Tag: social networking sites

Wine brands can influence emotional contagion (transferring of emotional states between peers) among consumer groups on social networks like Facebook and Instagram

Jacinta Gibson

Social Media, Communities and Networks

Key words: brand influence, emotional contagion, social networks, online customer service, brand communication.

Abstract

In recent history, social media has become a popular communication channel for wine brands. Platforms such as Facebook and Instagram allow wine producers to create content at a fraction of the production cost of traditional media-based content. That said, the investment of time needed to appropriately interact with consumers is much greater than the creation and approval of a traditional print advertisement. The return on social media investment is often a topic of debate, with many believing traditional media channels are still the most influential channels for consumer influence. In this paper, I plan to review some of the potential benefits for wine brands engaging in social network activity, to understand the influence their activity has amongst those whom can already be considered customers and those whom could be potential future customers.

Peer to peer recommendation is a key purchasing influencer within the wine market, so it is vital for wine brands to understand how online networks influence the dynamic of peer to peer recommendations. I will first review the impact Web 2.0 social platforms have had on today’s marketing mix, and this impact this has had on brand content and communication. Following this I will outline the convincing points found in literature that has studied emotional contagion in both physical and virtual environments, before concluding with opinion that wine brands can in fact influence emotional contagion among consumer groups on social networks.

Conceptual Background

The rise of social media networks has developed a new dynamic in marketing; applications such as Facebook and Instagram are now considered one of the more prevalent channels through which consumers can engage with brands in a dynamic, ubiquitous and often real-time way (Carvalho and Fernandes, 2018). Social media as defined by Kaplan and Haenlein (2010, p61) can be considered the “group of internet based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and it allows the creation and exchange of user-generated content”.  Social internet applications like Facebook have amplified the user-generated content participation rates amongst consumers as well as encouraged direct communication between brand and customers regardless of their physical location differences. This in turn has seen a lot of wine brands build online communities via their social media networks.

The dual content creation phenomenon of social media networks has changed the dynamic of the brand and consumer relationship and although various studies have reviewed the positive implications of brand communities, there has not been a lot of research done in the field of brand expression; the consideration of how the tone and emotion in which a brand expresses itself may or may not influence the behaviour of its online community.

Recent estimates suggest 1.4 billion people actively use Facebook daily, whilst Instagram has close to 800 million users (Statista, 2018). A consumer survey conducted by the Nielsen Company in 2012 found that approximately 1.2 billion people use the Facebook platform to follow brands with their main motivations being the desire to learn more about the brand or hear of othe people’s experiences with brands (Maecker et al 2016). Therefore, social network communities are now considered part of a brand’s audience commodity, viewed in the same light as those consumers whom read print media or watch television, that said; the distinct differences between the audience commodity on social networks at that of those consuming traditional mass media is the ability for user-generated content, direct brand to consumer personalised communication, community-building, and electronic word of mouth (eWOM) (Murugesan 2010).

The Nielsen Group’s 2012 survey also found that of the 28,000 consumer participants, 92% reported trusting word of mouth from friends and family, whilst 70% reported trusting online consumer reviews (Dijkmans et al 2015). These statistics demonstrate the value consumers put on peer to peer recommendations. It also highlights the fact that the majority of online users are willing to trust the opinion of a stranger that has taken the time to review a service or a brand, meaning their network of potential influencers increase well beyond those whom they personally know or are within their current social networks.

The prior point is critically important for wine brands as wine is a subjective consumer good, that is to say; it is often up to the individual’s taste preferences as to whether or not the product is enjoyable. It is also an experiential based product, closely linked to the experience consumers have when visiting wine regions and tasting the product in the producer’s cellar door. Therefore, once customers have purchased a bottle of wine or visited the cellar door, there is an opportunity to share their consumption experience via reviews, likes, rates and comments in a multitude of online applications including; social networks, retailer website and blogs to name a few. Regardless of the experience expressed, this post-purchase involvement helps others within their community to validate their opinions regarding specific wines. In this regard, social media engagement is acting as a platform to express eWOM and influence peer group opinions (Maecker et al 2016). Peer to peer recommendation is a key purchasing influencer within the wine market, so it is vital for wine brands to understand how online networks influence the dynamic of peer to peer recommendations.

Literature Review

Emotional contagion is a well-established field of study that acknowledges peer to peer emotional states can be transferred to one another, leading people to experience the same emotions as others in their network without their awareness (Kramer et al 2014). “Data from large real-world social networks collected over a 20 year period suggests that longer-lasting moods (e.g. depression and happiness) can be transferred through networks.” (Kramer etc al 2014 p. 1) Some commentators challenge the theory of emotional contagion due to the correlational nature of the study environment. They have concern that contextual variables or failure to account for the participants’ shared experiences, like emotional states after face to face social interactions, are not accurately reflected in the experimental results (Kramer et al 2014). To summarise in simplicity the findings of most studies, evidence suggests that both positive and negative moods correlate in networks that share personal interactions both verbal and non-verbal.

Far fewer studies have investigated emotional contagion via online social networks; however there have been three noteworthy, large sample size experiments conducted in recent years which have found some compelling evidence (Kramer et al 2014). The most noteworthy experiment was done in 2014 by Kramer, Guillory and Hancock, reviewing Facebook, the largest online social network in the world. They wanted to demonstrated the degree to which people (N= 689,003) that were exposed to manipulated emotional vocabularies in their news feed started to change their own posting behaviours, in particular whether exposure to emotional content led to people posting content that was consistent to that which they were exposed to (Kramer et al 2014). The outcomes of the research demonstrated three key findings that affirm the presence of emotional contagion through social networks:

The first significant finding was that emotional contagion does occur via text-based computer facilitated communication. This is significant for brands because it means that text written by marketing teams has the ability to impact emotional contagion, a human being in the flesh is not required for such effect.

The second substantial finding was that psychological and physiological qualities via contagion have been suggested, based on correlational data form social networks. This second finding needs to be considered by content marketeers as the tone and imagery used to create brand content is now demonstrated to have emotional implications for their audience. It also means that regular user generated content could have the ability to influence psychological and physiological change in the posters’ social network.  Also linked to this point and found to be the third critical finding was that; people’s emotional expression via posting online predicts their friend’s emotional expressions, with some of these behaviours still being articulated days later.

An interesting point from the Kramer study for wine brands to consider is that the manipulated news feed content was not directed towards any single individual, therefore, it could not just be the result of some specific interaction with a happy or sad friend but rather a result of the general tone of the samples’ news feed (Kramer et al 2014).

Whilst the results of the Kramer study are very compelling due to the sample size and conclusive findings, other research conducted (Chou & Edge 2012; Haferkamp & Kramer 2011; Saugioglou & Greitemeyer 2014) suggests positive posts by others have negative effects on mood due to envy and the feeling that others have a better life. A study conducted by Dian de Vries et al (2017) focused specifically on Instagram and found that whilst the viewing of strangers’ positive posts did have some degree of negative effect on the participants of the study, there was also a noteworthy link between their reaction to strangers’ posts and that individual’s tendency to participate in social comparison orientation regularly regardless of the environment. The study also found that individuals who do not tend to compare themselves to others had positive emotional responses to viewing strangers’ positive content (de Vries et al 2017). Whilst these results do not provide a definitive answer to the impact of either positive or negative emotional effect, they do support the theory that individuals do adopt emotions expressed by others and support the theory that emotional contagion can occurs through viewing others’ social media posts.

Social media platforms now play a substantial role in the communication channel mix for wine brands. Facebook and Instagram allow wine producers to create content at a fraction of the production cost of traditional media based content, however; the investment of time needed to appropriately interact with consumers is much greater.  These communities require continuous monitoring and engagement to ensure brands meet the expectation of their customers who choose to engage with them in the social media context. Online brand communities have a different dynamic to online friendship communities, although there is little literature available to clearly differentiate the two. De Valck et al (2009 p.185) defines online brand communities as “a specialised, non-geographical bound, online community, based on social communications and relationships among a brand’s consumers.”

Consumer engagement or the degree to which an audience engages with a brand’s content is often central to the discussion surrounding these online brand communities (Brodie et al 2013). These terms refer to a participants’ interactions or interactive experiences with the brand via its’ online communities and are considered to be value creating. As Brodie explains, “consumer engagement is seen both as a strategic imperative for establishing and sustaining a competitive advantage, and as a valuable predictor of future business performance.” (p105) The quality of engagement can also be reviewed by analysis the cognitive and behaviour aspects of consumers. Wine brands can analyse to what extent consumers are aware of, interested in and participate in particular brands’ activities. Within the virtual brand community environment, consumers’ become active participants in an interactive process of multiple feedback loops as well as provide almost immediate communication directly to the brand owner or amongst their other online networks (Roderick et al 2013). A study completed in 2015 by Dijkmans, Beukeboom and Kerkhof found “that engagement in company’s social media activities positively related to corporate reputation, especially among non-consumers.” (p64) Significantly, it was found that some of this reputation building was the result of emotional contagion. A survey conducted by Insites Consulting in 2012 found that 55% of participants were connected to brands via their social networks with the majority of eWOM content being positive commentary and less than 10% negative (InSites Consulting 2012). Insites Consulting also found that 8/10 consumers that were driven to interact with a particular brand did so as they wanted to co-create with the company they admired. Brodie et al (2013) also found this to be a key consumer motivator along with 7 other specific situations that motivate consumers to make contributions: (1) venting negative feelings, (2) concern for other consumers, (3) self-enhancement, (4) advice seeking, (5) social benefits, (6) economic benefits (cost saving), (7) platform assistance (8) helping the company (making co-contribution to better the offering). Gwinner et al 2004 also found similar motivators, stating that:

“our review of the literature has led us to suggest 11 distinct motivations consumers may have in engaging in eWOM communication on Web-based opinion platforms: concerns for other consumers, desire to help the company, social benefits received, exertion of power over companies, post purchase advice seeking, self-enhancement, economic rewards, convenience, seeking redress, hope that the platform operator will serve as a moderator, expression of positive emotion, and venting of negative feelings.” (p 44)

Often content posted by a brand will have a positive tone of voice and encourage a positive consumer response. In contrast to this, often content that is initially posted by consumers can be negatively directed towards a brand due a bad customer experience. In the Dijkmans et al 2015 study the results indicated that the net effect is actually positive regardless of the initial emotion if the company responds to the consumer’s complaint via the social network. Dijkmans work found that prompt customer service responses that solved problems, regardless of the initial complaint, helped to strengthen the perception of the brand more so than no activity at all. This result correlates with other studies (Van Noort and Willemsen 2011) that also found responding to customer complaints on social media help other potential customer evaluate the brands’ credibility.

Literature Findings

The literature read unanimously concludes that emotional contagion via virtual social communities does exist, yet the influence of these emotions (either positive or negative) is still a topic of much debate. Despite this, wine brands should be vigilant towards online networks as content relating to their brand will be posted regardless of the brand’s online presence; and whilst the content may or may not have positive intent, there is a window of opportunity for a wine brand to engage with the customers and influence the tone of voice that is present within the online community.

Customer service management is paramount when it comes to building positive emotion behind a brand as regardless of the brands’ page interactions or the ability to proactively resolve questions and concerns, the fact customers have chosen to engage in “real” dialogue with the brand helps to lower the customers inhibition threshold to contact the company via other channels, strengthening the engagement opportunity outside of the virtual realm (Maecker et al 2016). In addition to this, the post purchase behaviour of consumers online helps other potential customers to validate their opinions  (Maecker et al 2016) in this regard, social media interactions become a great tool for improving a wine brands’ reputation via word of mouth, which prospective customers receive product information from trusted sources in their social network.

