The Holiday season inspires charity; social media demands it.

The PowerReviews Social Shopping Study 2007 recently reported that 70 percent of all online shoppers are social researchers—these consumers use the Internet to investigate potential purchases.  Of these, PowerReviews notes, 64 percent research not only what they plan to buy online, but also what they plan to purchase in stores. 

The kind of information this research generates is not limited to those that do the virtual research; many are no doubt more than willing to share what they know with their fellow consumers and local merchants in the real world.

Media trends and parallel studies suggest a significant portion of shoppers’ research explores the integrity of a brand or a company.  TV shows and public policies in 2007 targeted sustainable consumption, by the individual and by the corporation.  In many European markets, for example the UK, the “green consumer” is a given.  This purchasing trend is reflected in corporate practices.  BP is “Beyond Petroleum”, and John Brown, BP’s Chief Executive, is one of the leading proponents of a pragmatic global sustainable energy policy.  Last January, Marks and Spencer, in a successful effort to outshine competitors, implemented a 100-point five year plan “to become a carbon neutral, zero-waste-to-landfill, ethical-trading, sustainable-sourcing, health-promoting business”.  This move was also in line with European Union plans to reduce European carbon emissions by 20% by 2020.

Next year, Buzz online suggests that the trend promises to expand, but with some new developments.  M and S has just announced its plan to join the Fair Trade Movement increasingly practiced by competitors.  Blogs and Forums are discussing not only the environment, but also the impact of the environment on the health and wellbeing of its inhabitants.  Pharmaceutical industries are coming under fire for treating human health like a business—making money off disease and misery the way oil companies were accused of generating wealth from the poor planet.  Discussion online vibrates between the ethical imperative to provide needed medicine and health care to the public and what constitutes effective health care.  A common debate centres around pharmaceutical companies and health care professionals–are some over-medicating simply to make money?

Hannah Jones, the VP of Corporate Social Responsibility for Nike, referred in April to the “metatrends” impacting consumer behaviour.  The environment, emerging markets in developing countries, and equality and concern for the well-being of our fellow man are not just traditional sentiments of the current season.   Jones recognised these topics long ago (in online time) as some of the most significant metatrends to impact the future of consumer behaviour.  Buzz suggests she’s right; Brands, companies, and even public agencies (witness Monday’s demonstration against the EU European Fisheries Commissioner Joe Borg and EU ministers) are experiencing if not responding to the pressure of public concern.  The Internet demands that this response not be cosmetic—limited to superficial revisions of a corporate veneer.  Agencies, non-profits, and individuals online are anxious to attack any inconsistency in a company’s expression of concern and the behaviour of it (or its subsidiaries). 

Nike experienced these attacks in the late 1990s, and the company responded with an integrated re-organisation of its supply chain in coordination with its public values.  The results have been phenomenal—as Nike engaged with its former critics and really altered its practices, the bad Buzz subsided and the company re-emerged as a leader in the realm of corporate social responsibility, giving birth to a code of conduct to which clothing industries across the globe aspire.  Criticism hasn’t ended, but the company has made its intentions obvious and real, using the bad Buzz as a basis for critical (and lucrative—the company now makes a number of well-reviewed environmentally friendly products) change.

Blessed be the Buzz.

Reassessing “political will” and predicting elections online

Public relations are immediate today, and the public overwhelmingly initiates such relations. John Edwards brushes his hair in preparation for an interview, and he is internationally mocked on You Tube. The Polish Power twins are treated in an equally ludicrous manner in a doctored music video. Through online documentaries and websites, Rupert Murdoch has earned a suspicious reputation rivaled by few (except, perhaps, the Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney).

