Web 2.0 Industry As a Perfect Example of Crowd Thinking
by
on August 30, 2008,
Back in my university years when I studied philosophy I once wrote a paper on crowd thinking and behavior. That experience taught me that crowd is a very dangerous phenomenon because a crowd rarely can be reasonable and people can be easily manipulated to follow guidance from any leader clever enough to issue orders a crowd will understand.
Unfortunately now that I watch web 2.0 as an industry I often notice classical examples of crowd thinking here where people who are actually intelligent and reasonable enough are easily manipulated into whatever this or that leader tells them to do. This is so natural that we rarely even stop for a moment to think about it and make a thoughtful decision based on our own understanding of reality instead of following what someone else tells us to do.
Take micro-blogging, for example. When Twitter was launched there was no demand for such a service and no one realized we actually needed a tool to broadcast our thoughts in 140 characters or less. But then people like Robert Scoble evangelized the idea and since we tend to follow the leaders (we call them A-listers here), the service quickly attracted mass following and has become one of the most discussed subjects in the blogosphere.
These days we have at least one Twitter killer (or analogue or competitor or whatever we choose to label them) launched every couple of weeks (and I remember one week when I got invitations to try out 3 micro-blogging tools in a row). Some of them are launched completely unnoticed and only get a couple of posts on some second-tier blogs while others get at least a couple of days of popularity and attention everywhere. Why does that happen? Simply because some A-lister chooses this service is worth initiating a buzz around it and so all the supporters of this particular person consider it a must to quickly jump on the bandwagon, send out one shout (or one plurk or any other word the service creators choose to identify it to make the process a little different) to the crowd and immediately follow all the familiar faces.
The recent example that got me thinking about it was Rejaw - quite a neat service that seemed to vegetate in obscurity for a few weeks completely unknown to the crowd until Leo Laporte decided to mention how cool it was on Twitter and FriendFeed. All of a sudden the service received a lot of supporters and even fans. Lots of blog posts were published - some claiming Rejaw will inevitably kill Twitter since it is so perfect, others proving Rejaw has no chances to kill Twitter at all because Twitter is our long-time darling and we are quite fine with the existing functionality (if Twitter is not down, of course). But anyway everyone registered and tried Rejaw out and realized it was possible there to find friends from Facebook and Twitter - thus the crowd easily gathered over there again to exchange messages with the same people as on Twitter but in a new interface.
The same happens to any new service and clever startups understand our psychology well enough to never launche without at least some functionality to import friends from email address books and at least some social networks, like Facebook or Twitter. And that’s wise: if some bloggers choose to cover this or that new service, only some people of the standard crowd will read the posts and even less people will choose to actually try the covered service out. But if this small number of people registers and finds they can easily connect to their already registered friends and invite others easily, they will most certainly do just that - at least to further established their own positions as early adopters.
In fact, the much-hyped concepts like Data Portability and Google Friend Connect seem to be intended to further facilitate our crowd behavior - for us to constantly find the same people everywhere. I am sure that if you have been mixing in this crowd for a while now, you find the very same faces to add as friends or follow in every new service you register with. What’s more, I suspect that a vast majority of these faces and avatars are people you’ve never met in real life and absolutely don’t consider to be your real friends. These are simply the socially-connected people that follow each other everywhere and that probably enjoy talking to each other - and all the new services they register with simply serve as new (more comfortable, more functional, better-looking or shinier) places for the same activities and conversations.
Another example of this crowd thinking is technology blogging and the way Techmeme operates. Whenever someone many bloggers are willing to listen like Michael Arrington starts a discussion of some peculiar topic no one even cares about or thinks of as worth covering on blogs, other bloggers are more than willing to join in the discussion and all of a sudden we get lengthy Techmeme discussions with people ranting about a topic no one cared about an hour before that.
The same is true for new articles as well. If an event happens and some big name in blogging picks it for coverage and clearly expresses a positive or a negative opinion, you will mostly here the very same opinion repeated everywhere. Sure, it is easier to rephrase the same opinion instead of giving the new product or announcement some critical thinking to build an opinion of your own. And even if you do have a different opinion, other bloggers will hardly want to listen to this opinion (unless you are not an A-lister yourself, of course). As a result, bloggers prefer to either agree with the initial opinion or stay neutral not to irritate others if you think bad news is actually good or spoil a holiday for everyone if you think what everyone describes as perfect actually has some serious flaws.
Is it bad that people online show this trend for crowd thinking? Actually, I think there are both good and bad aspects about it. The aspect that I think is the worst one is the fact that this trend damages our opportunities for discovery of new services, new voices and opinions, new content. And unfortunately those voices that you’ve been listening to for a long time already will hardly ever bring anything that can be considered as new or different. Besides, it is also very difficult to reach any success if you don’t belong to the crowd - the only thing you can do to achieve any visibility is get noticed by the big names in the industry.
