I actually had a discussion about this with Mike and I would disagree. Sharing brand experiences aren't exclusively for the benefit of friends. Often they are a voice of expression, a complaint, an expression of joy or something in between. It's an absolute fallacy to think brand interactions are driven by an abundance caring of one's friends. Why do we assume that Facebook friend interactions are selfless?
Some interactions are worth more than Facebook friends. The Whopper Sacrifice campaign suggested that a lot of people are willing to dump some relationships for an offer. While a lot of superficial friends were sacrificed, it's a clear point that a more complex interaction was at play. At an even more simple level, passionate people who love brands are happy to advocate on a brand's behalf regardless of how they like their friends.
I agree with you, Johnny, that it's a mistake to think that people share brand experiences/messages _exclusively_ for the magnanimous reasons.
It's a lot more complicated than that. But, I do think it's crucial to realize that all shared experiences/messages have a social dynamic to them.
As Henry Jenkins wrote: "Content is spread based not on an individual evaluation of worth, but on a perceived social value within community or group."
This is what I meant. It's complex. We use culturally relevant and resonant stories to help us tell each other about who we are and how we fit in with certain communities. We share information in order to better understand complicated or difficult circumstances. And we share content in order to define who's "in" and who's "out."
Wow, great quote Ilya. I'm totally using it for a presentation on Thursday. By the way, the brand is Newport Chocolates.
ReplyDeleteI thought this was an interesting article to share...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.examiner.com/x-6206-NY-Business-Models-Examiner~y2009m3d24-The-death-of-advertising--the-rise-of-the-7th-mass-media
THIS IS NOT SPAM
I actually had a discussion about this with Mike and I would disagree. Sharing brand experiences aren't exclusively for the benefit of friends. Often they are a voice of expression, a complaint, an expression of joy or something in between. It's an absolute fallacy to think brand interactions are driven by an abundance caring of one's friends. Why do we assume that Facebook friend interactions are selfless?
ReplyDeleteSome interactions are worth more than Facebook friends. The Whopper Sacrifice campaign suggested that a lot of people are willing to dump some relationships for an offer. While a lot of superficial friends were sacrificed, it's a clear point that a more complex interaction was at play. At an even more simple level, passionate people who love brands are happy to advocate on a brand's behalf regardless of how they like their friends.
Great quote, I'm tweeting it as we speak... Because I like my tweeple, of course.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, Johnny, that it's a mistake to think that people share brand experiences/messages _exclusively_ for the magnanimous reasons.
ReplyDeleteIt's a lot more complicated than that. But, I do think it's crucial to realize that all shared experiences/messages have a social dynamic to them.
As Henry Jenkins wrote: "Content is spread based not on an individual evaluation of worth, but on a perceived social value within community or group."
This is what I meant. It's complex. We use culturally relevant and resonant stories to help us tell each other about who we are and how we fit in with certain communities. We share information in order to better understand complicated or difficult circumstances. And we share content in order to define who's "in" and who's "out."
I also agree with you...
ReplyDeletegreat quate, i think this is good to share...