Can Social Media Drive Positive Behaviour Change?

Social media marketing commonly uses the medium to leverage the power of our friend networks to drive purchase, get users to engage with a brand/campaign or spread recommendations. While examples of the power to drive behaviour through community engagement are readily available for brands, NGOs, political parties & charities, does the power of social media extend to positive health behaviour for users?

Source:Hastings (2007)

Our decisions about behaviour don't just come from internal factors, but are shaped by a variety of external sources, such as peer reference groups, family and the local community/culture.

In real life networks, the choice to exercise more, give up smoking, eat healthier or save more money can be influenced by those around us. The readiness to share these personal positive initiatives may be tempered by the closeness of the relationships we have with others, but generally, these can be shared experiences across our family, friend, professional or acquaintance networks. Given that the power of social networking is moving these relationships online, regardless of geographic barriers, shouldn't our positive decisions become even more incentivized?

The amount of information online supporting positive behavioural efforts is vast, with sites such as Webmd, blogs on nutrition, Facebook pages for NGOs such as the American Lung association and twitter pages for those ready to provide fitness advice. Going beyond just providing information, and reinforcing activity, seems to limit the amount of sources slightly.

 Foursquare's Healthy Eating Badge encourages healthy dining options...

Location based social networks (LBSN) such as Foursquare provide good examples in the form of their current campaigns with Runkeeper (providing badges to those who run certain amounts) and CNN on healthy eating (providing badges to those who check in at various Farmer's Markets & other locations). Promotions such as these take the search for information and incentivize activity, but what about aiding decisions and committing to them?

This rather quick analysis of phrases on twitter, shows how quickly 750 messages with these certain positive phrases are generated. Confounding tweets selling products aside, we see that most positive phrases are present in various amounts on Twitter.

The way a user shares such decisions, be it to start running or give up smoking, may vary across networks , though organic conversation seems to be the most basic vehicle for such an announcement. Just as telling fiends in person about our decisions is a tacit license to provide encouragement and engage in our efforts, doing so online, hopes to encourage those within our social group. The reach and timeliness of communication through social media is useful, but do users leverage the lasting power of relationships to enhance their health decisions?

Looking at Facebook Applications for positive health choices (Fitness (both eating & running), Smoking, Finances & Sobriety), I found 44 examples of non-quiz based applications for sharing and committing to a positive behaviour

Facebook applications are a strong candidate for sharing and committing to a positive health change, as they automate sharing progress, track data well and hold the capacity to engage friends. Looking at 4 major categories (becoming fit, saving money, quitting smoking and sobriety/substance related issues), there seems to be an indication that many different applications have built small user bases on Facebook.

Overall, the most popular applications found were Cardiotrainer (78,623) & Nike+ Run Tracker (29,786) -- (full list below). Beyond the top few applications though, a heavily fragmented sample exists. On average, each application has 3,685 MAU, but 420 with top 5 applications ignored. Usage of applications seems to mirror the expected social readiness to reveal such a decision to your friends (in both real life and online), with diet & fitness issues trumping the more serious money & substance abuse issues.

Looking at the anecdotal data from both Facebook & Twitter, it seems that both online and offline channels are regulated by similar social norms when it comes to behavioural choices. This isn't too surprising, as the way which we consider online network behaviour has moved closer to the real world in recent years. While social networking may increase the reach of our friend networks, the implications for behavioural choices and announcements frequently reverberate into the real world, meaning that influence on our choices involves both.

Does this mean that social networks don't have a greater capacity to drive positive health choices? Probably not. The issue seems to involve bringing users outside of a current network in around the choice, less than using existing friends to reinforce it. Communities of runners (either in forums, on apps, or just conversing) reinforce running behaviour, more so than non-running friends probably would. The same could possibly be said for dieters or those quitting smoking online, the shared experience between individuals in those sub groups may grant a greater authority on that specific topic.

WeQuit's Facebook app may have motivated some users during its launch on 'No Smoking Day', but its current user base (98 MAU) shows the challenge in using network involvement to drive lasting interaction around positive behaviour in social media.

So what does this mean for companies or app developers hoping to build a community to drive positive behaviour? It points to developing strengths from networking users around a shared interest, using search, collaboration and matchmaking features over the ability to post to existing networks. The power of the news feed or wall post to drive users in may work for social gaming, but it doesn't seem to be there yet in social positive health.


Appendix:

Full list of Positive Health FB applications analyzed:

Application Name	MAU	Category
Cardiotrainer	78,623	Fitness
Nike+ Running Monitor	29,786	Fitness
Map My Run	21,756	Fitness
My Diet	11,636	Fitness
Quit-o-meteR	3967	Smoking
Fit-ify!	3,297	Fitness
Shapelink.com Fitness Log	3,034	Fitness
CalorieStory Food Diary	2,286	Fitness
Healthseeker	1,468	Fitness
Livestrong.com Daily Dares	1,011	Fitness
Change Reaction	785	Fitness
No Smoking!	672	Smoking
Weight Watchers Tracker	470	Fitness
Weight Challenge	465	Fitness
MyMoney	383	Finances
Healthy Lungs	361	Smoking
Calorie Counter	269	Fitness
NHS Healthy Living	239	Fitness
How much money did I save since I've quit smoking?	162	Smoking
Quit Smoking Counter	158	Smoking
Stop Smoking	148	Smoking
Quitclock	144	Smoking
Quit'n'Tell	128	Smoking
QuitTracker	128	Smoking
WeQuit	98	Smoking
Feed the pig.com	81	Finances
Spark Your Life Activity Tracker	69	Fitness
Quit Smoking	69	Smoking
iChallenge Fitness	60	Fitness
Nutrition Data	59	Fitness
Virtual Smoker	58	Smoking
Sobriety Chips!	46	Sobriety
Payoff.com	41	Finances
With a little help from my friends	30	Smoking
Split Bills	24	Finances
Healthy Steps	21	Fitness
Blast n Quit	18	Smoking
Sober Gifts	18	Sobriety
How addicted are you to cigarettes	17	Smoking
Cybercise	15	Fitness
Quitters	15	Smoking
Gimmepleez	11	Finances
Smart Saver	10	Finances
Yousustain	10	Finances

How Consistency gives Insight into Efficient Use of Facebook's 'Like'?

