Marketing

Marketing is the science of shovelling shit to pigs.

Its methodologies mark milestones on our journey as we wander in the desert of the real; de-politicised, amputated and deserted.

At the coal face, wonderful things happen and the most artful factors of a 'service component' are the sugar coats on a toxic pill. The organically compromised lifeline thrown to you in the desert; "express yourself. I believe you."

We want to believe in this, after all if we can consume our way out and believe the message- then it reinforces a marketing sponsored oasis; a post-consumer post-human utopia. A world where we are truly free to exercise our techno-liberal rights of manipulation. We can be whoever we choose and happily be provided (sold) the flavour of shit we are to wallow in.

This absolute absurdity at its extreme makes marketing an art. Amputation with a human face.

Quantification and Being in information networks

Information communication in a modern sense involves multiple sets of quantification. All must be reduced to 1's and 0's.

This quantification of information can mean many things, and when examined in a societal sense should and must include the nuances, specificities, vagaries and other assorted formations in order to capture and reduce, “information” - the foundation with which we form meaning. In other words information serves as the symbolic substance by which systems of meaning are formed within society. Meaning, which we, as human beings, as animals, as members of society, as members of an in group, out group, citizenry etc base our individual and individuating actions on. These actions constitute evidence of agency.

Information theory understands all codes as operating within statistical constraints that make the succession of symbols more or less likely (which allows the maximization of information transmission through a channel). Another key implication, however, is that all events (from the occurrence of a symbol within a code to all communication acts) can be described as a selection among a set of mutually excluding and more or less probable alternatives. The communication of information thus implies the reduction of material processes to a closed system defined by the relation between the actual selection (the real) and the field of probabilities that it defines (the statistically probable). The relation between the real and the probable, however, also evokes the spectre of the improbable, the fluctuation and hence the virtual. As such, a cultural politics of information somehow resists the confinement of social change to a closed set of mutually excluding and predetermined alternatives; and deploys an active engagement with the transformative potential of the virtual (that which is beyond measure)

Shannon writes the above in his paper “A Mathematical Theory of Communication”. He establishes an implicatory relationship between the undefined.

The transmission of information engages the technical as means; language, phonetics, symbols, signs etc. All yield with them a nuanced flavour the above mentioned statistical probabilities scatter around the actual selection (the real).

In the case of networked society the prevalence and disregard with which symbols and signs are formed to abstract the “real world” has an excellent propinquity quality – the attraction of default. The default value with which those new to enter, are socially included and may never reach an awareness of having joined.

Of course, the concept that there is a real world is in fact rather dated in this light: “The simulacrum is true...” (Ecclesiastes in Baudrillard) perhaps alluded to the post-modern melding of representation and reality as the “third order” of simulacra. Reality in this light is the coming together of the probabilistic determination of plural meaning – a unitary real/reality reality.

In the techno-social simulacra of the post-modern world, filled with social cues interpreted, abstracted, distributed and enacted by highly technological means which implicate distribution, the essence within which the real, hidden now, more and more abstracted by a realer simulation; at least a perception becomes that of simulacrum.

The continued cyborgisation of this techno-social milieu is part of an accelerant default to the “quantification” of information and the apparent quantification of ontology in a mechanistic sense, one made out of statistical probabilities. The quantification implies the binary form of on and off states and with it a dimension in which the elements of the essential Being are reduced to a succession of symbols, itself a reduction based on participation. A succession which washes over the majority thinly, distributing quanta of the essential in a rhizomic orgy of networked “existence”.


