The Root Trend

post note: This is posted on the media blog (link to the right here) but the trend point makes more sense here as it is something I have watched and considered for a long time.

Choice is an obvious general trend that reflects how the nature of demand for content is changing because of the digital environment after a very long time, (centuries?), of the opposite circumstances through the various media. It has always helped me to see Choice as a very large social pivot point relative to technology and content; affecting our use of media in many ways.  Social shows us it goes beyond scheduling and will have more dynamics to express.  Add the context of changing social mood and the potential for this trend to impact commerce broadly and in ways not previously imagined is worth noting. That stated, what follows is purely my opinion.

About-Face

Does your business sell advertising to generate revenue?

Is that dynamic creating a conflict with primary customers in order to serve
secondary customers? Who are your primary customers, exactly? Are they
consumers or other businesses?

The time has come to make clear distinctions between customers, their needs
and values, and secondary constituencies.

Why now?

The market dynamic that can be called Choice has taken us here along with
social mood. The long era of broadcast effectively began closing with the
advent of digital networks of connected people. The result, the market
dynamic I call Choice, will now increasingly require a distinction to be
made by enterprises. This would not be necessary in a world without Choice.

Businesses will not change to mirror this overnight but because the nature
of some transactions has changed forever, we are now slowly moving to this
end.

The consistent expression of Choice will be impacted by social mood and
result in changes to commerce requiring many new kinds of specialization.

So, the question is likely: which customer will you decide to face down and
which will you serve by aligning your world view (and actions) with theirs?

The need to ask this question is new because just as the times change, so
does how we value things and ideas of all kinds. Choice will eventually
require a decision by content oriented enterprises (and others too) that
have multiple kinds of customers with conflicting demands. Glossy ideals
about anticipating digital customer's needs better will be re-framed inside
of this new movement. (It may seem early for this larger trend but, it is
morning.)

To truly know your primary customer and to engage them in a manner that
serves you both well, requires trust be established and maintained without
the help of legalese. Choice will, in the changing light of shared social
values, force businesses to make important distinctions.

In coming years markets will demand that enterprises choose which customer
to face. There will be opportunity and limitations in either choice because
this is a fundamental change that will shape other decisions and business
dynamics.

If the choices your enterprise makes puts it at odds with the primary
customers then,

About-Face!

This first era of social reaction in the digital age will be different than
many expect but do not think this is an argument about one kind of company.
The digital ecosystem will interact with changing social perceptions and shared values to force incremental & ongoing specialization upon the entire business model.

Last thought: on the media blog, I posted this under the trending category, "permission and accountability".  Consider that a primary thread developing inside of Choice. 

current links in this thread of trending after the jump...Last add 11 16 11

Longer term trending shapes intermediate changes

This post is a timely example of how some short term noise is part of a much longer term process. It's a longer read again, but is worth it.

Making the case for using socionomics in business with an example

Post summary:

Longer term social trend development can be visualized, with the aid of relevant medium term issues that fit in a general hierarchy of social responses experienced (collectively) by large groups as the developing social mood moves through its own cycles. This is not intended to be exacting (like a calendar) but it is much more practical than you may imagine, especially if you are in a particular business and looking for catalyzing events. 

*

The current explosion in privacy concerns has its roots in social mood (very generally) and more recently as experienced back in the early part of last decade between late 2001-2003.That time was an important low in social mood that produced hints about today’s newly observed reactions and beyond. Also important, in a much longer time frame, is how matters related to general privacy are written into our social charter with varying levels of specificity.

One fundamental lesson socionomics offers us in seeing social trends is to always begin from far back as possible to gain a larger perspective on where the trend fits amongst other group processes going on in the society. We are each a product of our individual society and are greatly influenced by the specific concerns and groups processes happening there both now and over longer time frames that we may (individually) only acknowledge generally but not talk about regularly. It is the connection between short term events and long term developments that challenge us all the most but like any long division problem, there are general ways to reduce the problem to the larger influences and then use those to visualize your enterprise in that specific trending depiction.

An example I have monitored follows:

"That will never happen here!"

note** This is a long Post. I make it a practice of leaving everything up after posting it since this blog is published in the spirit of an ongoing journal.  This post reflects on big picture (long term) trending processes as they relate to freedom of expression and privacy issues here in the US. These issues are important to me because I have tried to see how their very probable development will impact other practical matters in areas related to business. The post title reflects on how, sometimes, extremes in the polarity of social trends creates the belief that previous kinds of events, already experienced, will never happen again like that here. Socionomics and social mood is your window into liklihood when you can find and use the correct historical context for specific trending issues.

Social Mood Versus Social Media; how to anticipate granular change

see post note added at end  as well as link previously added  1 10 12

 

Large scale social change is a remarkable thing.

This blog is about a model for seeing change. It is about a tool that offers trending insight to large groups of people. Social mood, the primary social trend, operates at this level and it is here that it can be used to orient us to seeing why groups and our tools experience incremental changes at varying rates.

The socionomic model is a way to organize distinct trends in social change. It allows us to sort seemingly disparate changes based on subtle, shared beliefs that impact behavior. I often refer to these, here, as shared values.  

The mass adoption of social media tools like Facebook and Twitter in the US has had an underlying set of assumptions (shared values) attached, very generally, to these endeavors. It is important to recognize them in case any of them begin changing:  everyone is a potential friend, sharing is good, and more is better have been widely reflected in our US culture for many, many decades. So it's not surprising that when the initial open invite of social platforms turned to active marketing to sustain the impressive growth, we saw these shared values reflected to us in varied messages.

The wonder of our new connectedness using social media is unprecedented but even that becomes boring after hearing it many times. What is important now is how we might use this perspective to witness real granular change in the robust trend called social media.

Social Media tools will Continue Evolving With Our Shared Outlooks

This was posted at my media blog. Social mood, as a topic, comes up less often over there but is always in the background of the seemingly chaotic change. At the root of all the certainty in all things social media these days is something very malleable.

American Needs for Transparency & Privacy During this Social Correction

During 2010 I had conversations that suggested others did not see my point why broad social trending patterns would increasingly emphasize privacy needs as the US navigates deeper through the unfolding social correction. I'll admit I have been thinking about this trending dynamic with regard to one specific business challenge so I have ignored the other polarity.  Now, let's address it more broadly: The migration towards greater privacy needs will not be absolute, nor will it be one sided. It will, however, be increasingly expressed as a growing concern in specific cases and it will be openly discussed as we (collectively) decide where changes are needed.

In the past I have posted about the polarity of shared values.

The socially valued idea of transparency versus privacy needs are a good example of a kind of polarity...each being a generalized expression at one end of a spectrum. At any one point in time in the US both of these valued concepts have appropriate expressions in the social conventions and structures we build when gathered into various sized groups.

It is not hard to imagine many examples as you adjust your perspective to see how both are needed and valued in different endeavors that impact people and groups of all kinds in our country. For instance:

During the 1990's and the last decade we sanctioned many laws as a country that effectively allowed business enterprises to conceal their practices in order to compete more effectively in their markets. During the financial crisis that began quietly in August of 2007 (lack of) transparency immediately became a negative factor that hurt institutions and individual investors alike and by the end of 2009 our Congress was hard at work to repeal rules that allowed financial cloaking and were perceived anew to be bad for us (collectively).

Also during the late 1990's American individuals began migrating chunks of their lives on line. This was years before social media arrived and exploded this tendency exponentially.  We see benefits in sharing and this dynamic continues to spread today around the world.

In this broad dual example I have offered, I see a reversal (of sorts) coming. If you are a reader who appreciates wave principle then you probably understand why the business sectors previously excused from disclosure will be yanked back into the public light over coming years. You may or may not intuit how this social dynamic on an individual level may also be corrected, only not back to where it began.  

As social mood swings from positive to negative (at various degrees of trend) we see social trends of all different shapes and sizes accelerate and sometimes reverse to correct the previous growth.

Various industry watchers can already see how the pressure to disclose hidden business practices perceived as potentially harmful to the economy has grown and will grow more as (and if) negative surprises continue to arrive. Likewise, the 'sharing is good' mantra given to us by social media platforms will not disappear; instead, corrective values that go beyond today's commonsense will develop and incremental rules will be adopted along with formalities that did not figure in the early rush to build expansive networks.

The dynamic I think most worth considering is how these opposing expressions of different levels of socially shared values are opposites that will essentially develop at the same time. To me, this is the value of seeing a social correction as a distinct group process on the level of a society.  The larger group (our nation as a whole) will be deciding important questions along the lines of critical shared values and this process will also happen in different sized chunks as you observe different parts of the our whole navigate the social correction. 

So what I see happening based on shifting polarities in our shared values is how we will move the public sector to be more open and transparent about their activities (businesses in order to protect the public from negative uncertainty); and I also see the public, (on the level of the individual) operating with much more discretion and formality as they correct the growth in digital sharing (also based on negative uncertainty). The perceived need for these will develop over the next decade in parallel fashion but the point is how negative social mood will drive opposite changes in perception.

These opposing flip flops in shared values (both public and private) will serve important roles as we collectively organize for future social expansion. That all of these expressions are somehow governed by wave principle is fascinating but so is how this general observation of directional change will affect how some important businesses serve their markets. 

This kind of base level change in shared perception can change key behaviors and have profound influences on large markets of consumers. It can and may shift giant waves of profit in other directions and be seen to shift business models away from tried and true practices.

"What really matters?" changes as social mood changes.

Back near Thanksgiving I wrote here about the public griping about the TSA's new screening methods and how this issue really mattered so, people were likely to put up and shut up. I also noted how the reactions to these kinds of trade offs would produce equal and opposite reactions in places where consumers can take control back.  Persistent negative biased uncertainty is capable of changing a lot and producing conformity where it is needed. It can also divert an entire market of consumers from established routines. It's worth adding this set of ideas to your planning.

 What do you have to lose ? 

