Each presidential election, America turns into a football field where two sides, Republicans and Democrats, fight it out in a bloody battle that usually ends up leaving the country more divided and bitter once the game ends. Each side thinks that it has the claim to legal superiority and rightness. As the game wears on, fans becoming increasingly rabid and nonsensical, to the point where fisticuffs often ensue.
As elections become closer and closer, the two sides begin to utilize increasingly drastic slash and burn tactics to take out their opponents. On the right we have the Republicans, who use scare tactics to tell us that voting for a Democrat is distinct to rain terrorists down upon our heads. To the left we have the Democrats, who use scare tactics to notify us that electing a Republican is positive to bring World War III down upon our heads.
At the core, both sides have sincere, caring reasons for their stances. The sincere on the right, believing in old-fashioned ideas of security and a strong military, simply want to protect the country, even if sometimes their boogieman is perhaps a bit overblown. The sincere on the left want peace, believing in a utopian (but perhaps naive) future where terrorists and other enemies will join hands with us in peace and harmony, if we just tried to sit down and talk to them. Somewhere in the middle is probably the truth – that yes, sometimes we need to protect ourselves from the very real boogiemen out there, and sometimes we need to sit down and try to talk it out more.
At the core, both sides want a safe, prosperous America. They objective disagree on how to make that happen. The outcome we could all generally agree on; it’s the strategic “how” we differ on.
But we forget that during election years. Television and media have sped up election news so that polls can turn in a day, depending on the latest shocking scandal or admission. Cynical campaign managers and advertising agencies are hired to work overtime to manipulate the hearts and minds of Americans, in an effort to swing voters their way. Email whisper campaigns are spread like viruses, slandering candidates and scaring Americans who don’t realize they are falling prey to simple marketing. The same marketing that makes men run to the store to buy Rogaine and women to buy anti-aging creams is what is used in elections. Commercials for personal care products prey on our fears of aging, our fears of being unattractive, and our fears of being rejected.
Campaign marketing plays on deeper, more existential fears. In essence, the fear generated by both the Republican and Democratic sides is the SAME FEAR. It is the fear of war coming home to roost in America. The Republicans play on the fear that it will come from outside via terrorists. The Democrats play on the fear that it will come from our own “warmongering” officials, or what I will call “establishment terrorists.” Socially, the far right Republicans play on the fear that Godless liberals are going to bring Satan to our homes and schools, and the far left liberals play on the fear that Republicans are not only going to ban abortion, but chain women up and force them to become baby-making machines ala The Handmaid’s Tale.
Price how this has played out in the 2008 election. On the proper, we have people foaming at the mouth over Barack Obama’s middle name or Muslim faith (fear of terrorism). We have an independent 527 putting out an ad suggesting that Obama consorts with terrorists due to his past associations with William Ayers. Yes, Ayers did bomb the Pentagon as a counterculture activist in the 1960s. An old hippie, however, is not quite the same as Osama bin Laden, though I’ll leave it to you to decide whether Pentagon-bombing hippies are a good or bad thing.
On the left, we have people sending out frightened smear emails equating Sarah Palin to a female Hitler, who is going to force all women to carry babies to term, ban all library books (even those that have not been published yet), and originate nuclear war with her fashionable glasses. McCain is a warmonger, Palin is a fanatical right-wing nut, and “God help us all if they get elected, we must move out of the country!” (Here we have our fear of so-called establishment terrorists.)
May I have a suggestion? We all need to CALM DOWN.
Neither party is 100% pure and decent, and neither party is 100% horrible and evil. If you honestly acquire that a Democrat or Republican is beyond reproach simply due to their choice of party, well, the word naïve comes to mind. Politicians can be corrupt on both sides of the aisle. But not all politicians are bad, and to make a snap judgment on someone due to their political party is about as sensible as hating a football fan just because they like the rival team.
By buying into an ideology of us vs. them, we fall prey to negative campaigning and fearmongering. We are being manipulated by both sides, folks. While fearmongering may be good for winning an election, it is bad for our collective psyche and souls. Instead of listening to the other side, we cry and insult. We believe we are right – after all, we’ve bought into the lie that our very lives are at stake! (Go, team, go!)
