The Internet and social media have changed the way we discover and interact with watches. In a way, these channels pocket the entire world of watches. They democratize their hobbies in several ways, spreading information and knowledge like never before, and creating transparency throughout the market. However, this costs money. In this article, I would like to investigate whether social media creates monoculture in the world of watches, whether it is a good or a bad thing.
The term monoculture comes from agriculture, where it refers to the practice of cultivating a single crop on a particular area of planting. But as I will discuss today, it relates to the convergence of experience, taste and behavior. Let’s jump in!
How to explore your watch before social media
One aspect of exposure to the watch that has been the most altered as a result of social media is pace. We unconsciously scroll through our feed and within minutes dozens of clocks pass by in front of us. Before social media, online exploration of watches was much slower and more intentional. You need to search and dig into websites and blogs for special benefits.
You’ll discover new watches in magazines and local jewellers. Magazines may introduce brands you’ve never known before. You may read that backstory and see its debut model in a four-page article. Maybe a few weeks later, you will see that watch in real life during Saturday shopping with family. You will contemplate it, grow your desire for it, and perhaps return to it from time to time.
It was all much slower and more intentional. It gave you more time to develop your personal preferences. You were not yet in the opinion raised in a spoon, and the clock you were exposed to relied more on your physical location than anything else.
How social media has changed the landscape
Social media has fundamentally changed the pace. Today, you may have seen 50 watches before finishing your first coffee. This should quickly lead to a much broader perception of the landscape in the face of it. But the truth is different.
why? Because the amount is not equal to the width. In fact, seeing the world of watches through your Instagram feed is like staring at a toilet roll. This occurs first at the individual level, with the algorithm targeting the greatest engagement. Seeing living in that Explorer II for a while, it fills your feed with more. Before you know it, it seems as if it is owned by every watch enthusiast in the world.
This hyperpersonalization is expected to lead to a stronger individualization of watch preferences. After all, I always see my tastes reaffirmed and deepened while you look at yours. Interestingly, it’s not.
Creating a monoculture
There are several reasons why social media can lead to monoculture. The first is the fact that the algorithm prefers popular content. This means the winners will win more and the losers will be lost in the noise. The term “winner” in this sense refers to a watch that induces engagement. This means that even personalized feeds tend to pop up the same thing. This causes more engagement and allows the echo chambers to be lined up.
Another reason is the global nature of social media. The Hague watch culture began to look like the watch culture of London and New York. After all, we are all influenced by the same people and the same clock.
The same applies to the opinion, amplified within the echo chamber. You see a lot of echoes of the same handful of emotions and perspectives. Some are almost codes of conduct, representing membership as part of the interior.
How this will change our experience
The above brings about the emergence of “IT-Brands” and “IT Models.” A small number of brands and models become “what to get” and the rest dies in the shade. If it appears that we are all chasing the same clock, it’s probably because we are there! It explains why IT watches become more desirable over time with just the exposure effect.
One of the subtle dangers of social media is how you form an internal compass. When likes and comments become validation of our choices, we risk losing sight of what we actually enjoy. To what extent do we venture outside the undercurrent of identity to pursue individuality? And are we aware of that?
Another unintended effect is that there is no better way to explain it, so new watches are more online. A clock is a photography and must be easily explained in very few words. The spec list, price, and Instagrammability of new watches have a greater impact on potential success than actual build quality, refinement, or deeper storylines. Those aspects must be felt and seen in real life, but hey, who has the time for it?
Escape the monoculture of online and social media
One way to escape online and social media monoculture is to be aware of who you follow. The influencers with the most followers don’t necessarily enrich your experience. Despite what the online masses are doing, a conscious mind and courage are needed to choose your niche and your specific area of interest.
And despite looking for offline experiences. Gatherings, boutiques, branded events and fairs all present opportunities to meet like-minded people outside the scope of the algorithm.
Ultimately, we are social species and the idea of herds is very natural. So, does social media certainly lead to monoculture? What do you think? Please let us know in the comments section below.