Основное отличие социально-этичного маркетинга от традиционного заключается в том, что компания стремится не только максимально удовлетворить потребности потребителей путем производства и продажи соответствующих продуктов, но и повысить благосостояние общества в целом. Например, если компания рекламирует в ВКонтакте доставку пиццы, в этой же соцсети должна быть ее официальная группа. Благодаря этому компания привлекает небогатых покупателей и удерживает средний чек в пределах 3,5-4,0 тыс. 15. В течение долгого времени компания различала ряд сегментов своего рынка, тем не менее, она всегда применяла стратегию недифференцированного маркетинга. Так, одна из компаний выразила главную идею концепции маркетинга следующим образом: «Мы не испытаем чувства удовлетворения, пока его не испытаете Вы». Стратегическая концепция маркетинга (Strategic marketing concept) – концепция маркетинга, предусматривающая в качестве приоритета потребности покупателей и одновременно наличие конкуренции в отличие от концепции маркетинга, ориентированной на потребителей. Концепция маркетинга предприятия является наиболее популярной «идеологией» среди ведущих компаний. Parasocial experiences in a virtual group cannot replace all this, because the virtual world is characterized by the optional nature of its own social action and, therefore, the superficial relationships of the subjects. At the same time, the spreading parasocial (technically mediated) relationships allow us to perceive completely different lifestyles and perspectives and to relate ourselves to more and more numerous groups.
Fake news replaces oral rumors, but spreads faster and more widely and is therefore more difficult to intercept. Let us dwell on the topic of fake news and a symbiotic understanding of politics. At the same time, the immediate appeal of the accuracy of such fake news, which is considered true due to its conformity with the worldview, strengthens the symbiotic understanding of politics: what I see is intuitively true, and the people who see it as similar belong to my group and have a similar understanding. Profound changes are emerging that cast doubt on cohesion, understanding and reason, such as the development of intuitive prejudices, the symbiotic expectations of politics and cynicism about the truth. Let us dwell on such a topic as fragmentation of discourse and cynicism. Even in the field of information technology, which for decades has stimulated the development of more advanced algorithms, this topic attracts more and more attention. In social terms, the topic of identity becomes relevant in the controversial world of judgments of a large group. To participate in the life of the Internet community, Facebook and Twitter, it is enough to formulate timely, intuitive, fast, subjective, easily changing judgments that quickly connect a person with attractive and influential large groups.
A huge increase in quickly accessible, always new individual information and contextualized knowledge strengthens, on the one hand, the ability to assimilate and rationally use data. However, since the algorithms are trained on the data of the previous system, which is permeated by human influence, this blind trust can lead to (possibly unrecognized and unintentional) stabilization of unfair and biased social subsystems. It has long been known that in the case of a mental illness, similar symptoms lead to different diagnoses, depending on whether the patients are examined male or female. If people are now faced with solutions based on an algorithm, this can lead to blind trust in the solution. When decisions are made based on algorithms, the responsibility for making wrong decisions is unclear. One of the most important is the issue of responsibility. Or is it the responsibility of the person who ultimately decided to use the algorithm, but who had little understanding of the decision-making process?
It should create structures capable of functioning for the observation, social understanding and control of digitalization. As a result of this formation, in the context of algorithms, a greater understanding and greater transparency of the algorithms may appear. On the one hand, they are the result of an increase in efficiency (for example, in the use of energy), and on the other hand, due to refined and related control (for example, feedback on current performance, traffic congestion on the road, distance and other route data). If it is not clear on the basis of what data the algorithm makes a decision, how can it be called into question or challenged? The internal consistency of patterns of thinking becomes worthless, the thoroughness of the direction of data and their combination in explanations and conclusions gives way to associative and heuristic approaches. Without this awareness, most people are not able to adapt their behavior to algorithms (for example, to avoid unnecessary costs). Even fewer people are able to understand the development of algorithms, not to mention how to evaluate the quality of the algorithms and ask if the algorithms contain relevant information and make appropriate decisions. At the same time, the possibilities of digitalization make it possible to individualize existing technologies (for example, consulting systems, interactive educational units).