On Facebook and Twitter, the main currency is not information, but online social status

Posted by Anders Colding-Jørgensen on september 29, 2009 under Facebook, Marketing, Psykologi, Twitter | 6 Comments to Read

A social application, Like Facebook or Twitter, is not just another communication channel - it’s an arena for self presentation and identity creation. And in such an eco system, the currency is not information, but social status!

What do you offer people, to make them join your business page on Facebook? Information about your products or company? If your company is a well known brand or in some way doing really interesting things, that may work. If you offer discounts, tricks or other treats, that may also work. But most likely what works is when your offer can be exchanged into the new internet currency: “online social status”.

Whenever we share or join stuff, it is now visible to virtually everyone we know. This doesn’t mean that information has gone out of style – not at all. But it means that social status has become the main factor, when deciding to share or join stuff. You can have really good information that I really enjoy – but if sharing it makes me loose social status – I will keep it to my self. However, if something that I actually find less interesting could increase my social status, I will most likely share it.

What converts well to social status?

There is no single rule – this is not exact science. In stead, you should ideally look at any piece of content or interactive element you put out in the social realm, and ask yourself: Will sharing or joining this make my target audience look good? Here are 3 things to get your thinking started:

Novelty: Being first to know something signals proximity. And proximity to sources of high status, easily converts to social status.
Cleverness: Sharing something clever, means that you “get it”. “Getting it” converts really well to social status.
Stupidity: Sharing something that you can point out as being really stupid, will also make you look clever – see above.

If you provide interesting information, people will read it. But if your information converts to increased social status, people will share it. And most importantly: If your message may decrease my social stauts – I just won’t show it to anyone – no matter how brilliant it is!

PS Oh yeah – and another one: Lego. Everything with Lego in it somehow converts really well to social status online. Don’t ask me why! ;o)

Christian said,

Interessant indlæg!

Ang. Lego er det måske fordi at de har et rigtigt stærkt brand og godt renommé?
Anders Colding-Jørgensen said,

Ja – det er det nok ;o)
Amjad said,

Great observations! I guess the next big challenge will be to convert the social media attention to business goals.
Anders Colding-Jørgensen said,

@amjad: Yes definitely – this article only deals with a small part of the “how”. There always needs to be a “why” that is related to business goals.

As I wrote in this earlier post (in Danish): http://virkeligheden.dk/?p=969
Pål said,

Gode tanker. Vil lige sige at jeg netop har lagt en kommentar om muligheden for at applicere Bourdieus teori om social kapital på udviklingen inden for sociale medier på et lignende indlæg ovre hos Digitale Tanker.
Anders Colding-Jørgensen said,

@pål: Ja, det lyder umiddelbart oplagt. Men for det første er begrebet “social kapital” noget uoræcist og dermed problematisk at anvende analytisk. Og hvis man bevæger sig til et operationelt niveau og skal tilbyde folk brugbare råd til hvad de skal foretage sig, (hvilket jeg meget gerne vil, da der er evangelister nok) så bliver det endnu mere udflydende. Derfor bruger jeg et konkret og meget subjekt-orienteret begreb som “social status”.

Jfr den artikel du linker til, så har jeg som uddannet socialpsykolog brugt Foucault og Goffman i mange situationer, men hvis jeg begyndte at introducere f.eks. postrukturalismens komplekse magt- eller diskursbegreb(er), så ville jeg godt nok virke meget klogere – men det ville blive meget mindre anvendeligt for de erhvervsfolk der er bloggens primære læsere. Hvor relevante og kloge de tanker end måtte være.

Endelig er der et problem, som jeg også stødte på i forbindelse med min undervisning på UNI (i internetpsykologi) i foråret: hvis man anvender denne generelle litteratur, så efterlader man folk med ansvaret for selv at “connect the dots”. Derfor foretrækker jeg at anvende artikler som tager udgangspunkt i konkret forskning i fænomener som Facebook. Og her er det for øvrigt reglen frem for undragelsen at de inddrager Goffman i en eller anden form ;o)