How to Market the Consumer IoT: Focus on ExperienceMar 01, 2017 · Crock-Pot, Withings Pulse Smart Scale) Hubs (Iris, Insteon, Smart Things) Pet monitoring (WÜF, Whistle, Garmin

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

http://postsocial.gwu.edu


From the Internet to the IoT

3



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



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)



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



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



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



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



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



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?



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



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



Individual Household Alexa Assemblage



Cloud Alexa Macro Assemblage

10,000 Amazon Alexa Skills

Millions of Household Alexa Assemblages



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



CX Assemblage From Consumer Centric Interactions



CX Assemblage Also Involves Part-Whole Interaction

“Whole”Alexa Assemblage

“Part”Consumer

Consumer Experience Assemblage



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



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


“Part”Consumer

Part has the capacity to enable the wholeSelf-Extension

Capacity

Whole has the capacity to enable

the partSelf-Expansion

Capacity



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



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



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


“Part”Consumer

Part has the capacity to constrain the wholeSelf-Restriction

Capacity

Whole has the capacity to constrain

the partSelf-Reduction

Capacity



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



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



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.



Implications for CX Measurement



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



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



Correlations Among Self-Expansion and Extension Suggest the Two Constructs are not Clearly Distinguished

Only 1 eigenvalue > 1; explains 71% of variance



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



Research Priorities for Marketing in the Consumer IoT

35



› Object Experience through Anthropomorphism

› Consumer-Object Relationship Journeys

› “Object Consumers”

Four Research Priorities for the Consumer IoT



Object Experience Through Anthropomorphism



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



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



The Ecobee Has Agency, Autonomy and Authority



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)



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?



OX Assemblage for the Alexa Echo Assemblage



OX Assemblage Also Involves Part-Whole Interaction

“Whole”Alexa Echo Assemblage

“Part”Object

Object Experience Assemblage



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



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.



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



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).



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.


GW | http://postsocial.gwu.edu 50

Consumer-Object Relationship Journeys



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



Four Types of Relationship Styles Based on the Interpersonal Circumplex

The Interpersonal Circumplex (Pincus and Ansell 2003: Wiggins, Trapnell and Phillips 1988)





Communal





Agentic



Master-Servant Relationships (Complementarity) Reciprocity of Agency & Correspondence of Communion

CONSUMER

OBJECT

Trusting Opposites

Attract

(consumer master- object servant)

“Long Finger” Connectivity




OBJECT

CONSUMER

Trusting Opposites

Attract

(object master- consumer servant)

Set It and Forget It




OBJECT

CONSUMER

Slave to Technology

(object master- consumer servant)



Partner Relationships (Isomorphic acomplementary) Nonreciprocity of Agency & Correspondence of Communion

CONSUMER

OBJECT

Independent Partners

Detached Interactors

CONSUMER

OBJECT



Mis-Matched Relationships (Semimorphic Acomplementary) Reciprocity of Agency & Noncorrespondence of Communion

CONSUMER

OBJECT

Smart Home Doesn’t Care

About Me



Unstable Relationships (Anti-complementary) Nonreciprocity of Agency & Noncorrespondence of Communion

CONSUMERAgent not acting in my

best interests

OBJECT



“Object Consumers”



“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



Object Consumers Can Have Affective Responses

63



Object Consumers Can Make Decisions

64



Object Consumers Can Consume



Five Important Insights

66



1. Market From Bottom Up Interactions, Not Just the Top Down

Bottom Up: Interactions by Individual Consumers

Top Down: Pre-Defined Use Cases



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)



3. Encourage Habitual Repetition with Difference

Philips Hue motion sensor automatically turns on lights



4. Encourage Boundary Expansion



5. Segments Will Emerge From Individual Experiences



5. Segments Will Emerge From Individual Experiences

IFTTT Micro Assemblage IFTTT Macro Assemblage



Concluding Thoughts

73



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



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.



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?



77

postsocial.gwu.edu


Documents

How to Market the Consumer IoT: Focus on ExperienceMar 01, 2017 · Crock-Pot, Withings Pulse Smart Scale) Hubs (Iris, Insteon, Smart Things) Pet monitoring (WÜF, Whistle, Garmin