November 6, 2007 by Robert Kozinets.

I’ve begun writing a bit about netnography. For those of you who aren’t familiar with it, netnography is a set of guidelines for researching the communications, cultures, and communications that manifest through online or computer-mediated communications. I prepared a detailed wikipedia entry on it under virtual ethnography, but some smarmy undergrad ninny kept on editing out my entries. Isn’t that just a classic irony of online community?

Anyways, the method has been received enthusiastically and rapidly gained legitimacy as one of the premiere methods of investigating online communities and cultures within marketing. Netnographic guidelines have informed and spawned over a dozen thesis dissertations. There are currently over a dozen publications that list netnography as their primary methodology, and this number is growing quickly as many move through review. The method is featured in influential methodological volumes such as the Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods in Marketing and the Sage Dictionary of Social Research Methods and is inspiring a new generation of cultural researchers who almost automatically turn to the Internet as one of their field sites.

However, using the Internet as a field site created important challenges. The Internet is a dynamic forum of activity that is constantly shifting and changing. In the decade since I developed netnography, there have been many important changes to the research context that require investigation and further development of the method. I’m excited about the potential that these changes hold.

Netnography is faster, simpler, timelier, and much less expensive than traditional ethnography. Because its data is unelicited, it is more naturalistic and unobtrusive than focus groups, surveys, or interviews. However, my research and development have used Internet newsgroups—a forum whose use is declining—as the chief site of the method. Recently, I have been adapting the method to other online forums, such as Internet blogs (in the Belk Handbook chapter, above), but this development needs to continue and intensity. To remain relevant and useful, the method of netnography must continue to change and develop.

In addition, a range of for-profit companies have arisen that are using content analytic methods similar to and sometimes derived from netnography, including Accelovation, MotiveQuest, Cymfony, Umbria Communications, and Neilsen Buzzmetrics. These companies use software solutions to perform a type of data-mining operation on the qualitative information available on the Internet as a form of marketing research. Those methodologies are less selective and cultural than netnography, but offer greater representativeness and quantification of online data. We very much need to learn more about these companies and what they have to offer.

In past considerations of netnography, my research has considered that

• netnography’s use of information that can be considered personal and private may post ethical issues,
• that the massive amounts of data are often overwhelming,
• that cultural understandings of the data require considerable researcher acuity,
• and therefore that overviews of the data (such as the prevalent content analytic approach in business) can invite superficial and decontextualized interpretations that could lead to poor business decisions.

How does the method of netnography account for the development of the Internet since the methods original development eleven years ago? How will it account for the blogosphere, virtual worlds, SNS, mobile, and software-driven content analytic research methods? How should netnography adapt to best serve contemporary researchers and practitioners?

Just as dozens of academics and a range of actual firms have used the original netnography method, so too will all of these complex forms and adaptations be needed and useful to a range of academics, such as those in marketing and consumer research, and to businesspeople, such as marketing researchers, consultants, marketing research firms, and companies with in-house marketing research, innovation, R&D, and other teams that benefit from having access to novel consumer insights.

Posted in Netnography, Marketing Research | 1 Comment »

November 3, 2007 by Robert Kozinets.

I haven’t blogged very much on netnography, or on practical, workbench marketing very much so far. That’s all about to change, as I start blogging about the doing of marketing and how I see it changing, particularly with the introduction of methods of online community marketing research.

In the last few months, I’ve been hearing increasingly from individuals and companies who are both interested in using netnography to increase their access to consumer insight, and those who are actually using it. It’s not a big part of the market research business yet, but it is growing very rapidly.

Netnography, if you aren’t familiar with it, is a marketing and consumer research method that uses the information that is publicly available in online spaces in order to gain insights into consumers that are useful for research or practical purposes. The term is a portmanteau which combines the anthropological method of ethnography with the “Net” site of online community and cyberculture. But it is moving beyond its initial contexts and broadening its base.

Ever since I introduced netnography to the market research field in 1996, I have been developing and broadening the method. I developed it initially for bulletin boards, but I recently broadened it to include blogging, and am working on adapting it to the study of mobile, gaming, social networking sites, and virtual worlds. Each “realm” has its own characteristics that require customization, and I’m always looking for partners in this work (corporations, fellow scholars, Ph.D. students). I’ve been fortunate to have a few new Ph.D. student join me recently to continue and broaden this work.

In terms of practical impact, the method is beginning to spread. Not only are there a number of great academic articles being published using netnography, but a number of market research firms and companies are deploying the method.

One firm I’ve had the good fortune of being in contact with is Accelovation, an exciting new startup out of San Francisco run by MIT/Sloan MBA Grad Michael Osofsky. Yesterday, Michael published this very interesting and well-informed piece on netnography on imediacommection that you might be interested in. This version of netnography uses automated tools to help with data collection. You might also be interested in Michael’s excellent blog, in particular this entry where he talk about my work, and where he calls me (in very stately fashion I might add) “The Father of Netnography”).

