Consumer 2.0 - “Web 2.

0 citizens”

“As powerful as it is technology is just enabler and it’s the technology in the hands of almost
always connected people that make it so powerful”
(Blume, 1996; citied in Li and Bernoff, 2008)

A decade ago Raaij (1998) identified that social and technological developments will create new
options and possibilities for consumers and will bring some real changes for marketing
managers. For the past 18 years the active discussions have taken place in marketing literature
analyzing the relationship of postmodern marketing, semantic web, interactivity, tribes and
changing consumer behavior (Raaij, 1998; Flart et al, 1995; Cova 1997; Constantinedes, 2004;
Simmons, 2008), but only today the discussed thoughts embrace their real meaning. The mass
acceptance of the Web as social medium is the biggest recent change in internet behavior which
allows the postmodern marketing concepts to flourish (Razorfish, 2008). These changes in
postmodern marketing era are mostly driven by the new consumers. Digital natives, Millennials,
Generation Y it just a few names often met in marketing literature, describing the new generation
of tech-savvy, success driven, self-confident, independent but community-minded people
(Deloitte, 2005). According to Tapscott (2008,) that it is the first global generation ever which is
smarter, quicker and more tolerant of diversity than their predecessors. Millennials never
experienced life without computers and are just a click away from the world any minute. The
reverse accumulation of knowledge is typical for them - the younger they are, the more they
know (Deloitte, 2005). Tapscott (2008) identifies eight norms that define Net Geners:
They value freedom and choice in everything they do.
They love to customise and personalise.
They scrutinise everything.
They demand integrity and openness, including when deciding what to buy and where to work.
They want entertainment and play in their work and education, as well as their social life.
They love to collaborate.
They expect everything to happen fast.
They expect constant innovation.

Giedrius Ivanauskas © Web 2.0 Citizens blog – http://giedriusi.wordpress.com/

Moreover, Deloitte (2005) suggest that Generation Y is impatient, needs the flexibility and space
to explore, wants to produce something worthwhile and seeks to make a difference in order to be
rewarded with a respect. This generation fits well the description of postmodern consumer which
lacks the commitment to grand projects and seeks different experiences, and is willing to see
oneself as a (marketable) object in the different situations s/he encounters in order to make each
a supremely exciting and enjoyable experience (Flrat et al., 1995)

Even though, they are not the only ones affecting the marketing environment. So called “digital
immigrants” (Palfrey and Gasser, 2008) or fast adapters of the technology arguably might have
even bigger influence on the on going changes in marketing as they are aware about the changing
situation and they have a power, knowledge and resources to influence this phenomenon. As
both of these consumer groups are very important for marketers they could be grouped under one
term of - Web 2.0 Citizens.

Web 2.0 Citizens worries marketers as their consumption patterns and the perception of the value
are evolving and the old marketing models are not working on them. Wipperman (Trendbureo,
2008) argues that the Maslow’s pyramid of needs is changed with the closed loop (a feedback
loop) where in the process that is never completed self-actualization remains the individual’s
basic motivation and is increasingly coming to the means of self-optimization (Figure 2.9).

Giedrius Ivanauskas © Web 2.0 Citizens blog – http://giedriusi.wordpress.com/

 Figure 2.9. The closed loop of needs.
Source: Trendbureo (2008)

The changing needs affects buying behavior what makes it difficult for marketers to target the
consumer, especially when the new consumer takes the initiative for transactions, at the place
and time they want, what has considerable consequences for the distribution of goods and
services (Raaij, 1998). Easily satisfied psychological and safety needs moves the postmodern
consumer onto the search for social and self-actualizing experiences. The consumption becomes
a way for individuals to creatively appropriate and construct self-images that allow them to
become more desirable or likeable in various social contexts (Dawes and Brown, 2000;
Goulding, 2003). Constantinides and Fountain (2008) argues that in social web era consumer
preferences and decisions are based on new inputs provided by parties beyond the control of
online marketers: peer reviews, referrals, blogs, tagging, social networks, online forums and
other forms of user-generated content uncontrollable by the marketers. These content creating
people are keen in building online communities, in order to satisfy their social, self-esteem and
self-actualization needs. According to Kim (2000) (cited in Bowman and Willis, 2003) the
hierarchy of needs differ between offline and online communities (Figure 2.10)

Giedrius Ivanauskas © Web 2.0 Citizens blog – http://giedriusi.wordpress.com/

Table 2.3: Online community needs
Source: Bowman and Willis (2003)