What we forget is that the American political system is set up with a system of checks and balances. The separation of powers guarantees that no-one becomes King of America. No president can start World War III without Congress backing him or her up. No president can willy nilly open the borders to terrorists if Congress does its job and keeps the president accountable. So electing a bad president is not enough to destroy the country. He or she will need the benefit of Congress to do that. But we forget that, in our fear.
Consumed in this fear, we use selective reasoning to harden our stance towards our side. Anyone who opposes is us is not just wrong, but evil.
Mediate the eight years of the G.W. Bush presidency. I was very unhappy when he was elected. I bought into the fear. When 9/11 hit, my fear got worse. We were headed for World War III, and Bush was hell-bent on starting it!
Eight years later and I can stare back and see that World War III did not, in fact, happen. That here at home we have had relative peace and prosperity since 9/11; that America has actually rebounded from a terrible tragedy better than I originally imagined. In fact, my life has been delicate good during the Bush years; I honestly can’t report to people who say that we’re living in the worst times in American history. Really? I’ve rather enjoyed myself then, in spite of the supposed hell surrounding me. But, perceive, that’s more marketing – we must paint everything as really bad, a problem to be fixed, baldness to be cured, wrinkles to be smoothed over.
So let’s ask the question: Was Bush a mammoth president? Mmm, probably not. But was he a Hitler? Hardly. And if we’re willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and stretch our minds a little further, we might even consider that it was perhaps his response to 9/11 that kept another terrible terrorist-related tragedy from happening again during his tenure. I’m not saying that’s true, but it’s possible. (Never mind the various conspiracy theories, which may also be true, or may be more marketing through anxiety.) Who knows? Are you obvious you are right? Do you enjoy an infallible crystal ball?
Let’s take a tougher issue: The Iraq War. The war, which many fearmongering folks on the left explore as this gross, bad thing, is not something I can easily judge anymore. I’ll never forget the documentary I saw showing an old Iraqi woman kissing a photo of Bush for liberating the country from Saddam Hussein. This changed my perspective forever. I found out that many Iraqis are glad we came in there. But Iraqis, like Americans, are not a monolith and they don’t all think the same way. Surprisingly, quite a few Iraqis said on camera they preferred the dictatorship, because they felt the country was more pick up under the tyranny, that it was precisely Saddam’s heavy hand that kept all the differing factions in line. Did far too many Iraqis die during the Iraq War? Yes. Would many more have died through racial genocide had Saddam Hussein stayed in power? Possibly.
What is truly best for Iraq? I don’t know.
Is there a factual or wrong answer on this? Some think they know, but I can’t say that I do. I’m not God; I can’t claim to have right authority on everything 100% of the time. I still don’t like Bush, and I suspect he may have been one of our worst presidents. But I’m open enough to give him the benefit of the doubt and the passing of time before history fully judges him.
Are you that open?
What truly amazes me, actually, is how many people protesting the war in Iraq in the name of “peace” spread violence and hate through their words and actions. Burning an effigy of G.W. Bush is hardly peaceful. Protesting by smashing windows and destroying property at the 2008 Republican Convention was truly a low point for those who claim they are on the side of what’s good and right. This made about as much sense as the so-called “pro-lifers” who went berserk in the 1990s and went around shooting and killing clinic doctors.
So can we accumulate a middle ground here and get beyond the black-and-white thinking?
Are Republicans sometimes correct about certain things? I have to concede that sometimes, yes, they are. Are Democrats sometimes right about certain things? Absolutely. (My personal take is that the Republicans are probably a bit more realistic about national security, and the Democrats are great better about domestic issues such as the environment and education.)
Is that such a bad thing, having two parties with unique strengths to bring to the table? Maybe we need a country where we have hawks (spiritual warriors) protecting us and doves (spiritual idealists) reminding us to be compassionate to others. Maybe that’s the beauty of America, and people in general, that we have strong military-minded hawks who stand up to protect the doves, who can then have the prosperity, freedom, and peace to promote even more peace and remind those hawks not to go overboard with aggression. We keep each other in check.
Thus, I believe as spiritual people we need to try to let go of labels, judgments, and fearmongering when we discuss politics. This doesn’t mean we can’t criticize or have preferences. But to label someone a “warmonger” without really understanding their concerns or sincere desire to protect and serve is childish at best, and hateful and spiritually warmongering at worst.
Likewise, to label a liberal-minded peace-lover a kooky fruitcake is dismissive and not appreciative of those higher ideals that show America’s best side as a light for hope, freedom and democracy.
