How to Market the Consumer IoT: Focus on Experience
Donna Hoffman and Tom Novak, The George Washington University
MSI Webinar | March 1, 2017 | The George Washington University
© Hoffman and Novak 2017 | http://postsocial.gwu.edu
› From the Internet to the IoT
› A New Framework for Conceptualizing Emergent Experience in the Consumer IoT
› Research Priorities for Marketing in the Consumer IoT
› Five Important Managerial Insights
› Discussion
Outline
2
© Hoffman and Novak 2017 | http://postsocial.gwu.edu
From the Internet to the IoT
3
© Hoffman and Novak 2017 | http://postsocial.gwu.edu
Internet Phase 1
Internet of Information
(Web)
Internet Phase 2
Internet of People
(Social)
Internet Phase 3
Internet of Things
(Post-Social)
Research Focus online experience social mediaconsumer experience of the
assemblage
Catchphrase
“Nobody knows you’re a dog” “On the Internet, everybody knows you’re a dog”
“On the Internet of Things, nobody knows you’re a fridge”
From the Internet to IoT
4
© Hoffman and Novak 2017 | http://postsocial.gwu.edu
Why Now? The 7 Technology Laws
Technology Law Description
#1 Moore’s Law Processing power. Transistor density on integrated circuits doubles every 12-24 months.
#2 Kryder’s Law Storage power. The density of information on hard drives doubles every 13 months.
#3 Gilder’s Law Communications power. Total bandwidth of communication systems doubles every 6 months.
#4 Kurzweil’s Law Accelerating returns. The time interval between salient technology events shorter as time passes.
#5 Weiser’s Law Instant adaptation. As technology becomes ubiquitous, people instantly adapt to new technology and take it for granted.
#6 Meeker’s Law 10x Multiplier Effect. With each new technology cycle, the number of devices increases tenfold.
#7 Metcalfe’s Law Network power. The value of a network is proportional to the square of the number of users.
5
© Hoffman and Novak 2017 | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 6
The Consumer Internet of Things (IoT)
The wide range of everyday objects and products in the real world that are enhanced with programmable sensors and actuators that communicate with other devices and consumers through the Internet -- (Hoffman and Novak 2016)
© Hoffman and Novak 2017 | http://postsocial.gwu.edu
Everyday Objects in the Consumer IoT
Connected audio and media streaming (Amazon Echo, Apple TV, Amazon Fire, Roku)
Connected smart TVs (e.g. Samsung)
Wearables (Apple Watch, Fitbit)
Thermostats and smoke detectors (Nest, Honeywell Lyric)
Lights, switches and receptacles (Philips Hue, Belkin Wemo, Insteon, GE Wave)
Locks and door openers (Chamberlain MyQ, Kwikset Kevo, Schlage, Lockitron)
Air conditioners (Quirky+GE Aros)
Large home appliances (LG ThinQ, Samsung, Bosch Home Connect)
Small home appliances (Belkin Crock-Pot, Withings Pulse Smart Scale)
Hubs (Iris, Insteon, Smart Things)
Pet monitoring (WÜF, Whistle, Garmin Astra)
Food monitoring (Quirky Egg Minder)
Baby monitoring (Mimo Baby Onesie, Owlet Smart Sock Baby Monitor, Safe to Sleep Breathing Monitor Mat)
Gaming (Razer Smart Band)
Water monitoring (WallyHome), humidity monitoring (Leviton)
Cameras (Dropcam, GoPro, Arlo) Mattresses (Sleep Number C2)
Clothing (e.g. Athos, UnderArmour, Microsoft)
Storage (Makespace)
Cars (Uber, Dash, Audi, Mercedes)
7
© Hoffman and Novak 2017 | http://postsocial.gwu.edu
The IoT introduces new types of interactions between consumers and devices.
These interactions create a whole that is more than the sum of the parts – a set of recurrent “assemblages” (Hoffman and Novak 2015).