But there is one thing that is good about it (at least for a certain type of people) - easily manipulated crowd can be used for very efficient marketing and promotion. The only thing you need as a marketer to make your product a success is connections to the best-known internet personalities. And once you persuade these celebrities your particular product deserves their attention, they will bring the rest of the crowd to you without any particular efforts on your part.
But how does it feel to be a part of the crowd? I believe it is not the most pleasant of feelings to know you can be manipulated this easily by a handful of people whose opinions you’ve chosen to trust simply because they are already trusted by so many other people. So I believe it will not hurt to stop every few weeks and think for a moment if the startups we’ve lately joined and brought our friends in were actually interesting to us personally or were merely recommended by some internet celebrity. After all, reasonable decisions have never hurt anyone and hopefully if we have diversified opinions here, the entire industry will benefit eventually - even though the influence those A-listers enjoy may be diminished.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to profy RSS feed!
Svetlana Gladkova
Opensource 
Michael Fidler 
“…bloggers prefer to either agree with the initial opinion or stay neutral not to irritate others…”
I disagree that bloggers prefer to agree, or be neutral. Crowd or ‘mob’ behaviour is of course swayed by the ‘A-listers’ but I personally pay far more attention to those whom I have met in person. In my case that includes Robert Scoble, and I really like Robert, and had some great conversations with him, and happen to respect his opinions - but I don’t, as a result, follow every recommendation, or agree with every opinion that he has.
The great thing with ‘2.0′ is that we can all disagree, or agree, and do so in the same blogs or social spaces p and be as visible as any other individual. Although it does work as a double-sided sword that there is a body of ‘informed opinion’ from A-listers, there is still a long tail of diverse opinion that’s just as easy to tune into, and to agree or disagree with.
We are all the media, and we are all a crowd of one, and, sometimes, one of a crowd of thousands - but if an A-lister recommends something that really sucks, it may well get a burst of initial attention, but it’s only the truly useful services (and some fairly useless ones) that will gain, and retain traction. Services that occasionally disappoint and fail, are far from immune from criticism - especially from these same A-listers who may have championed them in the beginning.
It’s true that seeing the same ‘usual suspects’ in different networks and using various services can be a little like visiting a series of portable echo-chambers, but I think ‘mob mentality’ and ‘crowd thinking’ can’t accurately describe the behaviour of thousands of individuals online. We may be following a set of relatively few people who can manipulate or influence numbers of us, but we are still able to switch off the RSS feeds or twitter channels, and are always able to think for ourselves, and talk amongst ourselves. There are generally more ‘B-listers’ than A-listers, which mkaes them rather more important, I’d say!
This was longer than I had hoped for, but thanks for a thought-provoking article, Sveta.
Regards, David
I have no idea who Leo Leporte is and only have a passing idea who Robert Scoble is. I found many of these sites on my own or via Plurk.
I can see where you’re coming from with this article, though I believe it depends on the person. It’s not fun for me to have the same group of friends indenti.ca, Plurk, Twitter and Rejaw. I actively do not import from my friends from Twitter, rather relying on finding new and interesting people who actually use the service. That is, if the service is worth using to me.
Kyle,
A very thought-provoking article! Just a week or so ago, I was invited by a woman I’ve never met with whom I’m connected on several social platforms because we are (or I was) part of a large national organization. I delayed responding and because of Anita and my discussion with you, decided I would ‘connect’ and see what the platform has to offer. Well, I’m not overly impressed and it seems somewhat a rehash of LinkedIn, etc.
I have a degree in psych and understand the ‘crowd’ mentality, but really want to avoid it as much as possible with our new interactive community for women. It feels a wee-bit like a ‘catch 22′ since we really want to grow (traffic, page rank, all those techno things), but want to keep our uniqueness and the feel of true community. I think one has to be very selective, go where the activity is that relates to one’s target demographic and at some point, the ‘big folks’ will wander across the path and growth will occur.
Thanks for putting your thoughts out there. As always, appreciate your wisdom & knowledge.
Linda
@David Petheric: This post has never meant to be an attack against A-listers as I happen to respect the vast majority of them because I know how hard they have work (and still work) to be where they are. What’s more, they are those leaders that the crowd (or the mob if you so prefer) is willing to listen and I think it is a rare talent to be admired.
I can see you are rather idealistic and really believe in diverse opinions in the long tail but unfortunately I strongly disagree because those voices that actually choose to disagree often face attacks because something told by an A-lister often becomes the truth – and not because this opinion is actually true. I myself often try to go against the mainstream current if my opinion is different and I have faced those attacks myself and I know they are far from pleasant. But it is obvious that we should not blame the A-listers for this trend – it’s not their fault, it’s the fault of those bloggers that are lazy enough not to give this or that event a critical thought on their own.
