Introduction

At the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries, we had the opportunity to see how the basic assumptions of McLuhan’s technological determinism (2004) were fulfilled. With technological development, people gained access to unlimited Internet resources, the opportunity to explore the farthest corners of the world, communicate with many Internet users, cross the time and space barrier, comment on the activities of other Internet users, establish social relations, speak out on matters that were so far reserved for experts, freely create content and even to build an identity on the Web (see, e.g. Krzysztofek, 2009).

Let us remember that, for McLuhan (2004, p. 212), “the medium is the message”, meaning that the medium itself has the power to permanently change social awareness. What is more, the scale of change that takes place in society after the introduction of a new medium (technology) never depends on whether society accepts it or not – these changes simply occur. Following the researcher’s lead, we are approaching the final phase of human extension – the technical simulation of reality. With the rise of digital technology, not only the chance to rebuild deep social relationships, but also the possibility of the return of the creative man – the prosumer – seemed real. With that in mind, Janiszewska (2008) argued that “the Internet is the perfect ally of prosumers”, as an extension of man providing him with the tools to stimulate his consumer activity. Midura-Pietruszczak (2009) was of the opinion that technological changes “have not only revolutionised the world of contemporary media, but – affecting the condition and awareness of modern man – have forever changed his perception of reality”. Not so long ago, Gomez-Borja, Lorenzo-Romero, del-Pozo Ruiz (2020, p. 202) perceived prosumption on the Internet as “the sharing between producers and consumers of knowledge and experiences on the Internet, which influences innovation processes and value creation”.

The essence of the functioning of modern man on the Internet, was to be a profound transformation of the awareness of man, who from a passive recipient of offline media became an active participant in online media. The 21st century man has been given the chance to be a unique individual who is beginning to decide for himself what to think and how to act in the information maze. What seemed to emerge from the chaos of online resources was the prosumer – an active media consumer who is at the same time characterised by a creative approach to reality (cf. Kozłowska).

It is worth recalling at this point that the original concept of prosumption, created by Toffler, is very broad. According to it, a prosumer is anyone who produces services or goods for their own use. The researcher also saw the prosumer in the media consumer, noting that already “video recorders [enabled] each consumer to take on the function of producer of their own imaginations and ideas” (see Toffler, 1997, p. 259). According to the researcher, “the new means of communication not only facilitate the crystallisation of what is purely personal and individual in us; through them we become creators – or rather prosumers – of our own self-image”.

Researchers, although hopeful that the vision of a media consumer as a creator of Internet resources would come true, began to notice that the Internet was beginning to provide more and more similar content. Today, we know that without the Internet user’s ability (skill) to creatively engage in the process of producing Internet resources, the introduction of subsequent technological solutions will not constitute the prosumer. According to the perspective of technological determinism, new technologies, instead of fostering the development of a creative attitude, lead to its gradual reduction. It should be noted here that human attitudes and behaviour are influenced by many factors, both on a micro and macro level – looking at the role of new technologies in the formation of prosumer characteristics allows this role to be strongly emphasised.

The aim of this article is to indicate a social forecast concerning the conditions for the development of a prosumer attitude on the Internet. First, we will look at how the thought around the concept of prosumption developed and then outline the various predictions made by early 20th century researchers regarding media consumers. In this way, we will be able to see which predictions have come true and which have not (and the reasons for this). At this stage, a critical analysis of the literature on the subject was made. Then, elements of the scenario method were applied, which, on the basis of a diagnosis of the current state of affairs, will make it possible to formulate, with a certain degree of probability, the premises for the development (decline) of the prosumer attitude (see Kononiuk, 2012). We cannot predict what will happen, but based on current trends we can point to possible social processes taking place on the Internet, the behaviour of media consumers and the changes that await us online in the near future.