I believe we need both hawks and doves, and those plain old robins in the middle who do the simple job of showing up and contributing their talents, love and joy to society.
Additionally, can we agree to start respecting other people’s spiritual beliefs, even if they are counter to our own? If you – as a Mainline Christian, Jew, New Ager or otherwise – cannot see the beauty in the faith of an Evangelical, then you haven’t done enough spiritual work on yourself. Conversely, if you are an Evangelical or Fundamentalist who can’t sight the devotion to God inherent in many non-Christian people, you need to go back to the Scriptures and read up more about what Jesus was really about.
And a reminder to the doves reading this – peace starts in our hearts. How can you say you are about peace, when your heart is angry and you sow abominate and discord with your words? How can you be about peace, when your agenda is to mercilessly destroy candidates (and their families) simply for having a different strategy but the same goal? What almost all Americans want is a peaceful, prosperous America. We just disagree on the best way to do that. That is all.
Certainly, there are times when dangerous people attempt to come into power, and we all need to be vigilant about that. But if you find yourself automatically labeling someone a dangerous “warmonger” or “communist” just because of their political party, you’re not being vigilant. You are being reactive.
So the next time you arrive across a political “opponent,” consider whether you are labeling them out of terror or listening to them from your heart. If you open your eyes, you might be surprised to acquire a sincere human being on the other end of that label. Are all politicians good and steady? No. There are bad eggs in both parties. And remember: The American people unhurried the politicians – normal, everyday Americans – are for the most part good, sincere, decent people.
Try to remember that the next time you accept tempted to sign the other side.
Tags: e mail marketing pro, email marketing pro 2007, email marketing pro 2008, email marketing pro 2008 rapidshare, email marketing pro 2009Filed under Email Marketing Pro by on Feb 3rd, 2012. Comment.
Earlier this month, Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center released a report (Chilton, 2008) citing high levels of inflammatory arachidonic acid and Omega 6 fatty acids in tilapia, while also noting very low levels of valid Omega 3 fatty acids. To most consumers, this was something of a surprise. The American Heart Association suggests two servings of fish per week, in order to make definite you fetch enough Omega 3 fatty acids in your diet. Most people never think twice about what kind of fish they should be choosing to meet this recommendation.
I had a chance to discuss this research report and an article I wrote on the health implications of eating farm-raised tilapia with an industry insider.
This is the first of a series of articles based, in part, on that discussion.
I raised this topic with Jim Nunneley, Vice President of Marketing with RainForest Aquaculture. Rain Forest Aquaculture is a major importer of novel (as opposed to frozen) farm-raised tilapia into the United States and has its own tilapia farming operation in Costa Rica. Mr. Nunneley cautioned that he needed time to impart with other nutrition experts before making a formal statement, but was willing to share some of his immediate reactions.
Worse than Bacon or a Hamburger?
When asked about the results of the Chilton leer, Mr. Nunneley replied: “Dr. Chilton has made comments to the press that eating bacon or a hamburger may be less harmful to a person than eating tilapia. I find that pretty hard to swallow, but again, we are conducting our own studies and seeking the opinions of other experts in nutrition before we make a formal statement on Dr. Chilton’s study. I will say that this is a healthy discussion.”
The Chilton recognize suggested that tilapia convert short chain Omega 6 acids, found in high levels in corn, into arachidonic acid and store this in their tissues. The arachidonic acid causes inflammation in the body when eaten by humans and can exacerbate issues such as cardiovascular disease, asthma and even arthritis, all of which are conditions related to inflammation. It was this inflammatory effect that prompted Dr. Chilton to remark that eating tilapia is worse than eating bacon or a hamburger.
Rain Forest Aquaculture Willing to Change
While we both acknowledged more work needs to be done to evaluate these claims, I was heartened that Mr. Nunneley, representing one tilapia farming operation, responded: “We take the study seriously, and if we have to adjust the diet of our fish to produce a product that is healthier for our customers, so be it. We are very pro-improvement.”
I take him at his word here, and I’ll tell you why. Rain Forest Aquaculture is based in Costa Rica where the costs are somewhat higher than those of their chief rival, China. As a former product manager of luxury goods, I can tell you that when you have higher costs, you recognize to differentiation to market your products. Currently, fish-farming operations in the Americas use new versus frozen as a differentiator.