It is evident that building dual content via online networks should be encouraged by marketing teams in order to achieve greater consumer engagement. Achieving high levels of consumer engagement is desirable for wine brands as it enhances the brand’s reputation, increases customer loyalty and influences future purchase decisions of current customers and potential customers (Dijkmans et al 2015).

The literature indicates that the time invested in social media interaction amongst online brand communities does indeed strengthen a brand’s credibility, reduces the risk of churn, builds reputation amongst potential customers and in turn, generates more profitable consumer relationships. It also indicates that there is opportunity for wine brands to influence emotional contagion amongst consumer groups on Facebook, but the literature and research to date does not support this for Instagram. The effect of emotional contagion on the Instagram platform requires additional research before brands can make truly informed decisions around investment of marketing resources.

 

References

Brodie, Roderick J., Llic, Ana., Juric, Biljana., & Hollebeek Linda. (2013) Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: an exploratory analysis, Journal of Business Research 66, 105 – 114.

Carvalho, Ameliz. & Fernandes, Teresa. (2018) Understanding customer brand engagement with virtual social communities: a comprehensive model of drivers, outcomes and moderators, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 26: 1-2, 23-37.

Chou, H. & Edge, N. (2012) They are happier and having better lives than I am: the impact of using Facebook on perceptions of others’ lives, Journal of Cyber-psychology, Behaviour, and Social Networking, 15, 117-121.

De Vries, D.,  Möller, A., Wieringa, M., Eigenraam, A. & Hamelink, K. (2018) Social Comparison as the theft of joy: emotion consequences of viewing strangers’ instagram posts,  Media Psychology, 21:2, 222-245.

Dijkman, C., Beukeboom, C, & Kerkhof, P.  (2015) A stage to engage: social media use and corporate reputation, Tourism Management 47, 58-67.

Haferkamp, N. & Kràmer, N. (2011) Social comparison 2.0: examining the effects of online profiles on social networking sites, Journal of Cyber-psychology, Behaviour, and Social Networking 14, 309-314.

Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, P., Walsh, G. & Gremler, D.  (2004) Electronic-word-of-mouth via consumer opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the internet? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18, 38-52.

InSites Consulting (2012) Social media around the world, retrieved from  https://www.slideshare.net/InSitesConsulting/social-media-around-the-world-2012-by-insites-consulting/17-Clear_expectations_fromconsumers_visvis_brands1

Kaplan, A. & Haenlein, M. (2010) Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media, Business Horizons, 53 (10), 59-68.

Kramer, A., Guillory, J. and Hancock, J.  (2014) Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks, Journal of Psychological and Cognitive Sciences, 111 (24): 8788-8790.

Maecker, O.,  Barrot, C. & Becker, J. (2016) The effect of social media interactions on customer relationship management, Journal of Business Research 9: 133-155.

Murugesan, S. (2010) Handbook of research on web 2.0, 3.0 and X.0 technologies, business and social applications, Multimedia University, Malaysia & University of Western Sydney, Australia.

Noort, G. and Willemsen, L. (2011) Online damage control: the effects of proactive versus reactive web care interventions in consumer-generated and brand-generated platforms, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 1-10.

Sagioglou, C. and Greitemeyer, T. (2014) Facebook’s emotional consequences: why Facebook causes a decrease in mood and why people still use it, Journal of Computers in Human Behaviour, 35, 359-363.

Valck, D.,  Bruggen, V., and Wierenga, B.  (2009) Virtual communities: a marketing perspective. Decision Support Systems 47, 185 – 203.

Statista (2017) Number of daily active Facebook users worldwide as of 4th quarter 2017, retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/346167/facebook-global-dau/

LiveJournal’s use of anonymity and its place in online social networks

LiveJournal’s use of anonymity and its place in online social networks

Rachel M.Winship

Curtin University

Abstract

 

This paper sheds light on blogging social network site (SNS) LiveJournal, which has been operating since 1999. It was one of the first popular mainstream blogging services which focused on replicating diary entries. While originally popularised in the United States, LiveJournal is now currently most popular throughout Russia. It does operate in other countries but for the purpose of this paper, the focus will be on Russia. The specific age group being referred to throughout this paper is youth/teens. I argue that LiveJournal’s mainstream success is due to the fact that its users have always had the option to be anonymous and operate under pseudonyms instead of real names. The absence of real names allows for online identity play through blog posts and interactions within the LiveJournal online community.

Introduction

Technology is woven tightly throughout our lives in the 21st century and has changed how we live them. As leading psychologist Sherry Turkle says “through technology, we create, navigate, and perform our emotional lives” (Turkle, 2011). “Some of the largest changes we are facing as a society are cultural, changes to our social world and the way we interact with one another” (Levitin, 2014, p.120). We now do a large percentage of interpersonal communication with people in our lives through online platforms. We create our identity now not only face to face with people but online in social networks as well. Figuring out our place of identity in these social networks allows experimentation (Pearson, 2009). Offline when creating identity you might hold back parts of yourself in case of face to face rejection. While online in social networks, you have the option in most cases of anonymity in creating a pseudonym. Social nework site platforms provide areas which are disembodied mediated and controllable, and through which alternate performances can be displayed to others (Pearson 2009).  Freindster popularised the features that define social network sites – profiles, public testimoials or comments, and publicly articulated, traverable lists of friends. (boyd, 2007, p.4) On social network site (SNS) platforms the online performative space is a deliberately playful space (Pearson, 2009). “The fluidity and self-concious platforms of performance allow individuals and networks of users to play with aspects of their presentations of self, and the relationship of those online selves to others without inadvertently risking privacy” (Pearson, 2009). Communities are a social group of any size whose members reside in a specific locality, share government, and often have a common cultural and historical heritage (Dictionary.com, 2018). Online or vitual communities are a group of people who interact via internet Web sites, chat rooms, newsgroups, email, discussion boards, or forum (Dictionary.com, 2018). Online worlds provide rich grounds for experimentation with identity, and falsification is not uncommon; 25 percent of teen boys and 30 percent of teen girls say they have posted false information about themselves online, most commonly their age (Reed, 2014). LiveJournal is one social network platform that encourages anonymity in creating a pseudonyms. The SNS is an originally American and now Russian social networking service that allows users to keep a blog, journal or diary (LiveJournal, 2018). The option of anonymity on blog platform LiveJournal, can protect users security while enabling them to participate freely in the online social network (Nagel & Frith, 2015).

 LiveJournal and the history of blogging 

LiveJournal essentially looks and works much like other blogging sites, where the entry or posts made by the journal owner are arranged in chronological order (Raynes-Goldie, 2004). There is a link to leave and read comments for each post, where the user can read comments left (Raynes-Goldie, 2004). One of the appealing aspects which sets liveJournal apart from other blogging services is the users profile page. Every user has a journal, username and profile page (Raynes-Goldie, 2004). The profile page is where the user can input things like their interests, profile picture, contact information, etc (Raynes-Goldie, 2004). The profile picture does not have to be an exact photo of the person, which is one way they can choose anonymity. Another way they can choose to be anonymous is through their username. Unlike Facebook, whose terms and conditions require their users to use their real name, LiveJournal allows their users to choose their online identity. This is an appealing feature for people who may want more than one online identity in fear of things such as; security, judgement or scrutiny about their journal entries or interactions, from friends, family or people they know offline. By creating a profile, LiveJournal allows its users to link their blogs and identities together so that they can create and build reputations based on their journals as well as their comments and networks of friends (Raynes-Goldie, 2004). Services such as LiveJournal allow their users to specify who their “friends” are, and thus a social network is formed (MacKinnon & Warren, 2007).

LiveJournal was created in April 1999, by an American programmer named Brad Fitzpatrick. He created it as a way of keeping his friends up to date with his daily activities (LiveJournal, 2018). It reached immediate popularity and success which meant that it also became more than just one person could handle to operate (LiveJournal, 2018). There were other mainstream social networking sites around the first few years of LiveJournal’s service, like Friendster and then Myspace, but the premise of them was a little different to LiveJournal. With Friendster there was a heavier focus on meeting friends “on the premise that people were separated by six degrees” (CBS News). This was a feature that showed how you were connected to strangers and made meeting people less intimidating (CBS News). On Myspace, which is where many people from Friendster migrated to, they were known for customizable profiles, band pages and portraying who your top eight friends are. Whereas LiveJournal’s aim was and still is to blur the lines between blogging and social networking (LiveJournal, 2018). According to their own website LiveJournal is “home to a wide array of creative individuals looking to share common interests, meet new friends, and express themselves. LiveJournal encourages communal interaction and personal expression by offering a user-friendly interface and a deeply customizable journal” (LiveJournal, 2018).

Over the last two decades, the rapid adoption of social network sites had scholars begin to study their importance among teens and young adults (boyd, 2007, p.1). As boyd pointed out in an article, a large part of why many teens may use social networks is due to restrictions on access to public life that make it difficult for young people to be socialised into society at large (boyd, 2007, p.19). Restrictions on acess to public life may come from their parents or adults around them who believe that restrictions are necessary to prevent problematic behaviours (boyd, 2007, p.19). boyd argues that while social interaction can and does take place in private environments, the challenges of social interaction in public life is a part of what help youth grow (boyd, 2007, p.19). Boyd says “American society has a very peculiar relationship to teenagers – and children in general. They are simultaneously idealised and demonized; adults fear them but they also seek to protect them.  On the one hand, there has been a rapid rise in curfew legislation to curb teen violence and loitering laws are used to bar teens from hanging out on street corners, parking lots, or other outdoor meeting places for fear of the trouble they might cause. On the other hand, parents are restricting their youth fom hanging out in public spaces for fear of predators, drug dealers, and gangs. Likewise, while adults spend countless hours socializing over alcohol, minors are not oonly restricted from drinking but also from socializing in many venues where alcohol is served” (boyd, 2007, p.19). With an ongoing culture of fear surrounding youth behaviour, the end result is youth having little access to public spaces (boyd, 2007, p.19). The following statement provides insight into boyd’s argument with an example from fifteen year old Traviesa; “My [guardian] is really strict so if I get to go anywhere, it’s a big miracle. So I talk to people on MySpace…I know she means well, I know she doesn’t want me to mess up. But sometimes you need to mess up to figure out that you’re doing it wrong. You need mistakes to know where you’re going. You need to figure things out for yourself” (boyd, 2007, p.19). A main motivation for users of online social networks is that it is a space which their parents or authoritative figures usually aren’t aware of. They are spaces where they can explore, socialize and express themselves exploring their identities. 

Dear Diary: Community and LiveJournal

A diary is known to be a safe space for most, a place where a person can articulate their private thoughts and define their position in relation to others and the world at large (Dijck, 2004). Before people expressed their thoughts online, diary entires would probably only be read by another person if they had a close relationship. With the shift of sharing private interpersonal conversations, it is natural that a population of people online would want to share something deeper than what the testimonial and comment sections of Friendster and Myspace offered. For people who craved somewhere that they could share their thoughts, feelings, creativity and still function as their own version of a “community” (Lindemann, 2006). Although users may not use their real names and opt to use a pseudonym, the sentiments expressed through users comments on another users diary entry doesn’t make them any less valid. As Kurt Lindemann states “often, a communicatively artistic journal entry can make a reader feel personally connected to the author” (Lindemann, 2006, p.357). Before platforms like LiveJournal, communities involved in blogging were not likely to be very large or accessible to everyone because blogging required considerable technical skill and patience (Raynes-Goldie, 2004). Now with platforms like LiveJournal, blogging is easily accessible. LiveJournal is not restricted to blogging functions, but also integrates community tools in its functions, creating an online social network (Raynes-Goldie, 2004).

