–Artificially Hip–

Seeing as I’ve gotten marks back from it and she’ll likely have stopped searching the internet for plagarism, I feel it’s safe to put last term’s Sociology paper up here – not because I think it’s a particularly brilliant paper, or because I think you want to read it, but because it’s a damned fascinating topic to me. Asides, the generational study section works well with a debate that I’ve been sort of having with another writer on here. I’ll do a seperate post and linkage up here soon.

And, I suppose, because while the paper itself can’t help a student doing the same thing, the works cited section can. And given how damned hard I worked to find some of these resources, I think it’d be real kind of me to share them. As I was going through it to do some of the formatting that didn’t transfer from Word, I found two errors and a grammatical hiccup that needed fixing. The prof didn’t notice them, but I’m still a little irritated that I missed them while I was editing.

———–

North American culture, at it’s core, isn’t as much a consumerist culture as it is a status-driven society. Especially among the younger generations, almost everything we do is devoted to amassing status. Wealth is equitable with status, and so we work. In order to show off our wealth and gain status from our good taste, we buy things. Conversations are exchanges of information, anecdotes, and queries, all for the purposes of gaining status and regard from the other party. Our consumer tendencies are driven by fashions, trends and fads that are not nearly as spontaneous as they seem – much of the independent or underground content in our culture is a carefully created product, aimed at influencing our opinions.

The Media

Viral content on the internet is exchanged by users, moving rapidly across massive social networks. Members of these networks use email, instant messengers, and social networking websites to post pictures, text, and links to video and soundbites. These are then distributed to like-minded network members.

Because these networks are not only interpersonal, but physically electronic, the internet provides an excellent arena for the study of memes as they progress through susceptible groups. Coined in 1976 by Richard Dawkins work “The Selfish Gene,” the term refers to self-replicating pieces of information or ideas. In the same way that genes are copied and subtly altered as evolution progresses, memes are ideas that do the same. We are all hardwired to imitate behaviours seen in our neighbours, and to retain behaviours that are for whatever reason deemed somehow successful. It is in the form of memes that our culture is transmitted in the process of socialization.

Every item of culture that is passed around on the internet is a meme in it’s own right. Coming with their own incentives to be transmitted, memes use numerous tactics to transmit themselves between various users. However, having all the necessary elements doesn’t guarantee the success of any particular piece of media as a piece of viral media.

According to Malcolm Gladwell in his book “The Tipping Point” (2000), any meme or piece of viral media needs a combination of three “laws” to come together in order for it to be dispersed. His “law of the few” says that a small number of individuals hold a disproportionate amount of influence over their social circles, and it is the support of all three types of these people that serve to disperse the media. A “maven” is an opinion leader, whose word is trusted and has authority on a topic within their group. A “persuader” is a change expert, bringing slower members onside with the rest of the group, and lending weight to the maven’s opinions. Finally, “connectors” are links by which a piece is transmitted from one group to another.

Where the artificial creation of trends enters is when a meme or media snippet is inserted into one or more networks in the hopes that it will “go viral”. When this tactic succeeds, it can generate immense amounts of interest and buzz about a company or product, almost for free. An easy example of this phenomena are videos like Honda’s “Cog” commercials, which made the rounds on the internet long before they were formally released as commercials to TV or theatres. Another is the recent rounds that a Nike spot called “touch of gold” made on YouTube. Featuring soccer star Ronaldinho, it shows him juggling the ball and bouncing the ball off the crossbar four times in a row. The video is shot in an amateur video style, as though taken with a low end camcorder or excellent camera phone. Distributed virally by word of mouth, the video was taken at almost face value, because people generally put far more weight on word of mouth recommendations than conventional advertising. (Herr, Kardes, and Kim, 1991)

The video spread rapidly, first among Barcelona (his team) fans, and then soccer fans worldwide. From there, it moved into the eyes of mainstream population. Mainly spreading on web forums, YouTube, and social networks, the video was in fact a subversive ad carefully created and released by Nike Soccer. It’s method of release and style meant it was given credibility and attention not normally given to advertising, and it was passed on to pretty much everyone likely to be interested in it. And all at no cost beyond filming and production to Nike.

It is this specific, automatic, targeting and rapid spread that makes successful viral marketing such an alluring target for the large corporations. Because members of a group know their friends’ interests, a message or advert not likely to interest the friend isn’t likely to get passed on to them, because there is no social reward in it for the originator. However, passing it on to someone who finds it interesting generates a positive social response from the recipient. It is this positive social response that makes viral media & online memes so popular among their distributors.

