Comments on: Social media as surrogate for product.

By: michele

michele — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:48:58 +0000

Am I the only lonely person who doesn’t go buy stuff? It is cheaper to go home and ‘self-love’ anyway. This way, I get the love without spending the money.

By: ErikJ

ErikJ — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 08:38:17 +0000

Very intelligent, I wish I would have known this before my last relationship. I learned that people who collect excessive things have a collection of bad thoughts in their mind it is a direct correlation between the two. Well at least I know now.

By: delade | K??rlek och shopping

delade | K??rlek och shopping — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:42:46 +0000

[...] Zeus Jones redog??r f??r den intressanta kopplingen att samma del av hj??rnan ocks?? ??r i h??gsta grad involverad n??r vi shoppar. [...]

By: delade | Kärlek och shopping

delade | Kärlek och shopping — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:41:42 +0000

[...] Zeus Jones redogör för den intressanta kopplingen att samma del av hjärnan också är i högsta grad involverad när vi shoppar. [...]

By: Ms. Adverthinker » links for 2008-11-16

Ms. Adverthinker » links for 2008-11-16 — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 23:06:23 +0000

[...] Social media as surrogate for product. Could explain some of my habits. (tags: social media networking shopping buying companionship relationships love retail) [...]

By: ocellus | When consumers can’t consume

ocellus | When consumers can’t consume — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 03:47:51 +0000

[...] Ho of Zeus Jones connects lower consumer spending to the prospect of using social media to preserve consumer [...]

By: Helge Tennø

Helge Tennø — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 23:03:50 +0000

Very interesting, love your take on this.

Does it make it even more interesting that the way we learn is also connected to the same brain behavior? We learn by repetition, and we are encouraged to repeat when a chemical is released in the brain when performing the given action. One of these “reward-chemicals” is dopamine. Which is
one of the chemicals Helen Fischer is focusing on…

I’m not sure if it ads to your point, but the whole Dopamine/Brain-thing is quite fascinating and I would say potentially could teach us a lot about communication in marketing.

I’ll link to a post on my own blog on this, because it goes through a lot of the same things you are referencing (albeit linking it to creativity, not social media), and it contains a link to a much recommended article by Rosenfield and Ziff.
http://www.180360720.no/?s=dopamine&x=0&y=0

By: adrian

adrian — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 18:33:01 +0000

@cory, to me the big thing about social media is that it is really personal. It’s so much more powerful when it’s simply about connecting with people rather than messages or ideas. That’s why it isn’t just like another channel to me.

@charles, do share. Very curious.

By: Charles Frith

Charles Frith — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 16:33:31 +0000

You are right Adrian. When i get off the mobile I will share a quasi case study.

By: Cory Hendrickson

Cory Hendrickson — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 16:07:22 +0000

I like this, but I think it’s even broader than what Helen proposes. Love, reward – it doesn’t matter. Social media is no more social than any other form of media. Radio, television and print operated individually and with groups. People would talk about individual media around water coolers. The difference with digital is that it is driven by action. I believe a greater understanding of this space could be gained if we call it what it is – intent driven media. Yes it’s social, but it’s also functional at times. There are a lot of ripples that cross in this pond. These are where the areas of strength are.