Consider this NYT Editorial Personal Privacy and the Right to Know 2 07 11

An often and easily overlooked feature of this blog is how I update many posts by populating link threads on the trending idea as it is currently being expressed, (at the top and bottom of posts) especially if I am forecasting a specific set of behaviors. The August 1st post (2010) was titled The Approaching Public Discussions re Free Speech and Privacy. (use that link or the blog archives)  Wow, a lot has transpired in this social realm of shared values since that posting. The entire WikiLeaks controversy and the derivative questions around it are begging to be included: Is aggregation of diplomatic or corporate secrets by itself really journalism? What is Journalism? Are there reasonable expectations of privacy, and to whom?  What is the difference between spying and journalism? Freedom of Speech yes but, what happens if it puts our people around the world in harms way? These are tough questions and the answers are increasingly polarized with intense shouting from both sides. 

I suggest you read or re-read the August 1st post from last year and consider this too:  How we generally see these questions right now will change in the next year. As social mood changes, how we value things changes, sometimes a lot in a short period of time. Socionomics gives us characterization of events, directionality, and sometimes it will tell us when to expect significant rates of change to collective perceptions. Most of all, remember, social mood is a moving average of collective behavior and perceptions. It is not about one outcome (or one point in time) but the path we collectively take as we create our social experience as a free people. The trending point at the end of that post makes the longer read worth it. Dave

note: after posting this early Saturday, the events of this weekend in the west are disheartening but point right to this thread.  One link in particular, less than 24 hours later, questions the price of Free Speech in political discourse.  My only observation for now is that in the same way shared values tend to be polarized in their expressions over time, the costs & benefits associated with various freedoms tend to cut in two directions as well. The stories that continue to emerge tonight (Sunday eve.) are troubling. May civility prevail.

 

The Value of Seeing Social Trends from a Broad Organizing Framework

Type in the word "trends" or "trending" to the search box at Amazon and you will see many titles for reading. Do it on Lexis Nexis and you will find an almost endless supply of mixed quality reading. I can count on my fingers the number of times I've actually used my saved college text books. The critical question I am aiming for is this: What makes for usefulness and applicability in seeing valuable solutions to social trending challenges faced when serving diverse markets of people?  The very same question can be asked as it relates to making important life decisions regarding  the changing values/concerns of the people we live amongst. One more critical question is this: If attempting to time social trends is a less desirable forecasting method, then what exactly makes the socionomic model both an authority and useful for widespread adoption and application? 

The answer is two-fold: directionality and the increased ability to gauge the character of events.

Anyone can write a book about any one trend or social issue and get you to spend $9 - $19 on seeing solutions to that one (often highly generalized) challenge. That is a big part of what keeps Amazon in the book business.  Socionomics hands you a complete framework to see the big picture of social trends and developing (social) issues. It is not a manual of simple solution to limited choices. It offers a framework. "Seeing" social mood allows you to organize many broad based trends for viewing from the top down of a society.  If you are a person with an already developed deep insight into a specific market(s) then this model is worth the time to understand it because it will add to your overall perspective and decision making simply by reading a book or two.

Social trends have an engine that is best described as aggregate social mood. The link between social mood and specific social trends is generalized but highly directional (and often not intuitive). Still, the framework socionomics gives us to see social trends is more than enough if we are already immersed in the challenges associated with specific markets and trying to see a few steps farther in a decision making challenge. Layers of complexity and competing interests in markets often develop themes that are a result of changing social mood and these seemingly chaotic turns can often be put into the context of 'what really matters most'. How we value things changes as social mood changes and that is the engine of social trending.

Wave principle gave us social mood and social mood gave us the socionomic perspective. In an age when intricate models using complex mathematics failed us spectacularly, the broad impulse by many suggests we should rely heavily on established common sense than to be willing to read and think more deeply about solving specific challenges. Increasingly, our content consumption must distill the complex and add value in fewer pages and paragraphs. This challenge potentially eliminates many worthy ideas from consideration.

Social trends are a function of large groups of people expressing (on some level) a set of shared values that are reflected in all social trends. Financial markets are wondrous if only because they give us detailed insight over time into the subtleties of changing shared values.  They do this not only through pricing mechanisms but also by way of many participation metrics. Other kinds of social endeavors do not offer such a detailed view and as we leap from financial markets to other social trends, this clarity can only be gained if you accept how shared social values are any market's attempt to convey what really matters most at one point in time...even when detailed insight is not automatically aggregated by a market.  And as social mood changes what we value changes....how we value it changes. Again, when these values are not denominated in money then the challenge grows seemingly more complex toward the qualitative. I have addressed these points many times here in general and they are discussed in much greater detail in the books that discuss socionomics. 

The sound bite culture we have immersed ourselves in is weak on the discovery of these ideas.  Sometimes, frameworks for broad and valuable insight require considerable background even if your interest using them is to remain focused on one specific area (market) of interest. 

Socionomics sounds as if it is highly specialized but in reality it is a very broad subject area waiting to be applied generally by people who simply want to understand how specific trends can and may impact their decision making in the years directly ahead.

I woke this AM to read a forecast of the coming explosion in smart phone adoption and the considerably lower prices that should follow this trend very soon. We saw this kind of development in both desktop PC's and laptops over the past decade. The small screen is apparently about to have its moment and that will affect how and what people see.  This trend is even more important because it will be the primary means of access for many hundreds of millions of people (billions eventually?) in the next phase of the information age as participation overall ramps up. Wireless network capacity is a huge issue right now but apparently some smart people think it will be overcome as markets develop quickly.

The adoption of technology is affected by changing social mood, not the other way around. As social mood changes how we view many shared ideas that are delivered through this technology, the very tools we desire most to use will be shaped by these changing values amongst the masses. It will also shape how businesses employ this technology (lagging these shared values) to serve us incremental needs on the small screen.

Knowing that smart phones with internet access will become ubiquitous soon is a good thing. Knowing that social mood will shape how people, on average, consume these opportunities over time is even more powerful. Cheaper prices and better discovery are almost always attractive to people. The dynamics of a social correction and the trending we (collectively) create during social corrections will shape this process even more and in many cases determine winners and losers at a time when it will be common to assume that changing technology is what really drives the process on the path it is now engaged (otherwise known as trend line extrapolation). The value of seeing social mood and socionomics is in how it can deliver sense making themes that matter to markets of people when the speed of changing events seems to be uneven. Understanding social mood and wave principle tells us something very clearly: Sometimes incremental events seem to speed up and other times they may be more consistent or even run more slowly. Sometimes, just knowing directionality and comparative rates of expected change will make a monumental difference in the decisions an enterprise is faced with making. That is the value of this set of ideas and it is worth some deeper reading to get to them as we approach 2011. Happy New Year! Dave

What really matters to flyers today? And what parts will matter next year?

a new link added at end of post 2 22 11.

 

The editorial in the WP today called Don't Touch My Junk is emblematic of these recent months. But what does it really say about social mood? Better yet; what does social mood suggest to us about the awkward balance between social discord and felt safety needs right now...and where will this drive our shared values to change?

Keeping in mind the federal government's actions are a lagging indication of mood, and that x-ray body scanners at airports took years to be implemented after the social impulse happened, I have a slightly different take on events in this arena. This isn't a forecast.  It is a subtle adjustment in my own thinking lately and am waiting to see if, as I suspect, coming events will shed more insight soon.

I worked several subway stops south of 14th St in Manhattan in 2001. That fall offered my first real example of socially shared fear. I remember well how I had never seen sensed it before and it was recognizable even if it was suppressed by way of the typical NY culture. It eventually faded.

The latest shouting in the media about groping and snickering scanner techs in airports is, in my mind, a result of overall conflicting pressure on mood trends. The longer trend for mood is down and that trend is reflected by the implementation of scanners in airports (and pat downs for those who want to be even angrier). The shorter trend that reflects growing(?) social insistence to be free from close scrutiny and monitoring....or waxing social mood (from already depressed levels) effects that seem to discount the existence of the very real safety fears that put all this into motion. Put it to a national vote and I am sure you would see discord in the results with safety winning. (how big are the groups complaining, really? I do have no idea) I am open to changing this view. Maybe discord is just discord while the long term concerns remain currently muted. The point, to me, is that fighting about pat downs (and the news of it becoming mainstream) would seem to indicate, in some part, a waxing social mood but in the overall context of a social correction. (and is this just self fullfilling thinking based on the longer outlook?, time may tell)

What does this suggest?  The best I can articulate right now: Some trends reflect longer cycles of social mood and some trending expressions reflect social mood in the shorter term cycles; think of the way that scanners took a few years to have been made and then implemented at airports nationwide once perceived to be needed.

Despite the few nut job extremists lighting shoes and or their underwear with a chemical called PETN, people do not all feel incredibly threatened right now. Why not? That stuff is apparently worthy of doing the job with an airliner if there is enough of it. So then, why are we not lining up and shutting up at airports?  We did, in fact, demand the feds do something to protect us 9 years ago, and so far two Presidents have responded with lots of our money thrown at the big challenges. As far as my reading tells me, we've also stopped quite a few attempts as well. The real complaint by people now is how airport screening is ineffective but if it were, would we really be writing about how and why it was?

Privacy, especially as it is complained about here, is a complicated mix of felt needs...with safety concerns over at one end of the spectrum that we are not expressing right now, whereas airliner safety fear is very easy to understand. What did happen to that flight over the Atlantic from Brazil to France? Was it really lightning? (why does it not matter more?) What if that shoe bomb had worked in blowing out the window? Would "keeping your seat belt fastened while seated" be enough in that instance like in some movies? Are these questions really so ridiculous? I understand the burqa feud in France and expect it to eventually spread universally when/if social mood deepens as much as expected in a cycle degree social correction. It is easy to see what I am speculating and, my question is why did we stop collectively speculating that way? We did not forget the past. Why is the Washington Post editorial relevant to a broad audience today where it would have been quickly dismissed as inappropriate only a year or two ago?

