What defines “closeness” in relationships these days?
As many of the 12 or so of you who read my ramblings here on a regular basis may know, I got engaged to my amazing girlfriend of 4+ years this past weekend. It was a whirlwind experience, highly emotional, and altogether filled with pure awesomeness. It’s one of those experiences that is simultaneously highly personal (proposal between she and I) and yet incredibly collective as well (announcing the news to the people in our lives). It was the second part, the process of announcing it to our friends and networks, that got me thinking about the notion of closeness in culture today. (yeah, I know, I’m a nerd. But in my defense, I didn’t really start thinking about it until the next day, I did in fact have an engagement to celebrate and a new fiancee to spend time with). Not sure I’ve fully explored the implications yet, but figured it was an interesting enough social experience to workshop some thoughts here.
The way we shared the moment was reflective of the world we live in. Just a few years ago, the announcement would have come through hours of sitting on the phone (or, even sending out series of emails to friends and family). Instead, it was instantaneous— we flipped the switch on our facebook relationship statuses, tweeted about it (though I didn’t go the route of actually proposing via twitter), and texted (rather than calling) our parents with pictures of the ring. Aside from our parents, we didn’t have a conversation with anyone until later the following day. And what was really interesting to me was who, out of all the people our respective networks online reach, ended up sharing the moment with us at different points in time.
Old (but still highly relevant and meaningful) closeness
The first is closeness as we’ve always defined it— deep relationships between two people based on years of face to face interaction and highly memorable experiences (like the one I have with the lady I just proposed to). The best friends and family you know and love, know the most intimate details about, the people you could tell stories about for hours if asked. These close relationships are some of the most fulfilling in life, and by no means is the post aimed at suggesting the value of those relationships is any lower in today’s culture. To me these definitions are not mutually exclusive at all. But rather, there is just another layer that I think in the past few years has added even more depth and richness to life that wasn’t possible before.
New closeness, made possible by social technology
Seems to me the second definition of closeness is one fueled by technology we use and rely on today— closeness achieved through a constant (and often real-time) stream of digital interactions, where we get to know a person we’ve never met by observing and interacting with the things they find interesting and choose to share with us. Several of the people who reacted almost instantly to the news on twitter, I’ve yet to meet. Others I’ve only met once or twice ‘in real life’ (I hate this phrase, but more on that later). And while of course friends I’ve known for years were among the first responders, it was the additional layer of so-called ‘loose’ connections that made the experience feel even larger. It wasn’t something just shared between family and friends, but also a broader community that knows me based on what I share with them and how I respond to what they share. Many of them may soon fall into the ‘older’ frame of closeness by reaching out beyond an initial congratulatory message, and those are connections I never would’ve had otherwise. And in fact I hope that is the case.
Is one more ‘real’ than the other?
All of it was case in point that arguments about ‘real’ friends vs ‘social media’ friends are in my opinion less and less valid as technology changes the way we interact and how we build relationships and closeness. While I might not have met some of the people who reacted to the news, is the fact that they were personally interested enough to share their enthusiasm and best wishes not ‘real? Just because their outward expression came via our screens rather than a hug or handshake, is it not still ‘real’? I’d argue that it was all very much ‘in real life’, regardless of whether it all unfolded on a 3 inch screen or across the dinner table from us. The fact that we have an additional social layer made possible only through the past few years of technological advances, and that our news could be shared with a larger community of connections who are now all ‘close’ in their own ways was absolutely real.
To bring this all back around to brands and what we do— and this is not necessarily a fully baked implication yet— I do think there’s something in the notion of multiple layers and different types of closeness for brands to consider. If as people we can develop new layers of ‘close’ friends ongoing depending on our ability to connect through technology, then it seems to me that brands should be constantly looking for new, close relationships in different networks that they may not have thought to look for even the year before. It’s not to suggest that massive segmentation studies should be redone every year, but rather than treating them as a bible, look for ways to add to them ongoing, creating new layers depending on how technology may be shaping and changing the ways we can connect. More of a fluid and constantly evolving input, rather than a final and unchangeable stake in the ground that shapes our direction for years. As I mentioned, there are germs of a full implication here but not quite there yet. Curious to hear what others think or find interesting (or not) about the notion of closeness and how/if it is changing and evolving? Any similar stories that got you thinking about it?