Identity and anonymity debate

There has been much debate between not only scholars but tech companies, who embrace what has been called the “real name” internet, versus those who embrace anonymity. Most of the debate about anonymity versus real names focuses on two related areas: trolling and safety (Van Der Nagel & Firth, 2015). Because the early internet sites relied almost solely on textual cues, there was little attempt to fix identity to one’s body (Van Der Nagel & Firth, 2015).  Whereas LiveJournal exists in an internet era where many internet users are faced with the decision of how they want to portray themselves online. If they present their offline identity, including their real name and photo, they may not be able to fully express or engage with different identities for fears of “context collapse” that come with using “real names” (Van Der Nagel & Firth, 2015). Context collapse is when “social media technologies collapse multiple audiences into single contexts, making it difficult for people to use the same techniques online that they do to handle multiplicity in face-to-face conversation (Marwick & boyd, 2011). Another definition of context collapse is that broadly, it refers to how people, information, and norms from one context seep into the bounds of another (Davis & Jurgeson, 2014, p.477). Social psychologists argue that we come to know ourselves by seeing what we do and how others react to us, and that through interaction, we seek to maintain the identity meanings associated with each role (Davis & Jurgeson, 2014, p.478). Within Socia Media platforms, a persons diverse networks have the potential to converge into a single mass, requireing the user to have all of their identities engaging simultaneously with family, colleages, and drinking buddies, each of whom harbours different views of who the actor is, and different interactional and performative expectations.  (Davis & Jurgeson, 2014, p. 478).

Scholars such as Bernie Hogan and danah boyd have argued that pseudonymity can protect users’ security while enabling them to participate freely online without the fears of “context collapse” which comes with using real names (Van Der Nagel & Firth, 2015). Hogan’s example explores the benefits of pseudonymity when he writes about a woman wanting to write ideologically on a blog but may not want her role as a supposedly objective Wikipedia editor to be damaged by her other, less neutral writings (Van Der Nagel & Firth, 2015). His argument is that someone can be both a liberal writer and a neutral editor who follows wikipedia’s rules; one aspect of the self is not more “authentic” than another (Van Der Nagel & Firth, 2015). Expanding on this idea, if a woman was to have dinner or go out with friends, her conversation or presentation of self might be very different to the one she portrays to her family the next day. People in day to day life present different versions of themselves which are bound to that situation or context. Perhaps the most powerful point in the decision to segment one’s online identity is that it becomes a safe and secure place to discuss complex and controversial issues (Van Der Nagel & Firth, 2015). For example Gay youths who cannot come out to their offline community may want to find people to talk to on blogging or social networking sites. Another example is teachers who may want a public-facing profile but also want privacy as they interact on other sites (Van Der Nagel & Firth, 2015). Government or other public service job employees may also want the privacy of interacting on other sites. Others may want to engage in niche communities on sites like Reddit without their Facebook friends knowing; and many people want to share political views without impacting their careers (Van Der Nagel & Firth, 2015). Danah boyd, is one of the most prominent academic critics of the argument that the “real name”  internet  makes online activity safer. On the contrary she believes that “real name policies aren’t empowering; they’re an authoritarian assertion of power over vulnerable people” (boyd, 2011). Boyd points out that there are many viable reasons to segment one’s identity online that have nothing to do with harassing people or acting uncivilly in the comments sections.

Trolling and doxing 

Of course the flip side of all the good that comes with anonymity is the fact that there is room for trolling. Trolling is something which will not be going away anytime soon, and that has been around at least as long as people have been communicating on the internet (Van Der Nagel & Firth, 2015). Trolling is when people intentionally post content designed to incite an emotional reaction in its audience (Van Der Nagel & Firth, 2015). Trolling is generally a main point of contention for people who support the real name movement on the internet. People who support the real name movement claim that by doing so it is a proactive way to minimise trolls. However trolls still find ways to exist and be seen implying that attempting to force users to use real names still results in the unwanted trolls. Their aim is to be provocative and attempt to be shocking, agrue with users and engage in being verbally abusive. More advanced form of trolling has advanced to what is called doxing. This phenomenon involves groups of anonymous or pseudonymous users researching an individual and then publishing identifiable facts about that person. (Van Der Nagel & Firth, 2015) People claim this is for social good, exposing information about people involved in certain things someone else may not agree with. However people do this act for things that they decide is against a belief they hold.

Conclusion 

As discussed in this paper, the option of anonymityon the blog platform LiveJournal, can protect users security while enabling them to participate freely in the online social network (Van Der Nagel & Frith, 2015). Although there is a current debate between the “real name” internet versus anonymity of internet users, through the use of anonymity on LiveJournal, people are able to protect their offline identities, while expressing themselves on the platform. A user is at risk for context collapse if they only use their real name when on SNS platforms. LiveJournal’s use of anonymity create’s a space where there is little risk of context collapse. Users of the LiveJournal service are able to be vulnerable and socially connected with each other while still protecting any sensitive information shared online. The users are also empowered by who they choose to share their information with, as they can make their journal entries private or share with users of their choosing.

References

Boyd, D. (2007). Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Learning Youth, Identity, and Digital Media Volume.Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.

Levitin J. D. (2014). The Organized mind: Thinking Straight in the Age of Information Overload. 2014

Davis, J., & Jurgenson, N. (2013). Context collapse: theorizing context collusions and collisions. Information, Communication & Society. 476-485.  https://www-tandfonline-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.1080/1369118X.2014.888458?needAccess=true 

Diaz, C., Troncoso, C., & Serjantov, A. (2008, July). On the impact of social network profiling on anonymity. In International Symposium on Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium44-62. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. 

Dijck, J. V. (2004). FCJ-012 Composing the Self: Of Diaries and Lifelogs. The Fibreculturejournal. Digital Media + Networks + Transdiciplinary Critique. Issue 3. University of Amsterdam. http://three.fibreculturejournal.org/fcj-012-composing-the-self-of-diaries-and-lifelogs/

Freitas, D. The Happiness Effect: How Social Media is Driving a Generation to appear

Greenall, R. (2012). LiveJournal: Russia’s unlikely internet giant. BBC News.  

Hill, K. (2011). Digital Anthropologist. https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2011/0228/focus-danah-boyd-ethnographer-facebook-digital-anthropologist.html#30b4d2d77866

Johansson, E. (2014). Blogging in Russia: The blog platform LiveJournal as a professional tool for Russian journalists. Baltic Worlds, 7(2-3), 27-36.

Koltsova, O., & Koltcov, S. (2013). Mapping the public agenda with topic modeling: The case of the Russian livejournal. Policy & Internet, 5(2), 207-227.

Lindemann, K. (2005). Live (s) online: Narrative performance, presence, and community in LiveJournal.com.Text and Performance Quarterly, 25(4), 354-372.

LiveJournal FAQ: How did LiveJournal get started? Who runs it now?. Retrieved April 2018  https://www.livejournal.com/support/faq/4.html 

MacKinnon, I., & Warren, R. H. (2007). Age and geographic inferences of the LiveJournal social network. In Statistical Network Analysis: Models, Issues, and New Directions(pp. 176-178). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Marwick, A. E & boyd, d. (2011). I Tweet Honestly, I Tweet Passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media Society.13. 114-133.

McLellan, K. V. (2006). “LiveJournal is a Conversation With the World”: An examination of the effects of interpersonal communication on personal blogging. Unpublished master thesis, University of Chicago.

Pearson, E. (2009). All the World Wide Web’s a stage: The performance of identity in online social networks. First Monday.14(3).http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2162/2127

Pearson, E. (2010). Making a good (virtual) first impression: The use of visuals in online impression management and creating identity performances. In What kind of information society? Governance, virtuality, surveillance, sustainability, resilience (pp. 118-130). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Sherry, T. (2011). Alone Together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. http://alonetogetherbook.com 

Shmatikov, V. (2011). Anonymity is not privacy: technical perspective. Communications of the ACM,54(12), 132-132.

Then and now: a history of social networking sites. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/then-and-now-a-history-of-social-networking-sites/4/

Conflict, Authenticity and Deception: The Impact of Trolls on Communities and Networks

Abstract

This paper will discuss how identities within technologically mediated communication channels have drastically impacted communication between online community members. This communication failure has resulted in conflicts within online communication sites, such as Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Twitter. This paper discusses the lack in social capital which will eventuate in conflict and friction within an online community. The focus on identities highlight the differences that are perceived by other community members including trolls by utilising examples such as the Madeline McCann case and the Australian Republic Movement. These differences are based on interpersonal comparisons reflecting past experiences in dealing with all aspects of authenticity and deception.

 

Keywords: Conflict, social network, identity, community, authenticity, deception, social capital.

 

Introduction

Conflict is applicable in all forms of communication, both online and offline, which often stem from within a form of a community. Typically, this conflict is due to a clash of identities with individuals or group of identities in specific community, were levels of support differs from community members. Communities are defined as a group of people that depend on social involvement and communication. (Katz et al., 2004, p. 217) This is evident through the traditional face-to-face discussions most commonly used today or alternatively through an internet-mediated communication channel, such as Facebook Messenger, Instagram or YouTube. But either way, conflict is inevitable within communities where identities express member opinions over a thread of time or a subject matter. This paper will argue that the lack of social capital will create conflict (friction) in an online community from identities that are empowered by community member differences through online communities. These differences are based on interpersonal comparisons reflecting past experiences within the aspects of authenticity and deception with a focus on trolls within social media.

 

Expression of Identity on Social Media

Before we dive deeper into how conflict manifests through social media and trolling. Jensen based his media definition as the “socially formed resources that enable human beings to articulate an understanding of reality, and to engage in communications about it with others” (2008, p.45). This definition best describes the differences in traditional communications whereas digital interactions utilises modern technology mediated devices enabling online communications. With this understanding, it is essential to note that the main difference between offline and online communities is that online communities are not bound by geographical locations and are asynchronous. Some communities are started offline with face-to-face contact and then precede to move online, a common example would be a group chat through Facebook messenger. This community is formed offline in a social physical space, which then moved online for convenience and accessibility before meeting offline again. Sole online communities, in comparison are formed without any face-to-face contact and communication is sent to multiple members, often being instantaneous, resulting in zero-time delay between messages. These online communities have no intention of progressing offline to remain anonymous and create their own performed identity.

A large majority of these online communities are commonly held on Web 2.0 platforms. Boyd and Elision define social networking sites as “web-based services that allow individuals to; construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system; articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection; and view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system” (2007, p.4). Social networking sites such as Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn, allows ‘friends’ that embodies a weaker bond in a relationship between members. Hence the membership process of a social networking site, members have an opportunity to protect their personal interest by not disclosing informative data on their profile. These social networking sites in the main do not verify any information, reinforcing the view that a members ‘online self’ may be different to their ‘actual self’. This process provides choices for members to participate within an online community, creating an opportunity for friction or conflict to arise.

Online community membership grants you several choices in order to express a non-verbal expression; whether the message remains authentic or deceptive about your identity online. Within these communities, members can remain individualistic within a group or provide support to other group members which requires time or expertise in the online community. Jensen (2011) defines this choice of social interactions as relations of availability, accessibility and performativity. That is “What is known……? Who knows what……? and Who says and does what – in relation to whom?” (Jensen, 2011, p.50). As an example, conflict may can stem from the use of Facebook to market an event, where the invitee loses control with unexpected attendees via mass communication to unintended participants. This concept underpins the notion that our online identity comes with a choice.

Further Pearson states that “Online, users can claim to be whoever they wish. Like actors playing a role, they can deliberately choose to put forth identity cues or claims of self that can closely resemble or wildly differ from reality” (2009, p. 1). Pearson then goes one to argue that our identity is like a performance, everchanging to suit the situation, meaning that our identity is not fixed at any point in time, but is instead a fluid construct that is evolving into what we deem appropriate. A key concept to this argument is that members of an online community may hide their true identity in full or part, where misaligned intentions can create conflict within an online community. This concept may lead to conflicts within social networks as it opens the door to deceptive conduct within the community, disturbing the flow of interaction (Coles & West, 2016).

