Marketing - Digital marketing analysis 2000 word, needed ASAP

profilevandchuchu
JournalarticlesforReferences.zip

Kaplan and Haenlein_Users of the world, unite(2).pdf

Author's personal copy

Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media

Andreas M. Kaplan *, Michael Haenlein

ESCP Europe, 79 Avenue de la République, F-75011 Paris, France

1. The specter of Social Media

As of January 2009, the online social networking application Facebook registered more than 175 million active users. To put that number in perspec- tive, this is only slightly less than the population of Brazil (190 million) and over twice the population of Germany (80 million)! At the same time, every minute, 10 hours of content were uploaded to the video sharing platform YouTube. And, the image hosting site Flickr provided access to over 3 billion photographs, making the world-famous Louvre

Museum’s collection of 300,000 objects seem tiny in comparison.

According to Forrester Research, 75% of Internet surfers used ‘‘Social Media’’ in the second quarter of 2008 by joining social networks, reading blogs, or contributing reviews to shopping sites; this repre- sents a significant rise from 56% in 2007. The growth is not limited to teenagers, either; members of Generation X, now 35—44 years old, increasingly populate the ranks of joiners, spectators, and crit- ics. It is therefore reasonable to say that Social Media represent a revolutionary new trend that should be of interest to companies operating in online space–—or any space, for that matter.

Yet, not overly many firms seem to act comfort- ably in a world where consumers can speak so freely

Business Horizons (2010) 53, 59—68

www.elsevier.com/locate/bushor

KEYWORDS Social Media; User Generated Content; Web 2.0; Social networking sites; Virtual worlds

Abstract The concept of Social Media is top of the agenda for many business executives today. Decision makers, as well as consultants, try to identify ways in which firms can make profitable use of applications such as Wikipedia, YouTube, Facebook, Second Life, and Twitter. Yet despite this interest, there seems to be very limited understanding of what the term ‘‘Social Media’’ exactly means; this article intends to provide some clarification. We begin by describing the concept of Social Media, and discuss how it differs from related concepts such as Web 2.0 and User Generated Content. Based on this definition, we then provide a classification of Social Media which groups applications currently subsumed under the generalized term into more specific categories by characteristic: collaborative projects, blogs, content communities, social networking sites, virtual game worlds, and virtual social worlds. Finally, we present 10 pieces of advice for companies which decide to utilize Social Media. # 2009 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. All rights reserved.

* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A.M. Kaplan),

[email protected] (M. Haenlein).

0007-6813/$ — see front matter # 2009 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003

Author's personal copy

with each other and businesses have increasingly less control over the information available about them in cyberspace. Today, if an Internet user types the name of any leading brand into the Google search, what comes up among the top five results typically includes not only the corporate webpage, but also the corresponding entry in the online encyclopedia Wikipedia. Here, for example, cus- tomers can read that the 2007 model of Hasbro’s Easy-Bake Oven may lead to serious burns on chil- dren’s hands and fingers due to a poorly-designed oven door, and that the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company has been accused of using child labor in its Liberian rubber factory. Historically, companies were able to control the information available about them through strategically placed press announce- ments and good public relations managers. Today, however, firms have been increasingly relegated to the sidelines as mere observers, having neither the knowledge nor the chance–—or, sometimes, even the right–—to alter publicly posted comments provided by their customers. Wikipedia, for example, ex- pressly forbids the participation of firms in its online community.

Such an evolution may not be surprising. After all, the Internet started out as nothing more than a giant Bulletin Board System (BBS) that allowed users to exchange software, data, messages, and news with each other. The late 1990s saw a popularity surge in homepages, whereby the Average Joe could share information about his private life; today’s equivalent would be the weblog, or blog. The era of corporate web pages and e-commerce started relatively re- cently with the launch of Amazon and eBay in 1995, and got a right ticking-off only 6 years later when the dot-com bubble burst in 2001. The current trend toward SocialMedia can thereforebe seenas an evolution back to the Internet’s roots, since it re- transforms the World Wide Web to what it was initially created for: a platform to facilitate informa- tion exchange between users. But does that mean that Social Media is just old wine in new bottles? Probably not! As we will delve into further, the technical advances that have been made over the past 20 years now enable a form of virtual content sharing that is fundamentally different from, and more powerful than, the BBS of the late 1970s.

This article discusses the challenges and opportu- nities that emerge from this evolution for firms, and provides structure to better understand the rapidly evolvingfield of SocialMedia.Webegin by providing a definition andclassification of SocialMedia by looking at their historical roots, technical specificities, and differences from other entities such as Web 2.0 and User Generated Content. We then focus on six types of Social Media–—collaborative projects, blogs,

content communities, social networking sites, virtual game worlds, and virtual social worlds–—and present ways in which companies can efficiently make use of these applications. Based on this analysis, we then derive a set of 10 recommendations companies should follow when thinking about developing their own Social Media strategy, be it with respect to these aforementioned types or other applications which might emerge in the future.

2. What is Social Media–—And what is it not?

As highlighted, the idea behind Social Media is far from groundbreaking. Nevertheless, there seems to be confusion among managers and academic re- searchers alike as to what exactly should be includ- ed under this term, and how Social Media differ from the seemingly-interchangeable related concepts of Web 2.0 and User Generated Content. It therefore makes sense to take a step back and provide insight regarding where Social Media come from and what they include.

By 1979, Tom Truscott and Jim Ellis from Duke University had created the Usenet, a worldwide discussion system that allowed Internet users to post public messages. Yet, the era of Social Media as we understand it today probably started about 20 years earlier, when Bruce and Susan Abelson founded ‘‘Open Diary,’’ an early social networking site that brought together online diary writers into one community. The term ‘‘weblog’’ was first used at the same time, and truncated as ‘‘blog’’ a year later when one blogger jokingly transformed the noun ‘‘weblog’’ into the sentence ‘‘we blog.’’ The growing availability of high-speed Internet access further added to the popularity of the concept, leading to the creation of social networking sites such as MySpace (in 2003) and Facebook (in 2004). This, in turn, coined the term ‘‘Social Media,’’ and contributed to the prominence it has today. The most recent addition to this glamorous grouping has been so-called ‘‘virtual worlds’’: computer- based simulated environments inhabited by three- dimensional avatars. Perhaps the best known virtual world is that of Linden Lab’s Second Life (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2009c).

Although the list of the aforementioned applica- tions may give some idea about what is meant by Social Media, a formal definition of the term first requires drawing a line to two related concepts that are frequently named in conjunction with it: Web 2.0 and User Generated Content. Web 2.0 is a term that was first used in 2004 to describe a new way in which software developers and end-users started to

60 A.M. Kaplan, M. Haenlein

Author's personal copy

utilize the World Wide Web; that is, as a platform whereby content and applications are no longer created and published by individuals, but instead are continuously modified by all users in a partici- patory and collaborative fashion. While applications such as personal web pages, Encyclopedia Britannica Online, and the idea of content publishing belong to the era ofWeb 1.0, they are replaced by blogs, wikis, and collaborative projects in Web 2.0. Although Web 2.0 does not refer to any specific technical update of the World Wide Web, there is a set of basic function- alities that are necessary for its functioning. Among them are Adobe Flash (a popular method for adding animation, interactivity, and audio/video streams to web pages), RSS (Really Simple Syndication, a family of web feed formats used to publish frequently updated content, such as blog entries or news head- lines, in a standardized format), and AJAX (Asynchro- nous Java Script, a technique to retrieve data from web servers asynchronously, allowing the update of web content without interfering with the display and behavior of the whole page). For the purpose of our article, we consider Web 2.0 as the platform for the evolution of Social Media.

When Web 2.0 represents the ideological and technological foundation, User Generated Content (UGC) can be seen as the sum of all ways in which people make use of Social Media. The term, which achieved broad popularity in 2005, is usually applied to describe the various forms of media content that are publicly available and created by end-users. According to the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development (OECD, 2007), UGC needs to fulfill three basic requirements in order to be considered as such: first, it needs to be published either on a publicly accessible website or on a social networking site accessible to a select- ed group of people; second, it needs to show a certain amount of creative effort; and finally, it needs to have been created outside of professional routines and practices. The first condition excludes content exchanged in e-mails or instant messages; the second, mere replications of already existing content (e.g., posting a copy of an existing newspa- per article on a personal blog without any modifi- cations or commenting); and the third, all content that has been created with a commercial market context in mind. While UGC has already been available prior to Web 2.0, as discussed above, the combination of technological drivers (e.g., increased broadband availability and hardware capacity), economic drivers (e.g., increased avail- ability of tools for the creation of UGC), and social drivers (e.g., rise of a generation of ‘‘digital natives’’ and ‘‘screenagers’’: younger age groups with substantial technical knowledge and

willingness to engage online) make UGC nowadays fundamentally different from what was observed in the early 1980s. Based on these clarifications of Web 2.0 and UGC, it is now straightforward to give amore detailed definition of what we mean by Social Me- dia. In our view–—and as used herein–—Social Media is a group of Internet-based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and exchange of User Generated Content.

Within this general definition, there are various types of Social Media that need to be distinguished further. However, although most people would prob- ably agree that Wikipedia, YouTube, Facebook, and Second Life are all part of this large group, there is no systematic way in which different Social Media ap- plications can be categorized. Also, new sites appear in cyberspace every day, so it is important that any classification scheme takes into account applications which may be forthcoming. To create such a classifi- cation scheme, and to do so in a systematic manner, we rely on a set of theories in the field of media research (social presence, media richness) and social processes (self-presentation, self-disclosure), the two key elements of Social Media. Regarding the media-related component of Social Media, social presence theory (Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976) states that media differ in the degree of ‘‘social presence’’–—definedas theacoustic, visual, andphys- ical contact that can be achieved–—they allow to emerge between two communication partners. Social presence is influenced by the intimacy (inter- personal vs.mediated)and immediacy (asynchronous vs. synchronous) of themedium, andcanbeexpected to be lower for mediated (e.g., telephone conversa- tion) than interpersonal (e.g., face-to-face discus- sion) and for asynchronous (e.g., e-mail) than synchronous (e.g., live chat) communications. The higher the social presence, the larger the social influence that the communication partners have on each other’s behavior. Closely related to the idea of social presence is the concept of media richness. Media richness theory (Daft & Lengel, 1986) is based on the assumption that the goal of any communica- tion is the resolution of ambiguity and the reduction of uncertainty. It states that media differ in the degree of richness they possess–—that is, the amount of information they allow to be transmitted in a given time interval–—and that therefore some media are more effective than others in resolving ambiguity and uncertainty. Applied to the context of Social Media, we assume that a first classification can be made based on the richness of the medium and the degree of social presence it allows.