Facebook's 'like' feature has already become a ubiquitous part of almost any social network user's consciousness. The button, which replaced 'become a fan' functionality on Facebook pages and extends externally to websites outside of Facebook, has become one of the de facto ways to express approval for content, as well as sharing it with friends. As the prominence of the 'like' feature extends further into the internet, as seen this week with Mountain Dew's new display advertising, its power as a signaling and sharing function will only continue to grow.

External embeds of the 'like' button have allowed content which exists outside of Facebook to be easily integrated into the network, driving external content into user streams and friends within a user's network outside from Facebook. Facebook has shown that users 'liking' articles are 5.3x more likely to visit URLs in Facebook than average and have 310 friends (2.4x more friends than the normal user). Given the social, highly engaged user that Facebook illustrates liking content, it's interesting to consider how far this affinity extends. Does the 'liking' a brand or page extend past the single action into advocacy or purchase, or does this represent merely a highly streamlined sharing feature?

Does consistency grant our license to engage?

Given a lack of broad reaching hard data, a theoretical answer may come from how powerfully 'cognitive consistency' interacts with the 'liking' experience. Simply put, 'cognitive consistency' describes the harmony between what we think and what we do, the drive for which can affect our behaviour.The drive itself hopes to avoid 'cognitive dissonance' or the imbalance between our beliefs about ourselves and attitudes and our actions. An experiment by Freedman & Fraser (1960) efficiently illustrates the power of the concept:

"A researcher, posing as a volunteer worker, had gone door to door in a residential California neighborhood making a preposterous request of homeowners. The homeowners were asked to allow a public-service billboard to be installed on their front lawns. To get an idea of how the sign would look, they were shown a photograph depicting an attractive house, the view of which was almost completely obscured by a very large, poorly lettered sign reading DRIVE CAREFULLY. Although the request was normally and understandably refused by the great majority (83 percent) of the other residents in the area, this particular group of people reacted quite favorably. A full 76 percent of them offered the use of their front yards.

The prime reason for their startling compliance has to do with something that had happened to them about two weeks earlier: They had made a small commitment to driver safety. A different volunteer worker had come to their doors and asked them to accept and display a little three-inch-square sign that read BE A SAFE DRIVER. It was such a trifling request that nearly all of them had agreed to it. But the effects of that request were enormous. Because they had innocently complied with a trivial safe-driving request a couple of weeks before, these homeowners became remarkably willing to comply with another request that was massive in size."
(Quote from R. Cialdini's 'Influence the Power of Persuation')

 As shown in Freedman & Fraser's experiment, as well as Cialdini's summary, the power of a small thing, the initial request, allowed license for an acceptance of a larger request. The respondents had already agreed to one offer and therefore were motivated to stay consistent through another. Freedman & Fraser also found that the two offers didn't have to be highly related or from the same person to be effective, leading to the conclusion that the action of agreeing may fundamentally change an individual's attitude.

Relating this back to the Facebook 'like' button, we can see where assumptions can be made. Just as a small sign led to acceptance of a larger request, can 'liking' (the smaller action) lead to a larger action (such as engagement, consideration or even purchase)? The study seems to possibly indicate so, but limitations are present. The power of the 'like' button to fundamentally change attitudes hinges on the prominence of the action. The amount of prominence an individual gives the action of 'liking' may impact how effective it was to change an attitude.

The attention paid to a 'like' button varies based on how the it is presented (i.e. externally vs. on a FB page, clearly vs. obscured, supported by media vs. alone). Facebook's data shows that optimizing the position of the like button on a media owner's site increased CTR by 3.5x. Interestingly, data also showed that enabling the like button to display faces of friends who have also liked the content increased CTR by 2-3x over buttons without.

The impact of our friends...

Heider's Balance Theory Model

The impact of visible friends to motivate 'likes' relates back to another interesting theory within 'cognitive consistency', Heider's 'balance theory' (summarized well in this paper by Awa & Nwuche, 2010). Simply put, Heider created a model involving a focal point (the individual - 'P'), another individual or issue ('O') and a final individual, object or issue ('X'). As shown above, relative to the two other points, the focal point may change his views about one object ('X'), based on his view of the other object ('O') and the relationship between the two ('O-X'). By doing so, he achieves a balance in his beliefs (i.e. 'P' feels positively about 'O' and since 'O' likes 'X', 'P' may be influenced to as well).

Modifying this model to external content with a 'like button', we can see how the website ('X'), the user ('P') and the user's collective network ('O') may influence behaviour.While Heider's model is limited to three individual points, if we consider the mass of your Facebook network to be a homogenous individual (which, with apologies to Heider isn't normally the case), then we can see how the social influence of our collective Facebook friends (which we at least casually associate with and therefore probably like on average) helps to encourage an increased motivation towards an attitude shift and therefore a 'like' of content.

Implications

So, given this mass of theory and data, how can the power of consistency be leveraged to increase both 'likes' and possible after like behaviour?