Social Factors & Opinion Leaders

According to Douglas Ruskoff, the memes and media we exchange on a day-to-day basis aren’t merely information and ideas, but are also a form of social currency, traded for respect, esteem, and status among our peers. In his book, “Get Back in the Box: Innovation from the Inside Out;” (2005), he claims that the driving force behind all creativity in the networked age is the need to create social currency.

The example that he leads off with is that of a joke told at a party. He says that most people will listen initially because they want to hear the punch line. Initially, all they want is the laugh at the end, but as the joke goes on, especially if it’s a good joke, they will begin storing it away for future use. It is, in effect, social currency that can be taken and used somewhere else. Exchanges of this social currency, he claims, build and strengthen connections between people, and it is for the purpose of these connections that we collect and manufacture artefacts and memes of social currency.

According to Ruskoff, our buying behaviour is the same. An item’s social currency value is often more important than the pure ownership of the item, and is often weighed equally or greater than the actual value of the item. He claims that they key to selling products isn’t about convincing people to sell them to their peers, but instead to create products that generate social currency on their own. This premise was confirmed by a 1995 study (Firat and Venkatesh) that showed that the judgements on the appeal of the product by the group become more important than the item itself. In effect, the buyer is purchasing approval from the group, and getting an item as an added benefit.

Marketers are also aware of the fact that social currency is contextual. An item can have immense value one day and almost none the day after, depending on the whims of the groups. It is this change in values that new products rely on. If old products never went out of vogue, new brands would never succeed. Instead, fad and fashions within a group shift with the opinions of its members.

Within these groups, though, some members exert more influence than others. Similar to Gladwell’s “Maven” (2000), opinion leaders within groups tend to be the main source of change within a group. This is not to say they are necessarily the leader, or the socially dominant member, just that their opinions are trusted by the rest of the group, and that they lead most changes in the group.

In a 2004 study conducted by Eric Vernette for the Journal of Advertising Research, researchers examined what factors determined opinion leaders within fashion in France. Because of the powerful informal influence that opinion leaders exert over groups, advertisers have long sought ways to target them, with varying degrees of success.

Hard and fast methods for identifying opinion leaders are rarely successful, given that opinion leaders differ greatly from one culture to another. (Marshall and Gitosudarmo, 1995) However, there are commonalities between, and traits that tend to be shared by most such leaders. Opinion leaders tend to be more sociable (Johnson-Brown and Reingen, 1987), more innovative, (Goldsmith and Desborde, 1991) and have more self confidence (Summers, 1970) than non-leaders, but these traits could just as easily be the product of their position rather than a cause. Summers also concluded, in the same study, that opinion leaders within female fashion tend to be more mentally stable and less depressed than the average population.

These leaders tend to have a more favourable opinion of advertising than non-leaders, seeing many adverts as sources of information that they can use later on. As those following them see them as informed opinion leaders, they often read magazines and adverts in order to gain information that they can use in their expert role later.

The study also found that opinion leaders talk more about media, advertising and fashion than two non-opinion leaders would together. A good guess would be that this is in order to show their knowledge and display why they should be seen for expert advice. It is a way of maintaining their position within their group.

The same study also measured the numbers of people falling into a five-part scale of innovation and opinion leadership. It was found that the top 2.5 percent of a population innovates and adopts innovations of their own accord. Opinion Leaders come in next, with still only 13.5 percent of the population represented. As there is no hard line dividing opinion leaders from followers, the study also included an additional 15 percent that the designated as weak opinion leaders. However when combined, this only comes out to a group of approximately 25 percent of any group, effectively making purchasing and fashion decisions for the group. However, this demographic figure is shifting as groups change from having fewer leaders to Millennial-style collectives. (See “Why Now”)

The three groups interplaying together here can easily slip into a version of Merton’s definitions of conformity and deviance. The goal would be social status, and the means would be conventional fashion. In this case, the only true conformists would be the non-opinion leaders. The opinion leaders would fall under innovators, as while they accept and succeed in the goal of social status, they avoid conforming to the fashions of the time, and instead seek out new things to introduce to the group. The last group falls into both rebellion and innovation, depending on the individual motives. These tend to be people who do not conform to conventional fashions, and instead create their own works, either as a protest statement (Grunge punk, for instance) in the case of the rebel or as a bypass to status, as an (attempted) trendsetter.