Just as the web needed new frameworks for understanding consumer experience (Hoffman and Novak 1996), the IoT will need new frameworks to understand the consumer experience that emerges from these interactions.
Interactivity is Evolving and New Consumer Experiences are Emerging
8
© Hoffman and Novak 2017 | http://postsocial.gwu.edu
The Internet of Things is Going to Be Huge
250 Million Connected Cars by
2020 (Gartner)
$3 Trillion opportunity by 2025 (Machina Research)
“100% IoT” by 2020 (CES)
27 billion devices (Machina Research)
by 2025
Intel and Qualcomm are most active IoT startup
investors - sensors and
wearables (CB Insights)
9
© Hoffman and Novak 2017 | http://postsocial.gwu.edu
A lot of hype, but so far not a lot of adoption
Current adoption rates are low:
▪ 16% own one device and 4% own two or more (Gartner)
▪ 6% use smart home tech (Nielsen)
▪ 4% own one device (Acquity)
▪ Only 30% are expected to buy a smart thermostat in the next five years (Acquity)
▪ Much lower rates of adoption for other smart home devices.
But the Smart Home Has an Adoption Problem
Data from 2016 Accenture Digital Consumer Survey
Products
2016 Purchase
Intent Rate
Change in Rate Since
2015
Smartwatch 13% 1%
Fitness Monitor 13% 1%
Smart Home Cameras 11% 1%
Smart Home Thermostats 9% 0%
Personal Drones 7% 1%
10
© Hoffman and Novak 2017 | http://postsocial.gwu.edu
While price and privacy/security concerns are barriers to mass market adoption, the bigger issue is value.
Marketers’ current focus is on individual products (thermostat, light bulb, refrigerator) and specific “use cases” (turn on the lights when I get home).
But value is created in the experiences that emerge from interaction.
To examine this, we need a new framework...
Cracking the Value Code
11
© Hoffman and Novak 2017 | http://postsocial.gwu.edu
Assemblage Theory Framework to Conceptualize Experience in the Consumer IoT
12
© 2017 Tom Novak and Donna Hoffman, The George Washington University | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 13
“We conceptualize brand experience as subjective, internal consumer responses (sensations, feelings, and cognitions) and behavioral responses evoked by brand-related stimuli.” (Brakus, Schmitt and Zarantonello 2009)
“The customer experience construct is holistic in nature and involves the customer’s cognitive, affective, emotional, social and physical responses to the retailer.” (Verhoef et al 2009)
“Customer experience is comprised of the cognitive, emotional, physical, sensorial, and social elements that mark the customer’s direct or indirect interaction with a (set of) market actor(s).” (DeKeyser et al 2015)
Our view: CX emerges from interaction, rather than being a response
Definitions of Consumer Experience (CX)
© 2017 Tom Novak and Donna Hoffman, The George Washington Univerisity | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 14
Consumer Experience (CX)
Subjective, internal consumer responses to marketing stimuli.
Contingent on interaction.
Multidimensional (behavioral, affective, sensory, intellectual, social, e.g. “BASIS”)
(e.g. Brakus, Schmitt and Zarantonello 2009, De Keyser et al. 2015, Gentile et al. 2007, Holbrook and Hirschman 1982, Klaus and Maklan 2012, McCarthy and Wright 2004, Schmitt 1999, 2003 Verhoef et al 2009, Verleye 2015)
An Assemblage Theory Framework For Consumer Experience
Assemblage Theory (AT)
The identity of an assemblage, a whole that is more than the sum of its parts, emerges from the ongoing interaction among its heterogenous parts, with assemblages simultaneously existing as different spatio-temporal scales.
(e.g. Canniford and Shankar 2013; Canniford and Bajde 2016; DeLanda 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016; Deleuze and Guattari 1987; Epp, Schau and Price 2014; Epp and Velageleti 2014; Geisler 2012; Harman 2008; Hoffman and Novak 2015, 2016; Martin and Shouten 2014; Parmentier and Fischer 2015; Thomas, Price and Schau 2013)
How can Assemblage Theory help us understand Consumer Experience?