With respect to the social dimension of Social Media, the concept of self-presentation states that

Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media 61

Author's personal copy

in any type of social interaction people have the desire to control the impressions other people form of them (Goffman, 1959). On the one hand, this is done with the objective of influencing others to gain rewards (e.g., make a positive impression on your future in-laws); on the other hand, it is driven by a wish to create an image that is consistent with one’s personal identity (e.g., wearing a fashionable outfit in order to be perceived as young and trendy). The key reason why people decide to create a personal webpage is, for example, the wish to present them- selves in cyberspace (Schau & Gilly, 2003). Usually, such a presentation is done through self-disclosure; that is, the conscious or unconscious revelation of personal information (e.g., thoughts, feelings, likes, dislikes) that is consistent with the image one would like to give. Self-disclosure is a critical step in the development of close relationships (e.g., during dating) but can also occur between complete strangers; for example, when speaking about per- sonal problems with the person seated next to you on an airplane. Applied to the context of Social Media, we assume that a second classification can be made based on the degree of self-disclosure it requires and the type of self-presentation it allows.

Combining both dimensions leads to a classifica- tion of Social Media which we have visualized in Table 1. With respect to social presence and media richness, applications such as collaborative projects (e.g., Wikipedia) and blogs score lowest, as they are often text-based and hence only allow for a rela- tively simple exchange. On the next level are con- tent communities (e.g., YouTube) and social networking sites (e.g., Facebook) which, in addition to text-based communication, enable the sharing of pictures, videos, and other forms of media. On the highest level are virtual game and social worlds (e.g., World of Warcraft, Second Life), which try to replicate all dimensions of face-to-face interac- tions in a virtual environment. Regarding self-pre- sentation and self-disclosure, blogs usually score higher than collaborative projects, as the latter tend to be focused on specific content domains.

In a similar spirit, social networking sites allow for more self-disclosure than content communities. Finally, virtual social worlds require a higher level of self-disclosure than virtual game worlds, as the latter are ruled by strict guidelines that force users to behave in a certain way (e.g., as warriors in an imaginary fantasy land). We will now provide more detail on each of these six different types of Social Media, and discuss the challenges and opportunities they offer companies.

3. The challenges and opportunities of Social Media

3.1. Collaborative projects

Collaborative projects enable the joint and simul- taneous creation of content by many end-users and are, in this sense, probably the most democratic manifestation of UGC. Within collaborative proj- ects, one differentiates between wikis–—that is, websites which allow users to add, remove, and change text-based content–—and social bookmark- ing applications–—which enable the group-based col- lection and rating of Internet links ormedia content. Exemplary applications within this category include the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, a wiki currently available in more than 230 different languages, and the social bookmarking web service Delicious, which allows the storage and sharing of web bookmarks. The main idea underlying collaborative projects is that the joint effort of many actors leads to a better outcome than any actor could achieve individually; this is similar to the efficient-market hypothesis in behavioral finance (Fama, 1970). From a corporate perspective, firms must be aware that collaborative projects are trending toward becoming the main source of information for many consumers. As such, although not everything written on Wikipedia may actually be true, it is believed to be true by more and more Internet users. This may be particularly crucial as regards corporate crises. For example,

62 A.M. Kaplan, M. Haenlein

Table 1. Classification of Social Media by social presence/media richness and self-presentation/self-disclosure

Author's personal copy

when online book retailer Amazon started to test the idea of dynamic pricing, comments declaring such a practice as unfair showed up instantaneously under the Wikipedia entry on ‘‘time-based pricing.’’ Yet, collaborative projects also provide some unique opportunities for firms. Finnish handset manufac- turer Nokia, for instance, uses internal wikis to update employees on project status and to trade ideas, which are used by about 20% of its 68,000 staff members. Likewise, American computer soft- ware company Adobe Systems maintains a list of bookmarks to company-related websites and con- versations on Delicious.

3.2. Blogs

Blogs, which represent the earliest form of Social Media, are special types of websites that usually display date-stamped entries in reverse chronologi- cal order (OECD, 2007). They are the Social Media equivalent of personal web pages and can come in a multitude of different variations, from personal diaries describing the author’s life to summaries of all relevant information in one specific content area. Blogs are usually managed by one person only, but provide the possibility of interaction with others through the addition of comments. Due to their historical roots, text-based blogs are still by far the most common. Nevertheless, blogs have also begun to take different media formats. For exam- ple, San Francisco-based Justin.tv allows users to create personalized television channels via which they can broadcast images from their webcam in real time to other users. Many companies are al- ready using blogs to update employees, customers, and shareholders on developments they consider to be important. Jonathan Schwartz, CEO of Sun Micro- systems, maintains a personal blog to improve the transparency of his company; so does automotive giant General Motors. Yet, as is the case with col- laborative projects, blogs do not come without risks. These generally present in two fashions. First, customers who–—for one reason or another–—turn out to be dissatisfied with or disappointed by the company’s offerings may decide to engage in virtual complaints in the form of protest websites or blogs (Ward & Ostrom, 2006), which results in the avail- ability of potentially damaging information in online space. Second, once firms encourage employees to be active on blogs, they may need to live with the consequences of staff members writing negatively about the firm. Microsoft’s former ‘‘technical evan- gelist’’ Robert Scoble, for example, had a tendency to fiercely criticize the products of his employer–— before he decided to leave the Redmond-based software company in 2006.

3.3. Content communities

The main objective of content communities is the sharing of media content between users. Content communities exist for a wide range of different media types, including text (e.g., BookCrossing, via which 750,000+ people from over 130 countries share books), photos (e.g., Flickr), videos (e.g., YouTube), and PowerPoint presentations (e.g., Slideshare). Users on content communities are not required to create a personal profile page; if they do, these pages usually only contain basic information, such as the date they joined the com- munity and the number of videos shared. From a corporate viewpoint, content communities carry the risk of being used as platforms for the sharing of copyright-protected materials. While major con- tent communities have rules in place to ban and remove such illegal content, it is difficult to avoid popular videos–—such as recent episodes of comedy dramas–—being uploaded to YouTube only hours after they have been aired on television. On the positive side, the high popularity of content communities makes them a very attractive contact channel for many firms; this is easy to believe when one con- siders that YouTube serves over 100 million videos per day. In 2007, Procter & Gamble organized a contest for its over-the-counter drug Pepto-Bismol, whereby users were encouraged to upload to You- Tube 1-minute videos of themselves singing about the ailments Pepto-Bismol counteracts, including heartburn and nausea. In a similar spirit, kitchen appliances manufacturer Blendtec became popular for its bevy of inexpensive ‘‘Will it blend?’’ videos, which have been watched by millions of people. Other firms, such as Cisco and Google, rely on content communities to share recruiting videos, as well as keynote speeches and press announce- ments, with their employees and investors.

3.4. Social networking sites

Social networking sites are applications that enable users to connect by creating personal information profiles, inviting friends and colleagues to have access to those profiles, and sending e-mails and instant messages between each other. These per- sonal profiles can include any type of information, including photos, video, audio files, and blogs. Ac- cording to Wikipedia, the largest social networking sites are U.S.-based Facebook (initially founded by Mark Zuckerberg to stay in touch with his fellow students from Harvard University) and MySpace (with 1,500 employees and more than 250 million registered users). Social networking sites are of such high popularity, specifically among younger Internet

Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media 63

Author's personal copy

users, that the term ‘‘Facebook addict’’ has been included in the Urban Dictionary, a collaborative project focused on developing a slang dictionary for the English language. Several companies are already using social networking sites to support the creation of brand communities (Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001) or for marketing research in the context of netnography (Kozinets, 2002). To pro- mote the movie ‘‘Fred Claus,’’ a 2007 Christmas comedy film, Warner Brothers created a Facebook profile via which visitors could watch trailers, down- load graphics, and play games. Likewise, the Adidas custom soccer community on MySpace allows visi- tors to associate themselves with one of two brands of elite soccer cleats produced by the German sports apparel manufacturer, and to access product re- views and information on professional soccer play- ers who play using ‘‘their’’ shoes. Some firms even go one step further and use Facebook as a distribution channel. Consider U.S.-based florist 1-800-Flower- s.com, which offers a widget on Facebook called ‘‘Gimme Love’’ whereby users can send ‘‘virtual bouquets’’ to friends or, with a click of the mouse, be directly transferred to the company’s website to send real flowers.

3.5. Virtual game worlds

Virtual worlds are platforms that replicate a three- dimensional environment in which users can appear in the form of personalized avatars and interact with each other as they would in real life. In this sense, virtual worlds are probably the ultimate manifesta- tion of Social Media, as they provide the highest level of social presence and media richness of all applications discussed thus far. Virtual worlds come in two forms. The first, virtual game worlds, require their users to behave according to strict rules in the context of a massively multiplayer online role-play- ing game (MMORPG). These applications have gained popularity in recent years, as standard game con- soles–—such as Microsoft’s X-Box and Sony’s Play- Station–—now allow simultaneous play among a multitude of users around the globe. Examples of virtual game worlds include the cod-medieval ‘‘World of Warcraft,’’ which counts around 8.5 mil- lion subscribers who explore the virtual planet of Azeroth in the form of humans, dwarves, orcs, or night elves, to fight monsters or to search for trea- sure; and Sony’s EverQuest, in which 16 different races of players (e.g., wizards, clerics) travel the fantasy world of Norrath. The rules of such games usually limit the degree of self-presentation and self-disclosure possible, although some users spend so much time with these applications that their character–—be it a warrior, a wizard, or a dragon

hunter–—starts to more and more closely resemble their real life personality. Besides their use for in- game advertising (similar in idea to product placement in blockbuster movies), the high popu- larity of virtual game worlds can also be leveraged in more traditional communication campaigns. Japanese automotive giant Toyota, for example, used pictures and mechanics from the World of Warcraft application in its latest Tundra commercial to reach the 2.5 million players in the U.S. alone.

3.6. Virtual social worlds

The second group of virtual worlds, often referred to as virtual social worlds, allows inhabitants to choose their behavior more freely and essentially live a virtual life similar to their real life. As in virtual game worlds, virtual social world users appear in the form of avatars and interact in a three-dimensional virtual environment; however, in this realm, there are no rules restricting the range of possible interactions, except for basic physical laws such as gravity. This allows for an unlimited range of self presentation strategies, and it has been shown thatwith increasing usage intensity andconsumptionexperience, users of virtual social worlds–—or ‘‘residents,’’ as they prefer to be called–—show behavior that more and more closely mirrors the one observed in real life settings (Haenlein& Kaplan, 2009; Kaplan&Haenlein, 2009a, 2009b). Arguably, the most prominent example of virtual social worlds is the Second Life application, founded and managed by the San Francisco-based company Linden Research Inc. Besides doing every- thing that is possible in real life (e.g., speaking to other avatars, taking a walk, enjoying the virtual sunshine), Second Life also allows users to create content (e.g., to design virtual clothing or furniture items) and to sell this content to others in exchange for Linden Dollars, a virtual currency traded against the U.S. Dollar on the Second Life Exchange. Some residents are so successful in this task that the virtual money earned that way complements their real life income. Virtual social worlds offer a multitude of opportunities for companies in market- ing (advertising/communication, virtual product sales/v-Commerce,marketing research), and human resource and internal process management; for a more detailed discussion, see Kaplan and Haenlein (2009c).

4. Ten pieces of advice for companies deciding to use Social Media

Social Media is a very active and fast-moving do- main. What may be up-to-date today could have

64 A.M. Kaplan, M. Haenlein

Author's personal copy

disappeared from the virtual landscape tomorrow. It is therefore crucial for firms to have a set of guidelines that can be applied to any form of Social Media, whether they are part of the aforementioned list or not. Next, we provide such a set of recom- mendations. Given that Social Media have both a social- and a media-component, we split our advice into two sections: five points about using media and five points about being social.

4.1. Five points about using media

4.1.1. Choose carefully There are dozens–—if not hundreds–—of Social Media applications, and new ones are appearing on the horizon every day. If you still need time to run your core business, you simply cannot participate in them all, especially since ‘‘being active’’ is one key re- quirement of success (see below). Choosing the right medium for any given purpose depends on the target group to be reached and the message to be communicated. On the one hand, each Social Media application usually attracts a certain group of people and firms should be active wherever their customers are present. For example, if your main target audience is book lovers, a content community via which users share self-written novels or poems is likely better suited to your purpose than a virtual world which centers on fighting dragons and finding treasures. On the other hand, there may be situa- tions whereby certain features are necessary to ensure effective communication, and these features are only offered by one specific application. For example, when the U.S. Army undertook an initia- tive in 2007 to reach the Hispanic community, it decided to utilize the social networking site Univision rather than the more popular Facebook. This choice was driven in part by the fact that Univision–—a Spanish-language television network in the U.S. and Puerto Rico–—is the social networking application with the largest Latin American audi- ence, due to an extensive range of telenovelas and Mexican programs produced by Grupo Televisa. However, another reason Univision was chosen is because it offers a moderating service which checks comments from users for appropriateness before posting them on the site. In contrast, other appli- cations, including Facebook, allow users to post messages without supervision.

4.1.2. Pick the application, or make your own Once you know which game you’re playing, the next decision involves whether to make or buy. In some cases, it might just be best to join an existing Social Media application and benefit from its popularity and user base. After all, there is no need to reinvent

the wheel if somebody has already done it, espe- cially given that Social Media show positive network externalities in the sense that they get more attrac- tive to join the more participants they already have. But in some cases, the right application might just not be available yet. Japan’s Fujifilm, for example, recently launched its own social network to build a community of photo enthusiasts. In a similar spirit, U.S.-based department store firm Sears collaborat- ed with MTV music television to create a social network around back-to-school shopping. Yet, what- ever the ultimate decision–—to buy, make, or both–— it is vital that there is an understanding of the basic idea behind Social Media. It’s all about participa- tion, sharing, and collaboration, rather than straightforward advertising and selling.

4.1.3. Ensure activity alignment Sometimes you may decide to rely on various Social Media, or a set of different applications within the same group, in order to have the largest possible reach. In this case, it is crucial to ensure that your Social Media activities are all aligned with each other. A prime example in this context is computer manufacturer Dell and its ‘‘Digital Nomads’’ cam- paign. Dell uses a combination of social networking sites (Facebook, LinkedIn), blogs, and content com- munities (YouTube videos) to show how its range of laptop computers enable individuals to become a nomadic mobile workforce. In a similar spirit, Chrys- ler’s Jeep brand connects with its customers by combining photos shared on the content community Flickr, with groups on social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook. Using different contact channels can be a worthwhile and profitable strate- gy. But remember: one goal of communication is the resolution of ambiguity and reduction of uncertain- ty, and nothing is more confusing than contradicting messages across different channels.

4.1.4. Media plan integration What is true for different types of Social Media also holds for the relationship between Social Media and traditional media: Integration is key! While you may consider these two arenas to be completely differ- ent, in customers’ eyes they are both part of the same: your corporate image. Consider the actions of soft drink giant Coca-Cola. In June 2006, a pair of performance artists shot a video featuring a series of geysers they created by dropping Mentos brand mints into 2-liter bottles of Coke; the clip became a major hit on YouTube. Realizing customers’ enthu- siasm for this performance, Coca-Cola fostered the sensation by airing the video on late-night television and ensuring broad digital distribution across differ- ent content communities. Besides the advantage of

Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media 65

Author's personal copy

high impact/low cost media coverage, the campaign also resulted in a measurable sales uplift.

4.1.5. Access for all Although this might sound elementary, once the firm has decided to utilize Social Media applications, it is worth checking that all employees may actually access them. Commonly, firms block Facebook, YouTube, and Second Life on corporate PCs for fear that staff might spend too much time networking instead of working. While this is certainly a consid- eration, it cannot imply that employees must have special permission to be able to access the company blog. At the same time, there is a need to curtail the possibility of the entire organization spending all its time producing funny videos and uploading them to YouTube. One possible approach involves defining groups of employees whose primary objective is the management of corporate Social Media; all other staff members are treated as occasional partici- pants. Under this scenario, the first group is given administrator rights–—which allows the opening of new discussion threads and deletion of inappropri- ate posts–—while the second group is not. Also, at some point, it will be necessary to develop certain guidelines for Social Media usage; as done, for instance, by ‘‘Big Blue’’ IBM, which has a corporate charta for appropriate behavior within Second Life. For example, it is important to highlight that every employee needs to identify himself or herself as such when posting a comment on the corporate blog. Otherwise, end-consumers could get the impression that anonymous accounts are used to enable employees to post fake messages and over- ly-positive feedback, which could severely damage the credibility of your whole Social Media campaign.

4.2. Five points about being social

4.2.1. Be active If you want to develop a relationship with someone, it is always advisable to take the lead and to be active. Social Media are all about sharing and inter- action, so ensure that your content is always fresh and that you engage in discussions with your cus- tomers. Consider the aforementioned blog kept by Sun Microsystems CEO Jonathan Schwartz. Via this outlet, the figurehead discusses–—on an ongoing basis–—his corporate strategy, new product develop- ment projects, and company values, and replies directly to correspondence received. In considering your Social Media efforts, be aware that firm in- volvement must extend beyond responding to neg- ative comments and defending product offerings. Social Media is less about explaining why your baking mix, detergent, or shampoo is better than anyone

else’s than it is about engaging others in open and active conversation. Participants on Social Media applications have the desire to actively engage and to become both producers and consumers of information, so-called ‘‘prosumers’’ (Toffler, 1980). Be considerate of this need and act accordingly.

4.2.2. Be interesting Let’s face it: nobody is interested in speaking to a boring person. As such, if you would like your cus- tomers to engage with you, you need to give them a reason for doing so–—one which extends beyond saying you are the best airline in town, or manufac- ture the most robust kitchen blender. The first step is to listen to your customers. Find out what they would like to hear; what they would like to talk about; what they might find interesting, enjoyable, and valuable. Then, develop and post content that fits those expectations. Coffee powerhouse Star- bucks, for example, created the ‘‘My Starbucks Idea’’ platform, via which customers can submit new ideas for the company. These ideas are subse- quently voted on by other users, with the winners being considered for implementation by Starbucks top management. As stated by Oscar Wilde in his novel, The Picture of Dorian Grey: The one sin for which there is no forgiveness is ennui.

4.2.3. Be humble Never forget that Social Media existed before you decided to engage in them; indeed, in many cases, even before you knew about their existence. In this light, do not expect that you know better how to use them than others who have spent countless hours on Facebook or Second Life, for example. Before you enter any application, first take some time to dis- cover it and to learn about its history and basic rules. Only once you have gained the necessary understanding, start to participate. When aero- space and defense firm Boeing decided to launch its first corporate blog, the site was designed such that users were not allowed to comment on what they saw. Yet, interaction and feedback are critical elements of all Social Media, blogs included. Hence, many readers perceived the Boeing blog as a fake, and simply corporate advertising in disguise. If there is one certain path to failure, it involves thinking that Social Media is just about posting existing TV spots on YouTube or putting prefabricated press announcements on corporate blogs.