At ACR in Memphis last week, I had the good fortune to meet and spend some time with two professors (Johannes Gebauer and Johann Fueller) from Munich who are also selling netnography services to businesses in Germany, though their very interesting marketing research company “Hyve.” You can read about what they offer and call “Netnographic Insights” in this entry from their web-site.

Is there anyone else out there doing netnography?

I know that there are a lot of companies doing related types of data gathering using online communities, companies like BuzzMetrics and Cymfony. I’m going to start overviewing these firms and their offerings, and would love to hear from companies and people who are doing related work so we can share ideas and so I can profile you on my blog. I’ve taught the method to hundreds of MBA students over the years, so I’d be surprised if the method hasn’t diffused quite a bit into industry. Someone recently told me that General Mills is using the methods internally.

I’m going to start blogging more on this topic of netnography, which is probably the single most influential area that I work in. So look forward to hearing more about Michael Osofsky and Johannes Gebauer soon. And to lots more from me on the elaboration and development of netnography, the method of online anthropology.

Posted in Netnography, Marketing Research | 1 Comment »

November 1, 2007 by Robert Kozinets.

Last week I posted a question that I have been wondering about in my daily life as a consumer. Are organic foods really “healthier” or “better for the planet” in some ways than conventionally grown foods? Can these assertions be reasonably supported? What about veggie and fruit washes? Are food washed with them actually freer of pesticides as compared to organic foods, or not?The topic also cuts to the heart of some of my recent postings. First, because it involves an important consumer choice that more and more people are making. In particular, if I don’t really want to “choose” to eat a range of invisible dangerous chemical pesticides and to release them into the environment, and I don’t want to “choose” to eat and support genetically modified foods, then I need to choose to buy and eat organic food. Secondly, thinking and writing about organic foods seems to me to be a good practical way to demonstrate what Gramsci called the “organic intellectual” engagement with real issues in the real world, treated in a serious and thorough way and shared openly through public forums, of which the Internet is the participative public forum par excellence.

There were two very interesting comments that were posted, one by Greg Dunlop and the other by “L Scoop.” I’d like to share them with you, and expand the topic a little bit, based particularly on Greg’s comments to me in a recent email (which he agreed to let me share).

First, let me share with you a little of Greg’s background. He has “both an Environmental Biology background and a Marketing background” and is very interested in “the whole area of environmentalism, green marketing and consumers.” He says that I “struck a nerve” with him when I used the word “organic” in my blog and posed those questions.

On my blog, Greg’s comments about organic foods were pretty skeptical. “When it comes to organic food, science goes out the window and hype and marketing take over,” he said, stating that he doesn’t “buy the basic premise that organic food is healthier washed or unwashed!”

“In fact I can argue you should wash the organic produce more as organic production relies on organic fertilizer (aka cow dung) whereas conventional can use either synthetic (man-made)or the natural (cow-made)fertilizer. You don’t need a microbiology degree to know that manure is laced with E-coli and other harmful bacteria. I digress though… what I really wanted to do was to bring this into a marketing context. “Organic” has become a brand … what do you think about when you hear the word organic. Healthy, safe, pesticide free, small family farms, better for the environment. The organic industry, and yes it is an industry, has done a good job at branding. But these are all myths (and mostly urban ones at that!)

• Myth 1 - Organic food are healthier - Study after study has confirmed that their is no difference in the nutrional value whether or safety of organic food. I can supply the references on request.

• Myth 2 - Organic farmer don’t use pesticides - Wrong! - they use so-called organic pesticides. They are approved for organic production because they are not synthetic or man-made. The list of approved organic pesticides includes nicotine, tin and copper based compounds, sulfur etc.- some of these are being pulled from the market because of heavy metal buildup in the soil. An organic grape grower in CA has to apply 10 - 20 applications of sulfur at 20 pounds per acre in each spray to control fungal diseases. A conventional grower uses maybe 5 sprays of a modern highly effective and highly tested synthetic fungicide at ounces per acre. I know which one I would prefer to get my wine from.

• Myth 3 - Organic production methods are better for the environment - There is so many ways that this is wrong! First - there are no organic herbicides used in food production - they simply do not exist. Organic growers must rely on mechanical cultivation that burns fuel and can lead to greater soil erosion or the use of fallow and/or cover crops thereby taking land out of production and reducing yields. Organic production has lower yields. All the land that can or should grow crops in the world is being used to produce food. If low yield organic farming techniques were to be used throughout the world we would need to drain the swamps and cut down the forests to make way for more land. High yield farming prevents environmental degradation by producing more on an acre of land. There are other myths relating to organic production that I won’t get into here but the basic premise behind the organic craze is this the biggest myth of all … natural good, synthetic bad! This argument has nothing to do about science … it is about philosophy! If it make you feel better to eat an organic apple … washed or unwashed then go ahead. But don’t tell me that an organic apple is healthier. Both are healthy and that is the point. Eating apples or other fruits and vegetables is the best thing we can do to fight cancer. The process behind getting it to you is unimportant. We are lucky to live in an affluent society (made this way ironically because of modern agriculture) and debate the nuances about the food we eat and not have to worry about our basic sustenance.