Why Now

The power of opinion leaders has been recognised by marketing groups, and several viral or subtle marketing campaigns have been pushed through opinion leaders, most commonly online. Just recently, six popular and influential Toronto bloggers were approached and offered incentives to publicise an upcoming show by a band from their city. This was done in a staggered format, as though they had come across it on their own, and as though it was by their own initiative that they were pushing the upcoming show.

This particular use shows a particularly powerful manipulation of social networking sites like MySpace in the generation of target-specific advertising to the youth who use their service. By looking at geographical information entered by users, ads can be placed that apply to that area specifically, and by analysing “friend networks” it is possible to locate key members of various groups to use in campaigns such as the one mentioned above. (Social Networking, 2006) It is important to realise that the key people aren’t always, in fact, are rarely, the ones with the most friends. In “Critical Mass” (2004 359-71), Philip Ball notes that the key people are in fact the people who join groups, the “connectors” as Gladwell called them. These people are relatively well established, but not particularly powerful within either of their groups, and still provide the communication link by which the normally separate groups are joined. While a connector doesn’t necessarily have access to a large number of people on their own, they have secondary access to the widest circles.

It is these large secondary networks that are so important to current marketing tactics. Each of us has access and influence, no matter how small, over about five thousand acquaintances. (Ball, 359-71) This is a major and continuing change in demographics of relationships, given that cavemen, and even most feudal societies, were insular to their own group, avoiding contact with other tribes or villages. As we develop further, we connect ourselves more over greater distances. The recent explosion of the internet has nearly eliminated distance in our interactions.

The traits common the to current generation are also of huge importance in the rise of social networking and the dominance of alternate advertising media. The Millennials are currently the second largest generation, after the Baby Boomers, and are the largest consumer group, commanding over $100 billion. (Layman, 2004) Composed of everyone born between 1977 and 1994, it is a large group, currently aged between 12 and 29, on average. (The Millennials, 2004) This generation has more time to spend shopping, and often more disposable income to use on luxury items. Millennials spend less on food, groceries and necessities, and devote far more resources to fashion, entertainment, and electronics. Demographics studies say that North American teenagers have an average of $100 a week of disposable income.

The Millennials are the least homogenous generation so far, influenced strongly by their racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity. The document warns against making clear cut generalizations about the generation, Millennials are harder to pin down in their entirety than any previous group, not only because of the previously mentioned diversity, but also due to a significant diversity among homogenous groups. There is no longer any clear “mainstream” culture, instead there are loose amalgamations of groups and identities that Millennials attach and detach themselves in relation to other factors. A member of punk subculture, for example, is not just a punk, and not always one.

However, there are some characteristics that can be applied to most Millennials. Generally, they are self-confident and team oriented. New educational approaches saw them rewarded more for participation and cooperation than for actual results, leading to strong, social team players without a strong sense of where their strengths lie. They are also a generation of risk takers. The emergence of video games as tools of socialisation have taught Millennials that failure is part of the path to success, and more than previous generations, they are willing to fail multiple times in order to solve a problem. As a generation, they have a strong sense of community, and have greater confidence in themselves as a collective whole rather than as individuals.

Group dynamic models are shifting from clear-cut leader/follower dynamics into consensus-driven collectives, with leadership and innovation coming from all or most of the group, and social power being transferred depending on the situation. Generally, Millennials are seen as direct, pragmatic and humorous in their communications. Subtlety, political correctness, and misdirection are seen as undesirable and dishonest traits. They want to be seen as a generation unsusceptible to advertising, exaggeration, and hype.

More so than any generation before them, this is true. Today’s youth are the most media savvy and least susceptible to advertising so far. Having grown up immersed in traditional advertising their entire lives, Millennials are far less susceptible to it’s messages than their parents were, and largely unaffected by traditional advertising. (Meskauskas, 2003) The exceptions to this are corporate/brand name awareness, and advertisements that interest them, such as the fashion opinion leaders in Vernette’s study of French fashion magazine readership. (2004) Advertisements that provoke a positive response from Millennials are those that appeal to the values of honesty and directness. Additionally, humour, especially irony, is increasingly important tools in getting conventional advertisements noticed by this increasingly discerning generation. Traditional commercials pushing emotional content, slogans, or an specific image that were so successful with Boomers and Gen X have lost much of their effectiveness.

