But what really prompted this post was something I stumbled upon when browsing through journals:

“The rhetoric of peer-to-peer informationalism…much like the rhetoric of consciousness out of which it grew, actively obscures the material and technical infrastructures on which both the Internet and the lives of the digital generation depend. Behind the fantasy of unimpeded information flow lies the reality of millions of plastic keyboards, silicon wafers, glass-faced monitors, and endless miles of cable. All of these technologies depend on manual laborers, first to build them and later to tear them apart. This work remains extraordinarily dangerous, first to those who handle the toxic chemicals required in manufacture and later to those who live on the land, drink the water, and breathe the air into which those chemicals eventually leak. These tasks continue to be the province of those who lack social and financial resources

In the 1990s, all of this work was invisible to those who promoted the Internet and the network mode of production as evidence of a new stage in human evolution. Like the communards of the 1960s, the techno-utopians of the 1990s denied their dependence on any but themselves. At the same time, they developed a way of thinking and talking about digital technologies from within which it was almost impossible to challenge their own elite status. ”

Source: “Fred Turner, From Counterculture to Cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the Rise of Digital Utopianism”, Book Review by Anna McCarthy

I think there’s a somewhat similar sentiment to how people feel about services like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. People take them for granted and expect them to be free, like it’s some sort of birthright. Partly this is due to people’s (I think) misguided sense of entitlement on all things web or an inability to grasp intangible value.

Mostly however, it is the service providers’ own fault for letting people believe that all and everything should and will be free services. If VC money had been more scarce, maybe we wouldn’t be in this situation now. If Facebook, for example, runs out of money and decides to charge its users, even if it’s just for 1$ per year, it’s going to be a really hard sell for the community. I’ve seen already more than one Facebook group where people pledge to leave if they have to actually pay (imagine that) for Facebook.

It’s going to be interesting to see how this plays out. Services like Flickr that had a business plan from the get go are in much better shape. Most startups now probably wish they had gone that route as well.

I was half expecting to find on the list some groups of people who say that marketing doesn’t “affect them” and they only buy stuff that they “know” are good brands (you have no idea how often I’ve heard that), but the groups were actually quite serious in their rejection of consumption. If you’re too busy to click on the link, just know this: one of the groups is the Amish, and the other four are equally committed. So yes, I think these five groups are legit in their rejection of consumerism, but let’s come back to the group that I already half identified there: somewhat normal people who swear off marketing and state that it has no impact on them.

For consumers, what they don’t consume is usually an even more powerful identity statement than what they do. So in effect, non-consumers, big brand haters, leftists, hippies, whatever the group may be, usually do have favorite brands and strong emotional ties to them (like anything carrying a Fair Trade logo), but the consumption of these brands is driven by the fact that they are usually the antithesis to some big brands these consumers are actively opposing. Put it this way: they might actively reject McDonald’s’ marketing efforts, yes, but by running away from McDonald’s, the are also running towards brands that stand against everything McDonald’s stands for. Douglas Holt did a wonderful study on anti-consumers like this in his paper “Why do Brands Cause Trouble?” (PDF). I’ve linked to the study before, and it is a must read for any marketer.

This is not a logo… right?

I was talking to my cousin the other day and he recounted a rather interesting example that mirrors this kind of behavior. My cousin is studying philosophy and he had done his bachelor’s thesis on the ethical questions surrounding pharmaceutical companies (to put it short), and he enlightened me on the effects of so-called health advertising. As advertising for pharmaceutical products has boomed and gotten more and more intrusive (especially in the US, think “ask your doctor if you should be taking Tylenol”), so has the amount of people who actively try to reject this kind of pill-based western medicine. These people feel that pharmaceuticals are promoting over-medication and unnatural remedies just for their own profit, and so these people are driven to holistic and eastern medicine, mysticism and consumption of herbal remedies, just to name a few.

But the interesting thing here is that at the same time people are not just trading their previous habits for staying healthy for different ones, they’ve supercharged their personal health care. Where as in the past they might have jogged once a week and eaten a vitamin pill or two every week, now they chug green tea by the gallon, attend yoga classes many times a week and change their diet entirely.

So the message of the pharmaceuticals has sunk hook, line, and sinker: there is something wrong with my health and I need to fix it somehow. It’s just the messenger’s solution they’re not buying. Marketers are nothing if not culture makers, and it’s examples like these that show how far this kind of cultural influence can go.

For the culturally inclined, a recession is very intriguing because of how much it shakes up people’s everyday lives – not just economically but culturally. I remember reading a few years ago about a study (which I was unable to find by googling, sorry) that stated that when the economy is good, clean cut and more androgynous men (think Jude Law or Johnny Depp) become more desirable to women, but when the economy goes down, burly and more masculine men (think Hugh Jackman or Russel Crowe) become more favorable again. I guess this has to do with a sense of security or people being drawn to more traditional values. Either way, I find stuff like this fascinating, and I’m keeping my eyes open for any news like this.

What else is the down economy inspiring? Well, Salon.com is reporting that some women are almost eager skip to Brazilian waxes at beauty salons in a down economy. Some are going to let the hair grow back, to some, as said in the article, “It’s back to shaving in the shower for me.” Regardless, women being ready to cut back on spending on something that at first thought feels quite intimate is intriguing. What else? As common sense would dictate, people are going for more alcohol rich boozes because of the recession. Also in the article, wine traders are dumping their inventories when strapped for cash, and people are gobbling up the steals. Does the recession change the way we see and consume alcohol on a cultural level, or is this just a pragmatic shift? My guess is on the former. Look for escapist boozing up to be featured more in popular culture.

Of course, as a recession brings about great change, it also brings great opportunity. In fact, some brands, especially lower end brands, welcome the downturn, because it offers them a chance to get ahead. Who knows, maybe we’ll even see a hipster or two in Wal-Mart? Karl Long states that the recession will bring forth an age of frugality, which could present a real opportunity for people-centered design. Also, check out his list of socio-economical shifts he predicts, and think about the cultural changes they could usher in.