Tribes, and The Attention Marketing-Positivity Dynamic
I've drafted and deleted several posts about Seth Godin. People I like and respect swear by him .. emphatically. I've had trouble digesting anything of his. It just never seemed that useful practically to me. He is a good marketer and businessman, and great at coming up with short posts that get you enthusiastic about doing stuff, but none of his writing ever resonated with me. But I think one of Godin's ideas is actually harmful: the so-called concept of the "tribe." I don't know if he came up with it, but he certainly popularized it (or is seen as having popularized it). (See, e.g., "Tribe Management.") As I understand this concept of the "tribe," companies and individuals are not supposed to market to their customers and prospective customers - instead they should connect with them personally, and build a circle of friends that they eventually will sell to. You're not really selling anything at this point, just recommending products or services (some of which happen to be your own) to your fellow tribesmen (or women). People have embraced this concept over the years and have built online tribes for themselves. Some helpful, and many (in my opinion) harmful. From what I see, the entire dynamic is harmful.
How do most people build tribes these days? In the old days, I imagine tribes were built or formed by necessity - your tribe is something that is marked out by nature that encompasses a group of people who endeavor to survive against the forces of nature. I wasn't around in the old days, but tribal life likely involved a fair amount of violence and force. In contrast to the tribes of old, the modern (online) tribe is not something that is characterized by violence. The modern tribe is built around positivity and enthusiasm, fueled by social media. You go out there and promote something you like - the chieftain of the tribe recognizes your promotion (and value to him or her) and voila, over time, you become a member of his or her tribe. (In the old days, people were battling for their limited piece of the survival pie - these days, we're battling for our piece of the attention pie.) What's the result of all this? A psychophantic cycle of online promotion. Another way of describing it would be a pyramid scheme built around attention marketing. (You promote my content or brand and I promote yours.) Geoff Livingston highlights this in a blog post that aptly captures the dynamic: "The Age of the Sycophant." It's tough to quantify something like this, but the emergence of actual business built around measuring influence (e.g., Klout) is to me a sure sign that there's probably a lot of this going on out there.
I've railed on the overabundance and excessiveness of online positivity here before. I am an avid user of Twitter, but one of my complaints about it is that it skews to thoughts and sentiments that are positive, and this may have negative consequences in the long run. (People are more positive than they are otherwise and positive about things they may not be off-line.) This positivity is a core ingredient in the online tribe's dynamic. What's the anecdote? Mike Cernovich has a very interesting post where he urges people to "Go Start a Fight." Mike flags the exact same dynamic that I'm seeing as the toxic ingredient in the mix:
More on this topic from Scott Greenfield: "Because We're Not Really Friends."
How do most people build tribes these days? In the old days, I imagine tribes were built or formed by necessity - your tribe is something that is marked out by nature that encompasses a group of people who endeavor to survive against the forces of nature. I wasn't around in the old days, but tribal life likely involved a fair amount of violence and force. In contrast to the tribes of old, the modern (online) tribe is not something that is characterized by violence. The modern tribe is built around positivity and enthusiasm, fueled by social media. You go out there and promote something you like - the chieftain of the tribe recognizes your promotion (and value to him or her) and voila, over time, you become a member of his or her tribe. (In the old days, people were battling for their limited piece of the survival pie - these days, we're battling for our piece of the attention pie.) What's the result of all this? A psychophantic cycle of online promotion. Another way of describing it would be a pyramid scheme built around attention marketing. (You promote my content or brand and I promote yours.) Geoff Livingston highlights this in a blog post that aptly captures the dynamic: "The Age of the Sycophant." It's tough to quantify something like this, but the emergence of actual business built around measuring influence (e.g., Klout) is to me a sure sign that there's probably a lot of this going on out there.
I've railed on the overabundance and excessiveness of online positivity here before. I am an avid user of Twitter, but one of my complaints about it is that it skews to thoughts and sentiments that are positive, and this may have negative consequences in the long run. (People are more positive than they are otherwise and positive about things they may not be off-line.) This positivity is a core ingredient in the online tribe's dynamic. What's the anecdote? Mike Cernovich has a very interesting post where he urges people to "Go Start a Fight." Mike flags the exact same dynamic that I'm seeing as the toxic ingredient in the mix:
People wake up wondering what nice things others have said about them. People actually Google their names on a daily basis! Mornings are made when someone has given us a virtual blow job.I am probably too peace-loving to take Cernovich's medicine, but he makes a great point and offers an intriguing solution to the problem. Either way, I'm convinced there's a problem, and that's the first step (as they say).
Yet as a nation of druggie, we understand the unstated deal. The dealers dole out the good stuff to those who praise them. If you criticize others, you will not get the soma.
More on this topic from Scott Greenfield: "Because We're Not Really Friends."
Comments