Bibliography
1.Tiziana Terranova, Network Culture: Politics for the Information Age (Pluto Press, 2004)
2.M Taylor, “Rhizomic folds of interstanding,” Tekhnema, no. 2 (1995): 24-36.  
3.Jean Baudrillard, Simulacra and simulation (University of Michigan Press, 1994).  
4.Claude E Shannon, Warren Weaver, and Shannon, The Mathematical Theory of Communication (University of Illinois Press, 1998).  

the player behind and a brave new universe

The technology of the network site is an important question to consider. To do so I'd like to use the terms “actor” and “node” differently than some literature I've encountered. I am concentrating on a conceptual distinction between them. The difference between actor and node is not much. Just a different idea of seeing who is behind the other in a given set of circumstances, not ongoing perpetual definitions where one is actor and the other a node, after all an actor is a node too, but likely something else or just as likely the node it's the actor of too.

We go on to integrate this to the concept of a node in it's place as part of a network. I use the word actor as the essence of action and control. The node, in this case forms as an abstract of interest; a site of the interaction, in the network to which the node belongs.

In this view the actor, what MUD (Multi-User Dungeon) game players refer to as “the player behind”, controls the node. In the familiar example of an individual on the internet can be seen as an “actor”, “acting” for a node of the internet (the computer).

As the abstraction of technology increases to a logical extremity the issues surrounding this loose definition will become outdated, however for now it serves to abstract and frame the concept of the node from the technological layer (technological network and node) and the actor in the essential layer (essential network and actor).

If language is one of oldest technologies, it can serve as a good example against which we can juxtapose our current and familiar experience. In this case the nodal points of language can be be typified by easily visible and materially grounded examples such as: the face of the spoken word, a book, magazine or blurb. In contrast, as the post-modern network society experiences the networks of internet nodes and other high-tech networks, the new technologies allow for new schizophrenic relationships between the technical nodal layer and essential actor. No more single node single-ish actor. Instead easily modern examples include multiple identities in the form of profiles on different social networks.

As the techno-social milieu becomes increasingly sophisticated via the leveraging of technology the abstraction layers affecting flows allow for less insight into the essential. Companies become facebook friends, aggregation news sites feed only show other sites, the single human actor has differing social modes on IM vs SMS etc.

The importance to determine the reality from the representation is practically only served by it's utility, and interestingly the utility does not seem so much affected by human or non human actor or node; so far the world has been served by the status quo regardless of type.

The media today is a good example of what occurs when actors re-engage specific societal networks by re-establishing nodal points within a differing network and the dynamic of interactions.

To flesh out this using a familiar example we can look towards mass media interests which control certain nodes by way of a website. When a web page is requested by a user, the nodes interact technically, that is a socket connection is established between the client and server machines and data is passed over the internet. Essentially however, the media content; representations, signs and symbols are likely digested by the reader; a semiotic exchange between actors occurs. This technical node is invisible to the actor, and thus does not inform their agency or identity.

In the old paradigm of mono-directional media the television and radio antennas ruled supreme. The actor to actor semiotic exchange tipped by technological advantage to the side of the hub nodes; mass media.

Today the technology offers no such inherent distribution model. Instead the technology is itself distributed and designed to function as a unison of parts. Yet, implicated in essence as much as technology, the actors of mass media re-engage with the actors belonging to networks of citizens, consumers, individuals, relations etc. This re-engagement occurs with a relatively similar dynamic of semiotic interaction which marked the old mono-directional technologies; a lay over of the essential societal constraints.

As these flows continue to adjust their directional proportions, more so than the “producer/consumer”, web 2.0, writer/author, peer to peer exchange that is going on currently; what is occurring is the techno-social milieu is shifting, in some ways it has already shifted. Shifted in a way that primitively suggests it's re-aligning societal networks in a technologically facilitated re-alignment.

A company could never talk to you, though the marketing people tried. Today a company can have a Facebook page- the technologically is allowing for homophily of type. Different networks are converging and as they flatten, the difference between the actors becomes less and less as they become superimposed on their networks. As topologies intertwine the homophily of type is already highlighted- from companies with Facebook pages to ones in second life. To those who exist in that world representation has taken multiple additions to reflect and “improve” the real.

These examples serve a point- as our worldly notions of identity, humanity, social relationships and are being exposed to new technical networks, the essential Being as an actor has opportunity for re-creating a node, or nodes, on new networks; ones that will at best and worst implicate the formation of a phoenix in the likeness of representation of reality. A brave new universe.

