A friend of mine who, out of recession time, is a freelance copy editor and proofreader went for an interview a few days ago at one of the big photo syndication firms for the position of picture researcher. Apart from his regular trade of editing and proofing, he has had some experience in researching images for a B2B publishing firm in Cape Town.
Since the money's in Joburg, he moved here (like many honeymooners from down south) about two months ago in search for a job. The above mentioned interview was his first since then. When he told me about the interview and position I thought surely he'd get the job. I mean, how many people out there do you know who ply their trade (or have in the past) as a picture researcher?
The day after the interview I waited in anticipation for him to tell me all about it, and he did. 'I didn't get it, man,' he said with a tone, I assumed, to be that of disappointment (we were on g-mail chat). I asked him why he thinks he didn't get it and to my surprise he told me that the people who interviewed him told him they are looking for someone with a sales background. Being a philosophy major he obviously doesn't.
That's ludicrous! I thought. Why would a picture researcher need a sales background? But then I thought again... it's recession time, EVERYONE needs to be a salesman.
Which leads me to ask: does being in a recession warrant aggressive advertising and sales strategies? If so, what are the implications for social media? Isn't the ethos of Web 2.0 only that which is compelling will be bought? You know, the whole I'll-choose-what-adverts-I-consume vibe?
If not, does this mean social media consumers have already bought wholesale into aggressive advertising under the guise of mediated choice, making SM channels the prime platform for playing the capitalist game, i.e. making people buy stuff they don't really need or necessarily even want?
Either way, this is an interesting dilemma and a nebulous one at that. Cheaper, more 'compelling' advertising via the web may be the answer for many large businesses that are being forced to cut back on advertising budgets (which is good news for E-Marketing and WebPR firms or agencies). Simultaneously, wouldn't this cheaper form of advertising or publicity increasingly appear to be just that, cheap advertising or gimmicky PR- blows below the consumer's already tightened belt?
Where does this leave the social media consumer? I am inclined to believe that at least 70 percent of people who use the Internet, particularly social media, are aware that it is one huge selling machine. So, let's sit back and see where the recession takes this so-called democratized medium.
Yours in these confusing times,
Ahmed Patel
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
While I tend to agree with your ballpark estimate of about 70% of the internet audience you refer to being entirely aware of the internet's (arguably) true nature - you're missing a very valid point, that knowledge really isn't always power. What's more off-putting than making a stupid purchase? Regretting it later.
ReplyDeleteThe internet also doesn't play fair - in that on the surface its so inviting, easy to use, easy to explore, but the entire time the layperson is very aware that they are merely scraping the lid of an incredibly large jar, the contents of which they are completely oblivious to. When something slightly out of the ordinary happens, the average internet user can either panic, or accept. Of course the correct course of action would be to try and "understand", but this is rarely the case. So when you are obliviously surfing away and you suddenly see the warning "You have 5215 errors on your PC. Click here, pay us $60, and we'll fix them for you", unless there's a definitive understanding that this is a generic message, generated by an advertiser, to panic or lull you into paying them money for something you didn't need, that company has just earned $60 off of ignorance.
Obviously there's a vast difference between the type of advertising you were referring to and the type of advertising I referred to above, so lets look at a different example. Anyone who has a Gmail account will notice that Google automatically generates a "Sponsored Link" bar relevant to whatever words or phrases it see's on your screen. That is, if a friend emails you about the holiday he had in France, as soon as you open that email you'll get a bar along your screen along the lines of "Click here for cheapest airfare to Paris". Doesn't it bother us that Google (among others) has a program that is at any given time, scanning the content of our emails for ways to advertise to us? It'll panic some people and they may cancel their Gmail account and never use it again. Or others may just accept that advertising is how Google pays their bills to provide us with the free email service, and shrug it off. And heck, sometimes its pretty handy too.
As a rule of thumb, I tell my clients "If the internet ever asks you something, the answer is 'no'. If the internet ever asks you for anything, don't give it", but in reality, if everyone knew what they were doing I would be out of a job. That is a fact that I have learnt to deal with.
So to answer your question, in a way - the more comfortable people become in using the internet and all its various ins and outs, the more susceptible they really are to its deep-dark-sales-machine-secret. At least, that's the way I see it based on my experience.
Thanks Lee. "If the internet ever asks you something, the answer is 'no'. If the internet ever asks you for anything, don't give it" ... must remember that.
ReplyDelete