The social networking revolution only goes to furthur prove that be it the real or virtual world; man is a social animal.
When it comes to social networking sites in general; and Facebook in particular; we all demonstrate characteristics that can archetype us as a kind of 'social animal'.
But what social animals are we online? Here's my take.
Basis for the model
My model of 'social animal archetyping is loosely based on the well known Heylens Model. My simplistic interpretation of the Heylens Model of Needs is shown in the chart below . For those who want to understand it in detail and complexity; read about it online or join Unilever !(they live by it )
Essentially all human needs can be plotted on a basic framework - Internal VS External & Group VS Individual
Internal needs are more self self actualised while external needs are more societal. Group needs are more affiliative while Individual needs are more 'individual'
Here's how it works for a category like alcohol.
So how does this framework pan out for people in their social networking avtaars? Through continuous observation of the way people(including myeslf) act, post, react etc on facebook; people's needs from social networking can also be fit into a framework.
Social Need States
I believe needs from social networking fall into four quadrants:
Individual Vs Participative
&;
Exhibitionist Vs Vouyeristic
Vouyeristic needs are those which take vicarious pleasure in reading about others lives without disclosing much about your own. Vouyers seldom if ever post things, but read everything.
Exhibitionism is all about telling the world about yourself - love me, hate me; but don't ignore me.
Individualism is all about doing your own thing. Demonstrating how different you are, the different places you have been to, the 'away from the beaten track' things you do..... and the 'free spirit' life you lead.
Participation is about continuous interaction. Of demonstrating solidarity. Of regularly commenting on status, pictures, posts etc. And of continuously pushing the 'Like' button!
These four are needs in their extremes. There would ofcourse be shades in-between.
So given this framework; there emerge 4 active social networking archetypes. There could be more (as in the alcohol example); but to keep things simple let's look at the four which are clearly differentiated from each other.
The first is the TIGER archetype. The leader. This person is fiercely individual. He does his(or her) own thing. Is not keen to try what is the latest fad on facebook; unless it interests him. He believes in doing things first, for others to follow. Be it apps, posts, pictures or a point of view.
The next is the OWL archetype.Make no mistake. This archetype is quite active on facebook, it's just that he does not post too much. Most of his time is spent observing what others are doing and saying. He sees everything and everyone; but hardly anyone sees him. Atleast not online.
The ELEPHANT archetype is the participator.He has a point of view on everything -freely comments and posts on other peoples pages. Likes to continuously keep conversations going. The bulk of his time is spent on reacting to what other people are doing rather than putting something up himself.
And lastly there's the PEACOCK; the preener. He lives to post. Be it anything - big , small or inconsequential - the world's gotta know. His life is an open book and he thrives on your reactions. The more you comment on his posts; the better he feels .....facebook for him is a cathartic experience.
I am sure you have seen some or all of these social animal traits online. As marketeers; identyfying individuals by these traits could provide a good opportunity for targetting.
But therein lies the problem.
From what I've observed. Most people are not true to one archetype in the social networking world. Today they are a Tiger, tomorrow a Peacock ; right now an Elephant and the next moment - an Owl. While archetypes exist; branding individuals under one is difficult; if not impossible.
So we could say in the online world the 'social animal' called man is actually a CHAMELEON - he keeps changing colour!
So how do Marketeers address this constantly changing consumer?
In category after category we see an individual consumer ; who we assume to be a certain type; exhibiting different(almost schizophrenic) behavior over a period of time. Let’s take the example of investors in stocks. Typically we see two types of consumers - Investors ( who invest in a stock and stay invested in it over a long period of time) and Traders( who buy/sell stock everyday and sometimes several times a day). However when stock market conditions change suddenly(as has been happening frequently in the past 3-4 years) we see abrupt changes in their behavior. Eg when a stock price falls temporarily in the short term, Investors sell off their stocks fearing the worst; thus turning into traders. Similarly , when stock price falls, Traders ( even those with a ‘Stop Loss’ – i.e a discipline where as a trader you cut your losses and sell) start holding onto their stocks in the hope the price will rise; thus turning into investors.
In the social networking space, the consumer is even more of a ‘moving target’. Flitting between different states depending on mood, person he’s interacting with(office colleague/attractive opposite sex/family/close friend/soulmate!), environment(at home/office/party/alone/with friends/partner etc), device through which interacting(computer/mobile/tablet & app/ web) etc etc.
So how do Marketeers address this moving target? .
By not addressing individual consumers, but addressing a social needstate.
Hence; segment consumers on social networking sites into these 4( or more) archetypes. And have brands aligned to certain archetypical mindstates ( and not a certain individual consumer). With the understanding that an individual in , say, the Tiger social needstate maybe your target consumer today but may not be so tomorrow as he may have become an Elephant that day. (No worries as he/she would be replaced by other consumers who have become Tigers for the day!) For eg If we look at the category of , say, ‘weekend entertainment’; a Tiger would be more attracted to ‘off the beaten path’ treks, the Owl archetype maybe attracted to browsing the top best sellers at a book shop, a Peacock to the ‘first day-first show’ of a much hyped movie and an Elephant to dinner out with friends. Chances are, an individual may do all of the above in the four weekends in a month! So as an adventure company, I can only target 1/4th of this individual consumer. But also 1/4th of every other who will be a Tiger that day!
Based on status updates, number of comments being posted, kind of comments being posted on a particular day ( or hour!) etc; it is technically possible to have analytics that bucket users into their real time social need state and send out relevant messaging to that bucket(privacy concerns notwithstanding). This could be the next state of targeted messaging in the online space – one of real time psychographic targeting based on social needstate.
In today’s ultra competitive marketing environment, it’s a jungle out there. Let’s see which brands become the kings of social animal targeting!
When it comes to social networking sites in general; and Facebook in particular; we all demonstrate characteristics that can archetype us as a kind of 'social animal'.
But what social animals are we online? Here's my take.
Basis for the model
My model of 'social animal archetyping is loosely based on the well known Heylens Model. My simplistic interpretation of the Heylens Model of Needs is shown in the chart below . For those who want to understand it in detail and complexity; read about it online or join Unilever !(they live by it )
Essentially all human needs can be plotted on a basic framework - Internal VS External & Group VS Individual
Internal needs are more self self actualised while external needs are more societal. Group needs are more affiliative while Individual needs are more 'individual'
Here's how it works for a category like alcohol.
Social Need States
I believe needs from social networking fall into four quadrants:
Individual Vs Participative
&;
Exhibitionist Vs Vouyeristic
Exhibitionism is all about telling the world about yourself - love me, hate me; but don't ignore me.
Individualism is all about doing your own thing. Demonstrating how different you are, the different places you have been to, the 'away from the beaten track' things you do..... and the 'free spirit' life you lead.
Participation is about continuous interaction. Of demonstrating solidarity. Of regularly commenting on status, pictures, posts etc. And of continuously pushing the 'Like' button!
These four are needs in their extremes. There would ofcourse be shades in-between.
So given this framework; there emerge 4 active social networking archetypes. There could be more (as in the alcohol example); but to keep things simple let's look at the four which are clearly differentiated from each other.
The next is the OWL archetype.Make no mistake. This archetype is quite active on facebook, it's just that he does not post too much. Most of his time is spent observing what others are doing and saying. He sees everything and everyone; but hardly anyone sees him. Atleast not online.
The ELEPHANT archetype is the participator.He has a point of view on everything -freely comments and posts on other peoples pages. Likes to continuously keep conversations going. The bulk of his time is spent on reacting to what other people are doing rather than putting something up himself.
And lastly there's the PEACOCK; the preener. He lives to post. Be it anything - big , small or inconsequential - the world's gotta know. His life is an open book and he thrives on your reactions. The more you comment on his posts; the better he feels .....facebook for him is a cathartic experience.
I am sure you have seen some or all of these social animal traits online. As marketeers; identyfying individuals by these traits could provide a good opportunity for targetting.
But therein lies the problem.
From what I've observed. Most people are not true to one archetype in the social networking world. Today they are a Tiger, tomorrow a Peacock ; right now an Elephant and the next moment - an Owl. While archetypes exist; branding individuals under one is difficult; if not impossible.
So we could say in the online world the 'social animal' called man is actually a CHAMELEON - he keeps changing colour!
So how do Marketeers address this constantly changing consumer?
In category after category we see an individual consumer ; who we assume to be a certain type; exhibiting different(almost schizophrenic) behavior over a period of time. Let’s take the example of investors in stocks. Typically we see two types of consumers - Investors ( who invest in a stock and stay invested in it over a long period of time) and Traders( who buy/sell stock everyday and sometimes several times a day). However when stock market conditions change suddenly(as has been happening frequently in the past 3-4 years) we see abrupt changes in their behavior. Eg when a stock price falls temporarily in the short term, Investors sell off their stocks fearing the worst; thus turning into traders. Similarly , when stock price falls, Traders ( even those with a ‘Stop Loss’ – i.e a discipline where as a trader you cut your losses and sell) start holding onto their stocks in the hope the price will rise; thus turning into investors.
In the social networking space, the consumer is even more of a ‘moving target’. Flitting between different states depending on mood, person he’s interacting with(office colleague/attractive opposite sex/family/close friend/soulmate!), environment(at home/office/party/alone/with friends/partner etc), device through which interacting(computer/mobile/tablet & app/ web) etc etc.
So how do Marketeers address this moving target? .
By not addressing individual consumers, but addressing a social needstate.
Hence; segment consumers on social networking sites into these 4( or more) archetypes. And have brands aligned to certain archetypical mindstates ( and not a certain individual consumer). With the understanding that an individual in , say, the Tiger social needstate maybe your target consumer today but may not be so tomorrow as he may have become an Elephant that day. (No worries as he/she would be replaced by other consumers who have become Tigers for the day!) For eg If we look at the category of , say, ‘weekend entertainment’; a Tiger would be more attracted to ‘off the beaten path’ treks, the Owl archetype maybe attracted to browsing the top best sellers at a book shop, a Peacock to the ‘first day-first show’ of a much hyped movie and an Elephant to dinner out with friends. Chances are, an individual may do all of the above in the four weekends in a month! So as an adventure company, I can only target 1/4th of this individual consumer. But also 1/4th of every other who will be a Tiger that day!
Based on status updates, number of comments being posted, kind of comments being posted on a particular day ( or hour!) etc; it is technically possible to have analytics that bucket users into their real time social need state and send out relevant messaging to that bucket(privacy concerns notwithstanding). This could be the next state of targeted messaging in the online space – one of real time psychographic targeting based on social needstate.
In today’s ultra competitive marketing environment, it’s a jungle out there. Let’s see which brands become the kings of social animal targeting!