Identity in the techno-social milieu: messages in a bottle in a maelstrom of flows

Identity in the network is markedly a different construct than when created in isolation.

This is a mere thought experiment as identity in isolation is, by many accounts, simply not possible; humans are a social being and the very etymology of the word "identity", that is, latin for "the same" (Barney, 2004:143), supposes continuity, multiplicity, and in application a specific response to a wider structure and its temporality.

That is, the multiplicity, continuity and wider audience are all symptoms of a structural condition. It's to say the act of "sameness" must exist within a structure and thus we can think of identity as existing within a structure also. Within this structure it should be recognised by others, even if by 'others' we don't necessarily define who, or what 'others' are, though most likely the first and default recognition will occur by the human or entity to which it belongs which in turn creates an almost implicit extrapolatory assumption of the make up of an audience, perhaps at the expense of the notion of structure.

What I am saying is that we think of identity as a continuity of sameness which is recognisable by the audience. We assume that audience as human belonging in a social structure.

What I propose, from here is an examination of the role of identity within the network. Not a network of humans, but the network of technology channels interfacing flows between nodes, themselves capable of being made up of human and non-human actors, as well as being made up of a concert of other nodes, human, non-human and other actors. This "techno-social milieu" focuses on the implicatory aspects of cultural practice and technology. The techno-social milieu only exists as a multiplicity; one who's constituents are dynamic and faceless. A concert of humans, their avatars, the nodal exchange over technological platforms, the technologically determined communication format under which these exchanges are funneled, and further their resulting receipt and responding actions or replies - all interactions bound in identity.

The networks within this techno-social milieu offer us still access to identity as sameness. A background where rhizomic interactions of a structureless structure take place and the dynamism with which nodes belong to differing networks with different degrees is an inherent characteristic of the milieu. Within this background the make-up of identity, as a role within a structure, is itself specifically different than has in the time of modernity. The technologies and tools, the identity vessels and interactive signs which make up this milieu force quantification of identity. They implicate the production with distribution, and thus, with considerations of the big other, a pervasive structure, and other feedback effects, it must not be taken for granted when examining the inner dynamics of identity itself in the 21st century, as sameness is no longer the same as sameness.



Related links/bibliography:
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Aus2d8mh1Q4C&lpg=PA143&ots=lsTV7H9OSA&dq=network%20society%20and%20sameness&pg=PA143#v=onepage&q=network%20society%20and%20sameness&f=false
http://www.blunks.net/?cat=24
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=iqQyf4KxQfkC&lpg=PA4&ots=_ROWtaorZ-&dq=network%20society%20and%20sameness&pg=PA4#v=onepage&q=network%20society%20and%20sameness&f=false
http://www.zulenet.com/VladimirDimitrov/pages/identity.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_(philosophy)
http://www.education.ca.gov/sp/cd/re/itf09socemofdisro.asp?print=yes
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=c8Q3wMxHbXwC&lpg=PA7&ots=ptSZdJMcTL&dq=identity%20in%20relation%20to%20others&pg=PA7#v=onepage&q=identity%20in%20relation%20to%20others&f=false

Musiclab, trends, abstraction and the network effects

As a child I had always wondered if people purchased the songs because they were on the charts, or had the initial rush to purchase had put them on the chart. Again, as a child, I had resolved part of the issue in my head as "the same mass seems to recycle to what's put in front of them." - the latter something re-enforced in my adult life as a business consultant.

Though it is a sweeping generalisation, I couldn't help think of it again when I came across this article in the NY Times a couple of weeks ago from 2007 written by Duncan Watts (amongst other things the author of book Six Degrees: The Science of the Connected Age) - it's titled "Is Justin Timberlake a Product of Cumulative Advantage?".