4.2.4. Be unprofessional Have you ever noticed that in Hollywood blockbust- er films, it’s not usually the handsome guy who ends up with the girl, but rather the clumsy, charming one? The same goes for Social Media, and firms

66 A.M. Kaplan, M. Haenlein

Author's personal copy

would be wise to avoid overly-professional content offerings. There’s no need to spend $100,000 to design the perfect MySpace presence, or hire a professional writer to manage your corporate blog. Instead, try to blend in with other users and don’t be afraid to make mistakes! Bill Marriott, Chairman and CEO of the Marriott International Hotel chain, uses his blog, for example, to post regular updates and stories from his travels to Marriott properties around the world–—very much in the same way as would a work colleague when describing her last vacation. Social Media users are people like you, who under- stand that things do not always go smoothly. And, if you’re nice to them, they may even give you free advice on how to do it better the next time.

4.2.5. Be honest Last but not least, be honest and respect the rules of the game. Some Social Media–—such as Wikipedia–— may not allow companies to be involved, so do not try to force your way in. Consider Anheuser-Busch, owner of SeaWorld marine mammal parks. Anheus- er-Busch tried to ‘‘rectify’’ misleading information on Wikipedia through the use of PR firms, and failed miserably at it. Never expect that other participants may not find out who stands behind some anonymous user account; after all, you’re dealing with some of the most technologically sophisticated people on the planet.

5. Nothing to lose but their chains

Today, everything is about Social Media. Some in- dustry gurus claim that if you do not participate in Facebook, YouTube, and Second Life, you are not part of cyberspace anymore. Social Media allow firms to engage in timely and direct end-consumer contact at relatively low cost and higher levels of efficiency than can be achieved with more tradi- tional communication tools. This makes Social Media not only relevant for large multinational firms, but also for small and medium sized companies, and even nonprofit and governmental agencies. Using Social Media is not an easy task and may require new ways of thinking, but the potential gains are far from being negligible. Dell, for example, states that its use of Twitter–—a micro blogging application that allows sending out short, text-based posts of 140 characters or less–—has generated $1 million in in- cremental revenue due to sales alerts. Some firms may even be too successful for their own good, as illustrated by Burger King’s ‘‘Whopper Sacrifice’’ campaign: In December 2008, the fast food giant developed a Facebook application which gave users a free Whopper sandwich for every 10 friends they

deleted from their Facebook network. The cam- paign was adopted by over 20,000 users, resulting in the sacrificing of 233,906 friends in exchange for free burgers. Only one month later, in January 2009, Facebook shut down Whopper Sacrifice, citing pri- vacy concerns. Who would have thought that the price of a friendship is less than $2 a dozen?

A new trend is on the horizon, though; Watch out forMobile SocialMedia!MobileWeb2.0 is very similar to Web 2.0, as discussed earlier. In contrast to its predecessor Mobile Web 1.0, which relied on propri- etary protocols (e.g., WAP) and use-based pricing, Mobile Web 2.0 is characterized by open standards (e.g., a transition to the TCP/IP protocol, the tech- nical foundation of theWorldWideWeb) andflat-rate systems. Even the manual entry of web addresses using small and difficult-to-handle keyboards is becoming history. Soon, all items around you will be equipped with Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags that will be able to automatically connect to your mobile phone and send URLs to them, similar to today’s text messages. This technical evolution is laying the groundwork for moving Social Media ap- plications away from desktop PCs and laptops, to- ward mobile devices. Why log into Facebook if you can easily update all your friends using Twitter? Why wait until you return home towatch the newYouTube video if you can do so conveniently on your iPhone?

According to Jupiter Research, the market for Mobile Web 2.0 evolutions will grow from a mere $5.5 billion today to an impressive $22.4 billion by 2013. Mobile Social Media applications are expected to be the main driver of this evolution, soon ac- counting for over 50% of the market. In one way, this surge toward Mobile Social Media can even be seen as another step toward Internet democratization and closing the digital divide between developed and emerging countries. In India, for example, mo- bile phones outnumber PCs by 10 to 1. In Thailand, only 13% of the population owns a computer, versus 82% who have access to a mobile phone. It is there- fore not surprising that the Pew Research Center–—a Washington-based think tank–—estimates that by 2020, a mobile device will be the primary Internet connection tool for most people in the world. Making Social Media applications mobile is likely to tap a currently unexploited base of new users. Even if per- capita spending in these countries may still be low, vast population numbers make them relevant for virtually any firm.

Obviously, Mobile Social Media does not come without a price. Some would argue that while it enables the detailed following of friends half-way across the world, it can foster a society where we don’t know the names of our own next-door neighbors. Be that as it may, and independent of

Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media 67

Author's personal copy

whether or not one approves of such an evolution, it seems undisputable that (Mobile) Social Media will be the locomotive via which the World Wide Web evolves. Businesses, take note–—and don’t miss this train!

References

Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness, and structural design.Manage- ment Science, 32(5), 554—571.

Fama, E. F. (1970). Efficient capital markets: A review of theory and empirical work. Journal of Finance, 25(2), 383—417.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books.

Haenlein, M., & Kaplan, A. M. (2009). Flagship brand stores within virtual worlds: The impact of virtual store exposure on real life brand attitudes and purchase intent. Recherche et Applica- tions en Marketing 24(3).

Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2009a). Consumer use and business potential of virtual worlds: The case of Second Life. The International Journal on Media Management 11(3).

Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2009b). Consumers, companies, and virtual social worlds: A qualitative analysis of Second Life. Advances in Consumer Research, 36(1), 873—874.

Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2009c). The fairyland of Second Life: About virtual social worlds and how to use them. Business Horizons, 52(6), 563—572.

Kozinets, R. V. (2002). The field behind the screen: Using netno- graphy for marketing research in online communities. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(1), 61—72.

Muniz, A. M., & O’Guinn, T. C. (2001). Brand community. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4), 412—432.

OECD. (2007). Participative web and user-created content: Web 2.0, wikis, and social networking. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Schau, H. J., & Gilly, M. C. (2003). We are what we post? Self- presentation in personal web space. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3), 385—404.

Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave: The classic study of tomorrow. New York: Bantam Books.

Ward, J. C., & Ostrom, A. L. (2006). Complaining to the masses: The role of protest framing in customer-created complaint web sites. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(2), 220—230.

68 A.M. Kaplan, M. Haenlein

__MACOSX/._Kaplan and Haenlein_Users of the world, unite(2).pdf

Kietzmann et al_2011_Honeycomb(2).pdf

Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media

Jan H. Kietzmann *, Kristopher Hermkens, Ian P. McCarthy, Bruno S. Silvestre

Segal Graduate School of Business, Simon Fraser University, 500 Granville Street, Vancouver, BC V6C 1W6, Canada

Business Horizons (2011) 54, 241—251

www.elsevier.com/locate/bushor

KEYWORDS Social media; Social networks; Web 2.0; User-generated content; Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; YouTube

Abstract Traditionally, consumers used the Internet to simply expend content: they read it, they watched it, and they used it to buy products and services. Increasingly, however, consumers are utilizing platforms–—such as content sharing sites, blogs, social networking, and wikis–—to create, modify, share, and discuss Internet content. This represents the social media phenomenon, which can now significantly impact a firm’s reputation, sales, and even survival. Yet, many executives eschew or ignore this form of media because they don’t understand what it is, the various forms it can take, and how to engage with it and learn. In response, we present a framework that defines social media by using seven functional building blocks: identity, conversations, sharing, presence, relationships, reputation, and groups. As different social media activities are defined by the extent to which they focus on some or all of these blocks, we explain the implications that each block can have for how firms should engage with social media. To conclude, we present a number of recommendations regarding how firms should develop strategies for monitoring, understanding, and responding to different social media activities. # 2011 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. All rights reserved.

1. Welcome to the jungle: The social media ecology

Social media employ mobile and web-based tech- nologies to create highly interactive platforms via which individuals and communities share, co-

* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.H. Kietzmann),

[email protected] (K. Hermkens), [email protected] (I.P. McCarthy), [email protected] (B.S. Silvestre).

0007-6813/$ — see front matter # 2011 Kelley School of Business, I doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2011.01.005

create, discuss, and modify user-generated con- tent. Given the tremendous exposure of social me- dia in the popular press today, it would seem that we are in the midst of an altogether new communica- tion landscape. The New York Times recently hired a social media editor (Nolan, 2009); the Catholic Press Association (2010) offers a webinar on how the church can use social media; and the Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, is on Twitter with 1.8 million followers. Even Northwest Organic Valley brand milk cartons now display ‘find, friend, and follow us’ slogans. But unknown to many, this

ndiana University. All rights reserved.

242 J.H. Kietzmann et al.

landscape of social media sites and services started forming more than a dozen years ago. For instance, in 1997, the social network site Sixdegrees allowed users to create profiles, list their friends, and add friends-of-friends to their own lists (Boyd & Ellison, 2008). Sound familiar?

There currently exists a rich and diverse ecology of social media sites, which vary in terms of their scope and functionality. Some sites are for the general masses, like Friendster, Hi5, and–—of course–—Facebook, which opened only 4 years after Sixdegrees closed its doors. Other sites, like LinkedIn, are more focused professional networks; in fact, Facebook started out as a niche private network for Harvard University students. Media sharing sites, such as MySpace, YouTube, and Flickr, concentrate on shared videos and photos. And after a slow start in the late 1990s, weblogs (blogs) have become very popular, because they are easy to create and to maintain. Their authors range from everyday people to professional writers and celeb- rities. Today, the resulting ‘blogosphere’ of more than 100 million blogs and their interconnections has become an important source of public opinion. There are even search engines, like Technorati, that are dedicated to searching blogs. Similarly, with the help of social news andbookmarking sites like Reddit, Digg, and Delicious (formerly known as Del.icio.us), users can rank sites by voting on the value of content. Most recently, the phenomenon of micro-blogging focuses on offering real-time updates. Twitter has been driving this development since itwas founded in 2006. Today, more than 145 million users send on average 90 million ‘tweets’ per day, each consisting of 140 characters or less (Madway, 2010). These are mostly short status updates of what users are doing, where they are, howtheyare feeling, or links toother sites. In turn, Foursquare ties these real-time up- dates into location specific information by rewarding users for ‘checking in’ to real sites at any location worldwide, and for leaving their comments for others to view.

