Introducing Digital Socio-Consumerism Analysis

As a passionate observer to the triggering events and influential forces affecting coordinated human activities (within the realm of online consumer behavior & trends), I believe that there needs to be a refined subset developed within social network theory (sometimes referred to somewhat erroneously as network theory). Currently, the fields of socio-cultural anthropology, social psychology, sociobiology, behavioral economics, consumer economics, marketing science, and communication studies have been increasingly recognizing the growing influences on human behavior caused by the emergent online world. A convergent point of further specialization can be offered to include the study of human behavioral influences within this digital landscape from a global consumerism point of view. The newly defined discipline is to be called Digital Socio-Consumerism. This offers a needed bridge between consumer capitalism studies with its broad influence on mass marketing and modern social network analysis with its granular ability to include that of the individual cyber-citizen. The association between breadth and depth of behavioral understanding of consumers within the online world is the core premise behind how we developed Polyhistor Online - tracking, monitoring, and managing online opinion and behaviors across a full spectrum of digital channels to include mining to the unique consumer generated comment. To limit scope, in any fashion, while assessing online consumer opinion and behavior would be the metaphoric equivalent to ignoring a worldwide pandemic at the expense of solely focusing upon an infected individual. Or ignoring an individual's distinct contagion to focus upon the pandemic en masse - neither is recommended when exploring the dynamic, fluid spectrum of human systems (holistic & fundamental). Digital Socio-Consumerism through Polyhistor Online offers the needed range and scale to articulate growing online consumer opinion and behaviors.

Buzzword Buzz

It has become very evident that the prevailing measure of success within the Internet and Web2.0 in particular is commonly referred to as buzz. Most obvious to anyone who spends time online is that a great amount of hubris is expended upon discussing buzz, usually around keyword topics. However, after speaking with hundreds of people about buzz and its place in consumer online opinion research, it is very clear that most don't have a solid understanding of what the buzzword "buzz" truly means. The primary thing to know as a client of consumer online opinion intelligence is that buzz should not automatically to be interpreted as being synonymous with positive interest. The current tech lexicon, which was hijacked by the promoters of social media, has "buzz" being used as a transitive verb referencing an affirmation of increased attention - as in, one should seek out and bask in buzz. This is so prevalent that the majority of the online opinion intelligence market identifies gauging buzz as a foundational service offering. It remains rare for there to be a follow-up explanation around positive versus negative buzz. There is an additional lack of information around the spectrum of services needed to measure what should be the critical components of any true buzz tracking, such as:

Simply by identifying an increase in buzz by the popularity of a keyword should not be considered sufficient for proper market research. In fact, most of the conventional services being offered around general buzz metrics are already available for free online. Caveat Emptor: Educate yourself prior to using any online opinion intelligence touting buzz alone. . . not all are created equal.

Clarke's Three Laws of Scientific Prediction (A Tribute)

Sir Arthur C. Clarke, the author, futurist, and inventor who offered the world the geostationary communications satellite, passed away in his adopted country of Sri Lanka last month. It was Clarke who penned three laws of scientific prediction within his essay, "Hazards of Prophecy: The Failure of Imagination" (1962) that caught my attention well before undertaking what would become Polyhistor Online. The laws relate to any endeavor based upon a systematic knowledge-based effort, such as the building of the algorithms constituting our computational linguistics and analytics engines.

Clarke's first law is defined as, "When a distinguished [but elderly] scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong".
The second law posits," . . . the only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible."
And his conclusion offered, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. . . as three laws were good enough for Newton, I have modestly decided to stop there."

Now it isn't my intent to compare our consumer online opinion technology with seemingly supernatural qualities. It doesn't offer magic as far as a neural network, computation linguistics, and grid computing are concerned. However, upon reviewing the competition in this specialized segment of market research and coming to understand the prevailing paradigms that the majority of offerings had unintentionally fallen into, it only took re-reading Clarke's excellent synopsis as a corollary on innovation via his three laws to "see beyond" the self-limiting elements being adhered to by the marketplace status quo.

When the concept for Polyhistor Online was being conceived, it followed a mission-critical charter of expanding upon what is being offered in the market currently. This type of endeavor, with this type of focus, is often identified as impossible by those who've already set up shop -- referring to Clarke's first law. As the prototype came into an operational status after over a year and a half in stealth development, we saw that we'd raised the bar in broad-spectrum online social system monitoring (dutifully adhering to law #2). And as we began to introduce our service to the marketplace it became very clear that people might not understand the technology, but they quickly identified our value - which can be defined as a loose extrapolation on Clarke's third law.

Our primary mission remains one of continuing to innovate upon offering the broadest harvest of consumer online opinion covering all digital channels of the Internet in multiple languages. To push forward new, unprecedented visualizations to assist in illuminating significant data from the noise. And to persist in evolving upon our comprehensive consulting on worldwide consumer sentiment and behavior monitoring and management.

Sir Arthur C. Clarke - you will be missed.

