This is not just a blog about explaining social mood or some me-too effort at what other people call socionomics. I have considerable regard and respect for those efforts. They are distinct in many ways from what I am doing**. Having spent years within earshot of those on Madison Avenue and having always appreciated behavioral science, this approach to "seeing" social mood is, at the very least, a required effort for two reasons: First, the goal of any good science effort is to break down an area of interest into the basic structural components so that the general understanding surrounding the subject has greater utility. Second, the general approach I suggest is really an adaptation of watching those use the original tool from market observations that generated this subject of social herding relative to social mood.
In my own thinking, behavioral expressions by groups (markets) of people that exhibit polarity are critical to better understanding of how to use these ideas in a practical setting. When I distill the ideas I've collected over four years on a cork board, this is where I am at currently. It's not quite clear enough yet, but, it's getting closer:
Social trends are threads of shared memory as they relate to key (shared) values.They have form and follow a path. Shared social values have a base polarity that swing over different time horizons from one relative extreme to another in a manner that reflects (some degree of trend) of the larger social mood and these influence social trends we see around us. Trend lines visible in data driven depictions are evidence of the shared memory of crowds (markets) and can (when properly used) be early evidence of how changing shared values will impact specific markets. This is the usable aspect of what I call the Root Trend or (the behavioral shadow projected by us as a result of our natural expression of social mood). How we value many things changes as social mood changes.
Stated up in the mast of the blog too: This matters to marketers.
Alas, it remains (for now) a little too hip for the room. And while changing social mood may assist the current mindset by raising the need to know during the next phase of the social correction, I also am endeavoring here to offer another very specific example of how polarity among shared values within trending issues can guide outcomes.
The media thread in the right column became its own blog 18 months ago and is also a developing book. I've mentioned this before and am still hard at work on it. (It's definitely not in danger of being late though 2010 is a firm goal.)
In the meantime, here's a specific example of an important social trend with polarity that we may all watch develop.
Two posts ago I wrote:
More on the link between social mood and consumer behavior: the most basic social expressions
In this post I discussed the polarity of trust from the group perspective. (You really do have to see that post, and most everything here, from the perspective of groups or else it can be misinterpreted.) As social animals we naturally employ trust as a tool but, as social mood changes how we specifically apply the tool changes with the polarity being differing degrees of cooperation and control. "Cooperation" and "control" are the polarity in the social trust trend and so how groups of people express this polarity depends upon the degree of trend of the larger social mood and how much change occurs in this central social state (of Americans).
Let's take it a step further and identify one more trend with polarity of expression in two dimensions.
Even if you are not in the media business you cannot help be aware of how much trouble the industry is having because of the disruptive effects of the internet upon the basic business model. Businesses are social tools we create to deliver both personal value and social utility. There are two trends running through the media business and social sphere right now that may seem different but they are really different expressions of the same core value. IP or intellectual property rights are, according to media companies (content businesses), under siege. Technology has conspired to un-protect their business model when it remained naturally protected for many decades. Adaption to this disruption has come slowly and in the meantime profitability has declined. Many blame what they call theft of their IP. I submit it is a natural reaction to supply and demand issues where we are collectively re-pricing the socially recognized value of content. (admittedly, it is hard to use a macro trend to square any one experience)
The second trend to recognize is the erosion of personal privacy of individuals in the US due to this same technology expansion. This trend became a big issue at the social nadir in 2003 and 2004 then it began receding. It will come back as the larger social trend is expressed and, in time, we will see the IP trend as a business expression of the same general trend that the personal privacy trend represents. The core shared value in this case is how we value Ownership rights (towards intangibles). To me, this is the key to using what I call the root trend. Identifying social trending issues using changing shared values (that have obvious polarity) can also help determine what degree of trend carries what implications (historically). Using our history as a guide, we can pair developing issues to likely directional outcomes over larger chunks of time. By approaching trending issues from this broad angle, it is less about prediction and more about understanding the present social momentum better (in a larger/longer framework)..."what really matters to the market".
It is my conviction that many businesses get lost in the white noise of the moment in order to service their immediate needs and can lose touch with their most relevant constituencies by trying to maximize the moment. Since I know enough about the media business to appreciate how this happened, I offer an example of why this trend viewing method should be learned and applied for better strategic outcomes in times of social change. (like right now)
The typical publicly owned media business serves three masters. The share holder, the advertiser or sponsor, and the consumer of their content. The conflict of interest is too much in a changed world with a digital environment. Fundamentally, you can say that there is balance missing from the business structure. Trend-wise, you can say that the new trend where consumers of content exert their need for Choice is paramount (The Era of Choice is media's dominant trend). The psychology of the market for content tells us, if we listen closely, that the social trend is more powerful than the legal issues surrounding sharing content (Media is a higher order social tool). Structurally, the market for content is forever changed absent significant new technology.
So, where does that leave us right now?! Ownership rights. Eventually the IP concerns of media companies will be somehow paired with personal privacy concerns and the market for content will respond with solutions that address these needs as one trend when it matters enough in the macro social environment. <The fact that it will is a benefit of seeing what is called the degree of trend as it relates to aggregate social mood.>
This observation highlights why trend studies must focus upon societal boundaries. Ownership issues, when they arise, will be discussed as they relate to the laws in a specific country.I also suspect that the laws of different states in the years ahead will matter to both people and businesses a great deal too. Google's China issues this week are a great example. (The third link below is good for these general kinds of discussions)
For now, just try to see how issues like personal privacy concerns and IP can be two differing expressions of the same shared value, and why this issue may become as central to people in the US now as it was 233 years ago when we created our founding agreement.
Large periods of social correction are all about groups focusing on those issues <shared values> that matter most and bind a people together.They must be changed or reaffirmed. Shared values, in a social context, guide us on how to see trend issues more clearly in markets of people. Dave
**ps. After reading this post you might wonder again where this may be going. Eventually, this work can and will be broken into small enough pieces so as to create a distinct subject called social trending dynamics. Eventually, many good things can grow from that effort.
as always, here are links for those interested in looking deeper at where these ideas began:
Comments