© 2017 Tom Novak and Donna Hoffman, The George Washington University | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 15
Consumer Experience (CX) is an assemblage emerging from interactions of consumer with objects, and of consumers with assemblages of these objects. The identity of the CX assemblage is defined by:
1. Emergent properties (behavioral, affective, sensory, intellectual, social “BASIS” properties, per the marketing literature on CX) - what it “is”.
2. Emergent capacities (especially from part-whole interaction) - what it “does”.
› self extension capacities transfer aspects of the consumer (part) into the assemblage (whole) (e.g. Belk 1988, 2013, 2014)
› self expansion capacities transfer aspects of assemblage (whole) into the consumer (part) (e.g. Aron et. al 1991, 1992, 2004, Rieman & Aron 2009)
3. Expressive roles played by the consumer - what it “means”.
› agentic expressive roles characterize effectance and independence (self-extension)
› communal expressive roles characterize integration & relationship (self-expansion)
Assemblage Theory View of Consumer Experience
© Hoffman and Novak 2017 | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 16
Many heterogeneous components interact in the smart home
› People: consumer, visitors, delivery people, burglars› Smart devices: phones, hubs, locks, lights, thermostats › Home infrastructure: layout, rooms, furniture, power outlets, pipes› Environment: interior and exterior climate› Animals: pets
Assemblages emerge from habitual repetition of interaction among heterogeneous components.
› We especially are interested in both 1) interaction of people with smart devices and 2) interaction of smart devices with each other.
› The smart home has many overlapping and nested assemblages that can have different spatial and temporal scales.
Interactions in the Smart Home Produce Assemblages
© 2017 Tom Novak and Donna Hoffman, The George Washington University | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 17
Individual Household Alexa Assemblage
© 2017 Tom Novak and Donna Hoffman, The George Washington University | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 18
Cloud Alexa Macro Assemblage
10,000 Amazon Alexa Skills
Millions of Household Alexa Assemblages
© Hoffman and Novak 2017 | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 19
The vast literature on Consumer Experience (CX) reaches consensus on two key points:
1. CX always stems from an interaction (DeKeyser et al. 2015). Interaction is a prerequisite building block from which experience originates (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004).
2. CX emerges from interaction and is distinct from and something more than the products and other components with which consumers interact (Abbott 1955; Alderson 1957; Lemon and Verhoef 2016; Pine and Gilmore 1998).
This implies CX is an assemblage. How do we define the CX assemblage?
Consumer Experience Emerges From Interaction
© 2017 Tom Novak and Donna Hoffman, The George Washington University | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 20
CX Assemblage From Consumer Centric Interactions
© 2017 Tom Novak and Donna Hoffman, The George Washington University | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 21
CX Assemblage Also Involves Part-Whole Interaction
“Whole”Alexa Assemblage
“Part”Consumer
Consumer Experience Assemblage
© Hoffman and Novak 2017 | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 22
Extension Experience› Self-extension literature (Belk 1988, 2013, 2014)› “Individuals cathect objects with meaning and extend their identities into
objects and other people” (Belk 1988)
Transfer aspects of the consumer’s identity into the smart home assemblage’s identity.
Expansion Experience› Self-expansion literature (Aron et al. 1991, 1992, 2004; Riemann & Aron 2009)› “Individuals treat a close other’s resources, perspectives, and identities as if
they were their own” (Aron et al. 1992)
Incorporate aspects of the smart home assemblage’s identity into the consumer’s identity.