When Two Tribes Go to War

Over the past three years or so, I've watched with great interest as two significant theories began building around opposite spectrums offering explanations for highly social epidemics of opinions. In one corner are the hard-core Gladwellians, a tribe of followers trumpeting Malcolm Gladwell (known for authoring the best-selling "The Tipping Point") who espouses the social theory of Influentials or e-Influentials (from an online point-of-view). Gladwellians believe there is an orderly, defined method to be utilized for successful marketing. Identify and persuade a relatively few highly-connected individuals who are at the center of broad social system networks and an influential marketing message you shall have. The core concepts shared by this band of brothers and sisters borrow heavily from the original "Six Degrees" studies of social networks performed in the late 1960s. A more modern day version of this is best known as the "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" game that illustrates the seemingly uncanny flow of hyper-connections between people (e.g.; movie stars who can be linked to Mr. Bacon).

In the other corner, we have the Wattsians. As the newest gang, these enthusiastic folks pursue the paradigms of thought contagion transmission offered by network-theory scientist, Duncan Watts. The Wattsians believe that starting a trend is not as simplistic as identifying and persuading a small group of opinion leaders who then fan the flames of a particular opinion's popularity. Citing epidemiology, or the study of how viruses are spread (or fail to spread), the Wattsians proclaim that the social theory of Influentials remains ineffective. They counter that the emergence of a viral message depends on the varying degree of susceptibility the public has towards that particular message - where successful transmissibility is as dependent upon the receiver as that of the opinion spreader. In short, a thought contagion isn't truly contagious unless a large enough group is willing to be persuaded regardless of what the core influentials or key spreaders tell them.

As the current chapter in advertising and marketing research history is being written, the Gladwellians will be identified as enjoying the lead as evidenced through the billions of dollars business continues to spend on tracking the influencers or buzz leaders. In my capitalistic-driven attempt towards remaining neutral amongst the growing bilateral tensions, I must admit to a growing fascination with the Wattsian camp. The working analog of pathogen transmission is a great model to leverage in understanding how opinions are shared or ignored. Nonetheless, it is important to state that we, at Polyhistor Online, continue to maintain that there is significant research value in offering comprehensive information based from both theories. This is underwritten by the principle of -- with a significant breadth and depth of critical data, the better our clients can ensure a more appropriate spend in relation to managing their image, brand, product, service or crisis situation based upon global online sentiment.

Memetic Theory in Cyberspace: A Primer for Business

Memetic Theory is the theory of cultural information transfer. The underlying element of Memetic Theory is that of a meme (rhymes with dream). A meme is any component or unit of cultural data - a cultural datum, if you will. This data can come in the form of an idea, opinion, or belief. The idea, opinion, or belief is then communicated (verbally, via the written word, etc.) from one person to another - propagating itself as it moves through a culture similar to that of the common cold being transmitted across a population by going person-to-person. This spread of ideas impacts a culture through impacting behaviors derived from that culture. Clothing fashion changes regarding what is "hot" versus what is "soooo last year" and its subsequent impact upon purchasing behaviors is a great example of this phenomenon.

One of the more interesting things (IMHO) about understanding memetic theory is when it is applied against the gigantic, ever-growing, swirling world of the Internet. As of late 2007, 1.3 billion people utilized the Internet globally.¹ In fact, the utter pervasiveness of the Internet has reached a point where it is now considered a crucial characteristic of global civilization - it is now defining us. According to the Urban Land Institute (a Washington, D.C. research group) what was commonly referred to as civil society is now synonymous with information technology society as identified through this worldwide acceptance of the Internet. Congratulations, we are now considered a cyberspace-immersed species of bipedal primate! To bring this back to my core premise, the popular digital world enables the ability to communicate with large numbers of your fellow humans. However, it is critical to note that complexities remain with this Internet-based communication. More precisely, how to adequately monitor, track, and manage the transmission of cultural data and the dynamic behavioral influences that can (but not always) correspond with a meme as it radiates (or fails to radiate) across a single, multiple, or all channels of the broad-spectrum digital landscape in differing languages - including both native and constructed (subcultural) "tongues". Obviously, the word "complexities" might very well be a significant understatement in defining the intricate science of online opinion and comprehending the potential for successful transmission of good and bad memes.

Additional questions immediately arise - is there a quantifiable recipe for a successful meme to spread across the broadest population of people online? What about a precisely defined demographic stratum within a populace? Does this recipe depend upon certain opinion influencers? Does a wide transmission automatically equate to inherent susceptibility of the masses (does it really affect behavior and by how much)? How much management can be exerted upon a thought contagion to positively impact intended behaviors (e.g.; consumer behaviors)? How does one counter a negative meme? . . . and so on.

Believe it or not, if you are in business right now these very abstract, somewhat peculiar questions related to memetic theory directly correspond to you if you plan on success within our current Internet age.

¹ Internet World Stats - Usage & Population Statistics (http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm)