The roles of the social consumer = ...middle school?

 

Credit: Valve Interactive 

This made me think of just one thing...middle school. 

Hey, psychoanalyze me all you want; it's probably justified. And maybe it's just that "peer" is right at the top. But the shifting power dynamics of consumerism as refracted by social media are a lot like power relationships in middle school, where a new pair of sunglasses can make you the "It" kid for a day and a zit on your chin can harm your brand for a week.

Middle school is all about self-branding in a constantly shifting environment; you can't necessarily predict the impact those careful decisions will have. (Those sunglasses will only take you so far if somebody's got the newest iPod.) 

But I don't necessarily see this correlation as a bad thing. On the contrary, while the world becomes more navigable and somewhat more humane after the brutality of brand-as-identity, I don't think we ever really drop those power dynamics of relating to one another. And that means this graphic (and further discussion - follow link) is simply a more accurate and accessible depiction of what's been happening all along.

An app I downloaded tonight, "World Customs and Cultures," informs me: "Russians tend to be somewhat guarded and closed until a relationship is formed... In some instances you may find that Russians will dance around a subject, especially if it's a difficult or uncomfortable topic. In other instances they can be quite direct." 

But isn't that more or less how we all are with any kind of capital - money, time, trust, loyalty?

Implications: I think those people who naturally have a facility for understanding how members of a community relate to one another have always had the edge in marketing. And to be honest, I think the transparency of this time period, as so many of us attempt to literally graph the patterns of desire and influence, can be a wealth of ethical, as well as business and marketing, resources. 

Do you think "humanizing" brands and tracking social interacts to sell is exploitative, no matter what? Or do you think it's more transparent...or somewhere in the middle?

Don't tell her this, but until today, I'd never heard of Kara Swisher.

I followed a link to one of her columns on the site All Things Digital from MediaBistro's daily digest. First I noticed that there are two names on the site: hers, and Walt Mossberg's. Secondly, I found, prominently displayed on the left, a link to her Ethics Statement. Further piquing my interest, the tag before the jump said, "This is probably more than most of you want to know, but...."

Ah, rejoice! I want to know more than most of us want to know! Tell me more!

Swisher, who is a technology writer, proceeded to disclose her relationship with an executive at Google (her wife, which led to a brief acknowledgement of disagreement with California's Proposition 8, effectively repealing same-sex marriage), and the way she manages any potential impact from that relationship. She stated, basically, that she does not accept money from anyone she covers in any way. She referenced her investments and explained that the funds are managed in such a way that while it is possible at any given time that she might own shares of stock in a tech company, she is not aware of those individual purchases.

Essentially, Swisher invaded her own privacy and stated for the records all the things some believe should be assumed. It's not entirely what she said, but that she said it at all.

Like the taboo against discussing salaries (the continued existence of which must be adding just a little more spin to Marx's turns in his grave), I've always felt it's a little silly to take offense at obvious ethical or conflict-of-interest charges that might fall short of the legal line. It might be naive of me, but if one is in the business of providing information others depend on, disclosure of relationships, financial or otherwise, that might affect one's viewpoint, and sharing a few details about how those potentialities will be managed, is both good business and good ethics. No one in the media is presumed innocent until proven guilty any more, even - sometimes especially - its producers. Transparency is vital to the integrity of news.

Is this something that should be business as usual, expected by the public, for anyone proclaiming any level of accuracy and objectivity - a practical, necessary sign of good integrity? Or is it a dangerous precedent for the invasion of privacy and a smear against names wh ich have not yet been attacked?