Greg gives a reference article here on the topic of Marketing & The Organic Food Industry http://www.cgfi.org/publications/Marketing_The_Organic_Food_Industry and suggests that interested thinkers might consider picking up a copy of the book “The Truth about Organic Foods” by Alex Avery.

Keeping an open mind is a good thing, and difficult when we really have no at-hand and reliable sources of information about the pros and cons of one particular food choice (or other kind of choice) over another. Potter and Heath, in their excellent book “Rebel Sell,” assume a similarly skeptical posture towards organic, calling the organic certification process, in effect, a legitimation scheme that was controlled and railroaded by a bunch of radical hippie extremists.

In his email to me, Greg expands on his ideas and links them to branding and marketing. He then advocates a more moderate position, where extremism is not seen as a sensible path. It strikes me as pretty sensible, in fact.

“In a generic sense, people use labels as a short cut to understanding the complexity of the world around us. They come to believe certain “truths” based on their values, experiences, emotions and of course the influences of government, NGO’s, companies, media, authority figures, peers, neighbors, family and friends. Ideas or issues become like brands. Organic is a brand. Ethanol is a brand. Fair trade coffee is a brand. These are just as much brands in today’s world as a Big Mac, and in many ways shape consumer choices both directly and indirectly much more so then what McDonald’s could ever dream about. But I like to dig deeper into some of brands, like peeling back the layers of an onion, and with my science background to understand the scientific “truths”. Just as we know the truths about the fat content of a Big Mac and that a steady diets of Big Macs is not too healthy, we also recognize that a Big Mac once in a while is not unhealthy either. With fat, sodium, sugar or whatever people are concerned about in their diet are people starting to recognize the idiom “the dose determines the poison” and therefore “everything in moderation please”?

So, that’s Greg’s perspective. L. Scoop actually had a very different perspective which was much more favorable to organic foods and the organic brand as a signal of real food quality and nutritional difference.

I’m no expert on this but I think there are two different things going on here. One, the thing that you’re talking about, is the safety of the food that you are eating….in that vein, you need to consider the type of fruit or vegetable that you are eating. In some of them, where the skin is very thin or you are likely to eat the entire fruit (including skin), you are more likely to have a situation where the fruit might not be that safe with or without a wash…for instance, if I were to buy something non-organic, it would be something like an avocado or a melon (where I discard the thick skin) rather than any type of berry or green bean where I would eat the entire thing. But, let’s say you’re careful and maybe with non-organic pesticide free produce or produce that is specially washed, you can get rid of all or most of the chemical concerns. Next, and more important in the long term, is the NUTRIENT VALUE of the fruits and vegetables that you are eating. And that’s where Organic produce has incomparable value compared to other types of produce. Do some research and that’s where the real value of organic produce lies. Victoria Boutenko has some of this information in your books, and I’m sure you can also find it elsewhere.

Now, I did look up the Boutenko site and apparently this is a family that has some serious health issues a while back and decided to switch to a diet of raw organic food. Apparently, this made major differences to their health. The site and associated books seem to me to be an advocacy site for an eating style that involves raw, rather than cooked, food, and there is no doubt that raw food has a superior nutrition profile when compared to cooked food. But does organic food really have a superior nutrient profile? That claim seemed suspect to me so I investigated it further.

I recently bought a book called “What To Eat” by Marion Nestle. Nestle, who doesn’t seem to be connected to the Swiss food company, is a nutrition professor and she has offered in this book a very thorough, well-documented, scientific but also eminently readable guide to what foods to ear for what reasons. The recommendation by Michael Pollan (and author whose work I like very much) on the cover certainly helped to sell me on the book.

Dr. Nestle says in her book that testing such assertions proves extremely difficult, but that it is likely that organic produce, grown in better and richer soil, may be slightly higher in nutritional value than matched produce grown in poorer soil conventionally. That’s isn’t really a very strong assertion. According to her fruits and vegetables are “better” because they are organic, “but not necessarily for nutritional reasons.” She cites a former head of the nutrition department at Columbia University who says that people should probably choose organic for reasons other than that they might contain “a little more carotene or zinc” (which, considered in the long run and in the entire nutritional picture, amounts to something fairly insignificant). Instead, it is the preservation of natrual resources, the reduction in water, air, and soil pollution, and the solution of environmental problems that are the bigger attractors. So, actually,nutritional benefit is apparently *not* where the real benefit of organic lie.
We’re getting two very different pictures here. The skeptics, who are informed. And the advocates, who are informed. I’m certainly not insisting that all of my food be organic, but I know several people who are. I have been shifting more of my food consumption to organic, but it’s really still just a small fraction of what I eat. But I’m wondering, each time I grocery shopping in fact, what I should do. And those decision, multiplied over hundreds of millions of people, are having major impacts on the food industry. Do they make sense? What is the opportunity cost of the money we collectively spend supporting organic agriculture?

What do you think? Who should we believe? How should we be making these important choices?

Posted in Green marketing, Branding | 1 Comment »