A good example of how we come to misconceptions based on the behaviour of a relatively small group of people, is the idea of the active civilian or active consumer. In many research programs, future scenarios and in the development of new services there is the assumption of us as individuals and as consumers of being in control of our actions, wishes and needs, having competencies to articulate these and act upon them by having the energy and possibilities to get into a dialogue with professionals (health care, financial services, education), suppliers (utility companies delivering energy, broadband connections, or mobile operators), and other ?dealers?;  and negotiate a deal that perfectly fits our needs, is the most cost-efficient, personalised and with as less constraints as possible so we can easily drop the deal, switch to another ?dealer? or change the package deal we made because of a change in our personal situation. In the words of Bruce Sterling we are already supposed to be ?wranglers?: we are constantly haggling with all kinds of service providers to be in control and get the best possible situation for ourselves. As a result we switch every month (minute?) of insurance company with regard to our car insurance, introduce our kids every semester in a new class, make regularly acquaintance with a new ?family? doctor and install each season a new modem or set-top box for the so much wanted upgraded content delivery. All this for the greater good of the best possible personalised deal we can find. No mistake, there are people out there that come close to this scenario and spend a lot of time getting the best mobile phone and subscription fees. And all of us have been in situations where we compare offerings (mortgage loans), shop a bit around for a good deal on our car or flat screen TV. But exactly in these kinds of situations: once a year or so regarding important things. And in the meantime we do not want to be bothered, and let slightly better deal passes us by. We do not easily switch from ?family? doctor, because he or she is our family doctor and we appreciate in some way the personal bound that is there, even if we know there is a nicer and slightly cheaper ?alternative? 20 miles down the road. And we do not regularly take our kids to another school, because besides maybe some doubts about the quality of the teacher there is so much more to take into account, like location, schoolmates, the adjustment of your kid in a new environment, etcetera. And next grade he gets a different teacher anyway! This is how we think. We choose the provider that bundles several services because it is easy, even if it means it is slightly more expensive or we can only choose from three packages instead of a personalised offering. And this works because we are not unique in what we want in the context of healthcare, education, utility requirements, etcetera. There is NO long tail here, as opposed to consumer goods (and even there the general rule is questionable).

A good example of how we come to misconceptions based on the behaviour of a relatively small group of people, is the idea of the active civilian or active consumer. In many research programs, future scenarios and in the development of new services there is the assumption of us as individuals and as consumers of being in control of our actions, wishes and needs, having competencies to articulate these and act upon them by having the energy and possibilities to get into a dialogue with professionals (health care, financial services, education), suppliers (utility companies delivering energy, broadband connections, or mobile operators), and other ?dealers?;  and negotiate a deal that perfectly fits our needs, is the most cost-efficient, personalised and with as less constraints as possible so we can easily drop the deal, switch to another ?dealer? or change the package deal we made because of a change in our personal situation. In the words of Bruce Sterling we are already supposed to be ?wranglers?: we are constantly haggling with all kinds of service providers to be in control and get the best possible situation for ourselves. As a result we switch every month (minute?) of insurance company with regard to our car insurance, introduce our kids every semester in a new class, make regularly acquaintance with a new ?family? doctor and install each season a new modem or set-top box for the so much wanted upgraded content delivery. All this for the greater good of the best possible personalised deal we can find. No mistake, there are people out there that come close to this scenario and spend a lot of time getting the best mobile phone and subscription fees. And all of us have been in situations where we compare offerings (mortgage loans), shop a bit around for a good deal on our car or flat screen TV. But exactly in these kinds of situations: once a year or so regarding important things. And in the meantime we do not want to be bothered, and let slightly better deal passes us by. We do not easily switch from ?family? doctor, because he or she is our family doctor and we appreciate in some way the personal bound that is there, even if we know there is a nicer and slightly cheaper ?alternative? 20 miles down the road. And we do not regularly take our kids to another school, because besides maybe some doubts about the quality of the teacher there is so much more to take into account, like location, schoolmates, the adjustment of your kid in a new environment, etcetera. And next grade he gets a different teacher anyway! This is how we think. We choose the provider that bundles several services because it is easy, even if it means it is slightly more expensive or we can only choose from three packages instead of a personalised offering. And this works because we are not unique in what we want in the context of healthcare, education, utility requirements, etcetera. There is NO long tail here, as opposed to consumer goods (and even there the general rule is questionable).

And the evidence is right before our eyes: for instance we have a market situation in which it is made easier to switch from energy supplier and health insurance company, and the general picture is that the majority of the consumers stay were they are, a minority switches. Why: we do not want to take the risk of having no electricity or connectivity for a couple of days while the energy companies or service providers sort out their administration; we have an emotional bound with the day car centre of our kids; we do not negotiate with every taxi driver in front of the central station but pick the first in line because we are in a hurry, etcetera. The results so far of introducing market principles in sectors traditionally more controlled, is, in its most positive reading, ?mixed? (see a recent research report on www.minez.nl). Those in favour are quickly to point out that we as consumers are lacking the skills to articulate our needs. And so elderly people are being given courses on how to articulate their personal health care needs! The market is perfectly up to it, it is us, as consumers, that do not know what is good for them…And if this fails there are always economists that argue that the failures so far are due to not having enough competition, there being still too much government interference, etcetera.

Is it an unstoppable freight train? No. I am very sceptical about all kinds of ?facts? and arguments on the wisdom of the crowds in the context of Web 2.0 and the digital world we live in. But in this case, that is in our real social life, it is the wisdom of the crowds, and especially the behaviour of the crowds, that will eventually bring some sense back into how we think society works. It is better to anticipate this then to be flabbergasted by it.

Comments

There are no comments yet, be the first to post a comment!

Comment on this post

Name *

Email *

Message *