The good news is that many public officials have responded by directly appealing to their audiences in corporate and political blogs, forums and websites. These officials recognise the importance of regular correspondence with their publics. The rise of the official corporate and political blog has in turn spawned an incredible amount of blogs about corporate and political blogs. Most agree that in order to be effective and influence mainstream and social perception, messages must be clear, short, and simple. Answers must be direct and honest (or else denizens of netizens will no doubt publish, post and proliferate the facts of any attempted misdirection.) In no other time has the power of the private individual to engage with the body politique (or corporate) been quite so strong and aggressive. However, it is within the power of party or company officials to respond as directly and aggressively and even to take advantage of the online popularity that a public name generates.

Senator Obama Barrack, in his bid for the Presidential candidacy of the US Democratic Party, has taken full advantage of his online appeal to younger voters. He has made appearances on MTV and other media forums targeting younger audiences, and these appearances have migrated to You Tube and various personal and public weblogs. He has exploited his public name online.

But Buzz is more than simple popularity. Unfortunately, while Barrack may have much overall Buzz, he is not as regularly linked within that Buzz to politically important issues, such as the economy or health care, as is his more polarizing rival, Senator Hillary Clinton.

PCP (Persons, Corporations, and Policies) are Buzz entities that are continuously recast in online media. The Buzz claims them, combines them, and alternates between them, mixing initiatives both public and private in the Buzz re-creation of real person or policy in virtual space and time. Management of the public perception of a politician or a policy, private or public, is thus essential, as is understanding the current environment surrounding that PCP. This requires more than a single corporate blog’s response; it requires a diversified and nuanced understanding of the citizens and consumers to whom a corporate or public entity is responding. PCPs must exploit online media monitoring to make this possible. Online social media (such as blogs and forums) as well as mainstream media (i.e. online newspapers and magazines) illuminate the environments in which PCPs are expressed and re-created.

It is through this media that a person, corporation, or policy can understand and influence constituents and citizens. Buzz illustrates how a message or a campaign is perceived and can in many ways predict future perceptions. It is both media and medium, and savvy politicos and CEOs are listening.

Further thoughts about social networking and Buzz

In this age of information overload, most consumers know that the desired data exists, and many consumers are able to access at least related data. But consumers are not comfortable with their access. Consumers are sensitive of their own ignorance in the incredible excess of information available.

As a result, consumers choose to corroborate. They choose to network. Socially.

Users make information exchanged via a platform like Facebook credible because they believe in the integrity of their networks. The networks found on Facebook are social, not commercial. Information is shared (largely) for non-financial gain—out of genuine interest in sharing with the wider community. Because Facebook users believe in their networks, they trust in the data produced by these networks. Because they trust the data, the data is valuable. Valuable data is marketable.

Whether Facebook in reality warrants the trust that users give (rather, gave) it is debatable—no more so now than before the Beacon fiasco. The Facebook platform itself is just a medium. So why did the Facebook Beacon mess that up?

Facebook’s Beacon ruined Facebook community trust because it reminded Facebook users that the platform itself is a moneymaker as well as a community space. Worse, Facebook reminded users that it makes money off information that users share for free.

This was always true to a certain extent. Many Facebook community members recognised that to live in a community, one must pay taxes to support the community infrastructure (here the Facebook platform). The commercial ads dotting Facebook Profiles and conversations were a necessary means of financing the community’s online space. Public profile information was also fair game, providing information for advertisers as well as a means of extending a user’s network. After all, other users were required to gain the permission from the owner of the Profile before accessing further information.

However, Facebook crossed a line when it began to aggressively market the data that the platform had gathered unobtrusively before. Facebook’s Beacon was like an invasive gossip rag, turning private community members into targets of unwanted marketing paparazzi. The platform exploited its citizens when it pimped their private data to the Facebook public.

Buzz is unobtrusive. Buzz is public information that consumers want to share. Buzz does not target individuals, but it allows marketers to respond to an appreciative audience. Buzz allows marketers to collect the information that they want and profit from it through careful observation, not outright exploitation. As privacy and security issues become more prevalent on the Internet, Buzz will prove more and more the means by which organisations, agencies, businesses, and even government collect information about the individuals and communities that make up their audiences.