 

Identity and the Community

A key feature of a community is that it must itself have a sense of identity, which are known to the members within the community (Kendall, 2011). Furthermore a community itself “confers identity and participant identities also play an important part in the formation and continuation of communities” (Kendall, 2011, p.318). From the above quotes, it can be applied that members may not contain similar knowledge and attitudinal elements of a ‘real community’ but in fact be dissimilar. This contradiction as described by Kendall (2011), directly relates to online communities – where conflict and/or friction between members may arise. Further, members are concerned about the ability of a community to mask their identity, which can relate to whether a participant is authentic or deceptive while engaging online. This was evident in the case of Madeline McCann where communities clashed over the parent’s involvement her disappearance. These communities were recognised as either Anti-McCann’s or Pro-McCann’s. These groups clashed over twitter, creating friction and conflict between the participants, that lead to different group identities within the one community. Both identities used emotive language to enhance their identities while at the same time strengthening the divide between the two groups (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017).

Emotional baggage held by group members can also lead to different identities that share common threads in the most part but be polar opposite on other views. This is particularly most noticeable with identifiers such as a person race and gender (Kendall, 2011). Donath raises the point that “knowing the identity of those with whom you communicate is essential for understanding and evaluating an interaction” (1999, p.1) particularly where the evaluation outcome is subjective. This was demonstrated with the differing opinions on how the Republic Movement in Australia provided alternative methods to select their head of state, appointment versus election (Charnock, 2001). Kendall (2011, p.318) further stated that group members can “mask their identity, or to present a deliberately deceptive identity”, to notionally benefit their members where they feel best represents themselves, authentic or not. As in the Republic Movement, the perception bias of this selection can create friction and prevent the movement progressing within the political online community.

 

Social Capital

It is important to consider the level of social capital required to create and maintain any social network. Figure 1, as shown in the Appendix represents a framework for the creation and maintenance of online communities is grounded on sociological and information technology concepts (Vivian & Sudweeks, 2003). The framework demonstrates the connection between social spaces, social capital and identity for members in the social formation of relationships. Overall social capital can be beneficial to online communities as it creates trust and honesty between members, which is vital for the survival of the online community. Eklinder-Frick, Eriksson & Hallén (2015, p.2) defines social capital as a “resource in society, where it is associated with trust and social cohesion”. Even with idiosyncratic opinions – online communities can thrive as long as trust and honesty prevails in the community. However as stated by Annen (2003, p.451) social capital is described “as a player’s reputation for being cooperative within a social network”, where any conflict within this framework can only assume the greater good will be accepted from members in determining the final outcome. But unfortunately, this is not likely to occur where cooperation is required and not forthcoming in communities where controlling behaviours from individuals does not conform to typical norms. A lack of cooperation will further discourage trust and create conflict / friction with differing knowledge and attitudinal elements over time. This is reinforced by Annen (2003) where control over a community is only developed over time and through regular communications. A lack of participation by members due to conflict will lead to poor online community performance.

 

Authenticity

When members participate in online communities, a conflict or friction situation is bound to occur given the membership process for social networking sites, even if the members are being authentic to themselves. This is due to the fact that every member’s idiosyncratic opinion originates from distinct cultural backgrounds and past experiences. According to Buendgens-Kosten, authenticity in its broadest sense is “related to the notions of realness or trueness to origin” (2014, p.1) and is referenced to the characterisation of language to the quality of text (spoken or written). So, while it is important to remain authentic to one’s self while participating in online communication sites, it is critical to remain cautious to the dangers of the internet as it is related to members cultural backgrounds and limiting the amount of identity performance taken place. This is done in a hope to avoid being characterised as a troll, who are aggressive, disruptive and deceitful (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017).

 

Deception

Social networking sites also allows for fake accounts to be created, where impersonation between members can occur with no mechanism to actualise the authentic identity. Regrettably, indirect trust is assumed for social networking sites without any verification. This deceitful tactic is most commonly known as catfishing, where one individual lures someone into a relationship through a false or factious persona. This is a downfall of online communities with no way to authenticate your identity within these communities. This idea of social caption and trust are closely linked as deceitful communication tactics represents a lack of social capital, allowing the likes of trolls and catfishes to “create conflict for amusements sake” (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017, p.76) which further reinforces the need for members to protect their identity online. As an example, Stone (1992), shows a woman who was supposedly talking to a ‘fully disabled old lady’ named ‘Julie’, who in actual fact turned out to be a “middle aged male psychiatrist” who simply wanted to talk to other women as a woman (Stone, 1992, p.2). In this case while the intent was not malicious the tactic demonstrate deception, mis-trust and potential conflict.

Deception can also be found in social networks through the concept of trolling. This is where someone pretends to be a genuine member of a community, by sharing the passion and identity of a group, but then deliberately attempts to “disrupt the community by baiting participants” (Kendall, 2011, 319). Baiting is the process in which a member of the online community deliberately posts to anger or disrespect other members of the community. The consequences of such trolling, as stated by Donath (1999, p.71) is that; “Trolls can be costly in several ways. A troll can disrupt the discussion on a newsgroup, disseminate bad advice, and damage the feeling of trust in the newsgroup community.” Furthermore, in an online community that has become sensitised to trolling “the rate of deception is high – many honestly naive questions may be quickly rejected as trollings” (Donath, 1999, p.71). This extract reinforces the damage that trolls can have on a online community, but also the level of conflict or friction that can arise between the troll and the impacted existing members.

Trolling is a common problem today with some serious cases punished by criminal conviction, however these consequences are the exception rather than the rule (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017). This has resulted in the spreadability of trolling, which has in the majority been unpoliced. The increase in trolling has followed the rise in social media networks, with the number of social network users purported to be 2.46 billion as of 2017 (Statista, 2018). With this significant statistic, it’s only a matter of time before conflict rises between users, with social capital and trust being eroded from online communities. An example of trolling was evident in the aftermath of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in 2007. This case saw a group of trolls on twitter, under pseudonyms, posting about how the parents were responsible for the abduction of their daughter (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017). These tweets were often “abusive and antagonistic and are also known to engage in verbal attacks against anyone who takes to Twitter to support the McCanns” (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017, p.71). The consequences of trolling through online communities, can often lead to the polarisation of beliefs, attitudes and values amongst the community, making trolling not only unpleasant but also very unethical where it has the ability to cause great harm (Coles & West, 2016). The actions of trolling has the potential to generate vast amounts of conflict and friction with communities, which can span years. This is evident in the McCann case with the hashtag on twitter receiving 100 tweets every hour (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017). Deception and indirect trust are key concerns for members within online communities today, without a foundation of authenticity.

 

Conclusion

This paper discussed the key elements that formed the creation and maintenance of online communities which highlighted the importance of identities, social capital and the relationships built in the social formation of an online community. With these concepts, frameworks and constructs, I have argued that conflict and or friction can apply in all forms of online communities where authenticity is non-existent. This conflict is substantially due to the expression of idiosyncratic opinions within communities that impact community identities over a thread of time and subject. This paper argues that the lack in social capital will create conflict and friction where differences exist in attitudes between members on the basis of past experiences in dealing with the all aspects of authenticity and deception.

 

 

Appendix

Figure 1: A conceptual framework for the creation and maintenance of social networks (Vivian & Sudweeks, 2003).

 

 

References

Annen, K. (2003). Social capital, inclusive networks, and economic performance. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 50(4), 449-463. doi:10.1016/S0167-2681(02)00035-5

Baym, N. K. (2011). Social Networks 2.0. In M. Consalvo & C. Ess (Eds.), The Handbook of Internet Studies (pp. 385-405). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x

Buendgens-Kosten, J. (2014). Authenticity. ELT J., 68(4), 457-459. doi:10.1093/elt/ccu034

Coles, B. A., & West, M. (2016). Trolling the trolls: Online forum users constructions of the nature and properties of trolling. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 233-244. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.070

Charnock, D. (2001). National identity, partisanship and populist protest as factors in the 1999 Australian republic referendum. Australian Journal of Political Science, 36(2), 271-291. doi:doi:10.1080/10361140120078826

 

Donath, J. (1999). Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community. In P. Kollock, & M. A. Smith (Eds.), Communities in Cyberspace (pp. 29-59). New York: Routledge.
http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html

Eklinder-Frick, J., Eriksson, L. T., & Hallén, L. (2015). Social Capital, Individuality and Identity. Paper presented at the IMP Conference, Kolding, Denmark. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:820088/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Jensen, K. B. (2008). Media (Vol. 9). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Jensen, K. B. (2011). New Media, Old Methods –Internet Methodologies and the Online/Offline Divide. In M. Consalvo & C. Ess (Eds.), The Handbook of Internet Studies (pp. 43-58). Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Katz, J. E., Rice, R. E., Acord, S., Dasgupta, K., & David, K. (2004). Personal Mediated Communication and the Concept of Community in Theory and Practice Annals of the International Communication Association (Vol. 28, pp. 315-371): Routledge.

Kendall, L. (2011). Community and the Internet. In M. Consalvo & C. Ess (Eds.), The Handbook of Internet Studies (pp. 310-325). Hoboken, NK: Blackwall Publishing Ltd.

Pearson, E. (2009). All the world wide web is a stage: The performance of identity in online social networks. First Monday, 14(3). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2162/2127

Statista. (2018). Number of social network users worldwide from 2010 to 2021 (in billions) [Fact sheet]. Retrieved from

https://www.statista.com/statistics/278414/number-of-worldwide-social-network-users/

Stone, A. R. (1992). Will the real body please stand up? In M. Benedikt (Ed.), Cyberspace: First Steps (pp. 81-118). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Synnott, J., Coulias, A., & Ioannou, M. (2017). Online trolling: The case of Madeleine McCann. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 70-78. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.053

Vivian, N., & Sudweeks, F. (2003). Social Networks in transnational and Virtual Communities Informing Science, 1-7.

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

The Social Capital of SMIs in the Consumerist Realm

Abstract:
            Social Media Influencers (SMIs) play a growing and important role within the consumerist realm. The wealth of SMIs social capital lies in the number of followers they have who are loyal patrons to the SMIs brand. Companies have realised they need to take advantage of the power of SMIs’ social capital to successfully advertise their goods and services in the modern market. Specifically, paid partnerships and brand collaborations are the main avenue that SMIs and brands are optimizing their reach. SMI and micro-celebrity Sarah Stevenson, popularly known as Sarah’s Day on social network sites, is used as an example to portray the way these marketing techniques are launched on platforms such as Instagram and YouTube. It is evident from the examples provided, complimented by scholarly theory that it is mutually beneficial, financially and social capitally, for SMIs and enterprises to work together.
Introduction:

The virtual revolution through the rise of social networking opened an entire new perspective on online commerce. Now, more than ten years on from the birth of social media networking, the fine-tuned tools of technology are beginning to create a market shift in world of advertising. The market is now saturated with advertising plastered across every orifice, which is desensitizing customers. It is becoming clearer that traditional forms of media promotion, such as television, newspaper, radio and magazine advertising are quickly becoming outdated. This has left establishments scrambling to find the next wave of marketing techniques to sell their latest products and services while re-finding the attention of their consumers, leading to partnerships with Social Media Influencers (SMIs) to access their community of followers. SMIs are the new form of “micro-celebrity,” exposing their personal brand online to their thousands of faithful followers (Khamis et al., 2016; Hearn & Schoenoff, 2016). The term “micro-celebrity” is now becoming synonymous with SMIs and is defined as “mind-set and a set of practices that courts attention through insights into its practitioners’ private lives, and a sense of realness that renders their narratives, their branding, both accessible and intimate” (Khamis et al., 2016, p.202). Companies now realise the social capital that SMIs create through their followers can highly valuable in branding and marketing. This paper will discuss the importance of optimizing SMIs community of social capital to create effective and successful sales for brands on social networks such as Instagram and YouTube.