With this rise in social media, it appears that corporate communication has been democratized. The power has been taken from those in marketing and public relations by the individuals and commu- nities that create, share, and consume blogs, tweets, Facebook entries, movies, pictures, and so forth. Communication about brands happens, with or without permission of the firms in question. It is now up to firms to decide if they want to get serious about social media and participate in this communication, or continue to ignore it. Both have a tremendous impact.

For instance, when United Airlines broke Dave Carroll’s guitar in 2008, it likely was not the first

time a musical instrument had been broken during the course of a flight. It was, however, probably the first time that the owner of the instrument recorded a music video about the experience and posted it on YouTube. The video, portraying United in a very unfavorable light, went ‘viral’ and has been viewed almost 9.5 million times (Carroll, 2009). Amongst other highlights, United Breaks Guitars was cited by Time.com as one of YouTube’s best videos, and even discussed by Wolf Blitzer on television’s CNN Situa- tion Room. Such attention led to a brand and public relations crisis for United, as the story was cheered on by a global community of passengers who under- stood all too well the frustrations of dealing with airline service failures. United did not respond and, to this day, an Internet search of the term ‘United’ returns Carroll’s damaging YouTube video link at the top of the results list. This high profile example illustrates how ill-prepared firms can be in dealing with social media conversations about them. As BBC Business Editor Tim Weber (2010) explains: ‘‘These days, one witty tweet, one clever blog post, one devastating video–—forwarded to hundreds of friends at the click of a mouse–—can snowball and kill a product or damage a company’s share price.’’

Although it is clear that–—for better or for worse–— social media is very powerful, many executives are reluctant or unable to develop strategies and allo- cate resources to engage effectively with social media. Consequently, firms regularly ignore or mis- manage the opportunities and threats presented by creative consumers (Berthon, Pitt, McCarthy, & Kates, 2007). One reason behind this ineptitude is a lack of understanding regarding what social media are, and the various forms they can take (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). To help address this gap in knowl- edge, we herein present and illustrate a honeycomb framework of seven social media building blocks. Utilized individually and together, these blocks can help mangers make sense of the social media ecolo- gy, and to understand their audience and their engagement needs. In true social media fashion, the origins of this framework can be attributed to a number of bloggers: principally, Gene Smith (2007) of the Atomiq.org, who developed and combined ideas discussed by Matt Webb (2004) of intercon- nect.org; Stewart Butterfield (2003) of sylloge.com; and Peter Morville (2004) of semanticstudios.com. We have taken their ideas and advanced them in four ways, each of which forms a part of our article.

In Section 2, we explain how executives would use the framework to understand the functional traits of different social media activities, and dis- cuss and illustrate the fundamental implications that each block presents to firms as they seek to fathom the engagement needs of their social media

Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media 243

Figure 1. The honeycomb of social media

audience. In Section 3, we explain how the frame- work can be used to compare and contrast the functionalities and implications of different social media activities. Finally, in Section 4, we conclude by presenting guidelines for how firms should devel- op strategies for monitoring, understanding, and responding to different social media activities.

2. The seven functional blocks of social media

The framework we use (see Figure 1) is a honeycomb of seven functional building blocks: identity, con- versations, sharing, presence, relationships, repu- tation, and groups. Each block allows us to unpack and examine (1) a specific facet of social media user experience, and (2) its implications for firms. These building blocks are neither mutually exclusive, nor do they all have to be present in a social media activity. They are constructs that allow us to make sense of how different levels of social media func- tionality can be configured.

2.1. Identity

The identity functional block represents the ex- tent to which users reveal their identities in a social media setting. This can include disclosing information such as name, age, gender, profes- sion, location, and also information that portrays

users in certain ways. For instance, Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) explain that the presentation of a user’s identity can often happen through the conscious or unconscious ‘self-disclosure’ of subjective information such as thoughts, feelings, likes, and dislikes. Consequently, users and social media sites have different discourse prefer- ences and aims. Many individuals who participate in online activities use their real names (e.g., Guy Kawasaki, a leading blogger and managing director of Garage Technology Ventures), while other influential social media mavens are known by their nicknames, or ‘handles’ (e.g., hummingbird604 is Raul Pacheco, a blogger and educator on envi- ronmental issues).

Of course, there are many different social media platforms built around identity that require users to set up profiles (e.g., Facebook). This has led to the formation of secondary services like DandyID, which allows users to store their online social identities in one place. Similar in nature to business cards and email signatures, social media users now create social media profile cards, using tools like Retaggr, to advertise their different identities and encourage others to follow them. While these new forms of communication attracted many early adopters, new demographics are now participating. In particular, those 55 and older–—who were relatively rare con- tributors in Web 1.0–—are now the fastest growing demographic on Facebook, with women outnumber- ing men 2:1 (Marketingcharts, 2009).

244 J.H. Kietzmann et al.

As identity is core to many social media plat- forms, this presents some fundamental implica- tions for firms seeking to develop their own social media sites or strategies for engaging with other sites. One major implication is privacy. Users will- ingly share their identities on social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter, yet this does not mean they do not care what happens to this information. Indeed, users have serious concerns about how secondary firms use their information as a source for data mining and surveillance (Kietzmann & Angell, 2010), and the extent to which social media sites passively facilitate or actively encourage these activities. This has re- sulted in users and government agencies initiating class-action lawsuits for invasion of privacy (Kravets, 2010). Users have also developed iden- tity strategies (e.g., real identity versus virtual identities), while others focus on self-promotion (e.g., Facebook) or self-branding (e.g., LinkedIn). Professional photographers, for example, pay a premium to share their photographs on Flickr to develop their professional brand, and start con- versations within their community.

However, this does not suggest that firms should insist on profiles that are complete or accurate. In fact, in an effort to protect their privacy, people tie different identities to the context of the different social media platforms they use (e.g., hobbies and pictures on Facebook might be differ- ent from those on LinkedIn). In some cases, though, identities remain anonymous. For exam- ple, social networks like Divorce360 work for those in complicated relationships or in various stages of breakups, who strongly need support but wish to remain anonymous. Consequently, technologies such as OAuth (Hammer-Lahav, 2007) have been developed as an open standard for authorization, for ‘‘giving access to your stuff without sharing your identity at all (or its secret parts).’’ Although OAuth is now required for all third party Twitter applications, it does not work for everyone. For instance, users of the infamous Internet counter- culture 4chan–—who brought us the ‘rickrolling’ meme: a cultural practice whereby users are tricked into watching a cheesy music video–— prefer to know each other only by their handles. One of their members, an individual who goes by the name ‘moot,’ has been described as ‘‘the most influential Web entrepreneur you’ve never heard of’’ (Smith, 2008). Striking a careful balance be- tween sharing identities and protecting privacy is crucial in selecting social media tools; the wrong mix can lead to a lack of accountability among users, encourage cyber-bullying, and pave the way for off-topic and off-color comments.

2.2. Conversations

The conversations block of the framework repre- sents the extent to which users communicate with other users in a social media setting. Many social media sites are designed primarily to facilitate conversations among individuals and groups. These conversations happen for all sorts of reasons. People tweet, blog, et cetera to meet new like-minded people, to find true love, to build their self-esteem, or to be on the cutting edge of new ideas or trending topics. Yet others see social media as a way of making their message heard and positively impact- ing humanitarian causes, environmental problems, economic issues, or political debates (Beirut, 2009).

The enormous number and diversity of conversa- tions that can take place in a social media setting, means that there are format and protocol implica- tions for firms which seek to host or track these conversations. Twitter, for instance, is centered around exchanging short messages that are mostly real-time status updates, so as to create an ‘ambi- ent awareness’ of issues (Kaplan & Haenlein, in press). Mostly, these messages are of an ephemeral nature, without any obligation to respond. Review- ing past tweets requires an archiving service like Google Replay, which lets users search through and review tweets. Twitter, then, is more about conver- sation than identity. Blogs, on the other hand, are less about staying connected synchronously than about facilitating rich, often lengthy conversations that can be traced back on the blog itself.

Drawing from research on industry dynamics (McCarthy, Lawrence, Wixted, & Gordon, 2010), we argue that differences in the frequency and content of a conversation can have major implica- tions for how firms monitor and make sense of the ‘conversation velocity’: the rate and direction of change in a conversation. The rate of change is the number of new conversations over a specified period of time, and the direction of change is the continuity- discontinuity of the conversation (i.e., changes in how favorable or unfavorable a conversation is toward a firm and its products). For instance, to make collective sense of the short, speedy, and numerous conversations hosted by sites such as Twitter, firms need tools and capabilities that allow them to connect the dots. That is, the conversations are like pieces of a rapidly changing puzzle which, when aggregated, combine to produce an overall image or message. In contrast, people such as Marc Andreeson (a co-founder of Netscape) use regular blogs to post detailed, but less frequent accounts. These postings can be rich and useful, but not necessarily connected to a greater social media exchange on the same subject.

Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media 245

Another fundamental implication of conversation is the issue of firms starting or manipulating a conversation. For example, Unilever gave its com- munity something to talk about upon launching the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty in 2004. People not only conversed on Dove’s own blog or discussion board, but also talked very positively about the campaign across many social media platforms. To spark more conversation, one billboard in the series asked viewers to vote on whether a woman dis- played was ‘fat’ or ‘fab,’ with the results posted in real-time on the board. Thus, there are benefits and risks in joining and manipulating conversations. Firms which know when to chime in–—and, when not to–—show their audience that they care, and are seen as a positive addition to the conversation; this is in contrast to firms which flood conversations that were not ‘theirs’ in the first place.

2.3. Sharing

Sharing represents the extent to which users ex- change, distribute, and receive content. The term ‘social’ often implies that exchanges between peo- ple are crucial. In many cases, however, sociality is about the objects that mediate these ties between people (Engeström, 2005); the reasons why they meet online and associate with each other. Consider Groupon, which publishes a 50% - 90% discount coupon for local businesses each day via email, Twitter, mobile phone applications, and its own website. The coupon is only valid, however, once a critical mass has agreed to purchase the special offer. Social shopping services like Groupon leverage the ‘social graph,’ a mapping of users’ connectivity, to share the news via email across their entire social network. Consequently, social media consist of peo- ple who are connected by a shared object (e.g., a groupon, text, video, picture, sound, link, loca- tion). Sharing alone is a way of interacting in social media, but whether sharing leads users to want to converse or even build relationships with each other depends on the functional objective of the social media platform. For instance, the objects of social- ity are pictures for Flickr, Indie music for MySpace, and careers for LinkedIn.

We suggest there are at least two fundamental implications that the sharing block of the honey- comb has for all firms with ambition to engage in social media. The first is the need to evaluate what objects of sociality their users have in common, or to identify new objects that can mediate their shared interests. Without these objects, a sharing network will be primarily about connections be- tween people but without anything connecting them together. Of course, these objects and the type of

sharing that can be built into a social media platform very much depend on the aims of the platform. For example, YouTube started as a platform to allow individuals to upload and share homemade videos; the first of these showed one of the founders enjoy- ing a day at the San Diego Zoo. This case illustrates that even though the object medium is video, You- Tube was established primarily to enable users to share personal objects–—experiences and observa- tions–—with the world.

A second implication concerns the degree to which the object can or should be shared. As You- Tube grew, users increasingly uploaded video not created by them. This led to criticism and lawsuits against YouTube for failing to ensure that uploaded material complied with copyright laws. YouTube has also been denounced for hosting videos that contain offensive content. As a result, YouTube developed controls and allocated resources to filter and then screen the content that it helps share. This includes requiring users who want to upload video, to regis- ter and agree to terms of use; providing a content management system that allows content owners (e.g., movie studios) to identify and manage their content on YouTube; asking users to flag inappropri- ate content; and employing an army of people who screen and remove content that is in violation of the terms of use.

2.4. Presence

The framework building block presence represents the extent to which users can know if other users are accessible. It includes knowing where others are, in the virtual world and/or in the real world, and whether they are available. In the virtual world, this happens through status lines like ‘available’ or ‘hidden.’ Given the increasing connectivity of peo- ple on the move, this presence bridges the real and the virtual. For instance, actor Ashton Kutcher and his actress wife Demi Moore are both active on Foursquare, and when they ‘check in’ at a particular location, fans and traditional media can view this information and know where to go for celebrity gawking. Similar presence-focused platforms center on geographical spaces, not specific locations. Friends Around Me allows users to share their status updates and check-ins across networks–—Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare, and Gowalla–—and displays which friends are in close physical proximity. Flash- mobs like T-Mobile’s Welcome Back (Lifesforsharing, 2010) are a similar phenomenon, whereby large groups of people, organized mostly via social media, practice an unusual but enormously powerful act: assembling in a public place to suddenly perform for a brief time, then dispersing just as quickly. Another

246 J.H. Kietzmann et al.

example of real-time presence is Trapster, a vehicle speed trap sharing system that relies on user- generated content towarndrivers of livepolice speed traps, red light cameras, speedcameras, and so forth. In other cases–—for instance, LinkedIn–—knowing who else is online or where others are located physi- cally does not matter.

The implication of presence is that firms need to pay attention to the relative importance of user availability and user location. In some cases, this is tied very directly to a desire to interact synchro- nously, whether this is through voice or sharing data. Should users prefer to engage in real-time, then the social media platform should offer a presence or status line indicator, along with a suitable mecha- nism through which these users can contact each other and interact. A firm might also want to inves- tigate if users have a desire for selective presences, where one can be visible to some people while staying hidden to others. Another direct implication of presence is that it is linked to the traits of other functional blocks in the honeycomb framework, including conversations and relationships. For in- stance, drawing upon ideas by Kaplan and Haenlein (2010), firms should recognize that social media presence is influenced by the intimacy and immedi- acy of the relationship medium, and that higher levels of social presence are likely to make conver- sations more influential.

2.5. Relationships

The relationships block represents the extent to which users can be related to other users. By ‘re- late,’ we mean that two or more users have some form of association that leads them to converse, share objects of sociality, meet up, or simply just list each other as a friend or fan. Consequently, how users of a social media platform are connected often determines the what-and-how of information ex- change. In some cases, these relationships are fairly formal, regulated, and structured. LinkedIn, for instance, allows users to see how they are linked to others and how many degrees of separation they are from a ‘target’ member–—possibly an employer they would like to meet. Member profiles also need to be validated by others to be complete. With a focus on relationship building, LinkedIn has a refer- ral system so that these users can be introduced, through a chain of friends-of-friends, to the person they intended to meet so that they can be closer to the people they would like to meet. Of course, growing a network as large as possible likely reduces the degrees of separation to these individuals. In other cases, social media platforms are centered on existing relationship maintenance, not expansion.

Social software like AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) and Skype allow people to talk to ‘buddies’ or ‘contacts’ they already know. On other platforms, relation- ships are informal and without structure. Blogs, for instance, can allow users to develop a relationship with each other, without a formal arrangement of what and how much information they should share. In yet other cases, including Twitter and YouTube, relationships hardly matter. The general rule is that social media communities which don’t value identi- ty highly, also don’t value relationships highly.

Because the implications of the relationship block are numerous, we use two properties–—structure and flow–—from social network theory (Borgatti & Foster, 2003; Granovetter, 1973) to explain the importance of different relationship traits. The structural property of a user’s relationships refers to how many connections they have and their posi- tion in their network of relationships. Research shows that the denser and larger a user’s portfolio of relationships is, and the more central his or her position in the portfolio, the more likely that user is to be an influential member (‘influencer’) in their network. The flow property of user relationships refers to the types of resources involved in individ- ual relationships and how these resources are used, exchanged, or transformed. It describes the strength of a relationship: strong relationships are ‘‘long-lasting, and affect-laden’’ (Krackhardt, 1992, p. 218), while weak ones are ‘‘infrequent and dis- tant’’ (Hansen, 1999, p. 84). It also refers to the ‘multiplexity’ of relationships; that is, when users are connected by more than one type of relationship (e.g., they are work colleagues and friends).

Consequently, if a social media community values relationships, the issue of structural and flow prop- erties becomes important. Social media sites and firms seeking to engage with their users must un- derstand how they can maintain or build relation- ships, or both. If the relationships need to be formal and regulated, then a process should be developed to validate authenticity of users. If a social media platform adopts a brokering role or facilitates trans- actions, social mechanisms via which other individ- uals act as an approval step (e.g., LinkedIn), or legal steps can be employed. If users mostly expect to maintain existing relationships, then a simple iden- tification process is required. For instance, users can send a ‘friend request’ that needs to be accepted by the other party before the two can add each other to their contact list. If the nature of the engagement among users is to grow their networks, then more information might need to be displayed to create meaningful relationships; this, of course, must hon- or the users’ expectation of both identity and pri- vacy, as outlined above. Another alternative is that

Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media 247

users of the community enter into a legally binding transaction (e.g., the social commerce site Bonanza), which is an altogether different relationship.

2.6. Reputation

Reputation is the extent to which users can identify the standing of others, including themselves, in a social media setting. Reputation can have different meanings on social media platforms. In most cases, reputation is amatter of trust, but since information technologies are not yet good at determining such highly qualitative criteria, social media sites rely on ‘mechanical Turks’: tools that automatically aggre- gate user-generated information to determine trustworthiness. For instance, Jeremiah Owyang’s 70,000 and Guy Kawasaki’s 292,000 followers on Twitter attest their reputations as social media maven and emerging technology expert, respective- ly. Another example is LinkedIn, which builds the reputation of one individual based on endorsements from others. However in social media, reputation refers not only to people but also their content, which is often evaluated using content voting sys- tems. On YouTube, the reputation of videos might be based on ‘view counts’ or ‘ratings,’ while on Face- book this could be ‘likes,’ and so forth. Via the StumbleUpon platform, for example, one can only see content that has already been filtered by users who share a common interest. The more Stumble- Upon knows about a user, the better it can match up preferences of like-minded individuals who have given the particular website a ‘thumbs up’ or ‘thumbs down’ verdict.

As with the other blocks in the honeycomb frame- work, reputation has significant implications for how firms should effectively engage social media. If firms and users value their reputations and those of other users, then a metric must be chosen to provide this information. The number of followers on Twitter has limited value in that it only indicates how popular a person is, not how many people actually read the posts. Since people can follow as many others as they like, they also do not have a reason to ‘unfollow’ anyone. For a firm, this means the engagement needs of its community should inform the choice of reputation system. If time and activity in a community matter, a measure of the number of posts over time might be a better metric. If the quality of an individual’s contributions matters, a rating system would be an appropriate choice.

Once a firm has identified appropriate metrics for the reputation of its community’s social media en- gagement, the appropriate evaluation tool must be chosen. This could either be based on objective data

(e.g., number of views or followers) or collective intelligence of the crowd (e.g., rating system). For example, social media service sites such as Social Mention search and compile user-generated content from over 80 social media sites. It enables firms and individuals to monitor how many times they and others are mentioned, using a number of metrics including: strength (the number of times you are mentioned); sentiment (the ratio of mentions that are positive to those that are negative); passion (how often certain users talk about you); and reach (the number of different users talking about you divided by the total number of times you are mentioned).

