The public sphere, coined by Habermas [1], was originally a place where public discussion was participated in, free from elitist influence, within which real democracy was found. Soon this was (as described by Poor, 2005 [2]), “corrupted and co-opted in part by the commercialization of the press through advertising and entertainment.”
This ideal, in some ways, was replicated online through the creation of multiple digital public spheres. Giving instant access to a global public spheres to millions. The idea of multiple public spheres is one which simplifies and organises the online community into subject areas, interests and discussion topics. The notion that the online public sphere is a diasporic utopia is one which cannot be justified. There are several problems with it, however it is largely free from elitist influence, there are few barriers to entry and it is a place where ideas are judged on merit, not on social standing. For marketers, who try to influence and convince people to buy products or create a favourable view towards a certain brand through mass media, where political and hierarchal standing are still hugely important, the online public sphere may seem a scary and threatening prospect.
Hans-Jorg Trenz (2009) argues that, in a Habermasian context:
“The public sphere was perceived as a counter-weight to political representation. What was formerly represented now needed to be legitimated through public reasoning”
I believe this concept, illustrated in a political format can be mirrored in the marketing world digitally. Marketers representations of their product, it’s uses and perceived quality can be legitimated in online discussion forums, through blogs and social media.
This idea can be beneficial to both parties, consumer and marketer. For the consumer it is a way of avoiding post purchase dissonance, the feeling that a wrong decision has been made, possibly purchasing the wrong product and the purchase was unjustified. Discussion of the product and the opinions of others within the public sphere can help to counteract this cognitive dissonance and justify the decision.
For marketers the public sphere can be monitored, in the same way as social media monitoring which has been previously discussed in this blog (http://tobydawsonmarketing.blogspot.com/2011/02/tweet-child-o-mine-blog-week-1.html). This can act as a place for free market research to take place in a natural setting, without participants feeling like what they are saying is being monitored. The digital public sphere can facilitate discussion of marketer’s products and actions however there are several pitfalls and downsides to this totally live, unpredictable and dynamic environment.
The digital age has allowed anonymity in discussion, meaning individuals aren’t accountable for what they say. Often “flaring” takes place, people purposely say negative and controversial things to stir up arguments rather than discussion, having a detrimental effect on the effectiveness and legitimacy of the digital public sphere.
The fact that the digital public sphere is so dynamic and current, companies should be aware of what is being said and who Is saying it. It is important from a PR perspective to not let false or damaging comments from respected sources bring your companies name into disrepute. If there is one thing I’ve learnt about PR it’s to say it first and tell the truth. The digital public sphere is so wide spreading, information has the potential to become “contagious” therefore it is important to make important information know within the sphere, in it’s correct context and with ALL of the facts.
Top Tweeter: @mashable for social media and digital tweets. Get some really interesting facts from them as well at times.
Recommended read: Digital Media and the Return of the Representative Public Sphere – (Link below) – Genuinely one of the most interesting articles I’ve read at Uni (and that’s a lot!). Not too long either, and makes a heavy subject surprisingly light!
[1] Habermas, Jürgen. 1962. Strukturwandel der Öffentlichi<eit. Frankfurt: Suhrkam
[2] Poor, N.,2005. Mechanisms of an online public sphere: The website Slashdot. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(2), article 4. Available from: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue2/poor.html
[3] Hans-Jorg Trenz., 2009. Digital Media and the Return of the Representative Public Sphere. Javnost – The Public. Vol. 16 Issue 1, p33-46. Available from: http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=32f7f080-699c-45db-b609-538b3f6e2f3d%40sessionmgr104&vid=5&hid=20
No comments:
Post a Comment