It used to be considered an insult to say that someone or something was “riding the coattails” of something popular. For politicians, it is a back-handed sleight meant to diminish the accomplishments of a winning candidate. In other fields, it’s an implication that somehow the project or achievement is a fluke, and would not have succeeded otherwise. It’s the equivalent of penalizing a sprinter for having the wind at his back.
However, that paradigm of “having someone on your coattails” implies that you are being slowed down. A zero-sum game, where any energy expended elevating others is a drag on your potential.
Reciprocal Buzz
I live in the heart of NASCAR country. I’m not a fan by any stretch, but you can’t live 40 miles from the Talladega Superspeedway and not be a little conversant in the lingo. And the relevant notion is “drafting.” At high speeds, cars traveling in the same air-lane can go faster than by themselves. The trailing car gets pulled in by the air displacement of the first car — and the prevention of disruptive airflow around the back end of the lead vehicle speeds it up as well. It’s not “pushing” with a cushion of air, but the net result is about the same.
The same can be said of viral marketing campaigns, that spoof or play off something popular. Who benefits from this video?
Local 6 News rides the coattail of the undefined creature of Cloverfield. I’m willing to bet the homage generates a little pro-movie buzz along the way. The nature of influence is not a closed system.
[tags]Ike Pigott, Occam’s RazR, viral buzz, marketing, movies, WKMG, Cloverfield[/tags]
Depends. Reciprocity is different depending on the system. Votes in an election, lets says, may never see a return.
That said, there is an insidious nature of online reciprocity that Lauren ironically points out. That explains why some of the Web’s weaker elements display peas and wear funny hats and such.
– Amanda
Sweet…this syncs up with civic virtue #3 – reciprocity.
True, Amanda, Game Theory will dictate that successful strategies are a product of the initial rules of engagement, and the creativity of the actors. However, the reciprocity we see online is an even stronger example of the value of cooperation, and the end of zero-sum thinking.
Before you accuse me of speaking in buzzwords, I am well-schooled in the principles of cooperation as scientifically explored by Robert Axelrod, and about three generations of additional research based on his seminal work.
There’s nothing insidious about the nature of cooperation. Giving someone a link is not taking anything away from yourself.
And I can’t imagine that displaying peas or wearing silly hats is any different than wearing lingerie. However, the motive for one doing so has a greater bearing on the nature of the reciprocal value. Are these actions being done to positively promote? Or to provide a shield?
– “The reciprocity we see online is an even stronger example of the value of cooperation, and the end of zero-sum thinking.”
Cluetrain crap.
Where? For what? You think “Peas” or other flash groups have much value? C’mon. It is more a demonstration of group pathology.
“Peas,” for example, isn’t about breast cancer. It’s about an immature group’s need to suckle. Totally pathetic. And using cancer to rationalize it makes the entire thing totally dishonest. There’s your value of online cooperation.
– “Before you accuse me of speaking in buzzwords, I am well-schooled in the principles of cooperation as scientifically explored by Robert Axelrod.”
So what are you saying… you read a few books, or what?
– “There’s nothing insidious about the nature of cooperation.”
Depends. Co-dependency certainly comes with negative consequences. So does Group Think. If history is any measure, competition kicked cooperation’s ass.
– “Giving someone a link is not taking anything away from yourself.”
Depends. Forming groups that in effect game Google to promote crap insidiously takes from all of us.
– “And I can’t imagine that displaying peas or wearing silly hats is any different than wearing lingerie.”
I can’t help that you cannot imagine the difference between apples and oranges. But it is a problem, for sure.
I’ll say this: No one could accuse us of leveraging the Strumpette brand for silly pathetic “love links.”
– Amanda
I’m sorry, Amanda. Apparently I have been talking over your head. I understand your webmaster is trained in mathematics… maybe he can understand the Axelrod stuff and come back to me.
Axelrod’s research centers around the multiple iterations of the Prisoner’s Dilemmma, and dates back to the 70s and 80s. Therefore it doesn’t qualify as “Cluetrain Crap.”