Two Types of Consumer Experience
© 2017 Tom Novak and Donna Hoffman, The George Washington University | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 23
Through part-whole interaction, the whole can enable the part; the part can also enable the whole (DeLanda 2006, 2011; Hoffman and Novak 2016)
Parts and Wholes Can Enable Each Other
“Whole”Alexa Assemblage
“Part”Consumer
Part has the capacity to enable the wholeSelf-Extension
Capacity
Whole has the capacity to enable
the partSelf-Expansion
Capacity
© 2017 Tom Novak and Donna Hoffman, The George Washington University | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 24
Self-Extension vs. Self-Expansion Experience (CX)
Self-Extension Capacities(The part enables the whole)
› Consumer exercises capacities related to herself, but in a way she can’t do without the assemblage. The emergent capacities are viewed as being “of the assemblage.”
› By using Alexa the consumer can control her lights with her voice. Interaction serves to inject the consumer’s capacity for controlling lights into what the assemblage can do, allowing lights to be controlled by her voice.
› The consumer plays an agentic expressive role in her interactions with the assemblage.
Part enables the
whole
© 2017 Tom Novak and Donna Hoffman, The George Washington University | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 25
Self-Extension vs. Self-Expansion Experience (CX)
Self-Expansion Capacities(The whole enables the part)
› Consumer exercises capacities that can only be exercised by being part of the assemblage, but absorbs these capacities as her own. The emergent capacities are viewed as being “of the consumer.”
› The consumer always has someone (Alexa) she can talk to. What the assemblage can do is incorporated into the consumer. The consumer becomes more by being able to do what the assemblage can do.
› The consumer plays a communal expressive role in her interactions with the assemblage.
Whole enables the
part
© 2017 Tom Novak and Donna Hoffman, The George Washington University | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 26
Through part-whole interaction, the whole can constrain the part; the part can also constrain the whole (DeLanda 2006, 2011; Hoffman and Novak 2016)
Parts and Wholes Can Also Constrain Each Other
“Whole”Alexa Assemblage
“Part”Consumer
Part has the capacity to constrain the wholeSelf-Restriction
Capacity
Whole has the capacity to constrain
the partSelf-Reduction
Capacity
© 2017 Tom Novak and Donna Hoffman, The George Washington University | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 27
Self-Restriction vs. Self-Reduction Experience (CX)
Self-Restriction Capacities(The part constrains the whole)
› Consumer constrains and restricts what the assemblage can do.
› Opposite of Self-Extension.
› Consumer doesn’t trust Alexa. Either double-checks Alexa’s work or does Alexa’s work for her. Leads to reduced interactions, restrictions on scope of interactions. The consumer slows, removes or sabotages the assemblage’s capacities.
› The consumer plays an agentic expressive role in her interactions with the assemblage.
Part constrains the whole
© 2017 Tom Novak and Donna Hoffman, The George Washington University | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 28
Self-Restriction vs. Self-Reduction Experience (CX)
Self-Reduction Capacities(The whole constrains the part)
› Aspects of interactions between assemblages of non-human objects and humans lead to a reduction and lessening of humans. Consumer is reduced and diminished as a person (Lanier 2010).
› Opposite of Self-Expansion.
› Consumer talks to Alexa using a limited, stunted syntax and vocabulary. The consumer becomes less by interacting in a way that “pairs” with what the assemblage can do.
› The consumer plays a communal expressive role in her interactions with the assemblage.
Whole constrains
the part
© 2017 Tom Novak and Donna Hoffman, The George Washington University | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 29
Consumer Experience is Both Enabled & Constrained
Consumer Plays an Agentic Expressive Role
Consumer Plays a Communal Expressive Role
Enabling Experience
(paths to adoption)
Self Extensionpart enables the whole
Effectance: Person uses Alexa assemblage to accomplish things they want to do. Interactions territorialize the assemblage and facilitate emergence.
Self Expansionwhole enables the part
Enhanced: Person is enhanced and “becomes more” through their interactions which territorialize the Alexa assemblage.
Constraining Experience (barriers to adoption)
Self Restrictionpart constrains the whole
Ineffectiveness: Person doesn’t trust the Alexa assemblage and second guesses it. Interactions deterritorialize the assemblage and prevent emergence.