Their claim is that recent (never frozen) tilapia from the Americas is better tasting than tilapia from China, which loses some of its taste during the freezing process. Adding another key differentiator, such as higher ratio of beneficial Omega 3 fatty acids to Omega 6 fatty acids than Chinese tilapia due to the higher quality feeds used during the farming operation, would only help American tilapia farms compete more effectively.
“We’ve never marketed tilapia as a ‘health food’ but only as a healthy food,” Nunneley said. “It is important to us to continue to be considered as such. If the research yields results that we feel should be incorporated into our [standard operating procedures] we’ll certainly do that. As an industry, we are still less than 20 years old and learning every day.”
In a day when “plausible deniability” seems to govern our country’s policy, the willingness of a vice president of Rain Forest Aquaculture to assume that there may be steps that his company should take to improve was refreshing.
Plausible Deniability Revisited?
On the other hand, I don’t want to leave you with the impression the tilapia farming industry is accepting these results without question. Indeed, Nunneley repeatedly referred to the need for further review of the results — and for novel tests to be conducted by Rain Forest Aquaculture’s own experts — before he could fully address Dr. Chilton’s statement that tilapia is worse than bacon.
“We think it’s important consumers get the ‘whole story’ regarding tilapia. At this point, it’s too early to tell whether this is an indispensable seek or not,” Nunneley stated. “It will take a couple of weeks, at a minimum, to understand the merits of the study and to determine our response. There has been some response from within the nutrition industry that has been critical of Dr. Chilton’s study.”
While some of these statements could be interpreted as setting the stage for denying Chilton’s results, I contemplate we can all agree with Nunneley’s final statement: “One way or another, this process is making us capture a closer look at our products and I think that is a well-behaved thing. The consumer deserves to know what they eat, and we intend to continue to produce high quality products they can trust.”
Continuing Series of Tilapia Articles
As I continue this series of articles, I will discuss such topics as:
· The Tilapia Farming Industry’s Record on the Environment
· What Goes into Tilapia Goes into You – a look at the feeding of tilapia in farming operations around the world
· Tilapia Farming Around the World: China vs. the Americas
Additional topics will be covered. The goal of the final article, with the Company’s Vice President of Marketing, will be to address the findings of Rain Forest Aquaculture’s experts once those results have been received and evaluated. I, for one, am very eager to hear how that turns out. If you want to receive an email notification when these future articles are published, you can use the subscribe button at the top of this article to be alerted each time I publish a new article.
Source Material:
Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center, Wake Forest Researchers Say Popular Fish Contains Potentially Dangerous Fatty Acid Combination,retrieved July 8th, 2008 from http://www1.wfubmc.edu/News/NewsARticle.htm? ArticleID=2400
Filed under Email Marketing Pro by on Jan 20th, 2012. Comment.
SANJAI VELAYUDHAN
HUMAN GROUPS- A SOCIOLOGICAL INTRODUCTION:
Humans by nature are social and pro-active communicators. Their evolution from nomads to a settled life has been supported by the development of languages that facilitated effective communication between each other. This skill played a crucial role in the formation of societies and civilizations created by co-existing groups-both cooperating and competing ones. Social interactions between humans have established an extremely wide variety of traditions, rituals, ethics, values, social norms, and laws, which together get the basis of human society which is but an aggregation of a variety of groups. Humans with their advanced cognitive capabilities have revolutionized their own socio-technological progress that would not have been possible without intra-group compatibility. For Homo sapiens, Communication is not just a way of life, but a compulsion.
Human nature is marked by inherent contradictions-despite being driven by individualism, living in groups all their lives are one of them. Overcoming strong obstacles of individualism had its strong motivation- survival. Their relatively smaller size as well as the lack of natural defenses like horns, lively teeth, claws etc. save humans at a disadvantage compared to other animals. It is by coming together and living in groups, that they overcame these deficiencies and survived. As an outcome of living together for centuries, humans have learnt the art of collective decision making as well as influencing each other.
HUMAN GROUPING & HERD MENTALITY:
As discussed above, people tend to form groups or join them as a natural process. This grouping could be voluntary or involuntary. Groups may also be structured or unstructured. The type of group a person is a member of also defines the person.
