Lack of poly-activism a marketing problem?
[Under this schema, I think I fall into the “Cutting Edge” demographic, not the “Bleeding Edge”. No tattoos, piercings, particularly exotic clothing items, etc. -Thomas]
THE ABSENCE OF POLY-ACTIVISM AS A CASE OF UNSUCCESSFUL MARKETING
By DAVID DOLESHAL, XAVIER COSTA-MENDEZ, and MONIQUE LEVERNIER
PART 1 of 5
Much has been said about the “slow rate” of advancement of the
polyamory “movement,” compared to such causes as gay/lesbian rights,
feminism or racial equality. How one explains this apparently slow pace of
progress depends on how one frames the problem, and which of many possible
sets of assumptions one uses. One can, for instance, analyze the issue as
a classical case of the political oppression of and discrimination against
a minority. Alternatively, one might analyze this issue from any number of
sociological, economic, anthropological or psychological perspectives.
Without denying the validity of any of these approaches, we thought it
might be refreshing to consider a non-political perspective for a change.
In this case, we’ll treat the slow advancement of the polyamory movement
from the point of view of an innovative “product” attempting to “market”
itself but that has encountered a somewhat greater than usual amount of
opposition.
From the perspective of futurists and marketing trend analysts, such
matters are spoken of not in terms of political struggles and “movements”
but in terms of “innovations” and how they spread (or fail to spread)
through a “marketplace.”
The discussion that follows draws heavily from the recently published
model of social change and innovation contained in a book entitled “THE
DEVIANT’S ADVANTAGE; HOW FRINGE IDEAS BECOME MASS MARKETS,” written by
respected futurists Ryan Matthews and Watts Wacker. Although primarily
written with the intent of helping corporations better figure out how to
market new products, the book (which never mentions the subject of
polyamory), has a general relevance to anyone seeking to spread an
innovation or interested in understanding the pattern followed by radical
innovations that eventually become very popular. The theoretical model
seems to apply to essentially all kinds of innovations, whether the
innovation is a new product, technology, a new dance form or music style,
a political or religious idea, or an “alternative lifestyle” such as
polyamory. The model discussed here is similar to the models used very
effectively by those who advise multi-national corporations and
governments when making decisions about introducing innovations and when
trying to understand how and why some innovations catch on and others do
not. It is not presented as a dogma nor as THE only possible perspective,
but merely as one of many possible models that people interested in
poly-activism MIGHT find useful and illuminating.
To understand this model, one must first divide your “mental map” of the
social environment up into several groups based on people’s varying degree
of receptivity to innovation. Then, one must imagine each of these
factions as residing within one of a set of concentric rings, with these
rings arranged so that the outermost ring contains the people MOST
receptive to innovation, and with each successive ring becoming
increasingly more resistant to innovation as one moves inward toward the
center. These concentric rings, examined from the outside moving in, are
referred to in technical jargon as “The Fringe,” “the Edge,” “the Realm of
the Cool,” “the Realm of the Next Big Thing,” and “Conventionality.”
Although there is always a certain amount of intercommunication among
these various parts of the social world, much of the time they tend to
treat each other as foreign nations and act almost as if there is a wide
and almost unbridgeable gulf between each one and its neighboring realms.
Basically, the notion is that all innovations arise in the outermost
Realm of the Fringe, and gradually work their way inward, traveling a path
from the Fringe to the Edge, from the Edge to the Realm of the Cool, from
the Realm of the Cool into the Realm of the Next Big Thing, and from there
eventually into the Realm of Conventionality. An innovation may move fast,
slow, or not at all. Each innovation confronts distinct challenges at
every stage, and undergoes various transformations as it passes through
each segment of the population. Each innovation may become stalled
temporarily or permanently in any of these realms. Note well that this
hypothetical set of concentric circles does NOT map easily onto the
standard “Left vs. Right” political spectrum. Nor does it correlate
closely with any kind of moral/immoral, good/evil dimension, nor any kind
of familiar upper class/lower class category system. Instead, it has more
to do with differing sizes of people’s “comfort zones,” and a gradient of
tolerance for social disapproval, chaos and novelty.
The first order of business will be to describe in general terms the
characteristics of people residing within each of these hypothetical
realms. When viewed from the inside out, the centermost circle represents
the realm called “Conventionality”, or mainstream society. This is where
the majority of people’s minds, lifestyles and behaviors are. Roughly 50%
of society, those with the LEAST tolerance for chaos, confusion,
innovation or novelty, live within this realm. People that live here are
the most conservative, least creative, and the least receptive to change
and innovation. The people within this realm value the familiar, the
comfortable, the tried-and-true, what is “proper” and what is socially
approved of above all else. They make most of their major decisions with
an emphasis on security, safety, stability, familiarity, predictability,
and most importantly, social approval. These people are very
risk-aversive, and they tend to be the last people to embrace change or
adopt any innovation.