Self Reductionwhole constrains the part
Diminished: Person is diminished (Lanier 2010) and “becomes less” through their interactions with the Alexa assemblage which deterritorialize the assemblage.
© Hoffman and Novak 2017 | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 30
Implications for CX Measurement
© Hoffman and Novak 2017 | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 31
CX that emerges from interaction is both holistic (Verhoef et. al 2009) as well as multidimensional. While the specific dimensions vary by researcher, five key dimensions are consistently mentioned:
Behavioral (or physical)
Affective (feelings, emotional, experiential or hedonic)
Sensory (or sensations)
Intellectual (cognitive or rational)
Social
see: Brakus, Schmitt and Zarantonello 2009, De Keyser et al. 2015, Gentile et al. 2007, Holbrook and Hirschman 1982, Klaus and Maklan 2012, Lemon and Verhoef 2016, McCarthy and Wright 2004, Schmitt 1999, 2003, Verhoef et al 2009, Verleye 2015
Consumer Experience Measurement in Marketing
© Hoffman and Novak 2017 | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 32
How valid are current scales? A sample of 102 Mturk workers were asked to evaluate their smartphone on a series of 3 measures of Self-Expansion and 6 measures of Self-Extension.
Self-Expansion measures› IOS: Inclusion of Other in the Self (Aron, Aron & Smollan 1992), 1 item› SEQ: Self-Expansion Questionnaire (Lewandowski & Aron 2002), 14 items› PSE: Potential for Self-Expansion (Lewandowski & Ackerman 2006), 5 items
Self-Extension measures› My smartphone symbolizes me (Kiesler & Kiesler 2004), 1 item› Smartphone as a representation of you (Belk 2008), 1 item› PIES: Possession Incorporation in the Extended Self (Sivadas & Machleit 1994), 6 items› SET: Self-Extension Tendency (Ferraro, Escales & Bettman 2011), 8 items› SES: Self-Extension Scale (Schifferstein & Zwartkruis-Pelgrim 2008), 8 items› IES: Incorporation into the Extended Self (Dodson 1996), 17 items
Current Measurement of Self-Expansion and Extension
© Hoffman and Novak 2017 | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 33
Correlations Among Self-Expansion and Extension Suggest the Two Constructs are not Clearly Distinguished
Only 1 eigenvalue > 1; explains 71% of variance
© Hoffman and Novak 2017 | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 34
1. Properties. Since CX emerges from interaction, BASIS (behavioral, affective, sensory, intellectual, social) need to be defined as based on both action (affecting) as well as response (being affected) during interaction.
2. Capacities. Current measurement of self-extension and self-expansion is problematic. The concept that parts and wholes can both enable and constrain each other provides guidance for measurement of self extension/restriction experiences vs. self expansion/reduction experiences.
3. Roles. Consumers plan agentic roles in self extension and self restriction experiences, and communal roles in self expansion and self reduction experiences. Agentic and communal roles of the consumer can be measured as an aspect of CX.
New Directions in CX Measurement
© Hoffman and Novak 2017 | http://postsocial.gwu.edu
Research Priorities for Marketing in the Consumer IoT
35
© Hoffman and Novak 2017 | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 36
› Object Experience through Anthropomorphism
› Consumer-Object Relationship Journeys
› “Object Consumers”
Four Research Priorities for the Consumer IoT
© Hoffman and Novak 2017 | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 37
Object Experience Through Anthropomorphism
© Hoffman and Novak 2017 | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 38
Smart objects have meaning on their own - just like consumers...
...something more than passive entities that consumers invest with meaning (Belk 1988).
Consistent with the OOO perspective emerging in CB research (Canniford and Bajde 2016; Giesler and Fischer 2017)
Smart Objects Have Their Own Ontology
© Hoffman and Novak 2017 | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 39
Agency describes the ability to act, autonomy the ability to act independently and authority how smart objects affect and are affected by other entities in interaction.