“Group pathology” is what you seem to term any cooperation where selfishness makes more immediate mathematical sense. Life isn’t a zero-sum, one-off game. In fact, your insistence that it is contradicts your disdain for liberal politics.
“Competition kicked cooperation’s ass.” Go get your boy genius webmaster to read Axelrod. The winning strategy does NOT presume screwing your neighbor for immediate gain… it is a strategy of ‘tit-for-tat’ that starts with in initial condition of cooperation.
That means (and I am dumbing this down for you, Amanda), that the way to win is cooperate first, do-what-was-just-done-to-you next, and periodically forgive.
As for “forming groups to game Google,” I don’t know what that has to do with silly hats or peas, but you need to direct your complaints to Google. They set up the system, and game theory dictates that people will gravitate to strategies that work. You’re just pissed because you’re stuck on a worldview that elevates a particular strategy, and the world isn’t working the way you’d like.
I’m not making this up. Cluetrain didn’t make this up. I’m willing to bet that 98% of the people you classify as my “friendz” have no idea what I am talking about. But you have followed your initial premises into a logical dead-end, because Axelrod has proven mathematically a conclusion that you claim cannot exist.
If you come back, come here with more intellectual rigor and less of your branded indignation. You were at your best when you challenged thinking with thinking — now you have calcified into an ideology that is closed to evidence or question. Your criticism of Cluetrain used to be thoughtful, nimble, and vibrant. It forced many to challenge assumptions. But you’ve reduced your campaign to slogans and buzzwords. You do Keen no favors by replacing one closed mindset with another.
(p.s. – silly love links? Want to compare blogrolls? Who is gaming the system, Amanda? Would my site have greater traffic and ranking if I had your blogroll and played reciprocity games?)
– “Apparently I have been talking over your head.”
Not in the slightest. Actually, I am quite confident that you, a member of the Nobodies-Now-Is-Gone-Crowd-Pink-Boa-Pea crowd, is not capable.
– “Axelrod’s research centers around the multiple iterations of the Prisoner’s Dilemmma, and dates back to the 70s and 80s. Therefore it doesn’t qualify as ‘Cluetrain Crap.’”
I never said Axelrod is Cluetrain crap. I said the weak shit your Pea brain “friendz” promote is Cluetrain crap.
– “’Group pathology’ is what you seem to term any cooperation where selfishness makes more immediate mathematical sense.”
Nope. Never said that. I said that your form of cooperation as demonstrated by your Nobodies-Now-Is-Gone-Crowd-Pink-Boa-Pea crowd is no more than co-dependence and group think, i.e. a social pathogen based on weakness of the members.
– “Life isn’t a zero-sum, one-off game. In fact, your insistence that it is contradicts your disdain for liberal politics.”
Non sequitur aside, I never said life is zero sum. I said that if history is any indication, competition kicked cooperation’s ass.
– “The winning strategy does NOT presume screwing your neighbor for immediate gain… it is a strategy of ‘tit-for-tat’ that starts with in initial condition of cooperation.”
No. The bottom line, that doesn’t work. It’s not practical. Socialism? Communism? C’mon Ike.
– “I am dumbing this down for you, Amanda.”
No. You are dumbing it down to appease your Pea-headed friendz.
– “The way to win is cooperate first, do-what-was-just-done-to-you next, and periodically forgive.”
Jesus was poor. So were/are most of his “friendz.”
– “As for ‘forming groups to game Google,’ I don’t know what that has to do with silly hats or peas, but you need to direct your complaints to Google.”
No. My complaint is with you and your friendz and your insecurity and seeming insatiable need to be popular. Your group rises to the level of High School.
– “You’re just pissed because you’re stuck on a worldview that elevates a particular strategy, and the world isn’t working the way you’d like.”
No. I’m pissed at ignorance and arrogance. I’m pissed at knuckleheads that blovate about topics they know very little about. I am pissed that your sorority praises ignorance.
– “I’m willing to bet that 98% of the people you classify as my “friendz” have no idea what I am talking about.”
I am willing to bet that that includes you.
– “But you have followed your initial premises into a logical dead-end, because Axelrod has proven mathematically a conclusion that you claim cannot exist.”
