The principle expressed by Heisenberg and which bears his name says:

In the realm of reality whose connections are formulated by quantum theory, natural laws therefore do not lead to a complete determination of what happens in space and time; happening (within the frequencies determined by means of the connessioni) is rather left to the game of chance

This point is interesting: … within the frequencies determined by means of the connessioni. But going further in the analysis of the principle we discover that the question becomes incredibly interesting if, with a certain amount of forcing, we try to relate it to our society.

Still interpreting Heisenberg correctly:

The uncertainty principle is sometimes erroneously explained by arguing that the measurement of position necessarily disturbs the linear momentum of the particle and Werner Heisenberg himself initially gave this interpretation. Actually the disturbance plays no role, as the principle is also valid when the position is measured in one system and the moment is measured in an identical copy of the first system. It is more accurate to say that in quantum mechanics particles have some typical properties of waves, therefore they are not point-like objects, and they do not possess a well-defined position and momentum pair, or that the indeterminacy resides in the very preparation of the system.

Now let's try to imagine a person as a quantum, a particle connected in a network system with a neuronal structure such as the internet, in a system of interconnected social networks (social networks). What can this mean? The questions become many and the answers are entirely probabilistic. In sociological terms it means that the individual connects to others regardless of his "part of the mass", becoming a unique protagonist. It can now be seen without any possibility of error: profiles on facebook, twitter or other social networks such as LinkedIn, Pinterest, Google + are in fact the real mirror of single people who can freely express what they want within a community , even with massive doses of protagonism and narcissism, all assisted by a technology (interface) that becomes a sort of catalyst and that has no precedent (obviously) in history.

And does this seem too little to you? Honestly, it seems to me of an unimaginable relevance. How can marketing communication today ride this phenomenon or these sets of phenomena to circumscribe everything in theorems, methodologies and systems, attributable to the Kotlerian school? For example, what happens when it comes to communication ROI? In a 2009 article Stefania Romenti talks about ROI of communication and I quote:

Most professionals argue that ROI must be expressed in economic terms because only by borrowing the language and indicators from business language (think, for example, bottom line, return, accountability, results, turn-around) is it possible to increase the credibility of PR in the eyes of corporate stakeholders.

Hopla! Given that in 2018 advertising on the internet will equal traditional media in terms of advertising revenue, it happens that we are starting to no longer define the Internet as a medium and social networks can hardly be assimilated as "channels". But then? Social Media Marketing? How to measure the return on investment? What should companies think? How to behave? How to convey your marketing communication within a social network or many social networks or in the blogosphere?

I think there are no precise rules or methodologies and therefore there is no ROI. There is a return in experience and in relationships and the better you are at "managing" and enhancing relationships the more your personal reputation increases which can, but does not necessarily have to, have positive repercussions on a company's income statement.

The person returns to the center. And it's not a trivial concept. It unhinges all our mental forms inherited from the last century. As I have always said, the concept of the conscious mass is called into question and that, even if at a low level, it can express a common, determined, manoeuvrable, influenceable and circumscribable opinion with propaganda methodologies that still work today, but less and less. If not for the content, what difference can there be between the propaganda of Goebbels, the great master of mass communication, and the creative director who designed the TIM campaigns? (I repeat, the contents are totally different but the desired effect is the same, subjection, desire and consent).

Yet companies will have to start preparing. The moment the person enters the scene, truly interesting scenarios await and those who will have the ability to understand that the differences between company and person in the coming decades will be minimal, to such an extent that the very concept of the company will be put in crisis, will be able to win.