 

Social Networks and Social Media Influencers:

With social networking becoming ubiquitous within our lives its capabilities have a powerful influence over how we construct our existence. Whether that is entertainment, socialization, play or information sharing, social networking sites have become the platform where an increasing amount of our activity plays out (Langlois, 2016). These days, a potential “worldwide audience” is at the fingertips of anyone that has to access to a smartphone (Dijkmands et al., 2015, p.58). SMIs have capitalized on this possibility by exposing themselves to the online world and in return for their “micro-celebrity” status they have received an overwhelming response of support in the form of followers. More and Lingam (2017) define SMIs as

“any person who reviews product, posts a blog about a new product, any industry expert or any person who has a potential to influence people” (p.1).

Therefore a SMI can be anyone with social media platforms that have a few thousand followers to a few hundred thousand followers. Influencers are formed over time, not born instantly, through designing themselves on their social networks through their own original and reliable personal brand (Hearn & Schoenhoff, 2016, p.194). Although it may be thought that the basis SMIs influence lacks credibility and depth, Freberg et al. (2011) found in a survey that SMIs were believed to have similar qualities to CEOs. SMIs were “perceived as smart, ambitious, productive, poised, power-oriented, candid, and dependable” (Freberg et al., 2011, p.91). Clearly, through their qualities and intense community of following, SMIs are held to a high regard from their audiences. Most importantly to companies promoting their products and services SMIs “help potential customers make a buying decision by influencing [their] opinion, through social networking” (More & Lingam, 2017, p.1). This makes it vital for brands to work with influencers to promote their goods and services with the goal of having a positive impact on marketing and sales.

 

Business on Social Media:

Many companies, and their customers, see it as essential to have a presence on Social Networking Sites (SNS). In Kaske et al.’s (2012) studies, it was even found that companies that have a social media presence tend to have “higher customer retention, better customer communication, potential avoidance of outrage, sales increases, and greater reach” (p. 3904). Although not all businesses are based economically online, having a presence to engage with customers is shown to improve “customer retention, customer communication, and outrage avoidance” which becomes an asset termed ‘customer equity” (Kaske et. Al., 2012, p. 3901; p. 3903). Media saturation in today’s social networking systems, sites and platforms has lead to collaboration with SMIs to optimize their community of followers’ trust, commercializing the attention economy. SMIs now hold the loyal attention of a large number of people on social media so it is simple to understand the reasoning behind the drive to work with them. Thayne (2012) continues that

“in contemporary societies we are confronted with more information than can possibly be fully processed; therefore, attention economics emphasizes the significance of designing and developing methods to swiftly and effectively direct attention in order to deliver the right advertisements to the desired target market” (p.2).

This rethought process has been accessed by optimizing on the social capital of SMIs to market their products through avenues such as paid partnerships and collaborations. Within this essay this will be displayed using a local Australian SMI called Sarah’s Day who has recently been optimizing on her strong social capital.

Defining Social Capital:

Keely (2007) simply explains that social capital can be thought of as a common set of understandings and values within a community or society, allowing groups to develop levels of trust and provide an environment where they can work together if they are so inclined. Katz et al., (2004) states that “[strong] community ties are linked to intimacy, voluntary involvement, frequency of communication, feelings of companionship, knowing each other in multiple contexts, enduring ties, mutual ties, having one’s needs met, and shared social characteristics. Virtual communities and online environments deliver all of these” (p.337). Until the rise of the Internet and particularly SNS, societies were not able to form these intimate ties with such a large scale of individuals negating the boundaries or distant, race, time-zone’s and even language. This is because in because pre-Internet social capital had a stronger tie to spatial proximity (Katz et al., 2004). The mechanics to allow communication and the relationship formation outside of spatial proximity were tied to telephone and mail communication, which deterred the formation of strong ties, widespread asynchronous communication and community construction. SNS have allowed astronomical growth of social capital because connections are “based more on common ideas, interests, and occupations” rather than purely location (Katz, 2004, p.345). Koput (2010) believes that the expansion of social capital is rooted in repeated contact, which “must be ongoing, meaning that it is subject to occurring again at some time, although such a time can be indefinite” (p.3). SNS allows fluid and repeated access to promote communication with ease.

 

Discussing SMIs and Social Capital Optimization through Marketing:

It is clear that SMIs, through the power of the affordances of social media in a technological driven world, are able to gain an extreme amount of social capital online. SMIs have created virtual communities by promoting their personal brand and attracting like-minded people to follow them. Whether that community be based around fitness, fashion, beauty, sport, gaming, cooking or even mindfulness, SMI’s are tapping in on the variety of the Internet to extradite their niche group of followers. The success of SMIs and a method to measure their social capital is based “on factors such as number of daily hits on a blog, number of times a post is shared, or number of followers” (Freberg et al., 2011, p.90).

 

Figure 1: Sarahs Day Instagram account (Stevenson, May 2018c)

To expand on the methods utilized by SMIs and provide industry examples I will use a well-known Australian SMI called Sarah’s Day (@sarahs_day) and formally named Sarah Stevenson who is a New South Wales based Instagrammer, YouTuber and self-titled content creator. Originally Sarah started her YouTube channel in 2013 and has grown her “micro-celebrity” status to now having over four hundred thousand followers on Instagram and over six hundred thousand subscribers on YouTube (www.youtube.com/SarahsDay). Sarah engages frequently on accounts posting daily on Instagram, interacting multiple times a day on her Instagram stories and posting videos on YouTube channel every three days. She has been chosen as a case study due to her recent surge of working with other businesses for mutually benefiting profit through paid partnerships and collaborations.

Sarah is a vlogger, therefore someone who creates vlogs which Gao et al. (2010) claims is rooted from the amalgamation of the two separate words video and blog. It is obvious that video’s “can show a lot more than text, [therefore] vlogs provide a much more expressive medium for vloggers than text-blogs in which to communicate with the outer world” (Gao et al., 2010, p.2). Sarah Days’ niche in the building of the personal brand that she attracts is females who are interested in holistic health, fitness and cooking. She has built a community online from her followers around the world which she calls her #sezzysquad. Sarah’s Day clearly has created a strong social capital emphasized by Katz et al.’s (2004) belief that “[the] functions of virtual communities to foster communities of interest, information spread, and equality of status all work to enhance social capital, despite their lack of direct physical orientation” (p.325). It is Katz et. al’s (2004) belief that more recently, because of the common basis of ideas, occupations and interests, that ties and relationships have become more “organic.” Because Sarah’s community are people that follow her for her health and fitness advice alluding to the fact that their following is based in common interests, it is clear that Sarah has built a strong community with hundreds of thousands of followers.

 

 

In more recent months Sarah’s Day has proved Katz et al.’s (2004) thought that an increase of social capital online will transfer to a “rise in offline contact, civic engagement, and a sense of community, and the other traditional forms of social capital” (p. 325).  Although the financial aspect of companies alliance with this SMI haven’t been made public, Sarah’s Day has recently been working with White Fox Boutique, an online clothing store and iHerb.com an online health food store (Stevenson, 2018a; Stevenson, 2017; Stevenson, 2016). I will use Sarah’s Day affiliations with brands through collaborations and paid partnerships to understand the mutual financial benefit of optimizing the social capital of SMIs networks.

Paid Partnerships:

An article in the economist detailing the finances behind paid partnerships proves that companies are exploiting influencers’ social capital. It is now believed that “[hiring] such influencers allows companies to reach a vast network of potential customers” (“Celebrities’ endorsement,” 2016, para. 2). Paid partnerships or sponsored posts are a relatively new realm in the social media world however social networking sites are starting to form rules around this area to ensure that followers understand what is authentic and what is paid. Frier (2017) explains that in the past year “[influencers] are supposed to signal when they are being paid via hashtags on their posts that say #ad or #sponsored” (para. 4). In October 2016, Sarah’s day posted a video that she sneakily said was brought to subscribers by iHerb.com, meaning that she was paid to publish this vlog. Although it may have aligned with her content, she didn’t outwardly and clearly announced that it was a paid partnership because many influencer “simply fail to note the relationship at all out of concern they’ll appear inauthentic” (Frier, 2017, para. 4). As Hearn and Schoenhoff (2016) state, “[the] pursuit of “authentic” promotional connections with fans can include celebrities posting “candid” photos of “everyday life” in brand- name outfits on Instagram, or mentioning a product they have encountered on Twitter” (p.204). This example is shown by Sarah’s Day underwhelming emphasis to mention the paid partnership and over emphasis of stating that these are products she would usually buy however she wanted to make it more accessible to all of her fans by using an online store.

The perks of these partnerships can be astronomically and financially beneficial for the SMI involved. According to the Economist a SMI with between half a million to a million subscribers can be paid up to twenty-five thousand dollars for a sponsored YouTube video (“Celebrities’ endorsement,” 2016), that amount can even soar to three hundred thousand dollars per video on the basis of having over seven million subscribers. Although that amount may seem astronomical as Freberg et al. (2011) claims, SMIs “represent a new type of independent third party endorser who shape audience attitudes through blogs, tweets, and the use of other social media” (p.90). The trust built from the social capital of Sarah’s Days’ following has a positive impact on the iHerb.com by providing a positive review of their products and service shifting the desired eyes of the attention economy onto their business.

Figure 2: The Economist detailing differentiation of compensation for SMIs for each platform dependent on the size of their social capital through the number of followers they have (“Celebrities’ endorsement,” 2016)

 

According to the statistics of this particular video review, as of March 27th, 2018 Sarah’s recording had over one hundred and sixty thousand views, which lead to over two hundred shares and provided her with over two hundred and fifty subscriptions (Stevenson, 2016). The number of subscriptions and shares driven from this particular video proves that mutually beneficial relationship for both company and SMI.

Brand Collaborations:

SMIs’ CEO like qualities are helping them realize the benefits of being business savvy where they hold the power in a knowledge economy (Freberg et al., 2011; Crogan & Kingsley, 2012). Therefore, another form of alliance with companies is shown through official collaboration. This is when an SMI works with a brand to collectively create a product from that brand associated with the influencer SNS pseudonym. Recently there have been many examples of this however in the case of Sarah’s Day in recent months she has collaborated with White Fox Boutique, an online clothing shop. Sarah announced on February 27th, 2018 that she had spent half a year “designing and developing a 15 piece active wear collection [from scratch],” with the online clothing boutique (Stevenson, 2018a). The line gained so much attention from her followers that on the launch date the site crashed from overflowing traffic (Stevenson, 2018b).

Figure 3: Sarah’s announcement that her overwhelming loyalty from her social capital led to a website crash from overflowing traffic when her collaboration was released (Stevenson 2018)

 

It is fascinating that “simply by expressing themselves, individuals have become empowered participants in an emerging online reputation economy, where the reputation generated by social media participation functions as a new form of currency and, more generally, value” (Hearn & Schoenhoff, 2016, p.203). This has literally turned in financial currency for both influencers and the brands that they associate with. There is no denying from the information shown for SMIs combined with the traffic and attention gained through SMIs social capital that collaborations are mutually beneficial.

 

Conclusion:

This paper has discussed the economic benefits for SMIs and companies combined in a society that is noticing the rise of the “micro-celebrity” (Marwick, 2016). Influencers are becoming the new powerful ‘authentic’ voices online in a world that is saturated with advertising and commercialism. The desire to hold onto authenticity while self-sustaining through business relationship is the unwavering downfall of these relationships. SMIs are chasing to form a “perception of authenticity [to create] a space that is readily exploitable, insofar as SMIs can parlay the trust they inspire into myriad commercial arrangements” (Khamis et al., 2016, p.203). SMIs are trying to under emphasize the affiliations with brands through paid partnerships and move to more collaborations to hold steadfast strength in their social capital. Nevertheless, the combination of “influence maximization” and “social influence” have created a new wave of marketing online through social media (More & Lingam, 2017). It is undeniable that there is bilateral economic prosperity gained through the union of SMIs and brands with the strength of the community of social capital in SMIs networks.