The concept of the prosumer: from a producer for his/her own use to an active participant in the media

The term “prosumer” is a combination of the two words: producer (or professional) and consumer. As already mentioned, in Toffler’s original view, prosumption meant any kind of activity in which the performer undertook actions to create goods and services for his or her own use (cf. Kozłowska, 2011). The phenomenon of prosumption can thus mean combining production and consumption until the differences between the two are blurred. The prosumer is at this point understood as a “producing consumer”. Toffler (1997, p. 407.) points out that such a situation was characteristic of a significant period of human history when people had to provide for their own needs and those of their loved ones. It was not until the industrial revolution, when specialisation, the technical division of labour and mass production emerged, that production became detached from consumption. With the development of production, there was also a critical approach to mechanical work, which resulted in a gradual loss of creative capacity.

According to the researcher, the turning point in prosumption were the 1970s, when people once again became interested in DIY, assembling products from manufacturer-provided components, self-medication, but also in forming medical or psychological support groups or participating in the design and production of goods offered to other consumers (Ibidem., p. 406 et seq.). Looking at the motivation of the “informed consumer”, prosumption can be seen as the desire (or wish) to have products that are in line with their expectations (Gach, 2008).

Let us look at the approach to prosumption according to the extent (or area) to which the human being is included in the producer’s activities. According to Toffler (1997), a prosumer is also someone who creates his or her own product from elements supplied by the producer. Meanwhile, according to Ritzer (1997), there is nothing creative about this process, and the prosumer is only someone who is involved in the conceptual process of the product, its design, functions and use. Through his/her actions, the consumer becomes a “co-creator of a specific product” (Gach, 2008) or a “co-creator of value” in the company (Prahalad, Ramaswamy, 2004). The perception of the prosumer as a valuable resource for an enterprise still exists in the literature (see Szuszkiewicz, 2023).

From the perspective of the role of man in business, a prosumer is sometimes perceived as an employee acting for the benefit of the producer (See Rieder and Voß, 2010). However, what Toffler (1997) called prosumption, e.g. self-service in a shop, Ritzer (1997, p. 83 et seq.) referred to as “putting customers to work” (and it is a “consumer working” for free). At an ATM, the consumer works as a bank clerk, in a fast-food outlet he replaces the salesperson, waiter and cleaner, and in a self-service shop he not only reaches for the goods himself, but also replaces the cashier. Customers work when they use e-banking services, print tickets ordered online, etc. (Strzelecki, 2015).

When looking at the producer-consumer relationship, the prosumer is perceived as a “consumer partner”, included, for example, in the marketing communication process. At the beginning of the 21st century, people ceased to be passive recipients of marketing messages and became actively involved in the process of communicating about a brand, e.g. by participating in competitions for the best advertising slogan or leaving comments under an advertising video (Kozłowska, 2011). However, the boundary condition for becoming a prosumer is not only that the person actively participates in the marketing communication process carried out by the producer – then he or she is just an unpaid employee drawn into the company’s marketing processes. More importantly, the prosumer undertakes to create brand information outside of the company’s control, takes his/her own initiatives in the value creation process, thus becoming an “engaged consumer”.

In Toffler’s vision (1997), the phenomenon of involving consumers in marketing activities was to be expanded to include new opportunities arising from technological developments. According to Herrman (2009), the focus of the consumer of the future was information and the ways in which it could be processed. Many authors saw the active consumer – the e-prosumer – on the Internet. At the same time, there was concern about reducing prosumption to communication activities on the Internet (cf. Kozłowska, 2011). In this case, it is not always a prosumer, it may be an “active Internet user”.

The understanding of the word “prosumer” presented so far, even if questionable, falls within the scope of the social sciences. Meanwhile, it is worth noting that the term “prosumer” also appears in the amendment to the Renewable Energy Sources Act and certain other acts of 22 June 2016 (Opach, 2021). The document defines a prosumer as “a final customer purchasing electricity on the basis of a comprehensive agreement, generating electricity exclusively from renewable energy sources in a micro-installation with the aim of its consumption for his/her own needs not related to his/her economic activity” (Republic of Poland. Sejm, 2016, Article 2(27a). Accordingly, the prosumer produces energy for his or her own needs (with the assumption that the surplus can be shared with others). In this view, we work not only for ourselves, but also for others (Miczyńska-Kowalska, 2020). This is in line with Toffler’s concept to some extent, but dangerously narrows the term “prosumer” to an energy producer.