Living together in societies for a long time has made humans dependent upon the opinions of its own kind and this has sociological/psychological underpinnings. Its outcome has been studied under the academic discipline appropriated called “group behaviour”. It may be understood as” the behaviour exhibited by people while interacting within groups-large or small”. The dynamic processes of communication in a group tend to be different than between non-connected individuals. Formation of rules and regulations that operate in a group ensures that a substantial number of people within a group act in tandem to achieve a goal that differs from what individuals would do acting alone.
One of the crucial outcomes of people living in groups and societies for most of their organised lives seems to have been the formation of “herd mentality”. It may be described as the design in which people influence and are influenced by their peers to adopt acceptable behaviors & follow popular trends. It implies a fear-based reaction to peer pressure which makes individuals act in order to avoid feeling “left gradual” from the group. This necessity to be a “share of the trail” is a very strong factor that continues to influence the behavioural patterns of people.
The results of an experiment conducted by researchers at Leeds University, led by Prof. Jens Krause, brought out the power of herd mentality . They performed a series of experiments where volunteers were told to randomly pace around a gargantuan hall without talking to each other. A select few were then given more detailed instructions on where to walk. The scientists discovered that people extinguish up blindly following one or two people who appear to know where they’re going. The published results showed that it only takes 5% of what the scientists called “informed individuals” to influence the direction of a crowd of around 200 people. The remaining 95% follow without even realizing it. “There are strong parallels with animal grouping behavior,” says Prof Krause, who reported his study with John Dyer in the Animal Behavior Journal. “We’ve all been in situations where we get swept along by the crowd but what’s interesting about this research is that our participants ended up making a consensus decision despite the fact that they weren’t allowed to talk or gesture to one another… In most cases the participants didn’t realize they were being led by others.” This is excellent example of how the human brain is setup for social life. Even without a top-down organizer or any sure rules, society just falls into place. (10)
Stamp Earls (11) proposes that each individual does what they do largely because of what other people do or don’t do (even if our brain tells us other wise). In fact Sign Earls turns the idea of thinking then doing on its head and argues that people actually act and then assume about it later. He would also argue that there’s not much point in spending too much time, energy or money asking people why they do what they do because, quite simply, they don’t actually know. We like to think that we make individual decisions and that we decide our own behaviour. However, the truth is that most of the time we are heavily influenced by the behaviour of those around us. It is a herd mentality.
As behavioural scientists have proposed, any behaviour that is constantly rewarded will be re-inforced and those that are not will be extinguished. The large no. of people who pay heavy membership fees to be piece of exclusives clubs or gated communities are actually wanting to a piece of “their type of people”. To be out of such communities means a loss of reputation and support system.
Since social behaviour seems to have been re-inforced in humans over a period of time, there has to be obvious benefits of doing so. Some of the benefits may be highlighted thus:
* Security
* Recognition & Status
* Self -esteem
* Power
* Comfort of group decisions & group responsibility
INTERNET AND SOCIAL NETWORKING:
It is a fact that the internet has brought about a radical transformation in the way we interact & communicate with each other. By opening up the possibilities of instant communication, it has affected our social, cultural as well as commercial behaviour. The rapid sharing of information through online congregations has helped the Internet to become a very powerful tool and pivot of information, recreation, and socialization. It has become a vast repository where people can find information, inspiration, like-minded people, communities and collaborators faster than ever before. New ideas, services, business models and technologies emerge and evolve at dizzying speed in this social media.
The explosive diffusion of the Internet since the mid-1990s resulted in it evolving as a robust platform and brought along technological advances. Advanced digital technology enabled people to create their own content, including images, words, video or audio on the internet. This has been supported by the falling prices of computers, digital cameras, and high-speed internet access. Easy access and widespread availability of free or low-cost, idiot-proof editing software allows people to have a live blog website up and running within minutes of deciding to do so. In fact, among the defining characteristics of social media are the blurring of definitions, rapid innovation, reinvention and mash-ups. Many websites and software developers benefit people to play with their services and reinvent them. Most of the content in these sites are generated by its members themselves. It may be safely assumed that they build, own, operate and manage these spaces resulting in a participatory boom!