It is this last thought that brings me to a temporary conclusion as we all look on these layers of social trending as they happen. Despite sharp (upward) retracements (in some sociometers) that might indicate improving social mood, we are (most likely) in the middle of a large social correction that will dominate socially shared values for years. Safety needs related to fear of physical danger are right there at the base of Maslow's hierarchy of needs along with food, and basic sanitation.  My point is that these current social expressions using words and outrage is temporary, even if pervasive this month, and that scanners and pat downs will be very welcome elements in our future, and probably for a long time to come if this is such a large social correction. This will not happen because we suddenly look back and remember 2001. It will happen because our outlook toward future uncertainty will align one way or the other as it trends directionally with social mood. Again, the longer cycles (patterns) of social mood strongly suggest which way this will happen.

Periods of deep social correction are historically shown to produce the "the greater good" mantra. You can see this at several points in US (& world) history.  When this phrase is used by leaders, it is often a time that leads to demands for social sacrifice. In a very small way, this is really where we are at right now in the airport screening issue...only we are here today because of what happened during the past nine+ years. We are being asked (we are asking ourselves) to line up and put up with the inconvenience of the screening process because of collective decisions we made a long time ago.  This fight we see emerging into the headlines this month (coming from both leaders and everyday travelers) is clearly a form of social outrage but, it is focused in a manner that completely discounts how and why we collectively arrived here. How is it that the impulse to spend billions for safety at airports nationwide was so great and yet, somehow, today the slights of snickering screeners, aggressive pat downs, and the exclusion of shower kits feels like one too many sacrifices for so many people?

Bottom line: Social mood is changing a lot in short periods of time lately whereas many other times the changes have felt more gradual.  This reality is often part of social corrections. Our (the US') collective perception of uncertainty is in transition. Reality is what we (collectively) say it is any week or month and, "Don't Touch My Junk" feels perfectly justified right now to a growing group in the mainstream. I got on a big commercial plane in mid September 2001 that was empty but for fifteen paying fliers. I did not know anything about social mood back then but it felt understandable to me and others (back then) that no one was flying out of fear. Those weeks were certainly ones when this subject could have helped many people understand & cope with the change better. Right now, the upswing in mood is encouraging many to forget threats that are still present, not in theory but in current factual existence.

In the meantime, this view suggests that if/when social mood turns down again, that social feelings toward these superficial privacy issues (over airport screenings) will disappear quickly for the same reasons editors stopped this subject from surfacing only a year ago as frustrations for fliers began to build.  I've written often in the past year about privacy trends here. It is a complicated topic because it really depends on where and how collective perceptions are applied. During a longer and sharper correction in social mood we will see compromises in the shared values that comprise privacy concerns and each concern will be affected differently.  Some shared concerns will advance and some will lose ground depending upon where the individual is empowered versus where sacrifice for the greater good is required. There is no doubt in my mind that everyone will line up and shut up as soon as any threat is perceived.

Likewise, commercial enterprises had better be set to face consumers tired of making these sacrifices in their privacy where their information is concerned. Social backlash is not only possible, it is a good bet that it will be the equal and opposite reaction balancing these shared feelings (to some extent). US consumers will cede control where it is needed and will take control where it is possible. This is fair warning to many businesses that what is ok today may not be next year in this realm of all-things-privacy related. As social mood changes, how we value things changes (and sometimes, a lot in a short time).

Personally, I find the headlines this month relating to screening outrage to be strange but then I have not been traveling regularly lately.  Taken in the aggregate, it does seem to fit a rising mood trend is cutting into the longer term trend right now. It may seem like a frivolous issue (to some people) but I think it is a good indication of social mood and the cross currents at this moment.

Let's watch it over the coming months.

 Ron Paul says "something must be done!" about the airport screening process

 The TSA sticks to it plans and says "oh yes you will"  Sun Sentinal  11 20 10

Protesters' body scanner opt-out day could bring nationwide delays WP 11 24 10

11 22 10  :  A marketing industry email article this AM suggests Europe has considered the banning of using cookies for marketers, or at least some version of this kind of rules. The point of this post seems like it is about the airport situation but it is really about our reaction to uncertainty in different situations is changing. The airport safety issue is one where we must eventually be a good citizen and participate even if we do not like it. However, in matters on line where consumers do not just have to take invasions of privacy, expect a much different reaction. The marketing industry urges education to the benefits of behavioral targeting (tracking all your on line behavior and how good that is for you). It does not matter how eloquently you write out the benefits, this argument will be a loser in the years ahead and marketers might as well get out in front of it than stand and be shot down. 

If you use the Firefox browser try this: download the Ghostery Add-On and it will show you how many tracking services are used by every web site you visit. Some sites employ 13 tracking services. This means your IP address and the browser behavior attached to it is distributed to 13 far reaching companies who can sell that information.  In the years directly ahead, this will be seen to stretch the "free content for advertising" social contract too far from its original shape. Social mood is a driving force in this process.   link for (biased) marketing support of behavioral targteing

2 22 11 TSA agents at DFW get past security with gun in bra

 

 

 

Is A Correction Coming to an Altered Social Contract?

A longer post under development by me right now is about when two very large social trends meet in an intersection of influence: In this case I am considering how the changing attitudes toward all things related to privacy (in the US) are intensifying lately and will do so even more in the next few years. The second trend is really about our societal adoption of all things digital and specifically, how-we-measure-our-behavior-using-content needs updating.

Privacy is a complicated trending dynamic that touches several core (felt) needs. It may seem like the rawness of the digital frontier is compelling these concerns but, if you follow along closely, privacy concerns are again beginning to reach all corners of society. Indeed, the President as of Friday announced his soon to be appointment of a privacy post for all things digital. 

The second gigantic social trend (we all tend to discount) is the growing use of all things digital in our society. Over many decades our advertising industry developed ways to measure consumer interaction with programming/content of all kinds and used these methods to establish a currency for valuing reaching potential customers using advertising. This trade off, content for advertising placement was acknowledged and accepted by consumers over many decades. It became a social contract.  Because of the myriad changes in content, channels, delivery modalities, and sheer numbers of opportunities to get all kinds of content, these old use measures need updating very much.

But, this isn't that post...not yet anyway. Here's a bigger picture trending dynamic from the same trend lines to think about:

Socionomic thinking about trends allows you to appreciate how larger trends relate to many smaller and shorter cycle trending processes. Socionomics and wave principle also helps you consider how certain influences (broad social attitudes) can manifest at specific times. (Think: Prechter & Frost, the individual character of waves - EWP)

For instance: The social contract for the content-for-advertising deal that was developed over many decades is increasingly set aside. Many content producers say it is not enough, we need more.   A few examples: Paying for cable tv and also watching just as many commercials as ever.  Buying a smart phone, signing a contract for monthly calls and a separate access plan too, then getting advertising in text messages, advertising through apps you use, and on most web sites you visit.

These days advertising is everywhere content is (regardless of content quality) and the law of supply and demand shows us it is worth less incrementally than before there was so much of it everywhere.  Interesting thought: all these cool digital communications tools are making us more efficient getting information so we can use the time to absorb more advertising.(?!)  

The trend that is really worth pointing out socionomically, is how this represents an imbalance in fundamental circumstances in consumer/business dynamics for advertising. Before we began paying any significant amounts for content, we got it for very nominal sums and being willing to see commercial messages. Over time, the magazine industry developed higher price points but it was decimated quickly when exposed to digital competition dynamics in the first decade of internet.  Now we pay to get digital access everywhere and see more commercial messages than ever.  How did they (we) get so greedy over time? How long will consumers accept a double dose of access fees & advertising, and quality content providers demanding the same while pointing their fingers at everyone around them when it comes to the blame for advertising inflation? Should we depressingly extrapolate advertising inflation to infinity and beyond?

From the perspective of wave principle, this is the kind of fundamental circumstance that might be expected at an exhaustion of a long term trend (in media) as well as a peak in social mood. This social trend dynamic (the advertising-for-content social contract) is being - has been- stretched far out of proportion.  

My goal with this post is to point to the digital frontier and remind everyone that the changes in social mood over the next few years will have a tremendous impact upon everything we build, tear down, gate, and isolate in that digital space. The trend <national group process> of our seeing convergence develop is going to be greatly affected by social mood. That means the how & what & why of that which we build in the digital environment will be different in this coming period of social correction versus the previous periods of social expansion as all-things-digital were being introduced. It is this thought that is driving my effort to detail speculation on how digital use metrics will be greatly impacted by privacy concerns in the decade ahead. There is nothing wrong with the advertising-for-content business model. Some businesses will be exposed to new competition and may find that quality and price have a very different proportional relationship as we move through consumer attitudes ahead, and this is also when the social contract may be revisited (even if not immediately inserted into the headlines). The challenge for content producers & distributors is in the execution and, during a big social correction, those who deliver true value will survive (but keep in mind that it will often be seen comparatively).  Those that do not deliver value, will be corrected by competition and incremental rules changes on a community by community basis. This is exactly why I am skeptical on pay for viewing platforms that assume these discretionary expenditures will win over time. Pay for view will always be part of the future Choice-trend in media but in the shorter time frames, well targeted advertising that captures value for both customer and advertiser will drive this important industry function. How do you do that without being perceived as intrusive or sneaky? Increasingly, this will be an important question. I believe the generalized answer to this important challenge will be found in the context of "smaller units of association". ..and "permission".

Dave

a few of my previous posts around these ideas:

The social trends re-shaping the media business

The Future of the Advertising Business Model is Very Bright

During Social Corrections We Change Why & How We Create

Different ways to visualize trending in markets of people

post script added 10 11 10...

Intro to the socionomic basis for change to the media business model

Familiarity with a business or industry is a product of time and effort. The same is true for socionomics and how the insights social mood offers us can lead to highly effective decision making by businesses that use it during critical times of social change. At certain junctures social changes can be anticipated to have directional effects on the markets we intend to serve through an enterprise.  The media business is a perfect example of an industry at a long term cross road because of social change and social mood has a lot it can tell us about this primary social tool (media), and the changing profit picture that will result over the next five to ten years.