 

 

References:

Celebrities’ endorsement earnings on social media. (2016). Retrieved March 17, 2018, from https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/10/daily-chart-9

Chen, H. (2017). College-Aged Young Consumers Perceptions of Social Media Marketing: The Story of Instagram, Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 39(1), 22-36. doi:10.1080/10641734.2017.1372321

Crogan, P., & Kinsley, S. (2012). Paying attention: Toward a critique of the attention economy. Culture Machine, 13, 1–29. Available: http://www.culturemachine.net/index.php/cm/issue/view/24

Dijkmans, C. Kerkhof, P. and Beukeboom, C. (2015). A stage to engage: Social media use and corporate reputation. Tourism Management 47. 58 – 67.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman2014.09.005

Freberg, K., Graham, K., Mcgaughey, K., & Freberg, L. A. (2011). Who are the social media influencers? A study of public perceptions of personality. Public Relations Review, 37(1), 90-92. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.11.001

Frier, S. (2017, June 14). Instagram to Make It Clearer When Influencer Posts Are Paid Ads. Retrieved March 17, 2018, from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-14/instagram-to-make-it-clearer-when-influencer-posts-are-paid-ads

Gao, W., Tian, Y., Huang, T., & Yang, Q. (2010). Vlogging. ACM Computing Surveys, 42(4), 1-57. doi:10.1145/1749603.1749606

Goldhaber, M.H. (1997). The Attention Economy and the Net. First Monday. 2 (4-7), April. Available: http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/519/440

Hearn, A. and Schoenhoff, S., 2016. From celebrity to influencer: tracing the diffusion of celebrity value across the data stream. In: P. David Marshall and S. Redmond, eds. A companion to celebrity. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 194–212.

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: where old and new media collide. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Kaske, F., Kugler, M., & Smolnik, S. (2012). Return on Investment in Social Media–Does the Hype Pay Off? Towards an Assessment of the Profitability of Social Media in Organizations. 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. doi:10.1109/hicss.2012.504

Katz, J. E., Rice, R. E., Acord, S., Dasgupta, K., & David, K. (2004). Personal Mediated Communication and the Concept of Community in Theory and Practice. In P. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication and Community: Communication Yearbook 28 (pp. 315-371). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Keeley, B. (2007). OECD insights human capital: how what you know shapes your life. Paris: OECD

Khamis, S., Ang, L., & Welling, R. (2016). Self-branding, ‘micro-celebrity’ and the rise of Social Media Influencers.Celebrity Studies, 8(2), 191-208. doi:10.1080/19392397.2016.1218292

Koput, K. W. (2010). Social capital : an introduction to managing networks. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Langlois, G., (2016) Social Networking and the Production of the Self. Meaning in the Age of Social Media, 26(4), 131-145. doi:10.1057/9781137356611.0008

Marwick, A. E. (2015). Instafame: Luxury Selfies in the Attention Economy. Public Culture, 27(1 75), 137–160. http://doi.org/10.1215/08992363-2798379 [Available via Reading List]

Marwick, A.E., (2016). You may know me from YouTube: (micro-) celebrity in social media. In: P.D. Marshall and S. Redmond, eds. A companion to celebrity. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 333–350.

More, J. S., & Lingam, C. (2017). A SI model for social media influencer maximization. Applied Computing and Informatics. doi:10.1016/j.aci.2017.11.001

Stevenson, S. [Sarah’s Day]. (2016, October). Healthy Snacks | Healthy Food That Taste Naughty [VEGAN]. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyRWbEbyZIw&t=318s

Stevenson, S. [@sarahs_day]. (2017, October 5). [Photograph of @loving_earth products]. Retrieved from https://www.instagram.com/p/BZ3Fa5yHmik/?taken-by=sarahs_day

Stevenson, S. [@sarahs_day]. (2018a, February 22). [Photograph of Sarah’s day holding Tropeka Products]. Retrieved from https://www.instagram.com/p/BffAYrdHicD/?taken-by=sarahs_day

Stevenson, S. [@sarahs_day]. (2018b, February 27). [Photograph of Sarah’s Day and White Fox Boutique Collaboration]. Retrieved from https://www.instagram.com/p/BfrQMM3n-M2/?taken-by=sarahs_day

Stevenson, S. [@sarahs_day]. (2018c, May 5). [Photograph of Sarah’s Day Instagram Account]. Retrieved from https://www.instagram.com/sarahs_day/

Thayne, M. (2012). Friends Like Mine: The Production of Socialised Subjectivity in the Attention Economy. Culture Machine, 13, 1-23. Retrieved October 31, 2017.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Facebook’s Negative Impact on Romantic Relationships Through Encouraging Interpersonal Electronic Surveillance

PDF Version

 

Social Networking Site Facebook’s Negative Impact on Relationships Through Encouraging Interpersonal Electronic Surveillance

Abstract

This paper explores the negative impact that the social networking site (SNS) Facebook is having on romantic relationships through encouraging interpersonal electronic surveillance (IES) online. Examined throughout this paper is the heavy involvement that SNSs are playing in romantic relationships, whether it be building new relationships or maintaining pre-existing relationships. This paper discusses the contributions of jealous, anxious or attaching personality traits and how these can provoke relationship jealousy. This paper also discusses how jealousy within a relationship can lead to individuals conducting online surveillance of their romantic partner. The paper examines how relationships are being managed online and how SNSs are being used as a tool to maintain both online and offline relationships. It is also discussed in this paper the impact that IES can have post relationship and how individuals continue to monitor an ex-partners profile once they are no longer romantically involved with one another.

Keywords: social networking sites, social media, interpersonal electronic communication, dating, online dating, communities/networks.

 

Social Networking Site Facebook’s Negative Impact on Relationships Through Encouraging Interpersonal Electronic Surveillance

Social Networking Sites are becoming increasingly popular not only to create and develop new interpersonal relationships, but they are also commonly used to maintain existing relationships. SNSs have also presented a new platform for surveillance within romantic relationships. Tokunaga (2010, p. 705) argues that “SNSs have been reinvented into a tool for interpersonal surveillance along with their social networking capabilities”, this is an important theory to keep in mind when considering the growth of SNSs and the hierarchy that they play in romantic relationships and in online dating communities and networks. Whilst adults are still able to function without having their romantic partner right next to them, it is the emotional availability and support aspects that many expect from a romantic partner that remains a concern due to the increased use of social media and SNSs in romantic partnerships (Morey et al., 2013). This paper discusses how the online social media site Facebook has negatively impacted relationship trust by encouraging IES. The articles referenced throughout this paper will strengthen this argument by discussing how romantic relationships have been influenced by IES, what individual personalities are more likely to participate in the online surveillance of their partner and the effects that this surveillance is having on relationships and individuals even once the relationship has concluded.

Discussion

Online Relationships. Social networking sites, particularly Facebook, play an important role in the maintenance of existing online and offline romantic relationships. It has been discussed how “research has convincingly shown that SNSs are important in the emergence and maintenance of romantic relationships even though this may not be apparent from an individual’s perspective” (Neyer & Voigt, 2004, p. 282), which is an interesting point of discussion considering that majority of people use social media for reasons other than dating and romantic relationships and are becoming unaware that the emergence and maintenance of their romantic relationship, in fact, relies heavily on social media and SNSs. Social networking sites can make or break relationships; they give both a platform for individuals to find information about potential romantic partners such as hobbies and interests (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016), but also give the individuals the platform to obsess over and observe the online actions of others. Van Ouytsel et al. (2016) discuss in their article the popularity of initiating a relationship online through social networking platforms such as Facebook, with 47% of the 18-24-year-old age group surveyed admitting to using the internet and social networking sites for romantic advances. The growth and success of Facebook has created a solid platform for SNSs and its users around the world and over the years with “Facebook becoming the most successful single platform with more than one billion users worldwide” (Fox & Warber, 2014, p. 3) which shows just how dedicated users are to social media. By signing up to Facebook and creating a personal profile, romantic partners can send personal messages through the platform, can post directly to their partner’s profile publically, view photographs, investigate timeline history, and can even search through their partner’s online friends list (Fox & Warber, 2014). SNSs provide romantic partners with all they need to know about their loved one and provide users with the confidence to engage in new romantic relationships and maintain existing relationships through a social networking platform. However, there are numerous issues that can stem from individuals using Facebook as a means of communication and security within their romantic relationship.

Online Relationship Jealousy. Online social networking has been demonstrated to impact people’s romantic relationships in multiple ways. For example, “research documenting the negative impacts that social networking can have on romantic relationships by spurring jealousy, especially amongst individuals with anxious attachment styles” (Carpenter & Spottswood, 2013, p. 1531) illustrates the effects of social media and how it fuels jealousy in romantic relationships. Jealousy is a common feeling that is often experienced in romantic relationships and is especially prevalent in relationships between individuals who experience anxious or attaching personality traits. “With 950 million active Facebook members logging into their accounts daily” (LeFebvre et al., 2014, p. 79) there is no doubt that individuals are going to experience some uncertainty when it comes to their partner being active in online social networking environments such as Facebook. The frequent use of Facebook by an individual in a romantic relationship has had proven connections to some forms of jealousy (LeFebvre et al., 2014). The use of Facebook by relational partners has also been related back to Facebook-related jealousy which can be demonstrated through acts as simple as becoming jealous of a partner sending a friend request to the opposite sex (LeFebvre et al., 2014). Elphinston and Noller (as cited in LeFebvre et al., 2014, p. 80) argue that “determined cognitive jealousy and surveillance behaviours are linked to relationship dissatisfaction” this is a valid argument and puts forward the insinuation that online social networking use within romantic relationships influences the quality and outcome of the relationship.

It is the feeling of jealousy that seemingly drives those in romantic relationships to feel the need to dig further into their romantic partners’ social networking lives and online media profiles for more information on what they are doing, who they are engaging with and what they are engaging in online. This leads to uncertainty and trust issues within the relationship, “relational uncertainty stems from perceptions of ambiguity within the relationship, such as not knowing if the partner is serious about the relationship or if the relationship has a future” (Fox & Warber, 2014, p. 4). In other words, relational uncertainty in a relationship is often the cause for individuals in relationships to participate in jealous online behaviours such as IES. It is extremely normal for “the partner experiencing uncertainty to explore the content on their partner’s profile to determine what their partner is doing and who they are interacting with so that they can alleviate any uncertainty they may have about their partner and the relationship” (Fox & Warber, 2014, p.4) on the other hand, looking through a partner’s profile can also confirm any suspicions being had. Significantly, relationship surveillance through social networking sites such as Facebook is often seen as a tool of control and has also been referred to as the term Little Brother.

Little Brother is described as the occurrence in which individuals on the internet engage in surveillance through social networking sites to gain further awareness about the online behaviours and actions of others (Tokunaga, 2010). Today where online social networking is the norm, participation on social networking sites has become one of the most important ways to stay a fundamental part in a partner’s daily life (Tokunaga, 2010), which is considerably concerning. When we consider being in a romantic relationship or partnership with someone we do not presume that this means staying furthermore in touch with their social networking lives and profiles than reality itself and the physical and emotional sensations of a relationship. It is not uncommon for individuals to not realize that they are participating in IES as “surveillance can be as simple as an individual casually examining their romantic partner’s profile to gather the simplest information” (Tokunaga, 2010, p. 706). As this suggests, IES whether it is intentional or not can have a negative impact on a couple’s relationship.