Social Networking has made the world a smaller place thus making communications easier. With people connected across continents and this has resulted in instant exchange and cross-fertilization of ideas. Emerging from the net, virtual communities as social aggregations have undergone its fragment of evolution and started to become alternative to physical interactions. Today’s powerful technologies enable one to do business across continents without any physical movements or have friends across the ocean without having ever crossed it, create powerful business proposals from two different continents and so on and so forth. Geographical distances are no longer a hindrance and fast becoming a myth.
As an extension of social activities on the physical plane, online communities have widened its scope and enabled people to reach out to those who otherwise might not have been reachable. Online social networks have evolved from their original purpose of being just virtual meeting places where people can interact with one another to becoming an
important platform for innovation. With the advent of an increasingly stable mobile platform, the development of area based services and the adoption of mobile devices such as smart phones by a wide variety of users, social networks have evolved from “pure-play” web-based applications to hybrid (Web-based and mobile-based) applications and those which are based entirely on the mobile platform.
SOCIAL SHOPPING-THE NEW MANTRA
While the world got flatter and the political borders turned less obtrusive, the emerging lifestyles at least in the metropolitan cities seem to have managed to contract the active social life of many people. Work pressures and tighter deadlines combined with virulent ambition to succeed seem to have left little time on energy with people to meet and mingle with friends and acquaintances after work. Being social animals by nature this possibly left a void in their lives. For all people constrained of time or wanting instant results, social networking came as a boon. One of the very reasons for its success itself comes from the fact that it was a solution for an existing inherent need.
The explosive growth of internet and its increased usage has naturally enabled people to aggregate on it for socialization and networking. The internet is still growing fast and its constant evolution has been forcing development of cutting edge technologies. Novel web applications had enabled the addition of easy-to-use yet, cutting edge functionalities. Driven by these new functionalities, the web has become more people-friendly and interconnected people like never before. The web is not a one-way street anymore but rather corresponds to the main belief of a participative internet. The fast growth of social networks and the successful concept of attracting previously orthodox activities by people are the central phenomenon of the transformed “social web”.
Due to steadily increasing and active participation by its members, social web services have gained spacious popularity in the last couple of years. The commence of social networking sites like orkut, face book, twitter, MySpace, and media sites like Flickr, YouTube came as a relief to most people as it opened up fresh avenues of interaction with other humans and expose the varied functionalities of social sites. It has made friends and acquaintances accessible from anywhere creating a wider social arc than ever before. Millions of people are logged-in at any given point in time seeking their collective social ambrosia. It wasn’t long before organisations identified these voluntary aggregations as potential business opportunities. It wasn’t the organisations that started social shopping but it was an outcome of the unusual need of the masses. Many people were discussing about products on social sites significantly affecting products or services. Peer-reviews were being generated in large numbers and people lapping them up. Left without interference or influence these reviews had the power to fabricate or mar products and for that matter companies. This trend of using public space to review products, online retail and e-commerce environments had to rapidly adapt to accommodate the opinion of people, its consumers or otherwise. Providing the opportunity to freely discuss within the sacred space of an organisation’s website was a cathartic experience for its customers. It was also the beginning of the process of integrating them within the system. Thus, a modern shop visitor can recommend products, leave comments, rate vendors or publish wish lists. This phenomenon, called social commerce or social shopping, leads to increased customer satisfaction & user participation. Successful exploitation of the social shopping concept has led to a strong demand for innovative social commerce models and concepts like crowd-sourcing, consumer generated content, live shopping etc.
Combining social activities with rob decisions does not represent a paradigm shift because; shopping has always been a social activity. For the pre-internet generation too, shopping trips to the market were not only for purchasing essentials but also for meeting people. The marketplace thus, has always been a place of convergence. Social shopping is nothing but an extrapolation of the same convergence-albeit over the net. A layman’s definition of social shopping would be “a form of e-commerce that leverages the “wisdom of the crowds” where a large no. of people communicate, fraction recommendations and aggregate information about products, prices and deals”. Social shopping opinion makes sense as “aggregation of information in groups’ results in better decision making and are more valuable than those generated by individuals”. The “wisdom of the crowds” generated among peers has more credibility since people tend to trust product recommendations that arrive from community members. Credibility of the opinions are established due to its diverse sources within the community. According to a Yankelovich Research, consumers trust friends above experts when it comes to product recommendations (65% trust friends; 27% trust experts). Social psychology has shown that people tend to develop relationships with those who have similar interests like them, transcending demographics and psychographics. And those who have established a strong relationship with each other have the capacity to influence each others’ behavior. Social shopping enabled by the internet is one of the most effective business ideas to come out in the recent times. Combining the power of two popular activities among the e-masses-networking and shopping, it is turning out to be the new frontier in e-commerce.