Four years ago this past June, Viacom sued Google's You Tube over infringement of copyrighted material and a new offshoot of the larger trend in media began to express itself in earnest. At issue (though not often discussed this way) was control and the obligations of manufacturers and distributors of content in the digital environment. (Previously, manufacturers did their own distribution.) This discussion, when framed properly, can also be seen as being related on different levels to the key issues in the music business and also in the newspaper/magazine/publishing businesses this past decade. The business of selling content has already been forcibly split up but few existing enterprises recognize the present reality, choosing instead to think like an industry that still enjoys some kind of mandate to persevere without the competitive barriers to entry that aided them for decades. This tendency is an echo of the old exhausted secular social trend (and the older generation still at the helm of many businesses) and has been replaced by a new complex set of perceptions towards content by consumers. 

Humans using technology created a new dimension of space used to share ideas ( a very natural human social behavior) in 1989 called the world wide web and it took a few years to gain traction but, when it did the existing businesses that had previously enjoyed sizable barriers to competition were caught completely off guard by the social changes in attitudes and behavior that resulted from new technology. Within a few years of Yahoo's and Google's services being widely available and demanded, the existing business model used by content companies began to experience the first effects of secular profit change (correction) due to new competition for the consumer's time using traditional channels of distribution...as a result of evolved consumer expectations.  Unfortunately, most companies in the media industry outwardly acknowledged them as recessionary forces that would mostly pass in time as they figured out how to "monetize the internet".

The unofficial protected competitive status of US media companies was now completely vulnerable despite decades of flowing profits because no resources were set aside to protect market positions or anticipate change in the core of their business model. Instead the profits were aggressively siphoned off and distributed to lenders and owners in offerings during what wave principle (the trend following analytic technique that inferred the existence of social mood being a natural group expression) calls an "extended fifth wave".  In wave principle, a fifth wave is the final advance of a particular social trend before exhaustion of the impulse driving it and when an extended fifth wave is observed, what happens next is most often a quick/dramatic correction of the uncommon gains accrued in the recently expressed social trend. The point is that, analytically, the present position and course of the entire media sphere can be understood using various techniques and, from each of the related perspectives (using social mood), we can see a little more qualitatively about what needs to happen next based upon social trending dynamics that are shaping the business of media (monetizing content).

From a socionomic standpoint it might be easy to look at a basket of media stocks and how their value changed through the late 1990's consolidation era up to the dot com peak in 2000 and then sharply correcting to 2002. Many went downward even after that because despite the boom elsewhere in the US economy, the frenzy for media company shares ended with the dot com bust and the realization that a lot had changed. In fact, a multi-generational media trend had ended.  Execs in the business knew it but communicated little or none of their true concerns because of the effect of such uncertainty might have on the share prices already in free fall. My position on the best perspective socionomics can take when evaluating media as a business is to look at the consumer of content first and foremost because it is from that perspective that we can see more about what will constitute value in the post broadcast era. The consumer's version of "what is value?" is often a moving target subject to social mood. 

This blog post is intended only as a fly-by discussion of a very large topic I have looked at for four years now: The socionomic basis for specific change to the media business model. In order to mine down into this discussion a combination of social mood modeling and an appreciation for how the media business works in the US is essential. With both of these prerequisites you can begin to see why substantial change is needed and why it is not far away.

In order to give shape (or at least outlines) to the broad picture of change needed, let's look again at the typical social trending dynamics surrounding a period of social correction and then compare them to a few of the changes we've witnessed in the past decade.

A few suggestions for using the content here:

• The Toyota Brand Quality thread is still being added to...this is a long term topic & link thread I am following. I do not change original dates of posts and just add links incrementally....so Toyota's thread began on 3-13-10 and you must page down a ways to find it. The point of this thread is not to prove mechanical damage exists. The point is to demonstrate how developing long term damage to the corporation is a result of damage to the brand combined with (large) social correction dynamics. How to cope with crisis now is different than several years ago. 
  

• The two most recent posts at my media blog cut to the heart of change needed in the business of media and much of it is derived using the lens of social mood combined with plenty of experience in the business. The next post here will address the socionomic basis for some of these changes as an example of how generalized social trending dynamics can be applied in very specific circumstances. Social media tools are another excellent insight to this trending process and are being followed in posts below.

• There is a new link (in the right column) to The Socionomist. It's the official monthly magazine published by the Socionomics Institute and it is all about social mood's impact upon social trending. I encourage you to subscribe digitally and reap the benefits of the timely insight in the days & months directly ahead. It is my understanding that those who subscribe now can see a selection of past topics covered. Social trending is a big subject area but, it is very structured while allowing ample room for individual and group style. Can you make this insight valuable seeing change in the market your business serves?  It is certainly worth a quality monthly journal subscription to find out.

Brands in Crisis During a Social Correction (an overview)

As social mood wanes (toward the negative) and Americans collectively move through this period of social correction, one of our chief national products -brands of all kinds- will be tested and challenged increasingly by changing public perceptions that can only be properly appreciated through the socionomic lens.

My first observation in this trending thread (2+ years ago) was a comparison of Tylenol and Perrier experiences when faced with crisis (many years ago) and to compare their divergent outcomes on the basis of the developing social mood at the time of the incident(s).(links to older posts available below)

The key to appreciating this observation is to truly see the brand as a fully manufactured entity that is separate from the components that make up any physical thing (or service) people buy. Brands are perceptual tools (shortcuts)that consumers use to make decision making easy. And while acetaminophen (Tylenol's active ingredient) is a commodity, Johnson & Johnson decided a long time ago to base its product's strategy on creating an image that is subject to social mood. All brands are subject to social mood because the goal in successful branding to to transcend the basic service or ingredients in order to brand a positive image in the part of our brains that process emotions. Branded consumers are predisposed to cut through cluttered choices at the point of purchase and just do it - buy the trusted brand. 

From the standpoint of social mood the larger observation here is that the time honored tool -brands- can turn on the enterprise and inflict damage, not just cease making good.  This is an easy observation to make once you put on the socionomic mindset. The real value in it though, is in what you do with it from that point.  

Periods of social expansion (positive social mood) and social correction (negative social mood) come in all sizes and durations. At what point does an enterprise  proactively shift strategic options in the realm of branding? Is there an appropriate set of actions that can insulate a brand from specific challenges?

These are not easy questions and it is exactly here that a much more detailed conversation would begin with regard to any one brand and the market(s) it serves.  This one observation is a great reason why socionomics is a much needed tool for executive level decisions in enterprises.  Indeed, the mindset quickly transcends brands for strategic purposes and that is why it will come to be seen as essential thinking one day.  It is only with a combination of deep market knowledge and this analytical mindset that one can better see potential pitfalls in their brand's position in any market and in the event of any surprises. 

This period of social correction will be deep and prolonged. That means this particular challenge will intensify and last years. Take the time to understand social mood and this particular time frame & larger understanding will become apparent.

Right now there is a deep list of brands being challenged by social correction dynamics in their markets. This post was prompted by this article that stated how J&J's manufacturing quality problems have lead to a 65% decline in internal analgesic sales in the past year. wow! That's a lot of missing profit! My own eyes have been trained on categories like financial, automotive, energy, cell phones, food, and media. This one dynamic impact of social mood is a subject in itself. The very fact that Tylenol has suffered such large sales losses as a result of problems that were very easy to miss or ignore (as consumers), and how they were once extolled for superior crisis management in the face of ugly events should impress upon anyone interested that the social forces gathering now will make brand management even more of a contact sport in the years ahead. Social mood is pressuring the McNeil drug division of J&J to make tough choices (and in regard to multiple brands right now) but then again, they might be doing exactly the right thing this time too. The link above is worth the short read if this dynamic interests you.

Older posts:  Brands in Crisis During a Social Correction (blog category)

Social mood is influencing the transformation of social media tools

12 06 10 This post is evolving beyond itself by now. Changes are taking place across the spectrum of social technology.  Choice is influencing these changes and social mood is motinvating them for sure. Look for a newer post soon that creates a timeline I have been keeping. Many posts here that seem disconnected are all working to influence this group process of true Choice in social media tools...and that means gates and controls chosen by the user, not the platform. 

10 25 10 German Firms Blocking Facebook over Security Concerns

10 24 10 update  Facebook's new groups dymystified  ... under pressure from user to allow segmentation, Facebook adds tools that do just that...the ability to control for small units of association within your larger social universe

Page down to end of post for 8 or 9 other links previously added to this thread

 

The world wide web has transformed our lives since its quiet debut 21 years ago in 1989. It's about being able to share data with any connected point, and sharing is a social behavior and subject to social mood.

Witness Facebook and the revolution surrounding social media tools: The dramatic period of mass adoption in the past five years can be reasonably compared to the social adoption of the dot com era stocks in the late 1990's. Kids playfully embraced social platforms and sparked a mega trend that has resulted in the majority of Americans using some form of social media. Hours spent using social media have increased often at the expense of other forms of content. The mass adopters built what they perceived to be purposeful networks consolidating and increasing connections to the various parts of their lives. The notion of "the larger the network, the better" has been a driving shared value socially and the trend spread (without regard for geography of course).

Anyone using the socionomic model to broadly observe events and the causality supporting mass social trends had to notice that the Facebook phenomenon has been a consistent example of a behavior running counter to the expectations of social mood these past two years.  Up until now the premise used by various social software platforms has been based on inclusiveness. This idea has been socially supported despite declining social mood since late 2007.

During periods of social correction (negative social mood at larger degrees of trend), the opposite inclination will be seen to manifest: "Smaller units of association"**. Why hasn't that behavior taken hold yet?  Here are a few thoughts:

First, it is beginning to in small ways, initially. Social trending categories that include tools like like social media considerably lag the short & medium term trend of social mood. Second, I believe that various degrees of trend may be assigned to how specific social trend dynamics are commonly triggered. And while this is bound to to be imperfect as a broad rule, there is still value in the idea for specific case studies. (This is the value of using wave principle to see socionomics better.)