Okay, with that sentence, add me to the list of people that don’t know what the hell you’re talkin’ about. Now you’re at 100 percent.
– “You were at your best when you challenged thinking with thinking.”
But you haven’t made a case Ike!! You’ve done nothing but drop a name and reiterated your premise.
As far as me making a case, that’s not my job. I’m just trying to keep the knuckleheads honest. You on the other hand have turned to bolster their bullshit. Sad. You once were an independent thinker as I recall.
– “Would my site have greater traffic and ranking if I had your blogroll and played reciprocity games?”
First off, Strumpette doesn’t have a blogroll. Secondly, we promote critical thinking, not blather.
OK, I’ll take peas, hats, boas et al over someone whose online bio reads, “Bottom line professionally speaking, I am 5′ 4″ tall, athletic, Pantene shoulder-length black hair, perfect perky boobs.”
Oh, and don’t call her a troll; that just gets us another canned rant.
I like Ike.
Amanda is right. The peas aren’t about cancer. But, by saying that, it is obvious the AC folks really don’t get it.
The peas are about supporting a person as they go through something, not about awareness of the disease. I would wager that maybe a few are doing it because everyone else is, but the vast majority do it out of support. Try to lighten up on the cynicism. There is still some compassion left in the world.
Ike,
I haven’t ducked a thing. However, I did shed light on the fact that “drafting” and such in the context of social media is for the weak and promotes the weak. As it celebrates the lame, it sucks the oxygen out of the system for real meaning thinking. Such is the pathology that is People’s Social Media Temple to which you apparently belong.
With regard to “intellectual rigor,” excuse me but okay, you start. Silly goose; this is a blog. To think that you’d have genuine intellectual rigor here is absurd.
With regard to you being a “free market disciple,” well then you are at odds with yourself. Cluetrain is anything but free market. Here: the system is either governed objectively or subjectively. What history has proven is that subjectively-based cooperative systems tend to be corrupt and inefficient. Again, as in your Pea-boa-now-is-gone misfits, the congregation ends up sucking the oxygen out of the room. Regrettably, the Google algorithm is designed to foster that.
With regard to “You are looking at the ‘score’ between individuals as though it were the only score that mattered”… and it’s losers who argue otherwise.
With regard to “Popularity was never on the table with me,” EXCUSE ME… look at your Twitters! Look at you peeps! Who are you trying to kid? C’mon, Ike. For the record, I am not arguing that you have you head up your ass; it’s up your group’s ass.
Lastly, as to wandering onto your playground with the assertion that you are full of it, I stand by that. It is you Ike whose thinking is variously clouded.
Well, at least this exercise will have helped you score a few point with your “friendz.”
Sincerely,
– Amanda
Amanda, you conveniently duck back and forth between attacking me, or attacking my “friendz” as you so eloquently put it. You pick the target that is convenient at that moment, and then hide behind the other.
You betray intellectual rigor.
Go read up on the Axelrod stuff. It’s fascinating, and has nothing to do with social media. You’ll feel smarter at the end of the day. Except for the part where you realize that I am right.
Me? Commie? Far from it. I’m a free market disciple. And in free markets, what makes people prosper is cooperation. Those who honor contracts and don’t look at each transaction as an opportunity to screw the other guy will win over time, because over time they will have more willing trade partners.
You are looking at the “score” between individuals as though it were the only score that mattered. If this were football, you’d be right. The lowest-scoring team in the league might very well be undefeated.
But life isn’t about winning football games. A strategy that works in single-iterations does not bear fruit in the long haul. Prosperity is about creating value through trade. And at the end of the year, it’s about the point totals you create (dollars, points, things, whatever it is you choose to score.)
I’ve been meaning to write that Axelrod post and about the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Thanks for demonstrating the need for me to enlighten you.
Popularity was never on the table with me, nor has it been. However, exposing hypocrisy is high on my list and in this instance, you wandered onto my playground and made the assertion that I was full of it. In doing so, you exposed your own very weak thinking, indeed.
– “You have ducked everything.”
No. I have responded to your case as you’ve made it here. No Ike, my job is NOT to do your homework and help make your case.
