on "Hidden Persuaders"

The first rule of anthropology is that simply observing can change the interactions of the observed. This is not true for say, gravity. To dissect and describe and understand nature and its laws does not change its fundamental truth. But to study a society or determine the rules of social interactions seems to have a very real influence on it. In the case of underground marketing, it seems that knowingly following social rules destroys the very foundation of social interactions.

In truth, everyone always has an agenda. Even small talk at a cocktail party is layered on top of a bargain: trading information for entertainment or a listening ear to build your own reputation. Ulterior motives need not be sinister, and indeed most of what motivates us remains unspoken and therefore hidden.

Information is power. Weak ties have great strength. To influence is to feel we have worth. We like what we know. Few would refute these as basic elements of social psychology. But when individuals and the companies they work for use these to profit, people get nervous.

It may be that leaving those motivations unspoken- even refusing to acknowledge them to ourselves- keeps our actions that much more genuine. When BzzAgents choose to volunteer to buzz a product, they are forced to acknowledge to themselves that they are, in a less-than-upfront way, using their social connections to benefit corporations. It's obvious they're not totally comfortable with this, because they don't disclose the full story of how they "discovered" whatever product they're talking up. Because most individuals are not completely comfortable with admitting that they're voluntarily using their social skills to bring profit to an outside company, the agents defend themselves by professing a very real attachment to the product they are pushing. Psychologists might argue that this is a byproduct of cognitive dissonance: we rationalize our behavior until it seems to align with our preferences and values. But clearly, it's the buzz and not the product that keeps the agents coming back.

Objectively, these agents are nothing but unpaid peons. But their individual experiences seem to be about empowerment- BzzAgency gives them control over new information and the opportunity to disperse it as they see fit. To the producers, the agents are free labor- and maybe it's only the directive of discussing the product with strangers rather than friends which gives this army of volunteers any mobility or influence. Weak ties are stronger, in terms of spreading information, than intimate circles, because those who are closest to you already know just about everything you do. So the companies see boosted sales and the volunteers get some social currency. Maybe BzzAgency is the real winner.

The question of how influential "normal" vs. "magic" people are is an interesting one. Credibility matters, but only as a means of preventing angry backlash. In truth, just hearing the message is valuable, and it's most of the battle for advertisers. Both average and exceptional talkers probably do comparable jobs of earning their target's mind share when they speak. For certain products, like tech gadgets, some trendiness will go a long way. But for others, just being able to talk about it is "street cred" enough. After all, chicken sausage is lower in fat than pork sausage whether you hear it from the lead singer of an indie band or the shift manager at your local Starbucks. Seeing someone drink a certain brand of seltzer can make me thirsty, regardless of what brand of jeans the person is wearing.

Word of mouth is not, as Seth Godin claims, "a new kind of media." People talk. People talk about products. The fact that it's not new is the only reason buzz marketing can be underground- it's not unusual; the agents blend in with everyone else that's doing it. The business behind the buzz- the development of guidelines and the attempts to direct it- is what's new. And while underground marketing attempts may be a little sketchy or surprising, I don't think that following social rules for profit has any real or damaging effect on the fundamental existence of social currency.

Modernity and the Consumption of Ideas

The “vertigo of existence” is simply Berman’s way of saying “angst.” I’ve experienced my share of it, too—that feeling of your foundation sweeping away when your worldview is confronted, my stomach falling away when a relationship goes sour, a sudden light-headedness when you stand up too fast after a philosophical debate.

Those who opt out of our self-centered modernity—or those who pretend to—distinguish themselves as ‘emo’ or ‘nonconformist’ with long, eye-shielding hair and black nail polish. They spend their consumer dollars on band t-shirts at Hot Topic instead of blazers at J. Crew, and they still seem convinced it’s the world vs. them.

Why are we in such a rush to define ourselves? Why is it- sincerely- so hard to float through life? Entering and existing relationships with objects, places, and people give us vague data points on the role with play in the world. Intimacy with other human beings pierces through the things we consume, but we consume together to build intimacy.

Even subscribing to certain beliefs or values is consuming a message—existentially the same as buying into a brand’s image.

You can try too hard, but it’s not really possible to stop trying, unless you are seriously depressed and spend your time sobbing in bed instead of putting on clotehs and walking to class. After all, putting on any kind of clothing (or lack thereof) is inviting others to judge you and the signs you’re sending into society.

The good news is that you do define yourself- do you smile or sigh when you get out of bed? Get coffee or tea in the morning? Flip flops or Ugg boots with your sweatpants? Plastic sunglasses or Ray Ban aviators or Tom Ford investment pieces?

And then others ask questions and judge your decisions. Who were you spotted with this weekend? Were you sloppy drunk or stone sober Are you a fixture in the library or a social butterfly?

And there are the questions we all, inevitably, grapple with ourselves: Who am I? Who do I want to be? What kind of story do I want to tell?

On “Learning How to Consume”: I didn’t have to.

Laermans writes about the feminization of consumption and the socialization of consumption, and as someone who is female and social and who shamelessly enjoys consuming I take serious issue with how this part of my existence is labeled.

As humans, there are a lot of things we know- some of these we are explicitly taught, some we have learned from experience, and some we seem to genetically understand.

It's true that I know a lot about how to consume, and I recognize that a significant part of that is taught to me by marketers and other "social messengers". I'm willing to spend $5 on a fashion magazine that is essentially a handbook for consumption: it will tell me which brands I should be emulating, which shampoo Kate Hudson uses. I was certainly taught that Bottega Veneta is to be lusted after, and that Yves Saint Laurent was an artistic genius.

There are also things I’ve learned myself: how to navigate a sales rack or where to park at the mall. That shopping at the same stores as your friends- but always for different items- is a good way to know you are dressing acceptably.

But I am still convinced that as an individual, there are things about shopping that I simply get- that no one taught me, that I didn’t have to learn. It’s simply not true that development of the department store or the mall turned consumption into a social thing. Consumption has been social since cavemen hunted and cavewomen gathered and families sat down to eat together. More recently, town centers- centers based on a market, on commerce- served as social magnets long before King of Prussia became an international shopping destination.

As for the feminization of consumption? Like anything, gender lines are blurry and there are men who like to shop and women who don’t. The “metrosexual” phenomenon was the byproduct of advertising, and its death a few years later is perhaps a testament to the weakness of trends in the face of genetics. Truly, I think women’s tendency to shop is just a byproduct of the fact that women bond with each other verbally, and wandering through stores is a great venue for conversation. It’s a psychological fact that women say more words every day than men do. So let the men play video games and grunt and let women wander with their credit cards. Clearly, Mr. Macy did not set my internal verbal barometer higher when he built his legendary New York store.