The influence of technology on the development of prosumer characteristics

As discussed earlier, in the age of technological development, many researchers have placed great hopes in the emergence of a prosumer attitude on the Internet. Thus, Prahalad, Ramaswamy (2000) focused on the consumer-producer relationship in their diagnosis, but their predictions already concerned the development of the media consumer. They pointed out that at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries the consumer is slowly shifting from focusing on the product itself to being interested in an active relationship with the producer, enabling him to create his own experience. Consumers focused on individual interactions with the product, co-creating a particular value for themselves. However, the researchers saw something else, something that would have consequences in the future - consumers no longer wanted to merely “co-create” products, they wanted something more. The 21st century consumer needs products that can be used during an individual experience, at a time and place tailored to their expectations and capabilities. From a marketing point of view, it was becoming most important to provide a product that adapts to the user’s network of experience, without imposing specific uses on the consumer. The heterogeneity of individuals and their contexts will dictate the experience. In the future, the challenge for companies was to consider how to accommodate such a huge variety of experiences in one product. The concept of creating products and services will not disappear; neither will the importance of channels. Given the same network and similar medical problems, the same individual could, in a different context and with different preferences, have a different experience and thereby derive different value. These were very interesting insights, which today have an impact on how people function on the Internet.

The researchers assumed that an environment of diverse experiences would link a company’s ability to build value to consumer interaction channels. This environment must be robust enough to accommodate a wide range of individual consumer experiences and sensations, their specific needs and preferences. Because a customer’s desired experiences cannot be determined a priori, experience environments must actively involve consumers – as individuals and as communities – to accommodate a range of possible customer-company interactions and thereby a variety of potential co-creation experiences. This is not easy, because the consumer experience cannot be defined a priori. An environment of diverse experiences must actively engage consumers, build consumer interactions and relationships with the producer It is that set of potential experiences that will determine the individual’s willingness to pay and therefore form the basis for companies to extract economic value and generate profitable growth. In this case, it is not so much the experience of the products as the experience of the network that will become important. As of today, we already know that researchers have predicted the development of social media, where consumers share product information, work together on projects, exchange product tips, useful tools, hacks (Tapscott, Williams, 2008). These are already the first symptoms of an active media consumer who may turn into a prosumer.

Following the lead of Wolny (2013), we can translate the predictions of Prahalad and Ramaswamya (2000), into the following stages in the development of Internet consumer activity, as a result of technological change:

From the above, we can generate the following characteristics of the Internet constituting the prosumer of the Web:

What is left of prosumption on the Internet?

As discussed earlier, the Internet consumer appears as someone who actively traverses the digital world on his/her own terms, “searching for something that will impress him or her and best meet his or her expectations, [...] independently following the information and constructing his or her own (not imposed by a specific broadcaster) image of reality from the content scattered across various media” (Midura-Pietruszczak, 2009). What are we left with after the initial amazement by the vastness of online resources? We live in a world of constant choices across a whole range of different possibilities – in this thicket of information we find another theory, another expert, another film. Everything we are given can be challenged, everything can also be accepted. The problem is not that we have limited knowledge of reality, but it becomes difficult to establish something that is real and indisputable (cf. Chawziuk, 1997).

Is it any wonder, then, that Internet users, so eagerly searching for information on the Web, have calmly accepted algorithms telling them what to think, what to look at, what to do and what to buy? As Szpunar (2018) notes, this is undoubtedly a major help for a person trying to make their way through online resources to find a particular piece of information. It is also safe and even quite pleasant for the individual, as he or she “is not forced to interact with content that for various reasons he or she does not want to confront”. Nothing has changed in this respect – some of us just like to live in a world free of constant choices and possibilities, where many aspects of everyday life can be easily predicted (Kozłowska, 2011).