Immediately outside this Realm of Conventionality lies a circle called
“The Realm of the Next Big Thing.” In this realm reside the minds and
lives of people significantly more receptive to change and novelty than
those in the Realm of Conventionality. Although the denizens of this
region have a willingness to try new things, they generally WON’T do so
until they have been STRONGLY reassured that LOTS of other people have
already tried the innovation, that it actually works well, and that these
other people have been satisfied with it. Although still very resistant
to change and very sensitive to peer pressure, they are also very
concerned about being left behind, left out, or missing out on something
that MIGHT be worthwhile or give them a competitive advantage. They like
to think of themselves as “with it” and trendy, and they are the people
who are always trying to keep up with the proverbial Joneses. When
something good and new in terms of fashion or technology comes along, they
want to have it. But they still want the “product” to have more or less
“proved itself” before they will “invest” in it, especially when the
perceived cost in terms of financial and/or emotional risk is high. These
people represent perhaps 25% or so of the general population. People in
this realm aren’t likely to START a bandwagon rolling themselves - but
once it is apparent that a band wagon is moving they want to be on it.
They will jump on long before people in the Realm of Conventionality will
jump on, but nevertheless they want to be reasonably sure that the band
wagon has got LOTS of momentum and really is going in the “right”
direction before they jump on.
Out beyond this Realm of the Next Big Thing lies another ring Matthews
and Wacker refer to as “The Realm of the Cool.” This Realm, sometimes
referred to as the Realm of the Trendy, or other similar terms represents
a segment of the population that is still more daring than those in the
Realm of the Next Big Thing, - distinctly less ruled by fear of novelty or
change, and even more tolerant of chaos, confusion, uncertainty and
instability. This realm consists of perhaps an additional 20% of the
population. These are the people who want to be the FIRST one on their
block with the latest hot new thing. Concern for social approval and
prestige is still very important to these people, though substantially
less so than with the two more conventionally-oriented groups we have
already described. It is important to such persons to be admired as being
stylish, “cool” and trendy, - not viewed as eccentrics, freaks, weirdoes
or crackpots. In their own minds, they gain prestige for adopting a
product, service or practice significantly before everyone else has. They
are still a part of the herd, but they have a strong ego investment in the
notion of being the ones leading the herd, - being the leaders of the pack
who set the standards for everyone else. They are therefore quick to jump
on a band wagon as soon as they see one going by. In contrast to those in
the Realm of the Next Big Thing, people in the Realm of the Cool don’t
necessarily need to be convinced that LOTS of people before them have
tried an innovation and made it work safely and effectively for them, -
but they need to feel that SOMEBODY has.
Out beyond the Realm of the Cool lies a region that Matthews and Wacker
refer to as “the Edge.” This Edge realm contains approximately 5% of
population. Within this realm of mavericks and adventurous people are
those with the least concern for social disapproval, and the least fear of
chaos, novelty, confusion and uncertainty. In fact, they can be
characterized as having an ATTRACTION to, rather than an AVERSION to
novelty, creativity and strangeness.
Although Matthews and Wacker generally speak of the Edge as if it were a
unitary, undifferentiated space, we find it useful to draw a further
distinction between what we would call the “Bleeding Edge” and the
“Cutting Edge.”
The Cutting Edge could be visualized as a ring out beyond the Realm of
the Cool consisting of about 3 - 4% of the population. This is a realm of
people who are more or less indifferent to cues of social approval and
disapproval. Such people tend to make their major decisions purely based
on what they actually desire or need, or have a real practical use for.
They might buy a totally new or virtually untested product or make a
highly unorthodox and unpopular lifestyle choice because they personally
like that option and it GENUINELY appeals to them -regardless of what
anyone else thinks. Their decisions tend to be most concerned only with
the usefulness of the item or innovation as it impacts them and the
challenges of their life (whether such motives would be deemed
“respectable” or not by society at large). These are very adventurous
people who simply couldn’t care less what the neighbors, Mrs. Grundy, the
“experts” or society in general thinks about the matter. Such people tend
to have an EXTREMELY high tolerance for disapproval, chaos, novelty,
confusion, uncertainty, the unfamiliar and the strange. However, - and
this is important, - while Cutting Edge people do NOT let the possibility
that their behavior, lifestyle choices, political positions, purchasing
decisions or aesthetic preferences MIGHT offend or upset someone else
prevent them from doing what they choose to do, they also do NOT do
outrageous things or select unconventional options specifically BECAUSE
they hope their behaviors and choices WILL shock, disgust or offend
others. If a Cutting Edge person dyes their hair bright purple, it will
be because they actually do like purple hair, NOT because they think other
people don’t.
Outside beyond this realm of the Cutting Edge is a ring we are
referring to as the “Bleeding Edge.” Other authors sometimes refer to this
realm as “the counterculture,” or the “anti-establishment.” This realm
comprises perhaps 1-2% of society. These are people who not only are NOT
afraid of social disapproval, novelty, chaos, confusion or weirdness, -
they actively CRAVE such things.