According to a Nielsen characterize, it has been estimated that two-thirds of the world’s Internet population visit a social network or blogging site and these activities now legend for almost 10% of all internet time. ‘Member Communities’ has overtaken personal Email to become the world’s fourth most popular online sector after search, portals and PC software applications. ‘Member Communities’ has taken a foothold in every major market from 50% of the online population in Switzerland and Germany to 80% in Brazil (12). Immensely popular social marketing enables organisations to tap into consumer peer groups who communicate regularly through the Internet and is proving, in most cases, to be even more effective than advertising, by creating loyal consumer bases and providing real time consumer-to-consumer interaction. It’s not unprejudiced blogs and virtual communities where customers can exchange notes; interactive websites that centre on specific brands are also being created that entice both brand loyalists as well as curious potential customers. “The web is fast moving from a publishing mode to a participation mode. It is a medium where community participants are belief leaders who help in adopting brand values by sharing personal experience, views and suggestions with other members.
Social networks’ market power and their mass of potential customer, are forcing a mutation of existing shopping concepts & social commerce has become the synonym for the next generation online commerce and is significantly affected by a fast preceding social networking. Up until recently, Internet shops were largely a replica of traditional stores – departments and categories that largely were produced for the convenience of the shop. However, people don’t shop online in the same way as they do in a traditional retail store. Social shopping websites develop their enjoy distinct personalities and are redefining e-commerce by influencing customers. Shoppers can find out the best deals and the best items for specific purposes. E-shopping sites are responding to the online behaviour which is much more social. Affected by changing customers preferences, enormous popularity & expansion of social networking, conquest of niche markets, online sellers have created a new generation of business and sales concepts within the past few years, which differ fundamentally from conventional e-shops.
Social shopping as a venture has evolved over time. As online shopping gained steam in the early days, pioneer e-merchants like eBay and Amazon gained control, and remain very much in that station, of the market. Companies are using social shopping to increase membership, empower & seize community members, stoking buzz, engaging influencers, nurturing brand advocates; network listening, market research, product development, offer enhanced customer service and thus, build a two-way communication channel between the community and the decision makers of the company. Although essentially companies create online communities to strengthen their emotional connection with consumers, they’re obviously not eliminating the idea of a potential sale. After all, the greater the engagement with the effect, the better the chances of positive action.
FEW BENEFITS OF ENABLING SOCIAL SHOPPING:
(1) Ability to influence consumers at the point of decision: Most customers visit social sites to check for peer reviews and recommendations about items they want to purchase or check the same on e-commerce sites. Influencing participants to positively review products help in affirmative shopping decisions.
(2) Increased Web traffic- One of the selling points for retailers social shopping is its collaborative nature. Shoppers can invite one or more friends, increasing the number of site visitors. The more time the website can engage visitor’s attention—the more likely they are to buy.
(3) Driving Immediate Purchases- While some online shoppers may only research products but not necessarily buy; certain reinforcement from a friend or family member could convince them to make the purchase at that moment.
(4) Increased Conversion Rates/Multiple Purchases- Friends often share common denominators and preferences. If a shopper shares their prospective remove with another, both may be likely to buy the product.
(5) Enabling Shared Discovery: Each of us has a finite attention span and different aptitudes for finding the right product. In some cases shared discovery simply means your friend puts products in your basket. In other cases ideas start flowing and build off one another: One may find a good pair of jeans but not a party shirt to go with it. One may study the help of a friend to decide a friendly one. Thus, a perfect outfit may be selected by involving close ones.
(6) Providing Purchase Validation: On the simplest level, shopping with a friend provides a style check. As shown by Barry Schwartz in The Paradox of Choice, the extraordinary range of styles and products available generate a plethora of choices, which makes it difficult for shoppers to settle the product that is right for them. Shopping with friends can provide validation that one would, in fact, look good in a short denim skirt.
(7) Making it Fun: Young people go to the mall together virtually every weekend, even though the stores are generally the same, the merchandise doesn’t change that often and they have little money. The process of shopping together provides a framework for their social interaction. Every visit to the mall results in conversations with friends, discovery of new products and a unique experience. Up to now retailers have been at best marginally successful imbuing the online experience with peer-to-peer interaction.