Primarily, we should consider the journey of a 'liking' user very closely in planning content. By making the action of 'liking' as obvious as possible, either through supporting advertising, pre & post 'like' content or even integrating the 'like' into other advertising, we can hopefully increase the prominence in the user's mind that he/she has liked branded content.

 A prominent like should hopefully modify a bit of the user's attitude towards the brand, meaning that further communications and a clear pathway to end objectives could increase brand engagement. For example, 'liking' content on a brand's website should transition the user into a situation where, later on, they can like other external content, branded FB content or a branded FB presence. Leveraging these increased interactions, greater requests for engagement or action can be introduced.

The power of consistency seems to work best against those already warm to the content, but by utilizing the power of friends, as shown in the slightly damaged Heider model, we can utilize the need for consumer's to balance their friend network's affinity towards branded content with their own.

Given these considerations, its worth noting that none of this is a substitute for good messaging, engaging content and a clear communications strategy. But by leveraging consumer consistency, we may be able to enhance the effectiveness of a clearly planned strategy and gain further effectiveness from a ubiquitous Facebook feature.

Scarcity and Online Buying: Digital Behavioural Economics

The current advertising & media industry push towards a greater understanding of Behavioural Economics isn't a new thing. From Walter Dill Scott's succinctly named "The Psychology of Advertising: A Simple Exposition on the Principles of Psychology In Their Relation to Successful Advertising" in 1908 and John Watson's transition from academic to VP of JWT in the 1920's through to the en vogue works of Gladwell, Thaler & Miller today, psychology has been applied in a myriad of formats and combinations (who stole my neuromarketing & replaced it with behavioural economics!?)

That being said, looking within marketing and advertising, we can find manifestations of psychological principles in intentional and unintentional situations. While case studies are present in both online and offline mediums, examples within the digital space lend themselves to special analysis, due to the unique nature of consumer interaction online. Throughout this series of posts, I plan on taking a principle and highlighting a clear example of how a marketer has made it work well.

---

Scarcity and Online Buying

The power of scarcity (and/or perceived scarcity) has been heavily written about in various academic and non-academic circles through the marketing and economics fields. Given that the more academic implications of scarcity have been covered thoroughly, I'm going to focus more on the way it applies to online e-commerce.

So what is scarcity? Economics defines it loosely as "The condition in which our wants are greater than the resources available to satisfy those wants" (Arthur, 2008). However, given that arguably every purchasable good available is in someway scarce, the power of scarcity has a greater psychological power than the economic definition gives it. One psychological implication of scarcity is that it "binds rationality" (Altman, 2006), meaning that it takes an otherwise rational decision and effects the decision or purchase process. To understand the full implications of this, we need to understand how it fits into the purchase model.

The Consumer Purchase Process provides a good model to think about where different concepts effect the consumer and how we go about buying

As with many applied concepts, scarcity speaks directly to the base instincts of the consumer. The act of purchase at its most basic involves the minimization of risk and the amplification of perceived value. Everyone wants to feel like they made the best decision to get the best deal. As value is a rather unclear concept to individuals, we draw upon previous experiences (formed during previous post purchase experiences) as well as our current evaluation of alternatives presented to us. Scarcity speaks more to the way we evaluate alternatives, as it imparts a greater perceived value to alternatives deemed scarce. As the consumer search for information doesn't always produce a 'perfect' level of information about alternatives available (due to limitations or marketing communications), scarcity can be real (as in there are actually very few goods available) or perceived (as in the market is being manipulated and/or a sense of urgency is given through messaging).

---

Scarcity Working Well Online - Woot!

 Woot's main page features a clear message about the product on offer for the day and provides a clear path to purchase

Classic examples of creating scarcity exist in concepts such as the '1 week'/'Limited Time' sale, but also in the relatively new trend of 'Deal a Day' sites. Sites such as Woot! or larger retailers such as Amazon.com and Buy.com offer a product a day, ceasing sale of the product 24 hours after launch or when stock has sold out. By offering a desired product at a lower price, the draw to the site is already an established value. Given the threat of a sell-out, perceived scarcity becomes a heavy motivator in a quick purchase.Woot's selection of products already being considered by their target market (i.e. MP3 players, computers, etc.) means that scarcity can help along a purchase already being mulled over by the consumer.

As seen with Woot.com, scarcity as a motivator works best when a clear message exists about the urgency surrounding the product and the path to purchase is clear. With Woot! a few clicks and a login allow you to quickly and easily purchase the daily product on offer. Woot also leverages the interest created by its scarcity model into user involvement, with users supplying comments and support for the product.

Importantly, Woot! also provides metrics about how sales are going, allowing users to feel as if they have a handle on understanding how scarce the product is. In reality, the information provides no real indicator on how long supplies will last, but easy to understand metrics help to fulfill the consumer's 'search for information'.

 Woot's flashing lights on site (shown here as a real product) indicate low stock or a special event called a 'Woot Off'.

After building up a constant daily level of scarcity around its products, Woot! sporadically increases urgency through a series of cues and events. Flashing lights feature around the product as its stock is low, driving home scarcity and increasing urgency to purchase further. The Woot! flashing lights also feature on their random 'Woot Off' events, in which previously unsold stock is resold consecutively, with multiple items being featured, one after another until all are sold. Such events don't effect the scarcity of the item's original day on the site, as a sell out would prevent it from being featured in the next 'Woot-off.'

By combining a desired item, with an interested target market & a sense of urgency, Woot! creates an opportunity for purchase that might not have occurred. Looking back on the consumer purchase process, the website stimulates 'problem recognition', helps in the 'information search', negates an 'evaluation of alternatives' through perceived scarcity and drives a clear path to purchase.