This particular trending issue is especially worthy of a group discussion focusing on how the social media trend has developed up until now and how social demand for these tools is just beginning to change in important ways.

I suspect that core shared values attached to (broad) social media behavior is connected to the longer cycle degree of trend (and parts, even super-cycle degree) and that this trend could manifest in a remarkable reversal in the next few years. This does not mean social media is going to become bad or is going away. No. It means our collective perception of the value of the various tools will be reassessed and that the moving average of mass perception (and behavior) will shift considerably. For instance: right now there is a team of NYU programmers using considerable & quickly donated money to build an open source version of Facebook putting the user squarely in control of their own personal brand in the digital environment. Take three minutes to watch them talk about it. Then extrapolate in the direction of a new behavioral vector (based on changing shared values). It would be easy to dismiss this as a side event of lesser importance. I think it is a trend change.  Whether I am more right or more wrong about the degree of trend issue, the behavior (with attached polarized shared values) can be seen shifting right now on multiple fronts (as seen in behavior and headlines) in the digital environment.

There are times when the socionomic model may seem less able of seeing into certain kinds of qualitative circumstances especially if the kind of data needed to identify impulse waves is immediately hard to find. There is no replacement for time spent observing the interplay of business trends and  surrounding social trending in order to gauge (changing) core shared values at work. At times there is much chaotic change that is impossible to predict but this particular period of time is bound to see some decisive directional social change and there is a lot of value in seeing this right now.  By identifying the core shared values at work in markets of people it becomes easier to consider how durable a trend may be at any particular time.  

Smaller, managed, units of (digital) association will manifest as features in the launch of many new social media platforms that allow for total user control. Open-source platforms may see explosive growth in the process but the larger social dynamic will clearly support the 'smaller & tested' is better dynamic in many social circumstances.  In the end, <I believe> that social tools are about being better and more efficient and that this will come to be seen as easier to control in smaller groups. 

In the big picture: Socionomics suggests that the cost of inclusion is going up <not money related>. In time, smaller, well defined groups will be prized, gated, and likely have more specific protocol. We are likely to see many tools developed to support these changing shared values.

** Socionomics, R. Prechter Jr.

 

LINK THREAD  ( I will consolidate this neatly after a few different behavioral vectors manifest)

The example in the article discussed below may not seem related at first but this is one direction I expect these issues to splinter towards as social momentum develops. This is part of a topic I discussed recently at the (industrial) (r)Evolution of Media blog. A more formal examination is warranted.

Apple Tests User Location Data, Consumers' Patience Media Post 6 22 10

The FT this AM has a discussion that covers why the smaller company is better than the big company. The discussion frames a large trend that has polar ends to it. This particular trend is very important to the big picture media trends I write about on the other blog. Start-ups Focus on the True Prize FT 6 24 09

Microsoft adds encryption features to allow cell phone users to share privately together and not share information through the network Technology Review MIT 6 22 10

Farmville-Maker Zynga Losses Gamers  SF Gate  6 01 10

Behavioral Targeting in Mobile era questioned re privacy in 6 27 10 Wash Post

Why Do We Trust Google?  InfoWorld 6 28 10 

(is this article above related? think: uncertainty & changing trust dynamics)

Open Source alternative to Facebook coming mid October

10 17 10 update  WSJ report: Facebook in Privacy Breech  discussed how app users on the site are exposed to prying eyes as well as friend lists too. Also, be sure to see the graphic inside the article that is a glossary of tracking terminology.

9 05 10update: Link Thread still being added to end of this post to chart incremental activity over time: 8 links as of today

 

 

 

The Root Trend is almost four years old. So what?

I originally began organizing thoughts on this blog from different journals I had been keeping for two years up to that point. One is a written journal and the other two are collections of different social trend threads observed in real time through reputable media sources and based upon expected patterns of behavior based on the developing social mood and the behavioral lens socionomics offers.  And while most of these specific trends are rarely subjects of posts, this daily effort is what drives the intermittent posting here at The Root Trend and my discovery of socionomics everyday. How many different social trends can one person follow on their own? I found my own personal limit to be variable but in the process I have been able to see the bigger issues related to social trending dynamics.  So, The Root Trend has been my ongoing experiment.  I placed a lot of faith in it to produce a specific result over time.  It produced more than I expected.

If you've ever been passionate about a sport, a business endeavor, or a specific idea you may have experienced this more than once: You cannot be introduced to any endeavor (fun or serious) that attracts full timers & professionals and expect to immediately appreciate the nuances needed for performance in that area. It always takes repeated exposure to real-time events. It takes a willing mental engagement that only you can decide to give. It takes experience and that takes time.  This is what Malcolm Gladwell discusses in his latest book but it is more than just 10,000 hours especially when the endeavor you are chasing is not populated by crowds of professionals. I think Tony Robbins said it best: 'Success is the product of good judgment. Good judgment is the result of experience. Experience is often the result of bad judgment.'

In the end there is no substitute for experience and no better time to expand insight and skills than when sitting atop specific, recent experience. In various endeavors it's called "being current".  This leads directly to my most basic conclusion:

• Forecasting social trends is possible provided the questions are posed carefully  
  

Prior to my adopting the socionomic model for seeing social trending, the forecasting of trends (by others) seemed to be the product of immersion in specific markets. It is often presented as a kind of personal magic some people perform. Clearly, there is no replacement for deep subject knowledge, ever. The main lesson offered to me through this effort is that understanding how social mood acts as a primary ingredient to all social interaction when operating in our many different social groupings can be used to see more nuanced probabilities for outcomes that can be tracked incrementally. It's about the study of groups as evolving units, not individuals. It's about looking at markets holistically. Ultimately trends can be forecast using events (and not calendars) as a guideline by understanding how shared values are changing.  It's about going deeper into the social dynamic but from a macro perspective.

If I had accomplished nothing else this much would have been more than enough. There was more.

Let's look at a few of the incremental flexible observations I've walked away with from these first four years and why they encourage more of me (and why this work encourages your participation using your enterprise/industry's challenges as a backdrop).

• (industrial) (r)Evolution of media (specific insight into where we are taking the business model)
  

• brands in crisis during a social correction (why brands are a potential liability now)
  
• witnessing the polarity of socially shared values shift (how to see the end and beginning of large trends)
  

• recognizing different sized cycles related to specific cases (outside of time) <yet to be posted)
  

The first bullet point above began as an observation based on my own deep market experience and 18 months later became a dedicated blog of its own so that is the best one, right? No, but it may be the best example why this perspective is a skill set worth cultivating. I am very passionate about the topic of media and the evolution of its business model and this endeavor will consume time in the years ahead. The socionomic model helps us break down trends into impulses and from there we can see why certain paths are more likely than others and how specifically businesses can adjust proactively to changing shared values.

The second bullet point above is a worthy business principle right now. It is spawning several excellent real time examples (BP, Toyota, UBS, the financial brand universe, and more) and now seems to be beyond denial in just two+ years of watching. So this is the best one? No, but the full implications to this observation is not appreciated yet. The sound bites I see and hear sterilize the value of the observation back toward traditional crisis marketing. Brands are more vulnerable during large periods of social correction and can easily become gargantuan liabilities to the enterprise but their use is too ingrained to eliminate so adaptation in specific market circumstances is the only path forward. This topic now makes for great real-time trend watching (see link above for real-time trend thread).

The third bullet point above is discussed in a post last fall and is where much of my RT thought goes these days. I believe the polarity of specific shared values parallels specific "degrees of trend" of social mood and as such the field of social trending has a huge open opportunity in this area.  This angle may require an appreciation for an analytical skill called wave principle but absent that, this points to the anchor of any successful social science......sound bites.  

The last bullet point refers to something seemingly vague...different sized cycles outside of time. This is the meat of the social trending discipline for me right now. It is where incremental observations over time will produce a picture of trending dynamics that will eventually enable a detailed how-to text for practitioners. This is where industry specific observation will pay off in handsome dividends over time and why established professionals in various industries are the key to advancing this work. The value in doing the work is needed insight to markets in times of change. The prerequisite industry knowledge slims down the potential market of participants considerably so this work, in my own view, should be discussed as both very worthwhile and accessible. 

In an age of interactive marketing, having a tool that allows us to see changing markets from new perspectives could not be a better investment of effort and time.  All of the above is my own interpretation of the work of Robert R Prechter Jr. and his books which are based on the observations of Ralph Elliott. Robert Prechter took those early observations and expanded them to suggest socionomics...and when you read his book(s) you will see I lean liberally on his ideas.  The work of Neil Howe and William Strauss on generational dynamics was very important too in getting me to find Prechter's work. These two bodies of work are not similar at all but they look at a similar human social dynamic from very different perspectives. Prechter's work is that of a practitioner and an analyst. There is depth there yet to be discovered. 

The statement, How We Collectively Value Things Changes as Social Mood Changes might seem overly simplistic but given this perspective and the time to see farther into the nuances of various markets, there is a world of actionable trending insight waiting to be found and shared. Eventually, this subject will be a best practice included in a professional arsenal of tools calibrated towards seeing better the changing markets that enterprises serve.

The Root Trend has been and will continue to be a generator of insight (for me) into social trending that matters to all businesses. It is a public notepad where many ideas I've been thinking about are considered, observed, and confirmed or discarded and it has worked well for me in this narrow respect. I realize that no one ever sees the many dozens of posts that never get published. I am also aware how my approach to the subject of socionomics is different...or not orthodox by other standards.  By sticking to the issues that are more generalized and macro in nature as they relate to social trend dynamics, I believe it is possible to expand the scope of trending studies on a path that is more inclusive of established professionals in various markets.

I don't use live bait when I fish because it makes catching big fish too easy. This isn't fishing.