This carries with it very serious, even dangerous consequences, in the form of locking us in one version of the Internet, the so-called information bubble (Pariser, 2011). It is no longer just about the fact that we stop accessing information that does not fit our interests, views or needs. The point is that we do not learn anything new about the world, we are not used to diversity, we gradually stop understanding others – those who are different (Szpunar, 2018). This can be seen in online forums, where the clash of differing views does not lead to discussion, but rather to the radicalisation of one’s own views, closing ourselves off from everything that does not fit into our standards, rejecting everything that is incomprehensible.

The information bubble is not conducive to the development of a prosumer attitude – at first it seemed that the technical possibilities of communicating with other Internet users had awakened our need to establish relationships online to such an extent that we would not want to give it up. Without leaving home, the Internet user can simultaneously talk with colleagues, run errands in an office, attend classes or even “go on an online date”. However, it has turned out that the Internet consumer can also lose the ability to communicate with others, to understand codes communicated during discussions or even the ability to form engaging relationships in the real world. The process of communicating via instant messaging has certainly been a facilitator for many, or even the only way to establish relationships with others, but at the same time it massively deprives us of the ability to create face-to-face relationships, to understand the intricacies of human emotions, certain nuances of language and even to engage in something real.

There is no denying that participating in the digital world requires increasing competence and experience. The more active Internet user had the opportunity to become an expert in a particular field, someone who can share his or her knowledge and experience with others, without the institutional support of the medium (Kita, 2013). We can, of course, wonder whether this kind of activity of Internet users has a chance of staying on the Internet for longer? The activity of amateur journalists seems to be more about building reach and engaging Internet users than publicising or actually solving social problems. The way in which the Pandora Gate journalistic investigation was conducted shows us, not only what kind of network of connections and commitments influencers have created behind the backs of their followers, but also how difficult it is for freelance journalists to shed the burden of influencer identity (Dyrcz, Urbaś, 2023). In the near future, we can expect a greater professionalisation of the work of the amateur journalist, which will be enforced by, among other things, legal regulations.

Of course the Internet has always been a place where “the most active part of the audience did not [want] to uncritically accept what was offered to them, but [wanted] full participation and the opportunity to co-create their own media experience” (Midura-Pietruszczak, 2009). The first pioneers of the Internet created their own blogs, initiated forums and networking communities, learnt how to create Internet content, built their Internet identities. As Maj and Wrzos observe, “Internet users [...] have been given the most egalitarian medium in the history of the world” (Maj, Wrzos, 2013), which does not necessarily please those who previously had power and authority. A manifestation of the loss of control over Internet users was not only the appearance of all kinds of experts (see the aforementioned amateur journalists), but also the unrestrained testing and recommendation of specific products by Internet users or, quite the opposite, discouraging them from purchasing them (Tapscott, Williams, 2008).

Meanwhile, the development of online tools could not be stopped, and those who had previously held power over the minds of media consumers began to share that power with them. Internet users began to be treated as partners rather than enemies (cf. Tapscott, Williams, 2008). Consumers began to be encouraged to leave comments on manufacturers’ websites, create their own content on company blogs and were even employed to promote products (see: influencer marketing). Companies began to face increasing comments about their activities, including criticism of their actions, product quality control. Leaving a post-purchase review could determine the “to be or not to be” of a particular business.

Using the power of influencers, manufacturers looked favourably on those who shared brand information, tested products and evaluated their effectiveness. Instead of fighting the unrestricted activities of online creators, companies decided to establish a “cooperation pact” with the influencers (Midura-Pietruszczak, 2009). A manifestation of prosumption was the tailoring of products to the needs and expectations of Internet users (cf. Tapscott, Williams, 2008). This has become apparent, for example, in the beauty industry, where eye shadows in a given palette were given names to make it easier for YouTubers to indicate which shadow they were using. Influencers have become co-creators of make-up products, computer games or clothes.