– “Axelrod clearly shows that predators who aim to win every encounter at all costs end up losing in the long run.”
First time you said that. But that said, keep in mind, it is one math model contrived in the 70s. Context please.
That said, I am not advocating anti-cooperation. I am saying that yours (not necessarily Axelrod’s) is a subjective system and mine is an objectively competitive system. I lean toward Mother Nature; you associate, celebrate and elevate the lame.
– “Are you now admitting there was never any intellectual rigor on Strumpette?”
Absolutely! I’d be the first to admit there’s very little in the way of “intellectual rigor.” It’s a joke meant to parody and make fun of the very things you apparently hold dear. PR in and of itself rarely rises to the level of “intellectual rigor.” Axelrod as a tool to rationalize your friendz “love link” and such is ridiculous.
– “You blasted the hell out of people who tried arguing Keen’s “Cult of the Amateur” with you without having read the book. You’ve already admitted that you’re too chicken to read the Axelrod stuff, or that it is irrelevant to the discussion.”
Your penchant for non sequitur is only exceeded by your thing for trying to put words in my mouth. Your “chicken reference” is chicken shit. Again, not my job to make your case. Also, this post wasn’t about Axelrod, per se. It was a name you happen to drop in the comments.
– “The only reason you are coming back is because having the last word gives you a false sense of accomplishment. That way you don’t have to explain to your pals how an erudite intellectual such as yourself got schooled by a former teevee news guy. In Alabama.”
You’re f-in dreamin’. Like I said on Twitter, “I am not arguing that you have you head up your ass Ike; it’s up your group’s ass.”
You have ducked everything.
If you bothered to check into the Axelrod materials, you’d see true Darwinism at work. It clearly shows that predators who aim to win every encounter at all costs end up losing in the long run.
It’s math, you bonehead. It’s science. It’s vetted, and peer-reviewed, and it is completely germane to the subject at hand. Your attempts to cloud the issue with the catchphrases from Chairwoman Amanda’s Little Black Book notwithstanding.
People who cooperate with each other, freely, tend to elevate themselves as a group. No one is advocating central planning, nor socialism. (Instead of Cluetrain, I quote “Clue”: That is your red herring.)
“Silly goose; this is a blog. To think that you’d have genuine intellectual rigor here is absurd.”
Silly… avatar; are you now admitting there was never any intellectual rigor on Strumpette? It’s a blog too, last time I checked.
Also – last time I checked – you blasted the hell out of people who tried arguing Keen’s “Cult of the Amateur” with you without having read the book. You’ve already admitted that you’re too chicken to read the Axelrod stuff, or that it is irrelevant to the discussion. If and when I do write my Axelrod posts, you will dismiss them without bothering to read the papers.
Because, deep down, you are a hypocrite. The only reason you are coming back is because having the last word gives you a false sense of accomplishment. That way you don’t have to explain to your pals how an erudite intellectual such as yourself got schooled by a former teevee news guy. In Alabama. (Oh, I’ll bet that one stings, doesn’t it?)
Axelrod was invoked in response to your initial comment, which for the record shows you introducing all sorts of things that were not relevant to the initial post.
In fact, I don’t see where you are quibbling with anything in my post. You must have really liked it. Or you must really hate Lauren, to take her nine words and extract an interpretation that gives you an excuse to sound cool by slamming others.
From now on, I will endeavor to anticipate which of your tired cliches and irrelevant asides you will bring to the conversation, and place them in the post accordingly.
I continue to be shocked at how much time can be spent arguing with people who don’t exist.
I do like the initial concept of this post, however. And to be fair, the resulting debate was just like NASCAR- those of us that stuck around got to watch a big wreck…
The principle applies to bike racing and long-distance running, too. The winning strategy is to get near the front, and be ready to break away from the pack.
Sharing the burden of being the front cyclist helps you preserve your strength for the big push.
Steve Prefontaine liked to break from the pack early and try to win through sheer force of will and the ability to ignore pain.
That’s one way to do it, but I don’t think it’s a superior strategy. Just different.
Yeah, and Pre dropped to 4th in the ’72 Olympics trying to catch & overtake a dominant Lasse Virren.