I encourage any interested readers to subscribe the the Socionomicst if the the subject of social trending is interesting to you. If you are like me, the fact that this period of history will be filled with substantial change makes this subject that much more interesting. If that describes you too then it's worth it, especially right now.  I hope you will check back here during the next four years. Dave

Business Strategy, Time Horizons and lessons learned again

In the world of financial products and securities, the concept of time horizons is very familiar. Seeing and using differing time horizons is often a useful tool for managers on the outside of that realm too. When shifting time horizons in our thinking, the natural inclination is to shift our perspective as to what really matters in two or more different sized chunks of time. Themes. A central theme in one period is often a related but highly specific focus in another that can often be better understood from even farther back (in time) where the thread of connection becomes all too obvious.  From this broad perspective we see the trip to the narrow and immediate as one that can take us from apparent natural laws to waxing and waning shared social values that can feel otherwise permanent (in the present moment). Few people today emphasize the benefit from the dual appreciation of "now" from more than one time horizon because the white noise in doing business today is a siren's song, especially in the digital world. Too often it does not fit into a sound bite.

Most business is transacted on the cusp of "today" and "right now". From this perspective, even three months from now may feel like a long time away.

There are many larger chunks of time we all naturally think in that have different significance. Think about them and how, strangely, they often do not feel relevant in the world of business. 

For instance; Why is it that we've seen such incredible changes (back and forth) in shared social values in the last 20 years in the US?  We mostly do not train ourselves to purposefully think in multiple time horizons yet we do it naturally at other times.  Let me be very specific in one narrow case:

What do dot coms and the phrase "burn rate" have to do with today? Anything? If you think back carefully, that was a phrase you could find in the business section of the NYT or the WSJ just about  everyday in the mid and late 1990's.  Is there any behavioral thread between then and right now? More specific: Are any shared social values now approximating those back then? Is that good or bad? What exactly has changed and how variable might it be? 

Why did it come to be prudent by the masses to try to be a investor in new technology companies in the late 1990's and utterly foolish a few years later?  How about real estate's extremes from the early 1980's to 2005, and now just a few years later? (extremes, yes but, different kinds of extremes) And do the current investments being made in social media platforms (this time by pros) underline the efficacy of the root trend more than ever when looking backwards? Most of the people in this world would respond how what happens "out there" is what determines the shared values that have changed us and our thinking.

The point of this blog, and this post especially, is to offer the idea that there is a larger pattern that naturally unfolds in large markets of people around us and how this can be mined in such a way as to help us emphasize that which matters more, especially in times when even more change can be expected.The tool, social mood and the patterns it creates, is flexible in that time horizons can be differentiated when using it to see behavior in markets of people we serve.

For instance: If a market for a product or service can be effectively broken up into a dozen pieces that are defined in some distinguishing manner, then is there anything about seeing multiple time horizons that can benefit us in deciding where to put our energy at a time when we feel compelled to be everywhere and appropriately engaged with all constituencies? What really matters?  Who really matters most?

From the longer time horizons the practice of business offers us a great number of what feel like  natural laws. Still, from farther back some of these can be fleeting with yet another message trumping those seemingly large lessons. In the realm of generating content, as a business: we have seen the business redefined in a decade as software increasingly replaces scores of storied institutions in our culture in a manner that might suggest permanence. Is it possible some parts will be permanent and many others just as transitory? (I think so.)

Markets of people will always naturally throw off waves of specialized efforts/functions where they are needed if it is a <mostly> free market.  Specialization is a natural human behavior but it does not necessarily confer profitability. From yet another time horizon, however, we can see how common the challenge of profitability is to many new businesses these days and, how it is also a common theme across markets of people in this larger era (longer time horizon) we've been passing through for two decades. This is not an empty observation even if it does demand one specific manner of response.

And while this last thought may not matter today or next week or even next month, that does not mean it is not timely and useful when considering the changing shared values in the market you mean to serve.

How we collectively value things changes as social mood changes. It is precisely because of this that certain old ways of doing business have never gone out of existence, and are seen to come back over and over repackaged as if brand new. If you lean on the idea of social mood as a primary underlying factor in the markets we serve, you begin to see how this is our way of reminding ourselves what shared values matter most.  Those are the longer themed lessons. The shorter themes generally look at changing shared values that underlie many social fads. That these common themes have a polarity is as important as the period through which they cycle. Seeing this right now is giant opportunity for businesses of all sizes. It is best used as a complimentary perspective, not a specialty by itself. Yet during times of significant change it will appear to stand on its own.

Finally, consider these unfolding social "trends" and how they cam impact your specific business:

• socially speaking, the cost of inclusion (to groups of all kinds) is going to trend upward. Barriers, requirement, and certification will matter more overall...

• transparency is a socially shared value that will grow in importance across many social boundaries and at the same time privacy right of groups and individuals will be  proactively pursued. 

If either of these may matter to you read the previous post on this blog.Dave

Why Privacy controls will matter more soon to everyone (What our shared reactions to uncertainty tell us about social trending issues and changing business policy)

7 23 10 thread folder is growing fat...I do not post all links but is easy to search at his point...The NYT had a great discussion this AM that finally transcends Facebook and looks at the era when Privacy became a concern broadly...The Web Means the End of Forgetting NYT 7 10

5 17 10 trend is reported in all manner of mainstream media. This flash graphic link is proof of the trend and how this discussion was late, not early.  See this annual progression of privacy details on FB

5 13 10: Wired Magazine link re Open Alternatives to Facebook Grow  5 12 10 FT link added re European privacy concerns  (9 links total to-date added on this thread) The subject is almost a mainstream discussion now whereas it was only a few months ago when digital execs were still opining on how "it's different this time" in the digital environment. And while that is true in many regards, this trend is happening because how we value things is changing as it always does with social mood.

This post was first published in early March. Until further significant developments the thread will be suspended. Privacy is a closely held shared value among people in a free society that waxes and wanes with social mood. Social networking is here to stay but changes in dailyt practices is clearly ocurring now. The original post follows:

As social mood changes what we pay attention to changes.

The very same can be said, broadly, for people (Americans) in the digital environment right now. How so?

The broad issue of Privacy was growing large several years ago (2001-2003). Think Patriot Act, the NSA's warrantless spying, and the internet in general.  Then it began shrinking away from the headlines in 2004 as social mood redirected our collective attention for the golden age of the granite counter top. This could easily be a longer detailed discussion but my intention now is to simply lay out one aspect of the landscape of social trends we are witnessing now as they relate to privacy (as a shared social value).

Privacy is looked upon as an issue of relevance to all people and every business in the US (and the world too but I focus on the specific social mood as it relates the the US right now)

The birth of the new universe of social media tools is about sharing through user generated content. It tells us a lot about how we view content and its relevance in our lives. Social media has shown us clearly how 1) it is not a fad, 2) it is about specialization of focus, and 3) The era of Choice must be served by enterprises (as it relates to content dissemination). In order to see how our collective shared values related to privacy issues (on many levels) are expressed requires only a little bit more discernment.  

When we (large groups of people, on average) view the uncertain events of the future in a more optimistic manner, we are more inclined to share broadly with expectations that lead to more inclusiveness connecting us to ever wider groups of people.  When we, (in our social aggregations seen as a moving average) view the future with a more pessimistic sense, we share less freely, or more selectively. This is a patterned social behavior and from a this larger perspective we can always be seen to be in a period of social expansion or social correction that expresses one of these two states. The values expressed today by most social networking enterprises (related to privacy issues) are positioned as if we are in a period of social expansion. When looking at the longer term time frames we are clearly in a period of social correction and eventually changes (related to privacy concerns) will be demanded by customers, and corrected for by these companies.

CNET published a discussion about privacy yesterday where Mark Zuckerberg (Face Book founder)was quoted as saying privacy is a generational issue and therefore seen differently by Y's and Xer's compared to most Boomers. His position is that 'it is different this time' for today's younger digital networkers. I disagree with his basic assumption and by doing so I am generally predicting that the shared values in the US towards privacy will re-emerge and come to dominate issues faced by digital enterprises across the US in the years directly ahead. Attitudes towards Privacy are about trust in a sense and I have written about how to see trust related social trending issues in a previous post. It all boils down to social mood and where it is headed in general. For example: During the past two years we've witnessed dramatic changes to the financial landscape. An important part of these events occurred because risk aversion became an important new shared value in our society. You don't need to think too hard to see how important risk aversion has been as an underlying causative issue in our economy.

As our shared values evolve in the groups that we attach ourselves to we can reduce these changes to some form of optimism or pessimism toward the uncertainty of the future.This is the essence of social mood.

At some point in the not too distant future, this shared pessimism will manifest as a greater need for privacy, both personally and for enterprises too. These are not separate issues but, in fact, directly connected.

As this need for privacy reasserts itself, it will likely be incremental. Many businesses that began by willingly sharing our information about ourselves will retreat from this posture to a less all-inclusive format. Membership in many platforms was often free to everyone and that seemed to serve both the business and the customers as the platforms grew. At some point "we" will require incremental "costs"(requirements) for inclusion in our networks as groups of people begin to recognize the importance of prudence related to this changing shared value.

Instead of viewing this as a prediction, consider it a behavioral pattern to watch for as it expresses itself. I believe Mark Zuckerberg is making a mistake when he cites a generational factor in the willingness to share personal information more freely. Every generation is indeed different in some ways. However, the variable attached to shared values related to privacy matters are affected by the always changing social mood. Business enterprises will eventually respect this fact and are sure to change going forward. Right now, it may seem like it is not that way at all. Allow for change because it is coming. 

The underlying issue (inclusion vs. exclusion) discussed in this post is given more thorough discussion in a few areas in this book pgs 230-235. It's worth buying if this subject is relevant to your business.

