Comments on: “Consumers” or “multipliers” A new language for marketing?

By: Spreadability y las nuevas reglas del juego « e-rgonomic

Spreadability y las nuevas reglas del juego « e-rgonomic — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 03:12:41 +0000

[...] El libro revisa la colección de conceptos que han tratado de ‘mapear’ el nuevo perfil de consumidores. Desde el milenario Alvin Toffler que hablaba de “prosumers” hace 30 años en su libro The Third Wave, pasando por conceptos como “connectors”, “influencers”, hasta algunos más actuales como “content curator”; “lurkers” (ver Nielsen) hasta “multipliers: consumers expand the potential meanings that get attached to a brand by inserting it into a range of unpredicted contexts of use” (de McCracken, +). [...]

By: Elia Morling

Elia Morling — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 19:45:08 +0000

I have blogged about the multipliers here: http://tribaling.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/04/the-multipliers.html

By: Convergence Culture Consortium (C3@MIT)

Convergence Culture Consortium (C3@MIT) — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 08:45:38 +0000

If It Doesn’t Spread, It’s Dead (Part Two): Sticky and Spreadable — Two Paradigms

This is part two of an eight part series. The report was written by Henry Jenkins, Xiaochang Li, Ana Domb Krauskopf With Joshua Green. Our research was funded by the members of the Convergence Culture Consortium, including GSDM Advertising, MTV Ne…

By: Convergence Culture Consortium (C3@MIT)

Convergence Culture Consortium (C3@MIT) — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:39:13 +0000

If It Doesn’t Spread, It’s Dead (Part One): Media Viruses and Memes

Over the next few posts, I am going to be serializing a white paper which was developed last year by the Convergence Culture Consortium on the topic of Spreadable media. This report was drafted by Henry Jenkins, Xiaocha…

By: brkily

brkily — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 10:36:46 +0000

possibly, the change of sensibility we are looking for, resides more in the objects being exchanged – and not the transaction. like the whole idea of valuableness and worthiness.
does the thing make any larger contribution to general well-being of us all or does it only exist for personal gratification? does it have the quality of not subtracting from mutual resouces or increasing them or being re-cycled or lasting a very long time? is the entire cost of the life-cycle of the thing being taken into consideration?
so, perhaps it’s the concept of value which needs rehabilitation…

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 11:36:19 +0000

You suggest multiplier because of its implications about us depending on them to complete the work. Please give examples of what they are doing when they “complete” work.

If this is referring to the mythical concept of a convention generating $XX million for a city because the money is spent and respent, it directs us further from the goal of considering the needs of the person sending us money.

The idea of “consumer” is well respected in technology with the advent of Service Oriented Architectures. Services are consumed.

I look forwars to hearing more suggestions for a new name for consumer. An idea to spark discussion is to think of their position in the value chain…

By: Jerry Michalski

Jerry Michalski — Fri, 18 Nov 2005 23:24:40 +0000

Hey, Grant. Great post, and thanks for adding to the “consumer” conversation.

You’re dead on in describing my objections to the word. There are more where that comes from.

But I’m not crazy about “multiplier.” Any word that sounds less than fully familiar and human, like “individual,” “person,” “member,” or “guest” (what Target calls ‘em) dehumanizes us into targets. Or multipliers.

Whom exactly are we multiplying for? The company marketing to us. What does that say about that company’s intentions toward us? Nothing good.

I like “user” because it implies usefulness. I understand people’s angst about drug users, but I don’t subscribe to that point of view. Yet “user” is a little less human than “person,” etc.

BTW, “client” and “customer” are perfectly groovy. And the consumer market can be called the retail market, which is also a term in long use.

By: Peter

Peter — Sat, 12 Nov 2005 04:36:54 +0000

In response to Steve, I don’t think the word “user” conveys the idea that the consumer is an active participant in the construction and diffusion of the meaning of a product. “Multiplier” does this well, IMO.

By: orange.

orange. — Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:34:26 +0000

Another association to usage of term ‘multipliers’ instead of ‘consumers’: viral marketing.

By: steve

steve — Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:21:02 +0000

It has its own baggage, but what’s wrong with “user”? It connotes active participation while leaving general how the good or service is used. So beer drinkers may “use” Miller Lite to quench their thirst, control weight gain, pretend they are sexy dancers like the ones in the ads, or, instead, playfully flaunt the mismatch between their appearance and the ad message.