2.7. Groups

The groups functional block represents the extent to which users can form communities and sub- communities. Themore ‘social’ a network becomes, the bigger the group of friends, followers, and contacts. A widely discussed relationship-group metric is Dunbar’s Number, proposed by anthropol- ogist Robin Dunbar (1992), who theorized that peo- ple have a cognitive limit which restricts the number of stable social relationships they can have with other people to about 150. Social media platforms have recognized that many communities grow well beyond this number, and offer tools that allow users to manage membership. Two major types of groups exist. First, individuals can sort through their con- tacts and place their buddies, friends, followers, or fans into different self-created groups (e.g., Twitter has lists). Second, groups online can be analogous to clubs in the offline world: open to anyone, closed (approval required), or secret (by invitation only). Facebook and Flickr have groups, for instance, with administrators who manage the group, approve applicants, and invite others to join.

The direct implication of groups is fairly straight- forward. It can be assumed that a social media community would enjoy a way to group its users, even when the number of likely contacts is low for each member initially. It is good practice to enable this feature from the start such that members don’t have to sort through lengthy contact lists to order their contacts later. If the members just need to order their contacts to manage followers, friends, fans, and the like, then simple user-generated grouping will suffice. This resembles allowing users to label their contacts, without these contacts being aware of it. If, however, a group wants to pursue an agenda and grow its membership, then more formal group rules and functions would be required.

The indirect implications of groups are compli- cated. Groups in social media are more than just a

248 J.H. Kietzmann et al.

Figure 2. Contrasting the functionalities of different sites

listing of users. There is a focus on different per- missions for different group membership activity and content. Given the enormous traffic on social media and the amount of noise it generates daily, the need for filtering is paramount. To connect to some of the earlier honeycomb blocks, groups can vary in how they allow individuals to share specific details with some contacts, but not others. Differ- ent parts of an identity could be set up for each block. In terms of presence, a user could choose to be available to some (e.g., those in the friends group) on the weekend, but not others (e.g., col- leagues). But what happens when life is multiplex and one friend is also a colleague? Permissions management is inherently difficult, and the more flexibility that is embedded in the system, the

more difficult it is to manage for the users. For this reason, many social media platforms have chosen to offer a few categories of groups and a few combinations of permissions. Of course, these choices are highly contextual, and a firm would benefit from studying exactly what kinds of groups their community would support, and how these should affect their engagement with other honey- comb pieces.

3. Differences matter: The 4 Cs

It is difficult to stay abreast of the choices people have for social media platforms. It seems that new sites and services emerge every day, vying for the

Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media 249

attention of individuals and communities online. When examining the social media ecology, it quickly becomes clear that many sites have struck a careful balance among the different blocks of the honey- comb. Some focus more on identity, some more on sharing, et cetera. None of today’s major social media sites focus solely on just one block. Gene Smith (2007), one of the bloggers who helped evolve this framework, argues that sites tend to concen- trate on three or four primary blocks. In Figure 2 we illustrate this with four examples: LinkedIn, Four- square, YouTube, and Facebook. The darker the color of a block, the greater this social media functionality is within the site.

Using tools like the honeycomb framework to understand and develop social media platforms, and the social media landscape more generally, is increasingly important. Consequently, we now pres- ent a guideline–—the 4 Cs: cognize, congruity, cu- rate, and chase–—relating how firms should develop strategies for monitoring, understanding, and re- sponding to different social media activities.

3.1. Cognize

A firm should first recognize and understand its social media landscape, using the honeycomb framework. This will unveil the social media func- tionality and engagement implications for under- standing your customers. Similarly, it is important to find out if and where conversations about a firm are already being held, and how these are enabled by the different functionalities in the honeycomb framework. At the same time, firms need to pay attention to other critical elements of the social media landscape, including who some of the main influencers are. Listorious, for instance, provides details of key experts on topics on Twitter. While reviewing the social media landscape, a firm should also collect competitive intelligence to determine if its rivals are already active, and what the response level is for their particular social media strategy.

3.2. Congruity

Next, a firm needs to develop strategies that are congruent with, or suited to, different social media functionalities and the goals of the firm. This in- volves focusing on the core honeycomb blocks of a social media activity that will facilitate the needs of its business. Are they seeking to drive more custom- ers into a bricks and mortar store, to increase sales online, or to create new leads directly attributable to a social media tool? What are the metrics for evaluating the success of the social media platform? Important success measures might focus on the

velocity of a conversation. The mantra ‘customer service is the new marketing’ emphasizes that the firm is no longer in control of the conversation, and that any social media strategy should also focus on increasing customer happiness (e.g., how well cus- tomer issues are resolved) and customer input (e.g., suggestions for improving a product or service). The plan also needs to integrate a social media strategy tightly with other marketing strategies, whereby one points the audience to the other. Unless users are made aware of the existence of a social media forum, they are unlikely to discover it by chance. The ‘find us, friend us, and follow us’ slogan on milk containers is a suitable example for how ‘bought’ media (e.g., advertising) and ‘owned’ media (e.g., the brand or the product itself) can be integrated with social media (the ‘earned’ media) to seed and drive conversations, sharing, relationships, and so forth. Other choices in the planning stage require another look at the honeycomb to learn what key activities–—conversations, for instance–—will help the firm gain trust with a key influencer and within the community.

3.3. Curate

A firm must act as a curator of social media inter- actions and content. This involves developing a clear understanding of how often and when a firm should chime into conversations on a social media platform, and who will represent the firm online. Social media involvement is not an exact science, but to reduce the ambiguity, firms should develop policies that outline how their employees look after and preserve different forms of social media en- gagement. The key here is to identify employees who have the ability to listen and who care about the chatter online, and those who can create con- tent that is emotionally appropriate for the com- munity (Armano, 2009). Another important option is to create ‘mash-ups,’ which combine content and functionality from a variety of sources that already exist. For example, organizations can curate con- versations by showing YouTube videos of credible individuals on their site, or by presenting existing research from other sites.

In any event, to effectively follow and use social media can be a challenge, and it is likely that many firms initially won’t have the talent or capabilities to succeed. So, when firms hire consultants who act on their behalf, they are well advised to conduct due diligence to ensure that opportunities are max- imized and risks are minimized–—not the other way around. Having the right controls in place is espe- cially important, as individuals who communicate with customers must be given enough discretion and

250 J.H. Kietzmann et al.

authority to develop relationships by solving cus- tomer issues, not just sympathizing with the cus- tomer as often seems to be the case with traditional customer service.

3.4. Chase

Of course, a constant chase for information about social media activity is tremendously time-consum- ing. Yet, firms must scan their environments in order to understand the velocity of conversations and other information flows that could affect current or future position in the market (McCarthy et al., 2010). The honeycomb framework provides a valu- able tool for evaluating the changing social media ecology. If used as an ongoing lens, a firm can revisit the assumptions about a community’s engagement needs, observe how other social media platforms are evolving, and gauge how competitors are re- sponding. More specifically, it is important to follow conversations and other interactions that include a particular firm, brand, product, or individual. For- tunately, social media analytics tools like Tweet- Deck, Social Mention, and Google Alerts exist to make this process moremanageable. It is important, though, to note that positive social media exposure often results more from inbound than outbound conversations, and real-time is much better than post-hoc. For instance, when a customer tweeted his disappointment that a chain restaurant had run out of corn tortillas, a full time social media em- ployee alerted the branch manager in less than 2 minutes and the issue was resolved even before the customer left the restaurant (Armano, 2009). But even when it seems too late, an appropriate social media response may turn the tide. Imagine if United Airlines had released an apologetic United Loves Guitars video on YouTube, possibly starring Eric Clapton, Slash, Jimmy Page, or B.B. King!

4. Final thoughts

Social media introduce substantial and pervasive changes to communication between organizations, communities, and individuals. This presents an enormous challenge for firms, as many established management methods are ill-suited to deal with customers who no longer want to be talked at; instead, customers want firms to listen, appropri- ately engage, and respond. Firms interested in get- ting serious about social media will find a useful tool in the honeycomb framework. By analyzing the seven building blocks–—identity, conversations, sharing, presence, relationships, reputation, and groups–—firms can monitor and understand how so-

cial media activities vary in terms of their function and impact, so as to develop a congruent social media strategy based on the appropriate balance of building blocks for their community.

References

Armano, D. (2009, November 2). Six social media trends for 2010. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/ 2009/11/six_social_media_trends.html

Beirut. (2009, August 21). Why do people really tweet? The psychology behind tweeting! Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://blog.thoughtpick.com/2009/08/why-do-people- really-tweet-the-psychology-behind-tweeting.html

Berthon, P., Pitt, L., McCarthy, I., & Kates, S. (2007). When customers get clever: Managerial approaches to dealing with creative consumers. Business Horizons, 50(1), 39—47.

Borgatti, S., & Foster, P. (2003). The network paradigm in organi- zational research: A review and typology. Journal of Manage- ment, 29(6), 991—1013.

Boyd, D., & Ellison, N. (2008). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer Mediated Com- munication, 13(1), 210—230.

Butterfield, S. (2003). An article complaining about ‘social soft- ware’. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://www. sylloge. com/personal/2003_03_01_s.html#91273866

United breaks guitars. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YGc4zOqozo

Catholic Press Association. (2010). Using social media: Best prac- tices. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://www. catholicpress.org/?page=SocialMediaWebinar

Dunbar, R. I. M. (1992). Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates. Journal of Human Evolution, 22(6), 469—493.

Engeström, J. (2005, April 13). Why some social network services work and others don’t –— Or: the case for object-centered sociality. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://www. zengestrom.com/blog/2005/04/why-some-social-network- services-work-and-others-dont-or-the-case-for-object- centered-sociality.html

Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360—1380.