It seemed that the cooperation between influencers and brands would have no end. Influencers did their best to build positive relationships with their followers, but used those features of the Internet that limited the consumers’ freedom to make decisions. Despite the commercial nature of the publication, influencers have failed to label advertising material or have done so in a way that is difficult for followers to identify. In the near future, we can expect to see further legal action taken against influencers for omitting or mislabelling advertising material on social media (PARP, 2023).

It was assumed that the Internet would force people to have a more open, reflective approach to reality (cf. Giddens, 2004). The Internet has presented people with the opportunity to go beyond previous identity patterns based on gender, age or origin, and the chance to build a more reflective, conscious, authentic identity. What have we done with this opportunity? Being immersed in an information bubble is unlikely to foster a reflective attitude. Imagine a young person, detached from previous cultural patterns, searching for his or her identity. What does he/she find on the Internet? Who becomes his/her life guide? Who gives him/her support in the process of shaping identity? Szpunar (2018) observes that “the current model of consuming media content has very serious consequences for the spread of [...] narcissistic behaviour of individuals”, perpetuating “false and strongly egocentric visions of the world, deepening the belief in the validity and rightness of one’s own beliefs”. The Internet protagonist – like McLuhan’s narcissist – reinvents himself every day, but is unable to realise this fact. This means that he remains in the pernicious belief about his own identity, or rather that the reflection is identical with his person. Such a person seems to depend less and less on what is repetitive and endowed with an unshakeable identity, and more on what others will tell him. In reality no one will help us – no one will tell us who we are. In the media, some people admire us, others hate us, we will find chaos and irritation – and if we do not get used to it – we will die.

Where does this come from? What happened to all those Internet users who wanted to establish relationships with others on the Web? One gets the impression that for many people, social media have become the only world, and one that builds our Self. It is no longer a matter of a narcissist showing part of his life – taking a photo of himself in a restaurant, sending a postcard from a trip, showing his household members or a pet. This is creating the illusion of life – pretending to eat in a restaurant, copying photos from the Internet, playing with the neighbours’ dog, renting flats and presenting them as our own, etc.

In the near future we will be exposed to this vision of reality, e.g. due to subsequent scandals surrounding influencers. Already today we are witnessing the fall of authority – the awakening of Internet users’ reflection about their former idols. As if we were slowly waking up from a deep sleep – Internet creators have exposed their weaknesses and shown that their motivations are no longer prosumer in nature. For a long time now, we have been losing our independence as Internet consumers in an almost imperceptible way. Those who have benefited from our energy in terms of image, identity and, above all, financially have been hiding under the guise of “Internet creators”. This is yet another lesson for us that new technologies give us the opportunity to use our prosumer attitude, but there will always be those who use the media differently.

We now have a chance to get out of the matrix. If we reach for the blue pill, we will remain in our status quo, but persist in fake reality for a long time to come. If we reach for the red pill, we will learn the shocking truth about the world of influencers, but be in a position to fight for true reality. What will we see?

The prosumer is the kind of influencer who uses social media to create online resources. This one will survive, even without the Internet – because his self is defined by his creative attitude. However, some use the social media to create financial resources. And this one will not survive without followers, because his “self” is defined not so much by his creative attitude as by his desire to make money. If he has no other idea for himself and his identity is not built on a mission but on his profession as an influencer, he will cease to exist without the Internet. Therefore, we will be able to see who is the real creator of Internet content.

From the beginning, the Internet has provided its users with the tools to innovate, experiment, but also to process, download or copy (see Tapscott, Williams, 2008). It was to be an ideal place for file sharing understood as “partner re-production”. For many researchers, this kind of activity was nothing more than “an autonomous action [by individuals] to redistribute the media objects at their disposal (as files, but also in the form of links, which are the materialisation of knowledge about how to access content), even though they did not produce them and do not have the rights to dispose of them” (Filiciak, 2011, p. 73). According to Filicik, we should not have treated most of the activity undertaken by Internet users as part of the creative process. This created an illusion of creating an online resource, by commenting on it, reproducing, sending, borrowing and even appropriating it.