---

Scarcity Backfires -SecretSales.com & the iPad

While Woot! manages to leverage scarcity in a way that provides a relationship with the consumer, other sites illustrate what can occur when the power of the concept is utilized incorrectly. Secretsales.com's iPad promotion, illustrates what can occur when scarcity isn't handled in a clear way for the consumer. 

Secretsales, a members only sales site, created a wave of interest on Twitter and Facebook by offering a 3 day sale of iPads at 50% their normal price. By spreading the sale's stock over three days, Secretsales hoped to graft an increased perception of scarcity on top of an already rare offering, a cheaper iPad. In doing so, they encountered site crashes on the run up to the sale, leaving many unable to even attempt to buy. Those that could get through quickly exhausted the relatively small stock, leaving a stock out message for consumers who later connected. Due to an outpouring of network abuse, Secretsales then decided to release all remaining stock, quickly clearing out and ending the promotion early. What followed was continued online abuse, with many claiming the entire sale was a scam. 

While scarcity quickly drove sales in the Secretsales promotion, the campaign itself could be considered a failure. If they planned on utilizing scarcity to drive sales this would be considered a success, but given the already rare nature of the product, such a promotion left many consumers wary of the brand and reticent to engage with them again. While Woot! and others utilize metrics and visual cues to empower consumers to understand and act on a perceived scarcity, the unclear situation put forth by Secretsales left them powerless and angry. Given the sites' objectives, raising awareness, driving registrations and encouraging repeat visits, a different promotional mechanism would have proven more effective.

---

Scarcity is a powerful concept to drive sales within online shopping, but it needs to be inline with marketing objectives. Post purchase behaviour can shape future interactions with online shopping portals, so scarcity must be tempered with providing an empowered experience for the consumer. By providing a clear path for purchase, informing the consumer about both the product and the buying situation and considering consumer perception once 'rationality' returns, scarcity can be applied efficiently, but not at the cost of the consumer relationship.

Recommendation in the age of collaboration...

Recommendation has and always will be one of the most powerful drivers for product purchase. The power of friends & family singing your brand's praises will always resonate more than a basic advertiser's message. In the age of social media however, the way we communicate has fundamentally grown, and subsequently, so has the way we recommend products to others. The consumer of today has communication options that have expanded not only his social circle past geographic and cultural limitations, but allowed brands to create a conversation with the consumer that previously didn't exist. With all of this communication expansion, what has digital & social networking really meant for recommendation?


 With so many social media choices, what does it mean for how people recommend?

The requirements for an effective recommendation are relatively basic. It requires an informative statement about something, given credence by the trust level of the reviewer and the perceived relevance of the information. As trust grows, so does the power of the recommendation. Alternatively, the more relevant the recommendation seems, either through timeliness or quality, the more powerful it becomes. So as consumers communicate over greater distances, faster speeds and with a higher number of casual acquaintances, what happens to the power of recommendation?

Product recommendations from our friends and family automatically gain power from existing trust and Facebook, as the social network du jour, is well positioned to exploit that. Through the 'like' feature we can easily share what products and brands we care for, slowly building a recommendation network amongst our contacts. The simultaneous distribution of friends' recommendations through news feeds, means that opinions about brands and products can be shared quickly and clearly, from both internal and external Facebook sources (thanks to open graph & FBML) and leading to content inside & outside of the network. However, though Facebook is well positioned to communicate peer recommendations, a high level of trust still relies on a close knit network. Recommendations from general acquaintances or those unknown outside of the network still lack the power given to closer 'friends'.

 

Aardvark's Social Search in Action...

Outside of traditional social networking, recommendation needs to rely on other sources to build trust. While Facebook uses existing ties, social search engines & sites, such as Aardvark or Yahoo Answers, rely on the wisdom of crowds and perceived authority as trust arbiters. Aardvark , acquired by Google earlier this year, seeks to answer questions based on a hybrid model, pairing user answers through existing social networks and based on topics that an individual has claimed expertise. Sites such as Yahoo Answers or review sites such as Qype, utilize a voting or user hierarchy model to attempt to signal which individuals are the most trustworthy. By considering a user's grade and his recommendation relative to others, individuals can begin to judge the quality of information, without the trust found in traditional relationships.

 

Badges & check-ins help to identify expertise

Alternatively, incentive based networks such as Foursquare or Get Glue use a mix of existing ties and accomplishment markers to signal trustworthiness. Through gaining badges based on accomplishments, users are able to signal that actions or qualifications have been completed, meaning they may be more trustworthy sources of related information. Requiring action may be a more effective way than asking an individual to show expertise, but it also involves a clear signaling system and direct links between signals and knowledge. Conversely, recommendations through action (such as Foursquare check-ins or tips at a specific venue) also have the capacity to prove more trustworthy than other sources, given the increased effort required.

So what do these differing online recommendation networks mean for advertisers and brands?

Regardless of network type, brands must make themselves available to users. Building trust through interaction and making content easily available to experience, recommend and widely share, can help brands to create and facilitate user to user communications. Be it creating a heavily produced piece of digital content for a large brand or simply curating the venue page or website for a small establishment, the ease of use with which a consumer can find, interact with or share content can aid with gaining effective recommendation.

Geo-location and Privacy: A Subtle Balance

This post is also featured on the recently launched "Typing On The Wall" Blog.....

Location Based Social Networking (LBSN) is prominent within the media zeitgeist at the moment, driven by the increasing growth of the category's current darling, Foursquare. As Foursquare recently added its 2,000,000th user and its 100,000,000th check-in, some can argue that the increasing growth rate (having added its 1,000,000th user only 3 months ago) and press coverage of the network are currently the most prominent stories.