Interpersonal Electronic Surveillance. Interpersonal electronic surveillance can impact romantic relationships in numerous ways. Le et al. (as cited by Sinclair et al., 2015, p. 78) state that in fact “analysis has shown that perceived social network approval is a consistent, negative predictor of relationship termination” which is an interesting argument and shows the impact that SNSs have on approval within romantic relationships online. Online social media profile analysis is otherwise known as IES, which is characterized as “surreptitious strategies individuals use over communication technologies to gain awareness of another user’s offline and/or online behaviours” (Tokunaga, 2010, p. 706). IES is an interesting concept and is very real in many romantic relationships where partners are regularly using social media platforms and SNSs to communicate with others outside of the relationship. The use of SNSs can provoke jealousy and surveillance which often leads to trust being broken within a romantic relationship, one individual may feel that their privacy has been invaded by their partner. Online social networking, in general, has affected the way in which we communicate with our romantic partners. Instead of face-to-face communication in relationships, couples are now turning to media and SNSs to communicate with their romantic partners; the internet specifically is changing relational communication, which is altering the quality of the communication within their relationship. IES, however, can develop further than just consistently observing a partner’s Facebook profile. Helsper and Whitty (as cited in Utz & Beukeboom, 2010, p. 514) report that “in about 30% of married couples at least one partner has at least once secretly read the e-mails of SMS text messages of the other partner” however, reading a partner’s emails or SMS messages is ultimately a breach of trust within a romantic relationship and is still a form of IES even though it is not conducted through social media or SNSs.

There are many different reasons for which individuals may feel the need to conduct surveillance of their partner in a romantic relationship. The first is suspicious jealousy, which can arise when a romantic partner may feel threatened by an external source whilst in a relationship (Tokunaga, 2010). The second is that individuals who have previously experienced a break of trust or infidelity with their romantic partner feel some uncertainty within their relationship and feel the need to observe their partners’ social networking profiles (Tokunaga, 2010). Interpersonal electronic surveillance can continue even after a relationship has ended with many individuals continuing to observe their ex-partner’s profiles.

Post-Relationship Surveillance. If it were not for online social networking and social media, after a break-up, many couples would have no option but to go their separate ways and would most likely not hear from or need to see their ex-partner again. But due to most individuals having online Facebook profiles along with other social networking profiles, it has become increasingly easier for people to stay in touch with one another.

It has also become increasingly easier for individuals to keep an eye on what their ex-partner is doing and who they are communicating with both online and offline. Furthermore, “when romantic relationships dissolve, people can retain access to an ex-partners status updates and pictures by remaining friends or through shared friends or information that is publically available” (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016, p. 78) this is concerning when considering the lack of privacy and security that SNSs often don’t provide. With Facebook allowing the upload of status updates and pictures, other users still have a clear view of what is occurring in a person’s life events, even if they are no longer romantically connected (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016). Interestingly, “almost a quarter of American adult social networking site users have admitted to searching online for information about someone they had dated in the past” (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016, p. 78) which many would consider seemingly unnecessary and inappropriate considering the romantic relationship has already ended. It is compelling to consider that even once a romantic relationship has ended that individuals can still watch what their ex-partners are doing. Whether an individual chooses to observe their ex-partners Facebook profile depends entirely on the individual themselves and the circumstances in which the relationship ended. There are many relationships that end and with that communication and online friendship is also cut off, and whilst this is the case for some it is not uncommon for “individuals who did not terminate the relationship themselves to search for information about their ex-partner rather than those who have initiated the breakup themselves” (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016, p. 78).

Often, social networking usage after a breakup can turn nasty, unreasonable and sometimes obsessive. IES is not the only way that ex-partners can keep in contact through social networking post-breakup (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016). Individuals can post on their personal profiles after a breakup to try and catch the attention of their ex-partner or someone who may be in contact with their ex-partner. There are three main ways that ex-partners can disturb each other through social networking; covert provocation, public harassment and venting (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016). Covert provocation can be simple things such as posting song lyric or poetry lines within status updates in reference to their ex-partner (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016). However, “these messages can be used to hurt the ex-partner or to communicate with the intention to get back together” (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016, p. 78) which often ends up having a negative effect on both the ex-partner and the individual committing the act. Public harassment activities, on the other hand, are less frequent and can include things such as “changing one’s relationship status from “in a relationship” with the intent to make the ex-partner jealous or posting embarrassing pictures of the ex-partner to humiliate them” (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016, p. 78) however, public harassment activities can also lead to a more damaging outcome. The third process of online social media disturbance is venting which includes “writing negative comments about the ex-partner and posting mean-spirited or hateful comments in a response to pictures of an ex-partner” (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016, p. 78) which is more commonly seen between young adults on social media today and majority of people have fallen victim to venting. Personality traits can also influence social media usage after breakups. Fox and Warber (2014, p. 2) discuss how “attachment styles influence reactions to breakups and that those with anxious attachment styles often have a longer recovery period and may continue to seek information about their partner after the breakup.” Fox and Warber (2014) conclude that their findings have proven that anxious attachment can cause further distress and frequent partner monitoring post-breakup. Overall, SNSs and IES can continue to impact a relationship even once it has concluded.

Conclusion

The popularity of social networking sites being used within relationships as a tool to both create new, and develop on, existing romantic relationships is becoming an increasing issue within social media platforms and SNSs which negatively impacts romantic relationships and breaks the trust between romantic partners. Social networking sites have also amplified the issue of surveillance within relationships particularly interpersonal electronic surveillance. The online social networking site Facebook has negatively impacted romantic relationships by encouraging interpersonal electronic surveillance. Surveillance within romantic relationships has been identified throughout this paper in relation to personality traits and jealousy issues being the leading causes when it comes to individuals observing their partner’s online profiles. Trust has also been identified as a contributor to interpersonal electronic surveillance. The impact that online surveillance has on relationships is negative and has affected the way that people may feel in a relationship or may treat their partner in a relationship. It was also discussed how surveillance of social networking profiles can continue even after the relationship has ended. There are many contributing factors into why individuals choose to observe their romantic partner’s social networking profiles but overall conducting surveillance of a partner’s Facebook profile is both an invasion of privacy and a violation of trust. Arguably, without the ability to survey a partner’s social networking profile, romantic relationships would work differently and would not be so negatively impacted by social media usage.

 

References

Carpenter, C., & Spottswood, E. (2013). Exploring romantic relationships on social networking sites using the self-expansion model. Computers In Human Behaviour, 29(4), 1531-1537. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.021

Fox, J., & Warber, K. (2014). Social Networking Sites in Romantic Relationships: Attachment, Uncertainty, and Partner Surveillance on Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behaviour, And Social Networking, 17(1), 3-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0667

LeFebvre, L., Blackburn, K., & Brody, N. (2014). Navigating romantic relationships on Facebook. Journal Of Social And Personal Relationships, 32(1), 78-98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407514524848

Morey, J., Gentzler, A., Creasy, B., Oberhauser, A., & Westerman, D. (2013). Young adults’ use of communication technology within their romantic relationships and associations with attachment style. Computers In Human Behavior, 29(4), 1771-1778. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.019

Neyer, F., & Voigt, D. (2004). Personality and social network effects on romantic relationships: a dyadic approach. European Journal Of Personality, 18(4), 279-299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.519

Sinclair, H., Felmlee, D., Sprecher, S., & Wright, B. (2015). Don’t Tell Me Who I Can’t Love. Social Psychology Quarterly, 78(1), 77-99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0190272514565253

Tokunaga, R. (2011). Social networking site or social surveillance site? Understanding the use of interpersonal electronic surveillance in romantic relationships. Computers In Human Behaviour, 27(2), 705-713. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.08.014

Utz, S., & Beukeboom, C. (2011). The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness. Journal Of Computer-Mediated Communication, 16(4), 511-527. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2011.01552.x

Van Ouytsel, J., Van Gool, E., Walrave, M., Ponnet, K., & Peeters, E. (2016). Exploring the role of social networking sites within adolescent romantic relationships and dating experiences. Computers In Human Behaviour, 55, 76-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.042

Creative Commons License: CC BY-ND

YouTube, YouConnect, YouStay: The Motivation of User to Contribute to the Online Content

by Ally Chua

Student, Curtin University

Abstract

This paper will discuss YouTube as a Web2.0 application that allows communities to form through communication and motivates the community members to stay in the space to enrich the online contents. The elements of the Web 2.0 like user-generated-content, collective consumption, accessibility, free culture make the user to consume it that benefits themselves, others and the media industries. The feeling that provides by the community cause the members (user) make the contribution to maintain the relationship by interacting.

 

Keywords: Web 2.0, community, user-generated-content, YouTube, Social Network Site, relationship

 

 

YouTube, YouConnect, YouStay.

The Motivation of User to Contribute to the Online Content

 

Web 2.0, as a relatively new technology, gives the online user a new way of consuming information and experiencing communities. Consuming information not only by receiving passively but actively which a two-way communication is formed. “Web 2.0 is a technology shifting the Web to turn it into a participatory platform, in which people not only consume content (via downloading) but also contribute and produce new content (via uploading)” (Darwish & Lakhtaria 2011, p.204). Web 2.0 tools, such as social networking and social media sites, folksonomies, video sharing sites and mashup application that facilitate community by letting them express their feeling and using the subject to get responses from people. Thus, more online contents are generated and enriched by community members. The use of peer-to-peer file sharing lets the users access the file easily. Web 2.0 allows the user to add value to online content or product by enabling the user to make creative media products using existing products, provide feedback and share with other. Through the value-adding process, users are coming together and forming communities. The contents they contribute online seem to benefit the industries company by providing free labour. What makes them willing to do that are that they seek to be recognized, want to be known or understood by other and the feeling of belonging to a group. YouTube as a Web 2.0 application site lets the virtual or social network community members find supportiveness and belonging feeling from other members with no physical interaction is needed. “Community describes relations that provide a sense of belonging, not a group in physical proximity” (Katz et al., 2004). The new technologies motivate and encourage the practicing community in online space by offers convenient. Without the limitations of space and time, users can access music anytime and anywhere they want. This elasticity of content consuming and interacting with one another to maintain the relationship in online space lead to globalization. The more people or member of that community to support, agree or providing feedback from anywhere, the stronger the sense of belonging occurs in a person and that weak cooperation between one another create a bond between the members. This paper argues that social media software like YouTube, use the effective strategy tools that facilitate communities to attract and keep the community members to stay in that space.

 

What is community ?

Community can be defined as when communication occurs among a group of people that share a common interest.  Public is a collection of people that shared a common interest but without knowing each other (Boyd, 2007). Cooperation and communication between users and consumers formed the online communities. Community is a social system which interaction and involvement socially determine the type of the community (Katz, Rice, Acord, Dasgupta, & David, 2004). We place people or ourselves into groups according to the person’s characteristic. The identity of a person can be shown through the shaping and showing of what their interest is. “Knowing the identity of those with whom you communicate is essential for understanding and evaluating an interaction” (Donath 1999, p.29). Online Community formed when similar identity people come together form a discussion about a common interest topic. For example, YouTube Users use searching tool to search a topic or issue to get information, and they express their opinion through like, comment or share. They are showing or shaping their identity by putting a certain word in the search box so that they will meet the content and people that related to them and being connected and become the member of the community. Community members’ way of accessing information influenced by environment, media products and ‘mental construct’ (Katz et al., 2004). “People gain a sense of who they are in part imaging by how others, both live and mediated, view them” (Katz et al. 2004, 317).

