JKR

One could argue that the Vogue brand is built on expert opinion and excellent art direction. Polyvore, on the other hand, is a user generated online fashion “magazine” full of user generated ads. Essentially, fashion fans click and drag images they like from other sites to create collages (or “sets”). Readers then click on the items shown and are taken to the websites that sell them. But the New York Times reports that expert-free Polyvore got almost 25% more unique visitors than Vogue’s style.com in June, and its audience has tripled in a year. Revenue comes from commission on sales and, increasingly, tie-ins with brands, but its appeal comes from facilitating browsing rather than buying.

So what’s significant? Polyvore is indicative of a whole host of big trends: consumers favouring peer opinion over the expert equivalent, and consumers’ jumping at the chance to be creative. It’s also evolving the way ecommerce works, and bringing into question assumptions about content ownership on-line (there are remarkably few complaints from the contents original owners).

But I wonder if the site is also a harbinger for how marketing conducts research? Here we have a live trend indicator. We all know that what’s on the catwalk this season will filter down to the high street in short order. But Polyvore is a barometer of what’s really clicking with consumers. Research is generally expensive, actively sourced and managed by experts. Could crowd sourcing content on sites such as Polyvore challenge this model? For example, the sites data can tell brands what’s hot in what region, informing their distribution strategy.

Perhaps it’s no longer a matter of guiding the public’s tastes (like Vogue) but rather of listening (for free) to what they are asking for?