CNN partnered with Foursquare during the World Cup to direct users to check-in at certain locations worldwide, unlocking badges and interacting with content


Given the company's growth rate and the utilization of the network by advertisers such as Domino's, the Huffington Post and CNN, this may be set to change. For media however, questions about Foursquare and other LBSNs go past the common questions of user growth and campaign concepts into "What insights can the network's data generate?"

Campaign metrics are key to creating attractiveness for advertisers, as greater data availability allows marketers to justify activity and modify comms efforts. Standing conversely against data availability however is user privacy.







User privacy concerns are inherent in social networking, but even more so when dealing with a user's location history. Sites such as PleaseRobMe.com popped up early on in the emergence of the current geo-location trend, highlighting a feed of users exposing their locations through auto posts onto Twitter. Concerns about user privacy have also been illustrated in recent studies, with a recent US/UK survey showing 55% of respondents worry about privacy relating to geo-location (Webroot).

Balancing privacy, key to growing the base of active users, and providing useful data & insights, key to growing advertiser investment, means that LBSNs must strike a careful balance as both network operators and data providers. Foursquare's solution to this issue has been two fold, providing basic data about venues & friends through the API (Application Programming Interface), while also providing business level analytics to venues claimed by the owners.

Given the open nature of the API, anyone can obtain a key and begin obtaining data and building applications, data is limited to what is available on the website. User specific data is limited to friends, while venues can provide the current amount of check-ins, who the mayor is and venue information. Data from the API is useful to monitor popular venues for a certain area or to create visualizations such as these, but it doesn't provide the specific level of data required to manage a large amount of CRM or loyalty plans.

Alternatively, the Foursquare analytics dashboard for a venue currently displays check-in data over time, different time periods and whether users clicked through to provided Facebook & Twitter links. In addition, it provides a stream of recent check-ins & top users, creating the ability to target individual users based on their behaviour for promotions. User check-ins not relevant to the specific venue are still protected.

Foursquare's approach to data visibility balances user privacy with metric creation in a way that provides venues an opportunity to customize promotions, while not risking user outrage by making data completely public to marketers. This strategy seems to be the way forward for LBSNs, as it encourages growth by unlocking the value of the network's data, without leveraging the privacy of the user base.

What can the Means-End Chain teach us about digital content?

      So, its no big secret that two of my largest geek obsessions: psychology & digital marketing, come together rather often on the blog. However, where as I normally start with a digital marketing concept/story and throw in some consumer psychology, I thought it might be entertaining to do the opposite.

Aside from being as far from the actual World Cup as possible, what makes Nike's ad easy to share while others aren't?

      With this in mind, I was recently considering what tools might be useful to differentiate the mass of digital content posted by brands. With the World Cup coming to a close and people marveling over the number of views advertisements like the Nike 'Write Your Future' video garnered, its interesting to consider what separates this from other similar, less viewed World Cup content. Along these lines, I thought I would take a relatively basic consumer psychology concept, the means-end chain, and apply it rather liberally to the world of online viral marketing, to view content in new ways.

What is the Means-End Chain?

       The means-end chain is, at its most basic, a way to describe how a product interacts with the consumer. Whereas more complex explanations can be found elsewhere, for our purposes, I'll go with a basic definition I've used since school At its heart, a product on the means-end chain breaks down in three different areas:

Not every product touches the consumer in each of these areas (some basic products may only deliver a basic benefit and possess simple attributes), but by analyzing a product along these lines, we begin to take apart its essence. Within each of the three groupings, two subgroups exist, which begin to paint a progression for product analysis (shown below).

 These six sections allow marketers to analyze not only how a product interacts with the consumer, but where advantages may exist in relation to similar products. For example, on the surface, few differences exist between Coke & Diet Coke. If we put Coca-Cola Classic on the means-end chain, we see that it hits the boxes expected from a soft drink:

Purchasing, possessing & consuming a Coca-cola isn't a life changing decision, no matter how many people you buy a Coke for or teach to sing. Even its psycho-social benefits (those conferred from others) are tenuously weak, with a fleeting acceptance coming from only the most needy of consumer. However, when we compare it to Diet Coke, we can see that in some interpretations, a soft drink can become more than just a beverage.

By dipping into enabling values the consumer may have about fitness or getting into shape, Diet Coke has the ability to interact on a level traditional Coca-Cola cannot. While it may be tenuous to say that one Diet Coke could enable a consumer to achieve a step towards a long term goal, it does point out how we project possibilities onto products in noticeable ways.

What does this have to do with viral content?

Moving away from the straight forward example of two related products, its clear to see that the basic concept of the chain is useful to think of products in a different way. However, relating this product analysis to online content however, may be more difficult.

When someone mentions viral marketing & the internet, a variety of things can come up. From tweets to pictures, video & websites, users & brands both enjoy the benefits of the way content travels online. The reach generated by a user generated movement can multiply the effectiveness of a brand's campaign exponentially, but predicting what content will resonate with the online audience is difficult. Much like predicting product/consumer interaction, the way users consume online content is unpredictable, leading to uncertainty about communication performance.

A focus group discussing re-tweeting last year attempted to sum up how content is passed on to me as 'attributional cool'. This meaning that users only pass on what they deem cool & interesting, hoping to impart a bit of that feeling to themselves as they share with their friends. Predicting what achieves the level of 'attributionally cool' is a nearly impossible task involving analysis of social norms, reference groups & a host of other complex factors. However, the relationship between the user, content & viral transmission begins in the same way as with the user & product.