Hammer-Lahav, E. (2007, September 5). A little bit of history. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://oauth.net/about/

Hansen, M. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Ad- ministrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82—85.

Kaplan, A., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media Business Hori- zons, 53(1), 59—68.

Kaplan, A., & Haenlein, M. (in press). The early bird catches the news: Nine things you should know about micro-blogging. Business Horizons.

Kietzmann, J., & Angell, I. (2010). Panopticon revisited. Com- munications of the ACM, 53(6), 135—138.

Krackhardt, D. (1992). The strength of strong ties: The importance of philos in organizations. In N. Nohria & R. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action (pp. 216—239). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Kravets, D. (2010, March 17). Judge approves $9.5 million Face- book ‘beacon’ accord. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/03/facebook- beacon-2/

Lifesforsharing. (2010). The T-Mobile welcome back. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=NB3NPNM4xgo

Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media 251

Madway, G. (2010, September 14). Twitter remakes website, adds new features. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http:// www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1411135520100915

Marketingcharts. (2009).Women over 55 take Facebook by storm. November 5, 2010, from http://www.marketingcharts. com/interactive/women-over-55-take-facebook-by-storm- 7879/

McCarthy, I., Lawrence, T., Wixted, B., & Gordon, B. (2010). A multidimensional conceptualization of environmental veloci- ty. The Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 604—626.

Morville, P. (2004, June 21). User experience design. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://semanticstudios.com/ publications/semantics/000029.php

Nolan, H. (2009, May 26). New York Times ‘social media editor’ playing out exactly as suspected. Retrieved November 5,

2010, from http://gawker.com/5270593/new-york-times- social-media-editor-playing-out-exactly-as-suspected

Smith, D. (2008, July 20). The 20-year-old at heart of web’s most anarchic and influential site. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jul/20/ internet.google

Smith, G. (2007, April 4). Social software building blocks. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://nform.ca/ publications/social-software-building-block

Webb, M. (2004, April 28). On social software consultancy. Re- trieved November 5, 2010, from http://interconnected.org/ home/2004/04/28/on_social_software

Weber, T. (2010, October 3). Why companies watch your every Facebook, YouTube, Twitter move. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11450923

  • Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media
    • Welcome to the jungle: The social media ecology
    • The seven functional blocks of social media
      • Identity
      • Conversations
      • Sharing
      • Presence
      • Relationships
      • Reputation
      • Groups
    • Differences matter: The 4 Cs
      • Cognize
      • Congruity
      • Curate
      • Chase
    • Final thoughts
    • References

__MACOSX/._Kietzmann et al_2011_Honeycomb(2).pdf

MKT2010 - Marking Scheme - Semester 2 Assignment .pdf

MKT2010 - Marking Scheme – Semester 2 Assignment – Individual Essay of 2000 words [50%]

0% - 19% 20% - 39% 40% - 49% 50% - 59% 60% - 69% 70% – 79% 80% +

Poor fail Marginal fail Marginal pass Adequate Good Very good Excellent

Taking a brand of your choice, discuss and evaluate the use of Digital Marketing Channels from this brand’s perspective (50%)

This is not considered – there is little or no mention or coverage linked to the question asked.

There is little coverage or discussion or evaluation of the DM Channel linked to a brand. This is barely mentioned and there is no underpinning with any academic literature.

There is some discussion but not much evaluation of the brand and its Digital Marketing Channels. There is little or no engagement with the academic literature.

There is some discussion and a little evaluation gained drawing on basic academic texts. Needs more development of the discussion of the brand and evaluation of the current digital marketing channels using appropriate literature.

There is a detailed discussion and some evaluation of the brand and its Digital Marketing Channels. Sometimes lacking in clarity of why these channels are relevant to the brand. Good discussion and evaluation using key texts

A detailed and critical account of a specific brand, discussing and evaluating its current digital channels showing a very good explanation and insight as the brands current usage of Digital Marketing Channels and evidence of using wider reading.

A sophisticated critical account of the a specific brand, discussing and evaluating its current Digital Marketing Channels showing a very good explanation and insight together with critical evaluation utilising a comprehensive reference list

Using this brand and the knowledge of the trends/tools that you have covered in the module make recommendation s for the brand’s future digital marketing communications activity (25%)

This is not considered – there is little or no mention or coverage linked to the question set.

There is a little coverage or discussion of future trends and tools or any recommendation s either. Future brand based activity is barely mentioned and there is no underpinning with academic literature or examples.

There is some coverage or discussion of future trends/ tools or any recommendations . Future brand based activity rarely mentioned but not discussed in any detail and there is no underpinning with academic literature or examples.

There is a limited coverage or discussion of future trends/tools or any recommendation s either. Future brand based activity is discussed but not in any depth. Little underpinning with academic literature or other examples.

There is some good coverage or discussion of future trends/tools with possible recommendations . Future brand based activity is discussed but could be less generic and have more depth. Some underpinning with academic literature or other examples.

There is some good detailed and critical discussion of future trends/tools with clear and concise recommendations . Future brand based activity is discussed critically with good depth and using wider reading.

A sophisticated and a critical discussion of future trends/tools with clear and concise recommendations . Future brand based activity is discussed critically with depth and using a comprehensive reference list.

Illustrate your answer using appropriate examples, showing knowledge of other brands and their digital marketing communication activities (20%)

This is not attempted

There is no explanation for the choice of examples or understanding of why your chosen brand could benefit from these other activities.

There is some evidence as to why your choice of examples could benefit your chosen brand. But little of how the examples relate to your brand activity. No justification shown

There is evidence about the relevance of the examples could topic and evidence that future learning activities have been considered and why this is important. Little justification shown

A good explanation as to why these chosen examples are valid with clear discussion on how your brand could benefit from their adoption. Good rationale and justification shown.

A very good explanation as to why these examples are important, with a very clear discussion on their relevance for your chosen brand. Very good justification shown

Excellent and insightful explanation of the relevance of the chosen examples. Excellent discussion over how your brand could learn from other examples. Excellent justification.

Good academic practice, structure, writing and presentation (5%)

There is little evidence of good academic practice, no discernible structure, referencing is missing and the Presentatio n impairs the reading of the work

There is limited evidence of good academic practice, incoherent structure, referencing is inadequate and there are many significant presentational issues

There is some evidence of good academic practice, some coherence in the structure, referencing is largely adequate and there are many presentational issues

There is evidence of good academic practice, coherent structure, referencing is adequate and there are some presentational issues

There is evidence of good academic practice, good coherence and evolving narrative, referencing is good and there are few presentational issues

There is evidence of very good academic practice, very good structure and clear narrative, referencing is at a high standard and there are minimal presentational issues

There is evidence of excellent academic practice, excellent coherence and sophisticated narrative, referencing is at an exemplary standard and presentation is to a professional standard

__MACOSX/._MKT2010 - Marking Scheme - Semester 2 Assignment .pdf

MKT2010 - Semester 2 - Assignment 2 - 2018-19 FIN.pdf

MKT2010 – Assignment Brief Semester 2 - 2018-19

MKT2010 – Integrated and Digital Marketing Communications 2018-19

Semester 2 – Assignment Brief 2 (worth 50%)

(Semester 1 was also worth 50%)

Individual Essay of 2,000 words – hand in 17th May 2019 by 4pm

(1) Taking a brand of your choice, discuss and evaluate the use of Digital Marketing

Channels from this brand’s perspective (50%)

(2) Using this brand and the knowledge of the trends/tools that you have covered in

the module make recommendations for the brand’s future digital marketing

communications activity (25%)

(3) Illustrate your answer using appropriate examples, showing knowledge of other

brands and their digital marketing communication activities (20%)

You MUST answer parts 1-3 in your essay, the remaining 5% of the assessment will be

awarded for evidence of good academic practice, structure, writing and presentation. You

should read this assessment brief in conjunction with the Marking Rubric provided on

Blackboard (Bb).

Assessment General Guidelines

a) Assignments must be presented in the following format:

• A front page with identification of your name; student number; degree programme;

word count

• Accurate and properly cited referencing, using the Harvard referencing system

b) Word count:

What is and isn’t included?

 Tables; Figures (within the essay); reference list at end; appendices are NOT

included

 References cited within the essay are included e.g. (Thompson, 2018)

 The front page identifying student name/number; degree programme; word count

and organisation is excluded from the word count

MKT2010 – Assignment Brief Semester 2 - 2018-19

c) Other requirements:

A4; 12 font size; single or 1.5 spacing; 2.5cm margins

See FAQ under Bb for any additional queries regarding this assignment.

Extensions

No assignments will be accepted late unless an extension has been granted. See student

progress and PEC procedures for further information

www.ncl.ac.uk/students/progress/student-resources/help

Late submission

See our University Regulations. In brief any assignment handed in after the deadline will

receive a maximum of 40% and after 7 days 0%. (Unless an extension form has been

completed and granted – see PEC procedures). Please check it has uploaded successfully

and email Fiona Thompson (Interim Module Leader) and Andrew Wade (UG Admin) with the

file if you feel it will not upload by the 4pm deadline. Try to upload using Google Chrome as

your browser and if there are problems you should use a university computer on-site.

Computing problems

Print queue delays, queues at hand in etc. are NOT acceptable grounds for late submission.

Assignment Feedback will (normally) be returned within the 20 working day turnaround

period. In addition to the final mark; individual written feedback will indicate where marks

were allocated (or lost). Generic feedback will also be available via Bb.

Reassessment

Students who fail the full Module Assessment (Semester 1+2) will be required to resubmit

another assessment during the August resit period.

Any questions on this Semester 2 Assignment brief – please direct them to Fiona

Thompson – [email protected] who is the Interim Module Leader for Semester

2 rather than Michael or Katharine your Module Lecturers!

Many thanks in advance #teamwork! Good Luck! Fiona

__MACOSX/._MKT2010 - Semester 2 - Assignment 2 - 2018-19 FIN.pdf