Meanwhile, in the 2020s we read: “it was supposed to be unique, but everything looks and sounds alike...” (Dmitruk, 2023). The problem is no longer that the forms that develop best are those that allow pseudo-creative reproduction of content, based on the same ideas, using the same cultural motifs, songs, words (see TikTok). In the near future, we can expect measures to restrict the possibility of copying further Internet content, or even a legal ban on using links, without the explicit consent of the person concerned.

Initially, the Internet consumer was able to traverse digital resources, freely using the available tools, ideas and content, without much social control (Midura-Pietruszczak, 2009). This assumption of the egalitarian nature of the Internet gave the impression of unlimited media content sharing. Today, however, the need to restrict free copying of content and free disposal of products and services is being postulated and the question of the need to regulate intellectual property rights on the Internet, including, e.g. copyright and industrial property is being raised (Klimas, 2019). Many Internet users, used to the free disposal of Internet resources, have lost the ability to respect someone’s privacy and recognise ownership. In the near future we will face the arduous process of adapting the “free” minds of Internet consumers to media regulation.

Meanwhile, in addition to what researchers have been noting for years, we are now faced with another problem – the use of artificial intelligence to generate Internet content (Dymitruk, 2023). It is not surprising that people are fascinated by what new technologies give them. Human history, however, shows that this does not always work out well. What threat can artificial intelligence pose in the context of the research topic? Current AI tools will often “create” similar content to the one that already exists. In the near future, we can thus expect the introduction of a general requirement to label automatically generated content (Dymitruk, 2023). During an academic discussion, we considered the idea of labelling digital content with the following statement: Made By Human or Human Made, similarly to what is currently done in the case of clothes or other products (statement by Łukasz Okoński, 14.11.2023 – a student of the Warsaw School of Economics). This would give us, the consumers, certainty that what we see or hear is a product of human imagination. It has become a requirement for us as prosumers to maintain our capacity for creativity. By giving power to artificial intelligence, we will become passive, unreflective consumers – no longer prosumers.

Conclusions

As McLuhan (2004, p. 44) argued, “every medium has the power to impose its assumptions on the unwary”. The medium puts us into a state of hypnosis, like a machine from which it is difficult for us to break out. A man who gives power to technology over the (re)production process becomes, at a certain point, a disengaged participant in social life, a passive recipient of media messages, an unreflective consumer of goods and services.

Before the first voices of opposition to the Internet were heard, it appeared to be the right place for people wanting to develop creative thinking and action. At the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries, many researchers were optimistic about the possibility of becoming a prosumer on the Internet. This vision was partially fulfilled, with the emergence of influencers whose strength came from their creative approach to online content. In other cases, we were simply dealing with uploading, commenting, reproducing or borrowing other people’s property. Before our eyes, a space was being created that seemed to create a user-friendly network of unlimited online resources, establishing new social relationships, exchanging views, knowledge, experiences, freely creating content and even building an identity. And while many authors assumed that access to new technologies would be a major factor in the development of prosumption, we now know that we have lost ourselves in the digital world. What was supposed to be a factor in the development of prosumption has become a breeding ground for the growth of influencer activity, which, under the guise of creating online content, began to sell goods and services to increasingly passive followers.

The slowly awakening awareness of (some) Internet users seems to be forcing significant changes in the principles of people’s functioning in the Internet. Is there still a chance for the prosumer in the Internet? Following Maslow’s lead, a prosumer is someone who maintains a connection with his or her creation, who loses himself or herself in the passion of creation, whatever it is: cooking, photography, reportage or knitting, and whatever the end result will be. In prosumption, it is essential to maintain something that will last, that will be the backbone of a person’s identity – control over oneself, over the desire to lose oneself in what is simpler, what is easier, what is more pleasant. We now face an even greater challenge – maintaining our creativity in the face of the development of another technology – artificial intelligence.