Instead of a purchase & consumption, online content hopes to motivate the user into interaction & distribution. Therefore, it may be possible to compare two similar pieces of content, in the same way Coke & Diet Coke were compared, and see if some level of interaction dictated greater depth of engagement. While the very nature of viral content & 'attributional cool' lives in the Psychosocial area of the means-end chain, I believe the other areas can still help to unlock basic insights about content.

Applying the Means-End Chain to Digital Content....

Applying the chain to viral content, it seems that the attributes and benefits may possess a more obvious presence than values, as the relationship between content and the user is rather shallow. That aside, each area seems to take on new characteristics when thought of in the digital space.

Ok Go's 'Here It Goes Again' Video helps to illustrate how concrete attributes, such as embedding functions for content, can heavily shape pass-on performance

     Attributes, as we think of them in traditional product analysis, entails the actual dimensions & capacities of the product. With our Coke & Diet Coke example, the concrete attributes described unchanging things about the packaging and the liquid itself, while functional attributes described interpretive aspects such as taste. In applying the means end chain to digital content, concrete attributes can become the aspects of the product that control viewing such as resolution (HD or non-HD), encoding, video delivery platform (i.e. flash based or HTML 5), sound or no sound, embeddable or non-embeddable, etc. Functional attributes becomes analysis about the content itself, (i.e. does it feature recognizable characters, what is it's tone, etc.). While functional attributes may seem to play a larger role in viral pass-on than concrete attributes of a product, remember the performance of OK Go's viral music videos. After their treadmill based 'Here it goes again' went viral, their follow-up 'This too shall pass' featured disabled youtube video embedding at the behest of their record company. While this was eventually overturned, views of the video were significantly lower than the embeddable original, due to a change in the concrete attributes of the digital content.

Content such as the Toyota Sienna viral 'Swagger Wagon' illustrate the challenges in balancing depth of benefits with a target group to widespread appeal.

      Benefits, in traditional product analysis, are the deliverables that the product can bring (i.e. Coke quenches thirst (functional benefit) and it may signal something to others about your choices (psychosocial benefit)). Alternatively, when analyzing digital content sharing, the perceived psychosocial benefits play a large role in deciding if content will be passed on. The functional benefits of digital content speak to the enjoyment the viewer gets from consuming the content, while the psychosocial benefits speak more to the possible 'attributional cool' that the user feels he may get from sharing such content. While the psychosocial benefits may seemingly outweigh the importance of the functional benefits in assessing if content will be shared, we shouldn't discount the importance of the intial viewer experience in assesing content. How the initial viewer enjoys the content is very important on how he/she feels others will react to it. The reference groups of an individual also heavily shape expectations of what would be considered 'attributionally cool'. For example, a 15 year old might not progress down the means-end chain to the same level as a 35 year old family man when presented with content such as the 'Swagger Wagon' music video, though both may find humor in it. Therefore, the means-end chain helps to illustrate the challenge content faces when it hopes for a large pass on rate, delivering both functional and perceived psychosocial benefits to the largest audience possible.




 Possibly one of the most well known pieces of digital content in the last few years, 'Yes We Can' illustrates how the rare phenomenon of tapping into the values part of the means-end chain can benefit a piece of content's consumption & pass-on

        As mentioned before, Values are the hardest level for both products and digital content to interact with the consumer. While few products can reach the consumer in a way that leads to delivering instrumental or terminal value, even fewer pieces of digital content can, due to fleeting engagement. However, given the scarcity and power of value based digital content, those that can latch onto some larger life goal gain a powerful chance to encourage pass-on. Content linked to political campaigns, such as the 'Yes We Can' video for Barack Obama's campaign illustrates how content may tap into larger goals due to its affiliations. While many politically related videos may touch on a similar topic in both attributes and benefits, the ability of the video to deliver the perception of instrumental value delivery gave it an appeal over others.

Conclusions

        So after attempting to apply the means-end chain to digital content, what have we learned? I think breaking down each section has shown that the 'content as a product' model works for analyzing how content is consumed. I think limitations exist in the power of the model based on the impact of reference groups and social norms, but that two similar pieces of content, with similar target groups and interests, can feasibly be compared for differences along the means-end chain. Overall, this entire exercise shows the value in applying new points of view to existing ideas, mining insight from the synthesis of different, but related, fields in marketing.

How Powerful Are Virtual Incentives and Why are They Always Badges?

The introduction of Facebook's new badge for accomplishments system & website like 'Get Glue' (a recommendation engine using badges to encourage sharing) show that incentivizing on-line behavior through virtual badges is on the rise. While 'token economies' are nothing new and virtual incentives have been shaping behaviour for years (recent examples can be found in about any Facebook app), the manifestation of badges as a reward is quite interesting.

In a previous article about the psychology of Foursquare, we noted that Foursquare's badge system works to economize offline activity through online rewards. Check-in at a number of Starbucks and you get a 'Barista' badge, visit 20 pizza parlors and get the 'Piazzolo' badge. Working in concert with other operant rewards (items on Gowalla, titles on sites like Qype/Yelp, rewards/points in virtual games, etc.), these virtual items have some real behavioural change power. However, what are limits of operant behavioural conditioning through virtual badges and more importantly, WHY a badge?

Source: Forge 38

To start considering the choice of badges as popular virtual rewards touches on the heart of what virtual items can be effective. Badges represent a perfect example of efficient signalers as rewards. Badges in the real world, just as in the virtual, are highly visible. They communicate an important quality or accomplishment to others in a succinct yet understandable way. Their public, yet simple nature gains its power by being understood across an audience respected by the wearer. Therefore, one can assume that the effectiveness of a reward badge is measured by how visible the item is to an audience, how communicative it is to the audience about the importance of the act and how much that audience is respected by the wearer. 