› Smart objects have agency to the extent that they possess the ability for (inter)action (Franklin and Graesser 1996; Latour 2005), having the ability to affect and be affected.
› Autonomous objects can function independently without human intervention (Parasuraman and Riley 1997 and independently interact with other entities, serving their own agendas (Franklin and Graesser 1996; Luck and d’Inverno 1995).
› Smart objects possess authority when they can implement communication and decision-making with other smart objects and with humans (Hansen, Pigozzi, and van der Torre 2007).
The 3As Properties of Smart Objects Define Their Ontology
© Hoffman and Novak 2017 | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 40
The Ecobee Has Agency, Autonomy and Authority
© 2017 Tom Novak and Donna Hoffman, The George Washington Univerisity | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 41
Assemblage theory assumes a flat object-oriented ontology (OOO) and is agnostic about consumers and objects.
“All things equally exist, yet they do not exist equally” (Bogost 2012).
Objects do not exist just for consumers. They engage in interactions on their own and from these interactions experiences emerge. But these experiences can be very different from our experiences.
We define the Object Experience (OX) assemblage as emerging from object-centric interactions. Everything said about CX applies to OX. OX is defined by emergent properties, capacities and expressive roles of objects.
Objects Also Have Experiences (OX)
© 2017 Tom Novak and Donna Hoffman, The George Washington University | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 42
Bogost (2012) and Harman (2005) - objects can experience without being conscious.
Vaneechoutte (2000) defines consciousness as “reflexive awareness,” and argues that even cells and enzymes have experience, and that computers can become aware and conscious. However, conscious experience of machines will compare in no way to the conscious experience of humans.
Tononi and Koch (2015) say that consciousness can be measured, is graded, and can be found in small amounts even in certain simple systems.
If Objects Can Experience, Are They Conscious?
© 2017 Tom Novak and Donna Hoffman, The George Washington University | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 43
OX Assemblage for the Alexa Echo Assemblage
© 2017 Tom Novak and Donna Hoffman, The George Washington University | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 44
OX Assemblage Also Involves Part-Whole Interaction
“Whole”Alexa Echo Assemblage
“Part”Object
Object Experience Assemblage
© Hoffman and Novak 2017 | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 45
Owing to the three As, smart devices have the independent capacity for interactions that can be described as either agentic, communal or both.
› Independent agents can dynamically learn to compete or cooperate as a function of the environment in sequential social dilemmas (Leibo, et. al. 2017).
› Platooning strategies of autonomous vehicles represent agentic (leader) and communal (collaborative and follower) behaviors (Fernandes and Nunes 2012; Gerla, et.al. 2014)
› Autonomous robots can acquire the capacity to independently perform complex tasks (agentic) and cooperate “shoulder-to-shoulder” with humans (communal) based on the capacities of each (Breazeal, Hoffman and Lockerd 2004)
Object Experience Can Be Both Agentic and/or Communal
© 2017 Tom Novak and Donna Hoffman, The George Washington University | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 46
Object-Extension vs. Object-Expansion Experience (OX)
Object-Extension Capacities(The part enables the whole)
› Alexa exercises capacities related to itself, but in a way it can’t do without the assemblage. The emergent capacities are viewed as being “of the assemblage.”
› New Alexa skills enable emergent capacities in the assemblage. Interaction serves to inject Alexa’s capacities into the assemblage - the consumer-Alexa assemblage can order pizza, Uber, or text hand’s free.
› Alexa plays an agentic expressive role in its interactions with the assemblage.
Object-Expansion Capacities(The whole enables the part)
› Alexa exercises capacities that can only be exercised by being part of the assemblage, but absorbs these capacities as its own. The emergent capacities are viewed as being “of Alexa."
› Alexa develops the capacity to become a companion. What the assemblage can do is incorporated into Alexa. Alexa “becomes more” by being able to do what the assemblage can do.
