Our client had reasons to believe that his audience of interest – IT specialists – had dual culture codes. On the one hand, these specialists “wore suits and ties,” had career goals and worked within vertical management frameworks. On the other hand, these same people were distinguished by an informal attitude toward their work, viewing their areas of expertise not only from a business perspective, but also from a social perspective, by actively collaborating with their colleagues at a horizontal level that crossed corporate boundaries.

Most B2B businesses that make various business proposals to the heads of IT service companies treat them as corporate officers, appealing to their formal side. Their main arguments involve the economic benefits these proposals may bring to the enterprise, productivity, investment security, and so on. But perhaps, it might also prove effective to treat these IT company heads as carriers of the "computer" subculture, using arguments that appeal to their specific values (a sense of belonging, engagement, intellect and so on). To appraise these prospects and further develop this approach, it was necessary to establish what “balance” between the two groups of culture codes was most characteristic of the heads of IT service companies.

The goal of this study was focused on the following objectives: to learn whether respondents believed that a computer subculture really did exist; if the respondents believed that it did, to discover its features and attributes; to learn whether respondents identify themselves with this subculture, whether they view themselves as this subculture’s carriers, and to what extent they share its values; to determine how the computer subculture and corporate culture coexist, and what additional opportunities for communicating with the audience this coexistence creates.

The agency developed and conducted an expert-panel method study that relied on semi-formalized personal interviews with respondents, who consisted of the heads of IT service companies. These were selected based on their industries and the number of company employees. The operational portion of the study included: the development of an explanatory legend confirming that the study would follow client information privacy protection rules; develop a study program and material; undertake sampling; engage the required number of qualified interviewers for the work; conduct coaching and training; process and synthesize obtained information; prepare a final document that will contain recommendations concerning the expedience or inadvisability of continuing the above-mentioned communication events; and the preparation of a package of report documents.

A common conversation plan was prepared for the interviews. The interviews were recorded and then deciphered from shorthand notes, with the respondents’ answers subsequently registered in a specially-designed accounting logbook. This data was then tabulated. Considering the sampling population, the study was qualitative rather than quantitative in nature. However, the utilization of both open and closed-format questions permitted some of the data’s statistical expression.

The study’s questions were structured into several groups: whether the respondents are aware of the existence of informal computer communities, how they identify them and whether they join them and so on; whether they are aware of these communities’ principles, whether they could express these communities’ principles and values in words, and to what extent they share these themselves; how the cultural characteristics of – and informal membership in – the community are expressed in the experts’ corporate life, to what extent these two aspects are synchronized and how they might contradict each other; whether the experts know the daily topics and subjects of these communities’ lives, and what styles are used to circulate these communities’ topics and subjects; what attributes and elements of the subculture the respondents are willing to share with the study (for the purpose of utilizing these in future communications – and efforts to find a "common language" – with the audience).

The absolute majority of the respondents confirmed the objective existence of a specific “computer” subculture. Moreover, they identified it as a dynamically developing one, first and foremost thanks to extensive external factors such as the growing number of users and expanding volumes of information. The study showed that the determining feature of a computer subculture was its language, which is characterized by a specific terminology that is based on the adoption of English-language phrases (which in turn is linked to the specific ways in which the adopted terms were “Russified”), its own slang (besides that relating to terminology), and a violation of the formal rules of the Russian grammar, including conscious violations.

As technology becomes more widespread, the border separating the "professional" carriers of the specific language and its mass users become blurred, which results in the specific language’s adoption by the mass public. At the same time, the particular ways in which the subculture’s carriers think and reason – which was identified as the second-most important determining feature – remain the main factor for maintaining a differentiation between "professional" subculture carriers and mass users. At the same time, it was established that the “computer” subculture cannot serve as its carrier’s absolute characteristic – in other words, besides belonging to the computer subculture, its carrier simultaneously belongs to other social and cultural groups. Despite this, most of the respondents associated themselves with the "computer" subculture. The main form of the respondents’ self-identification was not the subculture as a whole, but its individual computer communities to which the respondents belong.

The study further showed that the "computer" subculture is more likely to integrate itself with the corporate culture than stand in direct contradiction to it. One form of integration involves internal corporate computer communities, which promote the development of horizontal communication in the firm. The corporate culture is also willing to integrate itself with the "computer" one. At the business process level, the "computer" subculture primarily performs the role of organizing horizontal internal company communications – first and foremost, in communications between the "internal" and “external” blocs (the front office intended for engaging with the client, and the back office that remains hidden from client view) – as well as inter-generational communications. The subculture’s role grows substantially at the individual level. Here, in the absolute majority of cases, it helps the respondents to perform their work-related duties. It primarily accomplishes this by presenting them with a platform for sharing their knowledge and skills. But it also performs a compensatory role, providing additional functional capabilities and boosting the respondents’ self-esteem. From the individual standpoint, the computer subculture not only coexists in business, but also represents a platform for improving the efficiency of its members’ work.

Key recommendations for the client concerning future communication strategies indicated that the “computer” subculture may serve as the "driving force" of communication, but only to the extent to which it remains universal – in other words, common to the individual communities that make up the subculture (professional, industry-related, “gamers", subject-specific and other communities). In addition, its communicative potential will only be realized if it becomes the content – rather than form – of communications, acting as the subject for reflection, analysis, modification and so on. This will help the client find a common language with the community on a unique platform, one that not only involves the personal interests of the respondents but also represents a new basis for their professional success.