In contrast to the people at the Cutting Edge, whose motto is
“innovation for practicality’s sake, non-conformity for the sake of
effective action, unorthodoxy for fun’s sake,” for people on the Bleeding
Edge, the motto is basically “innovation for innovation’s sake,
non-conformity for non-conformity’s sake, unorthodoxy for unorthodoxy’s
sake.” Instead of being afraid of or indifferent to social disapproval,
the residents the Bleeding Edge ACTIVELY seek out the things that they
expect will shock the mainstream of society, frighten the children and
spite the authorities. Many of these folks, for instance, are the ones
that deliberately get tattoos, body piercings, dye their spiked hair
purple and/or sport outrageous clothing BECAUSE they anticipate such
things will attract attention and startle other people. Bleeding Edge
people THRIVE on disapproval and have a tendency to embrace innovations
specifically BECAUSE they will startle, frighten, offend, and upset most
people and evoke expressions of shock, astonishment and/or disapproval.
Although it is always dangerous to generalize about such a diverse
group of people, there are certain common features found among Bleeding
Edge personalities that are worth remarking upon. For instance, many
Bleeding Edge people love to adopt exotic or “culty” affections of speech,
personal appearance or behavior that set them apart from the rest of
society. Bleeding Edge people often are eager to embrace “lost causes,”
join exotic cults, take up with extremist sub-cultures or endorse radical
political movements, - everything from animal liberation, anarchism,
Satanism, militant environmentalism, the skin heads or neo-Nazism. This
they do, - not primarily because they particularly like the ideologies,
nor necessarily even understand them, - nor because they sincerely want
the declared aims of such groups to be achieved, (nor even because they
think such goals can ever be attained). Their main motives for supporting
such extreme causes is as a way to make a “social statement” that clearly
defines themselves as a non-conformist, renegade, social outcast, freak,
rebel or deviant. This is frequently a way of expressing defiance, and of
rebelling against, rebuking and otherwise screaming a “fuck you” to
mainstream society. As militantly as such people may advocate some new
ideology, product, art form or practice, as if declaring that they will
never be happy unless and until the rest of the world adopts it, if the
truth be known, if this new art form or practice should ever ACTUALLY
become widely accepted, such Bleeding Edge proponents of it would quickly
lose interest in it and might soon even begin endorsing its opposite.
Conventional psychologists have had much to say about how and why
certain minds come to adopt Bleeding Edge lifestyles, - virtually none of
which is flattering to the people being described. Terms like “unresolved
adolescent hostility,” “poor impulse control,” “issues with authority,” or
“insufficient socialization,” are among the more commonly used phrases.
But then again, what else could you expect from CONVENTIONAL
psychologists? Whatever the truth of such negative characterizations of
Bleeding Edge people, there is no denying that they have played and
CONTINUE to play a vital role in the advancement of the human race. For
they collectively serve as THE incubator that nurtures EVERY innovation
that has EVER gained widespread acceptance by the rest of society, and for
every innovation that ever WILL. Every innovation that was EVENTUALLY
accepted by mainstream society, - everything from automobiles, rock and
roll music to Christianity, was embraced by Bleeding Edge people LONG
before anyone else. Clearly such people should not be dismissed lightly.
Out beyond even this outer circle of the Bleeding Edge exists yet
another realm that Matthews and Wacker refer to as “The Fringe,” - a place
that others sometimes refer to as “the Void,” or “the Source.” The Fringe
is the home of all manner of unrestrained genius, psychological outlawry,
wildness, undiluted idealism, eccentricity, madness, unbridled originality
and raw, unadulterated creativity, - all merged together in ways that can
often be difficult to differentiate or tease apart. For all practical
purposes, the Fringe contains no measurable percentage of the population -
some fraction of a single percent at most. For the most part, the Fringe
consists of minds, or at least temporary mental states that are utterly
disconnected from mainstream society and utterly undisciplined by the
concerns of the mundane world. A mind at the Fringe often might be labeled
as insane by polite society, or at least APPEAR so idiosyncratic or
eccentric that its motivations are something that mainstream society often
cannot control, fathom or even classify. Such minds tend not to be
concerned with things like social approval, pragmatism, morality, common
sense, “the rules,” politeness, “proper behavior,” nor even physical
survival, - so much so that they may not even be able to communicate with
or explain themselves to ordinary people at all.
Matthews and Wacker assert that all innovations initially arise in this
realm that they call the Fringe. At its point of origin, the innovation
exists only within the realm of someone’s mind. It’s no more than a
thought, a feeling, a vision, or a revelation. It is an inspiration that
comes straight from the Muses, the gods of Love and Madness, Plato’s realm
of pure ideas, or from whatever part of the human mind or soul such things
actually come from. In its original form, though perhaps very compelling,
it might well be very difficult to explain, describe, articulate or even
understand.
(END OF PART 1. To Be continued in part 2)