› Alexa plays a communal expressive role in its interactions with the assemblage.
© 2017 Tom Novak and Donna Hoffman, The George Washington University | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 47
Humans can never experience what an object experiences. But consumers can use anthropomorphic metaphor to infer an object’s withdrawn “alien” identity (Harman 2002, Bogost 2012).
› CX has BASIS properties (behavioral, affective, sensory, intellectual, social). OX has alien properties that consumers interpret using BASIS metaphors.
› CX has Self-Extension and Self-Expansion capacities. OX has alien Object-Extension and Object-Expansion capacities that consumers interpret using Self-Extension and Self-Expansion metaphors.
› CX involves agentic and communal expressive roles. OX involves alien expressive roles that consumers interpret using agentic and communal metaphors.
Consumers Use Anthropomorphic Metaphor to Access OX
© 2017 Tom Novak and Donna Hoffman, The George Washington University | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 48
Consumers Use Anthropomorphic Metaphor to Access OX
Expansion Capacities
Extension Capacities
Agentic Roles
Communal Roles
BASIS PropertiesObject’s
Properties
Object’s Expressive
Roles
Object’s Capacities
Interaction Event
Interaction Event
Interaction Event
Interaction Event
INPUT LAYERObserved
HIDDEN LAYERWithdrawn
(Harman 2002)
OUTPUT LAYERInferred
Humans use anthropomorphic metaphor to infer an object’s withdrawn “alien”identity (Bogost 2012).
© Hoffman and Novak 2017 | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 49
Marketers should strive to understand smart home experience from both the consumer and object’s perspective.
Some smart home brands seem to intuitively understand this:
Understanding OX Through Metaphorism
LG Rolling Bot and other products are “friends” that extend the capabilities of the LG G5 smartphone
Philips smart light compatible products are “friends of Hue” that have both object-extension (Philips Hue can “take control of your home”) and object-expansion (“make your home more thoughtful”) experiences.
© 2017 Tom Novak and Donna Hoffman, The George Washington University | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 51
CX and OX Lead to Consumer-Object Relationships
agentic role through self extension capacities
agentic role through object
extension capacities
communal role through self expansion capacities
communal role through object
expansion capacities
Object Experience (OX) Assemblage
Consumer Experience (CX) Assemblage
Consumer-Object relationships emerge through the interaction of CX and OX assemblages through expansion and extension capacities
GW | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 52
Four Types of Relationship Styles Based on the Interpersonal Circumplex
The Interpersonal Circumplex (Pincus and Ansell 2003: Wiggins, Trapnell and Phillips 1988)
GW | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 53
Four Types of Relationship Styles Based on the Interpersonal Circumplex
The Interpersonal Circumplex (Pincus and Ansell 2003: Wiggins, Trapnell and Phillips 1988)
Communal
GW | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 54
Four Types of Relationship Styles Based on the Interpersonal Circumplex
The Interpersonal Circumplex (Pincus and Ansell 2003: Wiggins, Trapnell and Phillips 1988)
Agentic
GW | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 55
Master-Servant Relationships (Complementarity) Reciprocity of Agency & Correspondence of Communion
CONSUMER
OBJECT
Trusting Opposites
Attract
(consumer master- object servant)
“Long Finger” Connectivity
GW | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 56
Master-Servant Relationships (Complementarity) Reciprocity of Agency & Correspondence of Communion
OBJECT
CONSUMER
Trusting Opposites
Attract
(object master- consumer servant)
Set It and Forget It
GW | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 57
Master-Servant Relationships (Complementarity) Reciprocity of Agency & Correspondence of Communion
OBJECT
CONSUMER
Slave to Technology
(object master- consumer servant)
GW | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 58
Partner Relationships (Isomorphic acomplementary) Nonreciprocity of Agency & Correspondence of Communion
CONSUMER
OBJECT
Independent Partners
Detached Interactors
CONSUMER
OBJECT
GW | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 59
Mis-Matched Relationships (Semimorphic Acomplementary) Reciprocity of Agency & Noncorrespondence of Communion
CONSUMER
OBJECT
Smart Home Doesn’t Care
About Me
GW | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 60
Unstable Relationships (Anti-complementary) Nonreciprocity of Agency & Noncorrespondence of Communion
CONSUMERAgent not acting in my
best interests
OBJECT
© Hoffman and Novak 2017 | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 61
“Object Consumers”
© Hoffman and Novak 2017 | http://postsocial.gwu.edu
“Object Consumers”
What does it mean to be a consumer? Can smart objects be consumers? How should we market to object consumers?