As a generation, Millennials are consummate consumers with short attention spans always on the lookout for something new, unusual, or value-priced. With almost nonexistent brand-loyalty, Millennials like to be on the cutting edge of their group, and prefer to “find” hot new things rather than be told by advertising. They gain social currency by being the first to find something new, and by passing it on to their group. Their group can then gain currency in the same way by passing on the discovery to other groups they belong to.

It is at the aversion to traditional advertising and the desire to discover new things that Millennial consumer characteristics meets viral media and advertising. Memes are by nature a pull media. They have aspects that make finders want to pass them on, rather than demanding attention or distribution.

When the social conditions that lead to viral media, such as advertising resistance among the dominant economic demographic and a desire to discover new things, combines with a powerful information transmission medium like the internet, the conditions become effectively perfect for viral advertising and media to spread.

Significance

As we enter into a new generation’s ascendancy, we not only see how that generation has adapted to it’s environment, but also how it’s environment has adapted to it. With Millennials spending more and more time online, it becomes increasingly important for marketers and businesses to find ways of transmitting their message to an increasingly resistant audience. The introduction of viral media and advertising has led to new ways of moving information and doing business. Unfortunately, this leads every piece of information available on the internet open to suspicion. As viral marketers are forced to be increasingly inventive and subtle, legitimate content can be subverted, such as in the case of the respected bloggers selling out. As news of this spreads, this not only casts doubts on their credibility as unbiased sources, but also casts aspersions on the credibility of all bloggers. Following the same path, readers trust in all written media online will erode over time, and with the slow progression of increasingly subtle marketing tactics.

In our rush to reject conventional advertising and pursue independent and novel products and ideas, we have set our culture up to be almost perfectly susceptible viral and underground tactics to influence our buying and thinking patterns.

We can’t really effectively fight against viral marketing, other than by accepting it as something that is here to stay, and regarding our sources critically and refusing to accept any mention of a slogan or product at face value. It is key to keep in mind that when we take time to study a meme, mock an advert, or deconstruct a viral epidemic, we aren’t just educating and protecting ourselves from them; we are devoting attention and thought to a piece of advertising, and in that, we are doing exactly what the makers wanted you to do.

References

Ball, Philip. 2004. Critical Mass New York. Farrar, Straus, and Girroux,

Firat, F. A., and D. A. Venkatesh. 1995. Libratory Postmodernism and the Reenchantment of Consumption Journal of Consumer Research 22.3: 239-67.

Gladwell, M. 2000. The Tipping Point London, Little, Brown and Company

Goldsmith, R. E. and R Desborne. 1991. “A Validity Study of a measure of Opinion Leadership”. Journal of Business Research 9.1:

Herr, P.M., F. R. Kardes, and J. Kim. 1991. “Effects of Word-of-Mouth and Product Attribute Information on Persuasion: An Accessibility Diagnostic Perspective” Journal of Consumer Research 17.4: 454-62.

ICBC Business Intelligence & Customer Research. March 15, 2006. Market Profile: Under 26 Years Old – This is a confidential internal document. Sorry. It was also the best resource I had.

Johnson-Brown, J. and P.H. Reingen. 1987. Social Ties and Word of Mouth Referral Behaviour Journal of Consumer Research 14.3:350-62

Layman, M. October 14, 2004. Meet the Echo-Boomers, The Spectator Online. http://www.spectator-online.com

Marshall R. and I. Gitosudarmo. 1995. “Variation in the Characteristics of Opinion Leaders Across Cultural Borders”. Journal of International Consumer Marketing 8.1:5-12

Meskauskas, J. October 15, 2003. Millennials Surfing: Generation Y http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/2027.asp

Rushkoff, D. 2005. Get Back In The Box: Innovation from the Inside Out. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Subramani, M. R. Dec 2003. “Knowledge-Sharing and Influence in Online Social Networks via Viral Marketing” in Communications of the ACM. 42.12: 300-7.

Summers, J. O. 1970.. “The Identity of Women’s Clothing Fashion Opinion Leader” Journal of Marketing Research 7.2: 178-85

“Social Networking: Community Leaders”. July 6, 2006. New Media Age, 21. Retrieved Dec 1 2006. Available: DialogueWeb.

The Millennials. July 1, 2004. New Strategist Publications. Inc.

Vernette, E. March 2004. “Targeting Womens Fashion Opinion Leaders in Media Planning: An Application for Magazines.” Journal of Advertising Research, 44.1: 90(18) Retrieved Dec 1 2006. Available: DialogueWeb.