There Is No Such Thing as The Norm

I define norms as expectations for both personal and collective behavior - these expectations are based on everything we've encountered and experienced in the past. Recently Seth Godin wrote about social norms and how they translate in the online world. His belief is that digital norms are still quite diverse and unpredictable because so little time has gone by since the Internet became popular - not nearly enough time for uniform behavior to be established.

Godin is on the right track but he's understating the reality of change - since he assumes that widespread norms will be established at some point. I believe that the Internet offers such a unique platform for the development of new communication channels that nearly-universal social norms (such as handshakes) might never come about (or at least not in the foreseeable future). Taking the written word as an example, in 20 years we've gone from bulletin boards to email to chat to instant messenger to blogs to Twitter - with newer channels built on top of the old, never replacing, only adding further complexity.

If you compare the simple actions of emailing an acquaintance vs. tweeting an original link/comment into the ether of acquaintances, I suspect that two fundamentally different sets of response-expectations play out. Once an email is sent, there is a longer high-probability response-period - with rapid declines after certain periods of time (correlated with email-responding hot-periods such as morning and evening). The world of Twitter moves at a much faster pace. A response is initially more probable (due to the one-to-many nature of Twitter) but quickly declines because of the fast-paced flow of new messages.

The reality of Internet-enabled, rapidly evolving communication-channels forces us to constantly re-learn and re-socialize. This need to repeatedly re-establish norms has wide-scale implications for both individuals and companies. Adaptability and a fundamental comfort with change are required for successful communication.

From Steel to Gold - Part II

I realized that the themes surrounding the movement of products and services along the Utility-Luxury grid require a bit more analysis. So I will dedicate one or two more posts to try to dig deeper into this topic.

I've been thinking about potential catalysts that might spark a movement between any of the four squares shown below (in Part I). Here is what I've come up with so far:

• The introduction of new substitutes. This explains what happened with the wristwatch. As mobile phone penetration grew, the watch's practical value declined.
• The introduction of new complements. This partially explains how the Internet became a very valuable tool. With the development of better modems, networks, and more powerful personal computers, the Internet's potential usefulness and appeal grew.
• Increased ubiquity. This of course begs the "chicken or the egg" question, but I believe that the growth of the Internet's ubiquity strengthened its network effect and thus created a positive cycle that continues to push the Internet up the Utility line.
• Changing tastes and norms. This drives movement in a lot of industries, especially in fashion, art, and cuisine.
• A change in the level of scarcity. This is pretty self-explanatory. For example, certain types of fish are now a luxury due to a decrease in their population.
• Laws and other government regulation. The legalization of narcotics would most likely decrease their price and thus diminish many of their luxury-qualities.
• Demographic changes. As the population ages at a faster pace in the U.S., Florida real estate might become more of a luxury.

I'm sure that I've only begun to scratch the surface. What other catalysts for change can you think of?

From Steel to Gold - Part I

I forgot to bring, and thus wear, my wristwatch on a recent business trip. I missed my watch very much. But what I realized from this haphazard experience was that I didn't miss the watch because of its usefulness or because I had trouble ascertaining what time it was; I missed the watch because of how it made me feel, because of how it looked and felt on my wrist.

This minor event has made me realize that the wristwatch has nearly no actual utility in a modern world. Between our mobile phones, computer clocks, and wall-mounted time-pieces, the wristwatch isn't really used to tell time. It has become an accessory. It is a luxury used to complement a wardrobe, distinguish status and wealth, or to be worn because of social norms.

As our society has evolved technologically, the wristwatch has transitioned from being a tool that offered a high level of utility to now become a wardrobe accessory with little practical value. This has happened in a relatively short amount of time - probably most strongly correlated to the proliferation of mobile phones (which have digital clocks included) over the last ten years.

I believe that it's important to think of products and services through this relatively common and simple lens - on the spectrums of utility and luxury. It's especially useful to look at how different offerings have evolved and transitioned. It's these transformations (in any direction) that often unlock the greatest opportunities and that offer the greatest potential for innovation and profit.