(or you can start with this DVD)

I still see Face Book as a somewhat faddish enterprise (even if they have 350 million users)but the larger digital networking trend is a permanent part of our social infrastructure. This era of Choice, as it relates to media, is about putting the consumer of content in control. Your customers should not trip over your business model because it is convenient for you not to find innovative solutions.  On the other hand, the intellectual property concerns of many media companies may benefit from this same changing set of shared values. The important thing to remember is that these circumstances change over time and how issues related to values toward privacy oscillate between extremes. For now, it is fair to say we are nearer one extreme and likely to head smartly in the next direction for a few years+.  How can an enterprise use this? The most obvious answer is to use the new two-way nature of marketing communications to stay in tune with your key constituencies. And while this last suggestion is obvious to anyone doing it now, using social mood to anticipate trending issues is still ahead of its time. Go for it.

This post belongs on my media blog but for now it is worth taking this deeper look through the Root Trend. Dave

further reading on issues surrounding this collective set of values:

posted: 3 17 10  How Privacy Vanishes online  NYT

posted 3 24 10  European Privacy Battle Looms for Facebook and Google  AP

posted 3 29 10  Sharpen The Pitchforks. It’s Almost Time For Facebook’s Privacy Wake-Up Call Tech Crunch

Facebook Seeps onto other Web Sites  NYT 4 18 10

Facebook's Gone Rogue; It's time for an Open Alternative  Wired 5 07 10

posted 5 07 10 Face book Glitch Brings New Privacy Worries  NYT 5 07 10

Tell All Generation Learns to Keep Things Offline  NYT 5 08 10

Facebook faces Fresh Privacy Concerns FT 5 12 10  (European focus)

Here's the Privacy Line that Facebook Just Crossed  Business Insider 5 09 10

Open Facebook Alternatives Gain Momentum, $115k  Wired 5 13 10

Brands in Crisis During a Social Correction: The 'Toyota Quality Crisis thread'

post note: 1 22 12  I leave all posts up here as part of a timeline. This thread, brands in crisis during a social correction, is meaningful and will be improved upon later on  by me. When? not sure? This post is a link resource for me and the subject of Toyota has been set asside by me as part of a larger and longer consideration of the idea. When I do revisit the thread, I will address Toyota. The Toyota issue certainly has been overshadowed by other national events and may be better re-framed inside of the bigger picture of social mood. end of note:

 

This is my original post and it has become a scrap book of links following this storyline. The triple calamity in Japan was two weeks ago and it is certainly not my intention to be insensitive. The point of this exercise is to follow an issue like this relentlessly through conclusion. There have been many twists and turns that endeavored to be or feel conclusive. Today I add a link that introduces "Tin Whiskers" to our lexicon and suggests that electronic controls could be at the heart of some of these reports as they have been shown to cause failure on satelites in orbit. The point of this thread is not about blame. That will continue on regardless of this effort. The point is how perceptions toward brands surf waves of emotion and that during a social correction this is a critical endeavor for companies that steward worldwide brands. The link thread is below, just page down. I make no offort to be complete but feel it captures the key turns in this issue.  At his point I suggest you ignor my text on thie issue and simply note the link thread as it unfolds. It will be another year before this reaches what I suspect will be anything more definitive than today but the lessons will be rock solid by then. Brands in crisis during a social correction are critcal areas of concern because emotional perceptions are attached to rational use decisions and that demands extra special effort. Dave

Last link added to news thread: 3 22 11   (page down for most current links)

This post has evolved into a thread of ongoing news links and notes as this Toyota mess continues to unfold over many months. I say it several times below in different (earlier) entries but this brand crisis will not have smooth edges until a single problem is identified and that is beginning to seem remote.

By adding yet another model with a completely different problem, the brand crisis is cementing into American consumer's minds spending the hard earned brand equity like a spendthrift.

And when we revert to the original quality/speed control issues, if the problem is the electronic control units (the car's computer) the cost to recall them would be prohibitive enough to make this problem linger for years and maybe finish spending Toyota's brand equity in the US. (pure speculation? yes.) The story links will be valuable in the months ahead as experience shows how memories of time lines fade depending on your disposition toward this crisis. The reason this is worth monitoring is to better appreciate how a brand in crisis during a social correction is a wholly different kind of business crisis than during a period of social expansion. The caretakers of the Toyota brand will base their cost benefit decisions on their economic forecasting methods and if that happens they risk making a huge mistake with the future of the brand's image. For the rest of us, this is an exceptional opportunity to watch and learn. Dave  

Links for my earlier thoughts on this subject:

Perrier & Tylenol:the revisionist lessons of social mood for brand managersManaging Brands in Crisis:

America's Financial Brands (an update is in progress)

Brands in crisis during a social correction - an updateSocial Corrections: shinning a light on the little parts of the larger process

comments from 3 10 10

Based on everything up till now (since 1-28-2010) and looking forward here is what I think will happen and why:

The lynch pin to this entire brand crisis, and the larger threat to American car buyer perceptions, is that the problem remains undiagnosed. There are three fixes and potentially three different problems that somehow are being combined in a very negative way. The electronics issue has been denied more than once and clearly does not offer an avenue of remedy at this point, though that may be misdirection. In fact, Toyota is now running ads on web sites that tell how their electronics are fail-safe...and how to learn more why. Risk to the brand remains high and at critical levels. Here's why: The entire premise of this idea offered here is how social mood, in a corrective state(now), affects our collective expectations of the always uncertain future. This uncertainty is skewed pessimistically during a social correction. When the macro force of this public perception is focused upon a particular brand and a persistent problem that is opposed to the existing perception of the utility of that brand, then the outcome is likely to be lost brand equity in a proportion much greater than how it was gained and long lasting too.

The possibility exists that Toyota will not find the problem and that further unexplained incidents will occur. (wow, yesterday's runaway Prius in Los Angeles (3/09/10)made the all the evening news hours and prompted a recall notice by the WSJ that was retracted within hours....how's that for crazy media attention?) Should social mood deepen into this corrective state further, the risks to the brand will increase and the risk to the company along with it. It is very possible that the negative effects are only just beginning now. Personally, I still regard Toyota as offering a high quality product that I have considerable admiration towards. My opinion about the brand is not what matters.  If these two factors should occur going forward, the lessons of Audi in the late 1980's and early 90's are well worth revisiting. A definitive conclusion to these malfunctions are mandatory IMHO.

Daily flow of headlines on the thread   (newest last):

Toyoda Shrinks World’s Biggest Carmaker for Quality Control

Toyota Owners Frustrated With Massive Recall (Bloomberg) (sales hit and perception damage coming no matter) 

Toyota U.S. Dealers May Lose $2.47 Billion a Month (Bloomberg) (distribution Channels will suffer)

Toyota Owners Frustrated With Massive Recall (CBS) (uncetainty)

Toyota safety recall spreads to Europe  (clearly an accelerator issue) FT 1 29 10

With Recall Expanding, Toyota Gives an Apology NYT 1 30 10

Toyota to Issue a Fix for Recalled Cars  NYT 1 31 10  A Solution is ready says the NYT

U.S. Doesn’t Object to Toyota Plan for Pedal Repairs BB 1 31 10

Toyota Plans Media Blitz After Stockholders Lose $21 Billion BB 1 31 10

Toyota’s Slow Awakening to a Deadly Problem NYT 2 01 10

With Eye on Its Reputation, Toyota Issues Repair for Pedal NYT 2 02 10

Toyota’s President Eludes Media Amid Ballooning Vehicle Recall BB 2 02 10

Toyota’s Electronics Said to Be a Focus of U.S. Recall Probe BB 2 03 10

Toyota Recall Crisis Mounts as U.S. Steps Up Pressure BB 2 03 10  (Amer. politics gets involved)

Toyota May Recall Prius After Japan Orders Probe BB 2 04 10

LaHood’s ‘On the Fly’ Toyota Statements Accelerate Confusion BB 2 04 10

In a Prius Preserve, Shaken Fans NYT 2 04 10

In California, a Rebuke to Toyota NYT 2 05 10

Toyota's payback for stealing from the Gods Op-Ed WP 2 05 10

Toyota Has Pattern of Slow Response on Safety Issues NYT 2 07 10

Toyota Is Expected to Add 2010 Prius to Recalls NYT 2 08 10  (add 300,000 more cars to the 8 million total now under recall for multiple reasons)

Toyota recalls 437,000 Priuses, hybrids globally Wash Post (headline) 2 09 10

Toyota recalls Prius over brake problem FT (headline) 2 09 10

Federal Officials Review Toyota Corolla Complaints WP 2 09 10
 

Toyota's Plan to repair its public image Op-Ed WP by Akio Toyoda  2 09 10

Regulators Hired by Toyota Helped Halt Probes, Documents Show BB 2 12 10

Toyota Is Said to Discuss Rebates, Warranties to Lure Customers BB 2 13 10

Toyota Acceleration Complaints Cite 34 Deaths, U.S. Data ShowBB 2 15 10

Crisis-hit Toyota to idle two US factories  Breitbart 2 16 10

Toyota faces class-action problem  FT 2 16 10

Toyota Chief to Meet Press for Third Time After Recall Crisis BB 2 17 10

Toyota chief to skip US safety hearings  FT 2 17 10

Toyota’s President Softens on Speaking to Congress NYT 2 18 10

Toyota Chief Agrees to Testify Before House Panel  NYT 2 19 10

Toyota Saved $100 Million in ‘Favorable’ Recall, Document Shows BB 2 22 10

We Didn't Listen by Akio Toyoda WSJ 2 22 10

 Toyota Probe Fueled by Politics as Well as Safety, Critics Say  BB 2 23 10

Congress says Toyota misled public about runaway cars, engine electronics WP 2 23 10

Toyota Official Says Recall May Not Fully Solve Safety Problem NYT 2 24 10

2/24 & 2/25 had substantial TV coverage of Congressional hearing where Toyota execs testified

Toyota accused of withholding records in lawsuits FT 2 26 10

Will Toyota's problems hurt Honda? CNN Money 3 01 10

Toyota Sudden Acceleration Tied to 43 Fatal Crashes, U.S. Says BB 3 02 10 this seems like a statistical conversation waiting to happen.