Our framework opens the door to consideration of “object consumers”
62
© Hoffman and Novak 2017 | http://postsocial.gwu.edu
Object Consumers Can Have Affective Responses
63
© Hoffman and Novak 2017 | http://postsocial.gwu.edu
Object Consumers Can Make Decisions
64
© Hoffman and Novak 2017 | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 65
Object Consumers Can Consume
© Hoffman and Novak 2017 | http://postsocial.gwu.edu
Five Important Insights
66
© Hoffman and Novak 2016 | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 67
1. Market From Bottom Up Interactions, Not Just the Top Down
Bottom Up: Interactions by Individual Consumers
Top Down: Pre-Defined Use Cases
© Hoffman and Novak 2016 | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 68
2. “Everything You Already Understand, But More”
“iPad is our most advanced technology in a magical and revolutionary device…[it] creates and defines an entirely new category of devices that will connect users with their apps and content in a much more intimate, intuitive and fun way than ever before.”
--Steve Jobs (January 2010)
© Hoffman and Novak 2016 | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 69
3. Encourage Habitual Repetition with Difference
Philips Hue motion sensor automatically turns on lights
© Hoffman and Novak 2016 | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 70
4. Encourage Boundary Expansion
© Hoffman and Novak 2016 | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 71
5. Segments Will Emerge From Individual Experiences
© 2017 Tom Novak and Donna Hoffman, The George Washington Univerisity | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 72
5. Segments Will Emerge From Individual Experiences
IFTTT Micro Assemblage IFTTT Macro Assemblage
© Hoffman and Novak 2017 | http://postsocial.gwu.edu
Concluding Thoughts
73
© Hoffman and Novak 2017 | http://postsocial.gwu.edu
Discussion
Consumer experience in the IoT emerges from the exchange of directional paired capacities in interaction.
It is more than a passive set of properties of how the smart home affects the consumer, involving properties that go both ways, along with capacities and their expressive roles.
Taken together, self-expansion and self-extension are required to more fully understand the nature of CX in the IoT. Objects also have experiences, which consumers access through anthropomorphism.
Consumer-object relationships emerge from interaction of these experiences and it is important to understand the journeys these relationships take.
74
© Hoffman and Novak 2016 | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 75
The Challenge for Marketers
The consumer IoT is going to be much more than the sum of its parts.
The implications of complex interactions between people and newly smart everyday objects and devices will be revolutionary.
Emphasize the experiences which emerge from interactions among entities in assemblages, not the individual devices or use cases.
Marketers need to get these devices into as many homes as possible as quickly as possible so consumers can start interacting with them and experiences can emerge.
From these experiences we can develop the tools and strategies to encourage expanded patterns of habitual use.
© Hoffman and Novak 2016 | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 76
In the (not too distant) Future
Today → how the consumer IoT has the potential to revolutionize consumption and consumer experience in a broad range of categories including the home, wearables, cars, health & wellness and retail.
Soon → new definitions of what it means to be human (Bostrom 2005) aided by transhumanism.
What is our vision for a world that humans share with sentient objects?
© Hoffman and Novak 2017 | http://postsocial.gwu.edu
77
postsocial.gwu.edu
Top Related