I find it particularly interesting as I'm technically minded and have noticed many relevant technologies emerge during my lifetime. These can be said, in some ways, are so integrated into cultural practice that they are in fact implicated as a technology and culture in a wider techno-social milieu.

In this article Watt's makes a number of observations, about the the social network effects that influence the very outcome of technologies such as pop charts.

The "Web 2.0 revolution" on the web brought a "revolution" of user generated content. With it, came the now well known proliferation of quantifiable social trust ratings in the form of "liking" or "disliking", thumbing up/down, 5 starring or 1 starring etc. This has tapped into a natural communicative social act of articulating endorsement or dis-favour in peer groups. As it turns out, according to Watts, that it might not be all too dis-similar from my appraisal of pop charts - seemingly they're rather unpredictable and not entirely determined by actual content, so much as the dynamics of flows between nodal points.

What he talks about in the article is an experiment which essentially tested a number of groups to see how, knowing what others rated the content, would affect their own ratings.

They did this by opening a website for users to rate music. Unbeknown to the users they were all, once logged in, separated into groups and each group was shown a different version of the site. That is, each group was only shown the preferences of others in that group - essentially dividing the site into differing worlds. The main differences was that one group had no ratings, and served as a sort of control group - in their world they could not see what anyone else rated so when they were asked for what they thought the quality of a song was they answered in absence of other's opinions.

The rest of the participants were split further into worlds where they could see the other user's ratings - however these rating-visible-worlds were multiplied so as to test the social network effect. Thus they existed with the same content (i.e songs) but were in different voting pools - thus in one world a certain song might be rated as 2 star whereas in another it might be 5 star. The participants of each world would not see, or be aware of, other worlds.

The results? Well - each world's participants rated the songs very differently. It had seemingly little alignment to the content (songs) itself but it infers the network effect had a lot to do with the decision processes of the participants, thus the decision processes and actually what they perceived to like.

The full article can be found here -
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/magazine/15wwlnidealab.t.html?_r=2
If it asks you to login you need not register just use the site http://bugmenot.com

If you would like a description of the experiment please see this lecture - http://videolectures.net/cvss08_dodds_tecolst/ . You will need to skip to the 46th minute or so.

Related to the execution of this experiement there is also a lecture titled "Social Science 2.0" by Watts where he explains the view that this type of research would not be possible without the internet. This may provoke the question how would these interactions exist in the same way without the internet? though that is a different question.) - http://videolectures.net/eccs08_watts_ss2/


So, why is this interesting to me when it's seemingly largely revolved around musical preferences (or musical social preferences?) - simply, an environment who's society is increasingly abstracted by layers of technologies, conventions, systems and structures is more likely to have its outcomes skewed by the implementation of the technology onto the network effect. That is to say, not that the network effect is skewing the outcome, but the short comings of the technologies (i.e. of language, of the star things, of the leichart scale etc etc).

Within this environment, the implication of technology and society is seen as non-deterministic, with neither society or technology as the universal determinate force, but rather an implicatory techno-social dynamic made up of minor structural negotiations of influence and interaction.

As the level of technology is better able to replicate societal, or more correctly, human desires, the blurring of the lines between machinistic and humanistic actors as nodal points will likely effect the current flows between nodal points, in a sense, of those relatively minor structural negotiations to a point where they may have specific and major determinate forces of machinistic and human nodes (or abstracts of control of those nodes made up of machinistic and or humans, themselves subject to participation as nodes themselves).

One of the widely recognised by-products of the "Web 2.0 revolution" of user generated content is the ability to rate things. This makes use of the basic positive network externality of articulating trust relationships and endorsements and disapprovals.

The logical extreme is akin to The Matrix - where the nodal actors are entirely abstracted, to a point where the human entities only perceive within the scope of the abstraction itself.

I suspect humans were already socially networked like this, but today, and in future, the increased penetration in societal organisation is likely to make things more unpredictable. And the day we won't be able to determine the entity controlling a node will likely make this unpredictability even more interesting and likely more skewed. One could say, we are already there.