Source

Boy scout merit badges are a good example of this. Though I only attended one scouts meeting (an introductory session which caused me to decide that not wearing a uniform and camping sounded much more fun), I and others can understand the system of how members earn badges for accomplishments (such as fishing or first aid) from popular culture.This means that the badges, which are recognizable by a large portion of a population (from either respected group members or secondary cultural members) can easily convey prowess at an activity to a large group from their highly visible position on the member's uniform.

Source: InsideFacebook

Virtual badges on sites such as Foursquare utilize this same mechanic. The badges stay on the user's profile page, where they are instantly visible to a respected audience (other users within the wearer's network) and simply convey the accomplishment of an act.

Through these criteria, the examples of the Facebook badge system & 'Get Glue's' seem to have serious challenges, but for different reasons. The Facebook badge system, which unlocks badges based on various network accomplishments (ranging from having 'x' number of friends to opening 'x' number of groups) will instantly get adoption, due to the large number of Facebook users. The audience, combined with the ability to place it directly on the profile page/news stream, makes the reward highly visible. In addition, the audience that the badges speak to have a minimum of respect with the wearer, as they happen to be the user's peers. However, despite these strengths, most of the listed accomplishments that the badges reward for are rather pedestrian.Where is the respect for getting a moderate number of friends or starting a few groups, when any user could do it relatively easily. In this sense, Facebook faces the challenge of getting users to care about the acts the badges represent, facilitating the items to communicate a respected act easily.

Alternatively, sites like 'Get Glue' face different challenges in implementing effective online badges. The site's badges (or 'stickers' as they are called) revolve around recommending various items to others, an act integral to building the attractiveness of the network. While Facebook's 'like' feature and open graph may quickly render the site's premise obsolete, the challenge amounts are large enough that other users on the network could respect the accomplishment. The badges are highly visible on the user's page, which leads to an ease of signaling about the accomplishment. However, the small size of the site's current audience relative to other related networks (Del.icio.us, Facebook. Mr. Wong, Stumbleupon), diminishes the power of the respected audience. A smaller possible audience to notice a badge requires a fervent/insular user base to maintain the same effect, placing great pressure on the site to attract repeat users and foster frequent activity.

In both examples, as well as other rewards online, the challenge generally falls within one of our three reward criteria. However, even through considering all three factors, user behaviour is highly unpredictable. Only through understanding the overall user experience for a website or network can we attempt to predict behaviour and only then can an effective reward economy be created.

The Psychology of Foursquare

    

 

      Geo-location is quickly becoming the feature de jour for existing networks and startups. While lots of attention has been lavished upon existing networks adding locational features (i.e. Facebook, Twitter) and various location-centric networks (Gowalla, Rummble, Loopt, etc.), Foursquare seems to have taken the lionshare of public perception. For those that aren't familiar with the service yet, I'm not going to explain much about it here, however, various articles, the network itself and a good section of Mashable are more than willing to give you the basics.                                         

     Considering Foursquare within the normal geo-location trend, its clear to see that it occupies a space that uniquely reaches the consumer. While each network can move from its place on the incredibly good looking Venn Diagram by adding features or emphasizing different functionality, in general, Foursquare occupies a space that aims to connect users while entertaining. This game/network hybrid, means that clear psychological principles can be used to explain how Foursquare works, why its going to succeed and what we can expect from it in the future.

How Foursquare Works....

      At its heart, Foursquare is about facilitating users sharing their locations with their friends.Therefore, the value of the network comes from the amount of useful location information present for users. When we think about this as the network's main goal, it becomes clear how all the network's related features come together to encourage generative behaviour. Overall, 5 core Foursquare features exist outside of simply "checking in", these are: 

- Mayorships 

- Tips 

- Tagging 

- Badges 

- Venue Specials 

  

       Mayorships are probably Foursquare's most obvious feature and the factor that firmly places the network within the 'gaming' spectrum of geo-location. Through assigning a mayor to a venue due to frequent check-ins, Foursquare 'operantly conditions' (encourages the intended behavior with reinforcement) for frequent interest and activity. The fact that most venues currently offer no formal response for being the mayor is a common sense rebuttal to the effectiveness of mayorships. However, if we consider the larger gaming environment, there are external benefits encouraging mayorship. The process of becoming a venue's mayor requires a minimum amount of check-ins at its least and a rather competitive streak at its maximum, therefore, achieving a mayorship and protecting it becomes a cycle of effort justification, ownership and competition. Concepts such as endowment effect, show that when consumers perceive something to be 'theirs', they place a larger value on it.While some people may become mayors of a venue due to frequently visiting it regardless of Foursquare, once someone owns the title, there becomes the presence of atleast a little bit of loss aversion to relinquishing it, as an increased value has been endowed to the title. 

 

      More tangibly than mayorships, badges enhance the competitive token economy that encourages check-ins. Whereas mayorships enhance the venue's attractiveness, badges enhance the check-in itself's attractiveness. Through providing variety to the base network activity, the user experience is kept novel and users have something to consider when considering whether to continue on with the network experience. The fact that badges are displayed on a user's page means that they are internally non-competitive while being externally objects to compare against ones own. The badges can also confer different information about a user's behaviour to others. The 'Swarm' badge (given when checking in with 50 people or more) requires collaboration or a knowledge of popular events, something that speaks to the user's openness. Other badges, such as the 'Superstar' (checking in at 50 venues) are easier to achieve as the user progressively uses the network, but still signal to others that the user is varied in his locations & interests. These signals may not seem to be worth much, but as a user's involvement within the network increases, so does his emphasis on the value of what he signals others.