CONCLUSION:
The universe has been evolving since its formation and along with it everything that survives on it. As the saying goes “change has been the only constant”. Evolution affects everything-animates and in-animates. As far as humans are concerned despite our resistance to any change, we have been forced to change constantly.
Internet has brought about a renaissance in human way of life. It has moved on from being a practical communication tool to something that has the capability to profoundly influence large no. of people’s beliefs and perceptions. The power of the “Net” has become too indispensable to ignore and due to the large no. of people interacting on it, one can only ignore it at ones peril. The Net has been cast very wide and its accepted has been on the rise. It has radically affected modern society and influences the lives of billions of people, and that number keeps growing rapidly. It has also become a powerful business engine capable of changing the dynamics of every industry from banking to retailing. Over the last years, a boost of innovative developments pushed the social web, an environment where users collaborate and participate online. The spectrum reaches from smaller social media networks to more complex multi-blog communities and fully integrated social commerce platforms.
Traditionally, retail and CPG industries are known to be slow changers. Yet today, the dynamics of the industries are shifting extremely fast driven by the changing demands of the rulers-Shoppers! E-commerce has evolved dramatically since its emergence in the mid-1990s as a retail-driven, transaction-focused channel, completely separate from a merchant’s “real” stores. By embracing technology faster than most retailers, the consumers are driving retailers to enhance their support of social shopping. This adoption is resulting in a consumer-technology-driven retail transformation.
Contemporary social shoppers have a broad array of online tools at their disposal to exchange advice and opinions about products and services. No longer shackled to email or instant messaging, social shoppers write reviews, comment on those reviews, post blogs, and even create and post videos—if not on the retailer’s residence, then on a variety of comparison sites ensuring its hastily transmission.
Enabling social shopping has become an notable criterion for sellers because; social interaction plays an critical role in the buying process. Peers can help each other find products of interest, and in decision making whether to buy and also make the shopping experience more fun. Social validation is a foundational fragment of a shopper’s decision to buy a product. In the online world, shopping has largely been a solitary experience. This has prompted online stores to change their focus from being purely transactional to becoming experiential. These changes indicate a radical shift in power-from the sellers to the buyers re-affirming the power of online communities.
Social shopping is a win-win opportunity for its users-members as well as organisations. It offers the opportunity for everyone to acquire or disperse information about products they intend to buy or sell. As technology develops more robust methods for online social interaction, consumers will expect this social software to flow into their online shopping experiences. To be successful, online retailers should facilitate the types of opinion gathering, collaborative discovery and social shopping experiences we contemplate in the offline world.
Consumer engagement within social networks has the potential to change the way consumers are targeted, not just through the digital medium, but through all forms of traditional media. By supporting the key decision points in the shopping process consumers are more engaged and get the affirmation they need to click the catch button. Social or collaborative shopping is not only helping retailers boost sales, but it has many short and long term benefits for online retailers, creating the opportunity to impact the shopper mindset and increase lifetime value.
REFERENCES:
(1) http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/ecomnr1108.pdf
(2) Morgan Stanley, 2009
(3) The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2009.
(4) comScore, February 2009; IMRG Capgemini, March 2009; TNS Infratest, November 2008; FEVAD, January 2009.
(5) JP Morgan, January 2009.
(6) ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Database, 2007.
(7) Internet Retailer Survey, September 2008.
(8) Rosetta, January 2009.
(9) Econsultancy, March 2009.
(10) Vito Rispo, Understanding the Human Herd Mentality, http://www.adsavvy.org/understanding-the-human-herd-mentality/
(11) Mark Earls, an expert in human behaviour, communications and strategic thinking has explored the link between human behaviour and successful and effective strategies probably more than anyone. He is the award-winning author of several books on the subject including Herd – How to change mass behaviour by harnessing our moral nature.
(12) Global Faces and networked places, A Nielsen Report on social networking’s new global footprint, March 2009.
(13) NCR research.
© Sanjai velayudhan
Endnote: The author would like your feedback-both bouquets & brickbats. Write to me- sanjai.velayudhan@gmail.com.
Filed under Email Marketing Pro by on Aug 22nd, 2011. Comment.