In the post-modernity period which encourages a move away from individualism towards a
search for more social bonds, these communities tend to reorganize themselves into neo-tribes,
networks of people gathering homogeneously together for social interaction, often around
consumption and brands (Simmons, 2008). From the marketers perspective it is very important
to consider tribal relationships as it may be a powerful tool in building loyalty and trust among
the consumers. Even though neo-tribes and brand communities are two different concepts they
share very similar features and often are very related to each other. According to Cova and Cova
(2002) the main differences are that the brand communities are explicitly commercial whereas
tribes are not, furthermore, brand communities are concerned about relationship between brand
and consumer, whereas tribes – relationship between consumers. Muniz and O’Guinn (2001)
(citied in Ouwersloot and Odekerken-Schroeder, 2008) describes a brand community as a
specialized, non-geographically bound community that is based on a structured set of social
relations among admirers of a brand. Mairinger (2008) suggests that:

The brand community is not just formed around a brand; it creates the brand.
The brand community is not just formed around a product; it is part of the product.

Giedrius Ivanauskas © Web 2.0 Citizens blog – http://giedriusi.wordpress.com/

Therefore, the creation and development of brand communities is one of the most important
tasks of the marketer as it can guarantee the company success in the long term. According to
Mairinger (2008) brand communities can add real experiences and emotion to the brand, reach
the long tail, address both individualism and collectivity needs and replace the celebrity
endorsers with community brand advocates. Considering that 49 % of people made a purchase
based on friends recommendations on social media property (Razorfish, 2008), social media can
be viewed as an important channel and tool to interact, manage and enable these brand
communities.

Communication process

Changing consumers requires different communication approach from marketers. According to

Tapscott (2008) Web 2.0 citizens do not accept the one-way communication approach because
they have been immersed in two-way communication from childhood or their growing
frustration with traditional communication approaches has reached the maximum limit.
This media literacy evolved into digital media literacy and let the audience to manage and select
their own exposure to marketing messages (Meadows-Klue, 2008). Therefore, a power shift can
be observed from the sender (advertiser) to the receiver (consumer) where communication
obtains a service-oriented (experience creating) rather than a persuasive role (Raaij, 1998). Flrat
(Flrat et al., 1995) argues that in emerging postmodernity the consumer may be finding the
potential to become a participant in the customization of his/her world by immersing her/himself
as an object into the world of objects, instead of trying to maintain a position that is privileged to
and detached from the objects. Therefore, marketing has to include the consumer not as a target
for products but as producer of experience. Creating and sharing positive experiences
becomes more important than just sending simple messages to the consumer. Constantinides
and Fountain (2008) argues that changing communications has to consider the new factors
influencing the decision making process of the consumer (online uncontrollable marketing
factors) (Figure 2.10).

Giedrius Ivanauskas © Web 2.0 Citizens blog – http://giedriusi.wordpress.com/

 Figure 2.10 Uncontroled marketing stimuli – Web 2.0.
Source: Constantinides and Fountain (2008)

Changing customer’s perception of value affects the communication process as it is difficult to

create suitable value proposition and target the consumer. Lawer and Knox (2006) identifies the

Figure 2.11. The new drivers of value.

Source: Lawer and Knox (2006)

Giedrius Ivanauskas © Web 2.0 Citizens blog – http://giedriusi.wordpress.com/

new drivers of value (Figure 2.11) which has to be considered when planning communication
strategy. Moreover, as the lines between consumers and producers disappear the value is gained
trough completely different experiences where consumer becomes a producer – prosumer.
Creativity and co-creation engages consumer, especially when it happens in neo-tribes or brand
communities where the consumer can share the experience with others. As a result, the service
or product itself can be modified in order to enable the consumer to take a part in co-creation
process and guarantee a positive word of mouth for the company. Lawer (2006) proposes eight
styles of company-consumer value co-creation (Appendix 7). From the social media perspective,
the people could be divided in 6 social technographic profiles according to their participation
level (Li and Bernoff, 2008):

"Creators" - Publish a blog/website; upload created videos/music; write articles or stories and post them;
"Critics" - Post ratings/reviews; comment on blogs and forums; contribute to articles or wikis;
"Collectors" - Use RSS feeds, add tags to web pages or photos;
"Joiners" - Maintain a profile/ an account on social media site (Social network, Content community);
"Spectators" - Read blogs or customer reviews, watch video or listen to audio (podcasts);
“Inactives” – None of these activities.

It is important to understand how social technologies are being adopted by the company’s
costumers as according to consumer’s profile the social strategy could be adopted (Li and
Bernoff, 2008). Especially, marketers should be concerned about “Creators” as they are most
likely to be the trend setters / brand evangelists (opinion leaders). Hoegg (Hoegg et al., 2006)
summarized the participation model of a Web 2.0 (Figure 12).

Figure 2.12. Participation model of a Web 2.0 service

Source Hoegg (Hoegg et al., 2006)

Giedrius Ivanauskas © Web 2.0 Citizens blog – http://giedriusi.wordpress.com/