Data Shows Camrys Outside Recall Also Had Problems NYT 3 02 10

Millions of Toyotas Recalled, None in Japan  NYT 3 05 10

Toyota runs clickable ads saying its electronics are fail safe and offers details why. 3 06 10

 AP IMPACT: Toyota secretive on 'black box' data  3 04 10

Toyota to Recall Prius Models including one in runaway incident  WSJ 3 09 10 (Toyota rebuts story)

3 23 10  CNN has a video on their web site this AM showing a service bulletin from 2002 that suggests electronics are the root of the problem and that the billions required to fix the problem is why it has not been directly addressed. If even a portion of this is true no amount of positive or negative spin will change the outcome: This problem will continue for years and ruin the brand's reputation toward quality.

http://cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2010/03/22/pkg.cb.griffin.toyota.document.cnn 

Americans Saying ‘No’ to Toyota as Ford Leads Opinion Survey BB 3 25 10

Recalls Triple as Electronics Run Cars, Swamp Regulators  BB 3 26 10 (not Toyota specific but important to thread)

NASA to investigate cause of Toyota Problems  WP 3 30 10

Steep Discounts Boost Toyota's March Sales  FT 4 01 10

Toyota faces $16.4 million U.S. fine for waiting to warn of defect  WP 4 06 10

Regulators May Pursue More Fines Against Toyota  NYT 4 10 10

Lexus Stops Selling SUV That Was Called Unsafe NYT 4 14 10

Canada's Doubt on Toyota NYT  5 05 10

US Opens New Investigation in Toyota  FT  5 11 10

Common Products, good returns Marketwatch on Toyota qrtly results 5 12 10

the link above, when read closely, shows a clear cost to managing the crisis so far

Toyota Finds Most Sudden Acceleration Crashes Are Driver Error  BB 7 13 10  (this is a classic!)

Toyota Educates Customers as Floor Mat Alert Ignored  BB 7 16 10

The latest? 'But you are using our cars the wrong way!' I use Bloomberg discussions for the objectivity of the reporting. The tone emanating from Toyota corporate is one that is terribly defensive. Understandable though it may be, it is not helping when objective reporting makes it sound like excuses. Why do people stack mats? If you are going to put 100,000+ miles on a car and not use floor mats then the carpet will wear out. Period. Toyota seems to have forgotten why so many people buy their cars in a very subtle way. If in their attempts to be defensive they abandon their market position, the brand will be further tainted.  
 1 11 10 Toyota Hegemony Fades as Damage Brings Sony Style Decline  Bloomberg

2 09 11 US report finds no electronic flaws that would cause acceleration  Wash post 

So, one year ago we were all ready to hear TV testimony froM Mr. Toyoda himself in our Congress. Today we read that the government says it finds nothing like Toyota did when looking at computers in their cars. Was it all a mistake with a few nutjob outliers mixed in? If you are following this thread you know that isn't the point. The point is how the Toyota brand has suffered because of the social momentum created around scrutiny of the venerable brand. What really matters now is how much damage was done to Toyota's brand image and will a few stories denying the concerns fix what went wrong? The real point about brands is how the ultimate decision in made somewhere in the background. IMO

2 24 11 Toyota recalls 2.17 million cars for floor mat issues  WP

3 22 11 Toyota Plaintifss Challenge NASA report on Sudden unintended acceleration BB (introducing: Tin Whiskers)

Perrier & Tylenol:the revisionist lessons of social mood for brand managers

A follow up discussion of this post's topic has been posted here (2 23 09)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am re-posting this example from March of this year....the message is becoming more relevant and timely everyday. If you are new to the subject of social mood and socionomics here's a link for the book to describe in detail what was noticed many decades ago. As always these days, there are many more sources that can take you very deep on the subject too. Dave 

Most posts here at the Root Trend have focused upon identifying social trends and the implications for consumer behavior using social mood (from the socionomic perspective). Since so much of the value of using social mood as a guide involves looking back first, here's another trending issue twist using social mood that can be valuable to brand managers in the years directly ahead.

I drew the diagram in the thumbnail file (you'll need to click on it) a few years ago. This is social mood's relationship to marketing. (yes, this is a very general sketch with limitations)   Spend a little time considering it and you'll want to know more about social mood and possible (actionable) ways business strategists and marketers may use the perspective.

In order to fit into a post, this is a speedy fly-by of two classic brand case studies I took the time to look into more closely than offered here.

What you are about to read is a revisionist perspective compared to the unanimous opinions in countless text books, and articles available on the internet. This perspective is possible by seeing different kinds of trends out of the context of time and specifically by looking at periods of distinct social mood as a unit.  The different conclusion here will not change the world but it will, maybe, just maybe, will change the way you think or use what the pundits have to say about assigning reasons, blame to circumstances unfolding, (real and imaginary) as reported in the sources that matter to us in our verticals.   More specifically, this post is intended to offer a basis for better "risk exposure assessment" for brands relative to the changing perceptions associated with the developing social mood. By looking back to these two settled pieces of brand history, we can look forward with an awareness adapted from these two different lessons.

In 1990, Perrier was the best bottled spring water you could buy as measured by market share and opinion.  Then, a lot of change began after a small-ish production problem was mismanaged and became a really big deal. Why it did (why momentum shifted so notably) should be in question as much now as it was back then.

In 1982 and again in 1986 Tylenol capsules that had been tampered with and filled with poison and were shown to have killed a few people across the nation in these two distinct episodes. Both episodes for Tylenol were very difficult (being such trusted brand) and spread fear in public widely, if you remember those days.

Keep in mind that it is my intention to be very brief, not intentionally coarse about tragic details. That stated, consider the big picture: a little dirty water (measured in PPM), physically hurt no one and then permanently wounded (loss of dominant share of market in a very competitive category) a strong brand, and a few dead people were miraculously looked past by their markets because the hero management team of the day "handled it correctly"? These two case studies are considered lore for marketers and PR folk alike. Let me be clear: blame for Perrier's circumstances was on the managers at the plants and beyond for the poor reaction, and that Tylenol's circumstances were purely imposed on the business from the outside. With these circumstances in mind (and securely in history), here's a very different view and why the root trend matters to brand marketers.

Business policy is affected by business' outlook to the uncertain future

“The environment is still challenging. We see no reason for optimism and are managing our business accordingly.”
Glenn Murphy, chairman and CEO of Gap Inc., Aug 22, 2008

This quote offered by a favorite blog today.

A Deeper View of Consumer Behavior through Social Mood

There's a growing number of writers discussing recession/downturn related shifts in consumer behavior which are emerging now. The NYT (link below), from this week, is a great example.  The developing of many seemingly related consumer trends in this regard can be more than interesting if you do some historical research preceding and during past recessions.  You may come up with a series of expectations of broad changes in consumer behavior like in this NYT article.  It is possible, however, to see deeper into changing consumer behavior through the lens of the developing social mood.  The nuances this perspective offers helps you see how when we organize into groups large and small, social mood offers a generalized prescription of group behavioral tendencies (behavioral trend threads) that marketers can use to look closer at their target markets. Social mood is a broad but accurate perspective of basic group perception and causality. It is about "group processes" and turning a probabilistic perspective into a qualitative understanding that goes from very broad to potentially very narrow uses. "Group processes" is what I call social trending and while this is a descriptive term that introduces willing marketers to a great deal beyond "tipping point" moments.  If this sounds complicated, it's not. Really.   It is a general prescription for social trend following which requires some background. After that, there is much to be discovered in the manners of measurement we apply to marketing challenges.  It's not a collection of sound bites but then what is worthwhile these days and comes in sound bites? here's the link:

Hard Times, but Your Lips Look Great (today's NYT)

In the "keep reading" section I detail some of the broadest aspects of this primary theme of the developing negative social mood (that tracks the broadening consumer behavior discussed in this article) and how we can expect to see the basic group impulse splinter into related market themes that reflect this key trend thread.

The high price of workplace mistrust

One thing that being aware of social mood does exceedingly well is to often dispel or destroy conspiracy theories. A great example is how we seem to go through periods of 'big brother-ism'. Now to be fair, it is always a threat and openess is the best way to prevent such concerns. As we see in observing a developing negative social mood is that the collective 'openess' of our social mindset closes. So if we are closing our collective mind to acceptance of all (as our units of association shrink) then the tendency to be concernd about threats emerges and this situation is just one of the ways that tuning into social mood can open your thinking to a better perspective.

In positive social mood we are all brothers in a world that cannot be small enough as the future always seems bright and full of potential for good. In periods of positive social mood diversity is embraced and we encourage each other to accpet and embrace our differences.

In a developing negative social mood we exhibit tendencies to extend ourselves (collectively) to smaller groups or units of association. Differences become dividers. ("Units of association" is a great observation by Robert Prechter that becomes very clear as you pay attention from this perspective.)

Now what this really shows us is that it is not business versus us; it should be seen from a societal perspcetive as us versus us as social mood declines. Changing social mood causes our base impulses to change as a group, which in turns affects how we see the world around us and especially relate to each other. In this light the discussion below has the potential to broaden our perspective as we look out from officeplace issues and see how our world is reflecting these tendencies...

The high price of workplace mistrust

With rights to privacy and participation eroding, many employees are heading for the exits. When that happens, everybody loses.

By Jeffrey Pfeffer, Business 2.0 Magazine columnist

January 5 2007: 5:46 AM EST

(Business 2.0 Magazine) -- Count me as one of the few people in America who harbor no sympathy for the handful of wealthy directors in the Hewlett-Packard boardroom who were spied on, "pretexted," and subject to any of the other tricks that HP's investigative sleuths had up their sleeves.

It's not that I don't take privacy rights seriously - far from it.

It's just that had Tom Perkins or George Keyworth been subject to the same standards as all 150,000 employees at HP (Charts), there would be no need to call in the private eyes. (use link to finish good read)