Pssst: BzzAgent! *Directed* communication is not "a conversation."

And word-of-mouth by talking points, strategy backgrounders and framing tips is not, well, analog Buzz. It's not. In much the same way reading a pretty girl's diary and then dropping hints that yes, you too, really find quiet pleasure in arranging your books by color and, by the way, don't you think the work of Hello Kitty is very much underrated thank you very much?

Yes. It's called cheating.

But geez, is BzzAgent really the Hive from Hell, folks?

Okay, I'm late to the station on this one. But I'm not gonna climb into the crowded dining car of Dudgeon on this BzzTrain. I prefer the caboose.

Or is it the locomotive?

Dunno. Let's see what the NYT sez:

...But it doesn't address another mystery: Why would the volunteers work so hard to get other people excited about these products? Another line of research suggests a possible answer. This school of thought would characterize word-of-mouth volunteers as operating not in a traditional money-in-exchange-for-effort ''monetary market,'' but rather in a ''social market.''

A *possible* answer? Gee. Once more form the NYT article...

''The key is,'' Balter [BzzAgent founder] said, ''people already talk about this stuff. They already talk about things they love.'' Manufactured word of mouth is indeed a bad and scary thing, he maintains, but that's not what his company is doing. ''For whatever reason, we have this natural instinct to tell a friend about a product -- and to get them to believe what you believe. We're not trying to change that. All we're trying to do is put some form around it, so it can be measured and understood. That's not changing the social fabric.''

Ahh, the social fabric. The dynamic interplay of myriad mores and traditions. Travelers finding their way among a vast pool of mates, friends, neighbors, associates and competitors. All trying, with buckets of transference as Jon Strande brilliantly pointed out--all trying to straddle the ontological conundrum of man: I want to stand out--within a group.

Well, what's the group in question here? Americans. What's the American imperative? New, more, better. And then, bigger, splashier. Tied for most important? Me. And First.

Hmmm.

People wanting to be seen, heard and noted. Valued for what the culture correlates as value: New. Bold. Insider. Commerce.

But beware the Iconoclastic Maverick. (Too risky, too steep a learning curve--nobody Bzz-ing this or this.) Better to be a Fast Pony. Seabiscuit maybe. The out-of nowhere favorite. The darling. The bringer of hope and dreams.

Or, if Hope is so 60s, why not 00s "Hope"-- INFO!

Come on, isn't it called the Information Economy? Whats the currency of that kind of system? I don't think it's lutefisk.

Sure. Generic info surplus leads to "Quality" info scarcity. Add in cultural flux and you get Social Capital for the holder of the newest vibe, the next ticket to possible completeness and calm, whether metaphysical or "the Next Kate Spade!"

Yeah. Yups and slackers, grannies and tweeners, economically 'safe' yet all volunteering, unpaid, not to sling soup at a homeless shelter but to - pitch products? What's their payoff?

Welcome to the snow line of Maslow's mountain of esteem. We have food, jobs, shelter, good teeth, edumacation and 401ks. (And we may just get to keep them since Dubya--Regular Guy BrandBzz!™--is term-limited to only 8-years of his majestic mountains of def-cit.)

With all those satisficers, um, satisficed, what's left? Well, if using my wacky self-image model you buy (heh!) that ...

•  in these literally and figuratively, physically and electronically blowing apart times that brands and groups, and affiliation with whatever your particular "brand" of meaning is are only getting more powerful, and that

• All we ever really do is trade sweat for economic wherewithal for social capital and "meaning," then...

What are we building with it?

"My ID," "My Brand." My statue as a valiant vanguard of New, more, better, bigger, splashier. And Me. And First.

And as We. A flock.

It's Jon's aformentioned Ontological paradox. Me-ness, within we-ness. First, among equals. They're the reflected light of their buyers' and their readers' Suns.

They? Readers?

Whoops. Now here's my rude statement: BzzAgent comes from the same neighborhood as the rise of the Blog that bemoans it. Perhaps the only difference is that the better blogs are their own manufacturers, too. Of ideas and intent. And then there's Glenn Reynolds.

Double-whoops. Maybe I should cut to the chase (rare, I know) and then bolt: BzzAgent could be run out of town on a rail tomorrow, and 3 more would pop up in their stead. Then 9 more. Then, well, it's the The Joneses, gone supercritical. In a celebrity age populated by anonymous masses told that their fifteen minutes of forum = I matter.

And maybe, just maybe, it really does, when that is the only official legal tender; the only quoin of the realm.

Markets full of consumers looking to be their neighborhood's Moses in a Promised Land built on product will do this kind of thing--pump up their standing and self-image among their peers. Old friend, and possible pigeon. For one and all, for the chance to say, to shout, in this media-flush age full of dreck and din: I! We! Are here! And we've got the answer. First!

Trust me. (Us. ;-)