify the way humans work anyway?

Hugh often cites Clay Shirky's quote:

"So forget about blogs and bloggers and blogging and focus on this -- the cost and difficulty of publishing absolutely anything, by anyone, into a global medium, just got a whole lot lower. And the effects of that increased pool of potential producers is going to be vast."

I find this quote can be quite helpful in presenting Web 2.0 concepts to folks who aren't quite as immersed in the fish bowl (as Mitch calls it) of social media. In some way, I hope it gives groups permission to blue sky about the possibilities being presented by Web 2.0 without getting bogged down in the intricacies of the technology itself.

Clay is releasing another book tomorrow called "Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations". Russell has a nice advance review here.

It is interesting to think about how the Internet is impacting our capacity to collaborate and create with others - both in terms of how things get done and what, exactly, are the things getting done. I recall a discussion with Chris Corrigan some time ago where he suggested that one of the things he loved about blogging is that it enabled him to build connections with other facilitators such that when they finally meet in-person as part of a hosting team, they can move into the core of their work together much more quickly.

I think that, in many ways, Web 2.0 simply amplifies they way we work and organize as humans anyway. It is actually a lot more natural than many skeptics would initially consider. Here's a pic of a Facebook user's friends network / social graph:

And here's a picture of Halifax's Farmers' Market:

I think the similarities here are much more than simply visual.

Are you still paid to interrupt?

Hat tip: Brij Singh

On March 18th, Ad Age’s Digital Marketing conference in NYC gets underway. That afternoon, one conference session will be dedicated to digital screens. The session description on their site reads: “Screens, Screens Everywhere Digital screens are cropping up in the most unlikely places, from bars to gas pumps to airports.”

It seems that this is the approach a lot of marketers (or perhaps, more specifically, advertisers) take towards new technology – they use it to interrupt people in slightly new ways. Flat panel TVs can be placed almost anywhere, so the advertising world decides that they should be placed most everywhere.

My bet is that, in many situations, these are rather unwelcome distractions. Case in point: Irving Oil, here in Atlantic Canada, rolled out audio attachments to their gas pumps a few years back. Once you started pumping, the ads started streaming. Until, of course, you turned it off. Or, as one gas attendant told me here in Halifax, some people went so far as to beat the device off of the pump and throw it in the trash.

As we move ever closer to reaching peak attention, I think many marketers find themselves half-pregnant. While they may understand that permission-based community participation / engagement is a better way, they’re still paid to interrupt.

The right not to be talked to

I think it was perhaps last week's edition of CBS's 60 minutes that covered a story about Denmark being the happiest country on the planet. In what I am certain was a dramatic over-simplification of the matter, the report juxtaposed a collection of rather sombre looking Danes against research suggesting they're the happiest people on earth, and surmised that it was as a result of low-expectations that Danes find themselves so happy - on the inside, at least.

As the report continued, it struck upon an interesing chord. It explained how Danish culture has developed to include a collection of non-verbal cues that allow Danes to navigate public situations without having to speak. The example used spoke of a person rattling his or her shoulder bag on the bus as a way of saying "This is my stop. I need to get off the bus now. Please get out of my way." Expounding further, the reporter suggested that this was part of Danish tradition... that we all have a right not to be talked to.

As a marketer, that last bit really hit home. The right not to be talked to. How would our business change if we actually believed this and lived this way?

It seems that our industry has evolved in many ways to say that it's alright to interrupt people, provided you're creative / entertaining in how you do it. I think that Web 2.0 is beginning to open up the opportunity for marketers to begin to practice their craft in a new and different way. It is giving us the opportunity to guide companies into active participation in communities such that it diminishes our 'need' to interrupt and enhances our 'requirement' to simply be of service.

It may be a long way from accepting a universal right not to be talked to, but it's a start.

Superbowl ads meet social media