 

        Most tangibly, Venue Specials can help to reinforce the intangible benefits of mayorships and badges, by providing real perks to the token economy of checking in. Users who aren't fully engaged by competing for the mayorship of a venue on ownership alone can be swayed by deals such as: 20% of a meal for the mayor, free drinks for the mayor or 15% off purchase to those who check in. These real life incentives can help to condition checking in at non-promotional venues as well, as the behaviour becomes more routine. Within venue specials, those which offer a benefit to everyone who checks-in serve to encourage general behviour, while those that offer mayoral perks increase the value of owning a venue tangibly. Through both efforts, the value of interacting with the network increases, simultaneously increasing the value of intangible mayorship benefits or badges. 

 

      The cataloging of Venue specials within Foursquare allows the network to also provide value as a recommendation engine. As shown in the sweet sweet Venn Diagram above, Foursquare wouldn't traditionally play largely in the area of recommendations relative to services such as Qype radar or Rummble, but the ability to point out tangible deals close to the user, coupled with their Tagging & Tips functions, means that the capability to do such is there. Tips and Tagging deliver recommendation value to the user, while also encouraging contributors to display their knowledge of local venues. Where as the mayoral function encourages localized competition, tips & tagging encourage localized collaboration. These features may seem ancillary to the more emphasized features within the network, but they offer a valuable reinforcement factor for use through the provision of dynamic and localized information.

Why Foursquare Will Succeed....

      Now that we've looked at how Foursquare currently functions, its worth noting why principles that will help it succeed.On a general level, the biggest argument against geo-located networks is the reticence of users to share their locations. Sites like "Please Rob Me" make light of the mostly irrational fear that burglars and bandits will strike your home once they find out you're away online. Disregarding the idea that most seasoned criminals can safely assume that working individuals won't be home during working hours, some real privacy concerns are present.Stalkers and other nee'r do wells do exist on the internet, but common sense and privacy controls are usually effective measures against such. Foursquare's block of accessing the current user location data of non-friends means that selective network friending can preserve privacy pretty effectively. 

       Despite these privacy preventing measures, a user's current location seems to be one of the last common hold outs of online sharing. Its only when you consider the progression of online sharing, that it becomes clear how geo-location will be accepted. While Facebook allowed users to tell the world 'who they are' and Twitter allows users to tell the world 'what they're doing', Foursquare and others help to answer the next logical question, 'Where they're doing it'.

     I spoke to a post graduate business class last month on Social media usage and after discussing Twitter, covered the current geo-location trends. While only 1 person out of 39 had heard of and used Foursquare, the concept of geo-located data sharing was met with rather pronounced concerns and disdain. It was only after framing previous types of sharing to the class that many finally began to consider the concept. As I related to the students:

"If someone had told you in 2002 that you would upload holiday albums for other loose acquaintances or possible strangers to see, as well as allow them to upload and tag photos of you, some would balk rather loudly. If I had told you in 2005 you would be frequently posting small updates about relatively mundane aspects of your life, on a service for almost everyone to see, most would probably doubt it. Therefore, when I claim that in a few years most of you'll be sharing locations with your friends online, does it seem as far fetched as before?"

     This mental framing of what is acceptable and unacceptable to share online is highly subjective against what the general public is doing. As more people adopt geo-located services, through either Foursquare or during the roll out of such services on Facebook & Twitter, users will habituate and finally fully accept the concept.

       This roll-out of geo-located features by larger social networks exists as the largest risk to smaller contenders such as Foursquare. Facebook's 300 million users and Twitter's 105 million represent a possible geo-location adoption base that dwarfs Foursquare's 1 million users, creating the risk that the smaller contenders will be absorbed or forced out. When looking at the way Foursquare works though, its clear that some of its features are well positioned to help the network survive, and even prosper from, the entry of Facebook. Foursquare's integration with Twitter and Facebook mean that its token economy and reinforcing features can extend beyond the reach of the network, reaching a user base that has already become used to sharing locations, but haven't heard of Foursquare. While some Facebook users may approach Foursquare from more of a 'Facebook game' perspective than users who originally utilized the service to connect with friends, the success of other forms of Facebook entertainment bodes well for the network.

What can we expect in the future from Foursquare?....
          As we can see above, Foursquare's user experience and viability seem to predict a strong future for the network, but what can expect it to offer next? Looking at how the current Foursquare experience functions, atleast two logical areas for development exist: Expanding Venue Specials & External Platform Integration.

 Foursquare check-ins at specific Venues in Las Vegas were broadcasted onto a digital billboard...

            Foursquare's current venue specials are currently the tangible reinforcement for the overall site. As the network grows in prominence, we can only expect these to become more widespread and creative. Companies such as the FT, giving day passes to mayors of venues near business schools, have already shown creative ways to promote both Foursquare and their own product/content. In the future, this expanded benefit for checking in can develop further through access to exclusive content, publicity and brand interaction.

            Outside of the network, Foursquare's future lies in developing External Platform Integration. The roll-out of geo-located features on Facebook & Twitter are only the start of the myriad of options a user has when thinking about using geo-location. Foursquare's future lies in being able to syndicate network information to other platforms and recieve information in return. The use of Facebook's own network to promote content should only be the start of Foursquare's platform integration. Connecting usage to other geo-located networks such as Rummble or Gowalla means that the reinforcing economy of Foursquare can spread further, while also minimizing a user's barriers to check-in. Users can't be expected to check-in regularly on multiple clients and until one network comes out as the king of geo-location options, the future lies in creating an ease of use.