“Survival of the Fittest”, first championed by philosopher Hebert Spencer is an extension of Charles Darwin’s theory on “natural selection”, which describes the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. Spenser’s sociological adaptation of Darwin’s biological theory has been sometimes referenced as “Social Darwinism” (note: the term “social” was not used to reference modern day “social media”).
In the business world, the term has been interpreted in many fashions but the main premise always remains: a product or brand whose attributes (naturally occurring by characteristic or manufactured by marketing) predisposes it to being beloved and supported by a the majority of consumers.
The economic applications of this principle have rarely included the social media factor; a new, disruptive player in the ecosystem. Can popularity, amplified by social media, alter the premise of Spencer’s fittest paradigm?
Case Study: Research in Motion (RIM).
Spoiler Alert: this is not another blog post about how RIM is circling the drain or speculating why or who should buy it. It’s about you and your part in dictating its history.
Recently, I engaged in a rather heated debate with colleagues about the merits of Apple vs. Google vs. RIM devices and operating systems. After what seemed like an eternity of technical diatribes, someone asked a simple yet pointed question and one that may be closer to the heart of the issue: how do consumers go from being diehard fanatics to diehard detractors over night?
Of course they were referencing the meteoric fall of RIM, which decended from “inventor of the Smart Phone”, enjoying the world’s largest marketshare to vulture food in what was really a nanosecond when you look back. RIM’s Blackberry was supposed to be (and for a short while was) to the smart phone what Kleenex is to facial tissues.
Was the debatable innovation or technical missteps of RIM’s executives what caused it to go from the world’s mobile “fittest” to economic “weakling” overnight? Even passionate advocates of Social Darwinism will concede that any form of natural selection does not happen this quickly without some external factor such as an economics-version of a tsunami or meteor storm that kills off a species in one fell swoop. So what’s the external factor at play here?
Disrupting Social Darwinism
While we’re still charting the full impact of social media’s amplification factor vis-à-vis social influence, social status and networking, we can all agree that social bandwagonism is alive and in fact, rampant.
What is the impact of social media’s mob-mentality on the rules of Social Darwinism? In the case of RIM we might argue that it expedited – or possibly created – the speed at which it has lost public and investor favor.
Is RIM’s product so poor, so deficient that its death should be preordained? It has a proven history of innovation, an international network and large recurring revenue stream (albeit drastically lower than it once was) so why have consumers jumped off the bandwagon so quickly to avoid the “Blackberry plague” that threatens to kill their social cool-factor?
It is possible that RIM or its Blackberry device would have failed regardless of social media’s spotlight but would it have happened so quickly? The new world-order for consumer brands seems to be ruled not by the survival of the fittest but social-popularity. Blackberry fanatics have thrust their “blue thumbs” into their pockets way too quickly for us to not concede that social media peer-pressure elevated social popularity to the top of the priority list over technical considerations and brand loyalty.
Mission Impossible: Overcoming “Social Media Darwinism”
In fact, I would argue the point a little further and state that it has created a hostile environment where even a very fit business can’t survive. RIM has not closed its doors yet pundits and analysts have all but written their epitaphs. The same way they wrote off MySpace, which despite the reports is enjoying a surge in popularity …and even revenue growth today.
I understand that this is their job…whatever sells the news but the general public isn’t selling anything? Or is it? Are we selling our own popularity…our own status? Are we all too happy – and too quick – to join the cool-kids that we’re inadvertently poisoning the environment for fit brands?
What are your thoughts? Has social influence created a social media tsunami? Have the rules of “survival of the fittest” been changed? Can a business overcome it?
Sam Fiorella – Sensei
Feed Yoru Community, Not Your Ego
Feed Yoru Community, Not Your Ego
See also: The Seven Deadly Sins of Market Leaders
