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.