And please, idealism is not bad but do you really think all the opinions are made equal in the blogosphere and can enjoy equal visibility? Any opinion that can be heard by a larger number of people (and that depends on traffic and number of subscribers) has higher chances of 1) being heard and 2) being repeated by more people.
I am not telling that the leaders constantly recommend poor services and then smaller bloggers continue to broadcast those positive opinions – the problem is that any opinion will be repeated hundreds of times and only very brave bloggers (or another A-lister) will dare to express a different opinion. I used to be equally idealistic myself some time ago but I have realized that there are certain currents here and if you don’t want to follow on, you will have a hell of a time trying to get any visibility at all.
Anyway I appreciate your comment and I am still glad that there are people who are not disappointed by the blogosphere, hopefully I will eventually see some additional proof that you are actually right and will believe what you say is true as this is exactly how blogosphere should actually work
@faboo mama: That’s a very healthy position but unfortunately this does not look like the most widespread one here in the tech blogosphere. I myself actually behave exactly the same when I import all my friends everywhere I can. But since you happen to know those A-listers mentioned here, you have obviously avoided their influence – thus your attitude. By the way, how have you discovered Plurk? Was it from some blogger or was it recommended by a friend?
@Linda S. Fitzgerald: Glad you have managed to make a reasonable decision on your own even after the platform was recommended by someone you are supposed to trust. I hope there is enough sense in your approach to community growth, chances are it is perfectly possible for your target audience. So I hope you will find a healthy balance between your ideals and what it actually takes to reach the success you need.
Svetlana,
Just read several articles in “Networking Times” which I still receive even though I’m no longer interested in network marketing for myself. Was amazed to find several internet-social media related interviews in which the folks interviewed said much the same as I related in my previous comment. Much of the success that folks want in the online world relates to how patient we can be as we ‘balance’ our values, ideals, vision, etc. with the technical aspects of Google, FriendFeed, LinkedIn, etc. Somewhere between writing from our ‘hearts’ for a ‘live audience’ and writing for SEO. . . there’s a balance.
That’s what we want to achieve & hopefully we have the patience it will take to make it happen.
Thanks for your encouragement!
You can make a lot of money from group think and that is why good marketers are in demand. I like your Twitter example. As a marketer I had a so what attitude about Twitter. A year after signing up now that ‘everyone is doing it’ I had to jump on that band wagon for it to be a viable part of my business.
By the way Plurk is the hot new trend in social networking right now and I heard it from some heavy hitters on the web. Have I signed up for a Plurk account? No. Will I in the future? At some point I may have too. If you don’t have a business you don’t have to sign up for all these sites and yet people still do.
Interesting don’t you think?
There is a great saying and if anyone knows the origin please let me know:
Be of the world not a part of it.
I use and promote ideas and tools that don’t necessarily appeal to me but seem to be what the people want. That is business. Business is also creating tools out of demand for what people want as a base factor and well, pushing it on them.
You need this. Marketing studies show you want and need this or that. Take this. We made it for you.
Give the people what they want or at least mold them to want a certain something.
Social media is social politics. To be good at social politics you don’t have to want the same thing for yourself you just need to know how to manipulate what others seem to want.
Jordan,
The source of the saying is the Bible. To paraphrase: We are to be in the world but not ‘of’ it.
@Linda: Glad to hear your words are confirmed by other people as well. In the long run I am sure that a loyal readership will prove that your commitment to building relationships is as valuable as all the technical aspects that will drive traffic to you. This will most certainly happen if you are patient enough – so good luck again and stay patient.
@Jordan: Yes, that’s what I have marked as a positive part of the trend for marketers: those clever enough to know how to handle the online crowd will be sure to make huge money off it simply by leading the crowd to think what they want people to think.
The major difference is that the leaders can actually bring the crowd where they need it to be (like it was with Twitter and like it happens now on Plurk) and other have to play catching up and using the tools promoted by others. The big game here is to get a heavily-used communication platform all for yourself – this way you will have the majority of people listening to you and repeating what you think.
And yes, it does not really matter if a tool you use or promote is actually something you like yourself – if the crowd likes to use it and you can apply it to your business – good for you.
The power of the collective is nobody can be leader for a long period of time or everyone else swallows him whole.
It matters not whether a Robert Scoble introduces an idea or if Scoble amplifies something began by a Svetlana Glakkova; the crowd will dictate what they want to hear and who they want to follow.
@Ari: That’s an interesting approach you offer here, could be very true for this intelligent crowd in the web 2.0 world. Probably the leaders here actually sense what the mob wants and provide that instead of just dictating. Got me thinking about it.
Svetlana delivers a powerful case.