 

 

Web 2.0

Web 2.0 is a platform that provides conveniences, opportunities by allowing participation of the user in content production. “The roles of producer and consumer are being blurred further within the new media landscape” (Jenkins, 2008). Creative products like music or video mashup, remix, comments and reaction video being made by the consumer based on existing products which create a new and different product that enrich the original products. Hence, consumer becomes the producer who produces a new product yet it is not really ‘new’ show the blurring line between producer and consumer. Web 2.0 enables users to provide their opinions about other users’ work and offer the user an interactive experience that formed the feeling of “that’s part of their work” and their thinking is being cared. “They welcomed a wide variety of browsing technologies and imagined users not only as readers but also as writers” (Darwish & Lakhtaria 2011, p. 204). Web 2.0 as a product of the participatory culture that encourages “emphasize users’ story preference to share knowledge and culture in communities” (van Dijck 2009, p. 45). The opportunity that web 2.0 provides the user to become producer make them more likely to consume the products. In sum, Web 2.0 facilitate online communities and enhance active social interaction by letting users easy to access the information and letting community members meet others who shared interests connect one another.

 

YouTube

Youtube is a social network site which using the technology of Web 2.0. Creative work like remix also being encouraged by YouTube with its easy operating system. “This phenomenon has gained strong momentum together with YouTube’s positioning as the leading website for all kinds of user-generated videos” (Wikstrom, 2010). Their consuming become contributing. By just streaming the video, user helps the producer to increase the “views”. Their comment allows the producer to know what their audience’s’ opinion and he can choose to make changes to improve their following products. These are how prosumer or co-creator happen to be. Since the network public is formed on YouTube, mainstream media company use YouTube as an advertising tool since it can reach to the broad public. “The users who google data, upload or watch videos on YouTube, upload or browse personal images on Flickr, or accumulate friends with whom they exchange content or communicate online on social networking platforms like MySpace or Facebook, constitute an audience commodity that is sold to advertisers” (Fuchs 2010, p.768). When a user sees the others’ comment on a video, they either agree or disagree with it, and the user might reply the user. This is when the communication form between users that have a common interest (the video) and form community. “Many began participating because of the available social voyeurism and the opportunity to craft a personal representation in an increasingly popular online community” (Boyd, 2007). Besides, the more the comment is the video, the more the popular it is. People will curious about what make the comments and they will go and watch. YouTube also allows community members to access the content they want at any place and anytime. Web 2.0 tools change this dynamic, making interaction on the web possible, collaboration easier, information sharing the norm, and the creation of web content by groups of people a reality (Darwish & Lakhtaria, 2011). There are different communities form on YouTube, some of the communities are more active and some have less connection which based on how active the members are. Some members engage passively and some passively involve themselves in enriching online content. This also affected by the type of information, issue or topic are the communities discuss. Communities forming can cause the long-term connection between community members and make the members keep coming back so they are up to date with the latest information. In order to make the community active and lively, members need to put effort to create new or improving products to make discussion opportunity, provide feedbacks of the group activity and support one another to create a link between one another.

 

 

Self-organization that form collective consumption.

In Web 2.0, users can create their own rules to consume online content and set rules for others to consume their products. What they want from or restrict their audiences. Audiences can likewise choose if they want to consume after knowing the rules of consuming certain products. “The essence of the community is one of networked individualism, in which we all choose our own communities, rather than be fitted with others into them involuntarily” (Katz et al. 2004, 332). They will see if the group or the product is ‘them’. Once they become part of the group, they will start to contribute by communicating with one another. “By belonging to these groups, consumers seek to be recognized (Chaney, 2012 p.44)”. ‘Competition’ happening when communication occurs, among the peoples, everyone seeks to be unique and agreeing with and when they received a certain amount of responses, they are being known. This causes them to make effort to contribute to the online content. YouTuber always seek for more ‘view’, more ‘like’ and more ‘subscribers’. This not only financially benefits them but also make them satisfied that their works are being appreciated. The tagging function which is one of the Web 2.0 features. This function allows distributors to set who they want their audiences or public to be. A very large number of potential consumer can be attracted to enrich the video with granularity effect by tagging their video with related words and upload it on YouTube since it increases the exposure of the video to more audiences. By allowing us to have a collective experience with people who are both like and unlike us, public life validates the reality that we are experiencing (Boyd, 2007). The ‘network public’ environment created by the Web 2.0 make people concerned about how others might think how they are. This makes them spend more time or effort to shape the style they want other people to know about them. The reaction video to other video products especially singers’ music videos. The sense of belonging to a group drag people to continue to contribute to the online content.

 

 

Communication as an opportunity of publication (co-operation, making friend, knowledge-exchange).

New technologies are tools that allow people to use a new way to perform familiar activities possibly with more effectively (Bakardjieva, 2011).  Publishing becomes easier with the easy operating tools. What makes people to publish or distribute content online is that the desire they want to be known and look for the bosom friend who has “same taste”. They want to feel they are being connected. Instead of selling the products itself, the producer is selling the feeling or meaning of the product. What they will be paid for their work is the feeling such as appreciation and recognition. They earn from people’s like (support), comment (feedback and inspiration) and share (promote). What the consumer seek is also the feeling, the feeling of being agreed with, being listened to, connected with, feeling good for helping people and seek to be understood. When a people share a video from YouTube, their intention of doing that will be want to let the network public know their opinion of that video or let people know more about who they are by instead of really want to help to “promote” the video itself. The ‘network public’ environment created by the Web 2.0 make people concerned about how others might think how they are. This makes them spend more time or effort to shape the style they want other people to know about them. However, the distributors do not really care what’s the consumer intention is as long as the consumer’s action can add value to their products. Creative work like the remix, reaction video to the video are also encouraged by the distributor. This is because the original product itself might not be that attractive to some people, reproducing it to a different style increase the possibility of more people to like the song. “Configurability presents people with the tools to turn their interest into expression” (Sinnreich, 2010). Through the video publishing and communication occurring, the sense of belonging appears to both consumer and producer. This communication also is to maintain relationships among the community.

 

 

Enjoying entertainment conveniently (accessibility).

Consumer and producer (the community members) can access to, publish or contribute to the content easily with no time and space limit. Mediated technology brings and bridges communities practice to another space which free from people, locations and times boundaries and enables the members to promote the connection in the new space (Katz et al., 2004). YouTube as the third place for the user to communicate whenever they want. Users can come to and leave YouTube whenever they want. “Because virtual worlds are perpetually accessible and played in real time, participants are free to log on and off as they see fit” (Steinkuehler & Williams, 2006). The accessibility also lead to Globalization, a Malaysian consumer can access and watch an Australian YouTuber by access to the internet and search it on YouTube. Web 2.0 publishing becomes easier cause more and more producers from different countries publish their work to let people around them to consume and understand each other that create the links between them without physical interaction. “With the decline of the nation-state in global importance, due to the general cultural globalization supported by the Internet and communication technologies, the citizen of the nation-state has furthered this individuation and become a person, who joins with others in virtual communities” (Katz et al. 2004, 335).

 

 

Free culture.

Everyone likes free things. YouTube allows users to watch for free, publish for free, support for free and advertise or promote one’s products for free. YouTube as a Music or Video Streaming Site cause the decrease in CD sales. However, it increases the recognition of the music and artist that increase the revenue of the artist and media industry. “Our results indicate that new music consumption channels such as online streaming positively affect copyrights owners” (Aguiar and Martens 2013, p. 17). Distributor especially mainstream music industry should not see this free culture as a threat but an opportunity to make their products to be well known by increasing the exposure of the product. The emergence of the Web 2.0 shows that the need to change the way people consume products.

 

 

Marketing and self-promoting tool.

The use of web 2.0 in YouTube provides a platform that links the users together to form a strong bond between people and new ways of practicing communities that benefit both the producer and consumer. First, the effectiveness benefits the producer as it reaches very broad audiences that without the structural boundaries. Furthermore, it allows the producer to know audience’s thought and analyze their needs through feedback or comment so they can modify or make a different version to fulfil consumer’s need. “Therefore, it is likely that Web 2.0 was created to function as marketing strategy” (Fuchs 2010, p.767). The ability to share to other social network site benefits both producer and consumer. YouTube also allows mainstream media industries to look for the potential artist. At the same time, the user by uploading their work on to YouTube it might lead to a chance to be employed by a company. This shows that the virtual online space as the “third place” that might bring user to have real-world job opportunity (second place). “Second place is marked by financial obligation and rules that structure who is expected to be where and for how long; third place is marked by relative freedom of movement” (Steinkuehler & Williams, 2006).

 

 

Conclusion

Web 2.0 helps create a different way of communication in online communities like YouTube. Online communities formed through communication and the way of practicing communities have been differing from how it happens in real life. Online community members meet and interact with each other online without space and time limit. The topics and activities that connect the communities decide how interesting or active the communities are. The communities that create the sense of belonging, relativeness and supportive cause the members to come back for it. Furthermore, community members’ opinion is important to enrich the online contents and this Satisfied both the users’ and industries’ need. The emergence of user-generated-content is that a new public sphere emerges, in which all citizens can freely express their opinion (Fuchs, 2010). In Web 2.0 Users seem to have more control on distribution than before but the software industries still having the main control. People’s contribution is being sold to the advertising company and even they know that being is being targeted at, they will continue to do it because the sense of belonging with the convenience that internet especially social media sites provide seems more attractive and important to them. On the other hand, by being targeted at, they found they are being understood more and more services and products that can fulfil their need are being produced. Besides, the convenience and easy operating system of Web 2.0 social network application like YouTube encourage the user to keep contributing and communicating in the space. YouTube as the third place allows users to come and connect with their network public and leave when they want. All these characteristics of Web 2.0 or YouTube motivate the user to contribute to the online contents so that they can be benefited from it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

 

Aguiar, L. & Martens, B. (2013). Digital Music Consumption on the Internet: Evidence from Clickstream Data. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies Digital Economy. Working Paper 2013(04). Retrieved from http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC79605.pdf

 

Bakardjieva, M. (2011). The Internet in Everyday Life: Exploring the Tenets and Contributions of Diverse Approaches. In M. Consalvo and C. Ess (Eds). The Handbook of Internet Studies (page numbers?). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Boyd, D. (2007). Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Learning Youth, Identity, and Digital Media Volume. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.

http://www.danah.org/papers/WhyYouthHeart.pdf

 

Chaney, D. (2012). The Music Industry in the Digital Age: Consumer Participation in Value Creation. International Journal of Arts Management, 15(1), 42-52.

 

Darwish, A., & Lakhtaria, K. I. (2011). The impact of the new Web 2.0 technologies in communication, development, and revolutions of societies. Journal of Advances in Information Technology, 2(4), 204–216.

doi:10.4304/jait.2.4.204-216

 

Donath, J. (1999). Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community. In P. Kollock, & M. A. Smith (Eds.), Communities in Cyberspace. 29-59. New York: Routledge.

http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html

 

Fuchs, C. (2010). Social Software and Web 2.0: Their Sociological Foundations and Implications. In S. Murugesan (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Web 2.0, 3.0, and X.0: Technologies, Business, and Social Applications (pp. 764-789). New York, NY: Information Science Reference.

 

Jenkins, H. (2008). The Moral Economy of Web 2.0 (Part Two). Retrieved from

http://henryjenkins.org/2008/03/the_moral_economy_of_web_20_pa_1.html

 

Katz, J. E., Rice, R. E., Acord, S., Dasgupta, K., & David, K. (2004). Personal Mediated Communication and the Concept of Community in Theory and Practice. In P. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication and Community: Communication Yearbook 28 (pp. 315-371). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

http://www.comm.ucsb.edu/faculty/rrice/A80KatzRiceAcordDasguptaDavid2004.pdf

 

 

Sinnreich, A. (2010). Mashed Up: Music, Technology, and the Rise of Configurable Culture. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press

 

Steinkuehler, C. & Williams, D. (2006). Where Everybody Knows Your (Screen) Name: Online Games as “Third Places”. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 11(4), 885-909,

doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00300

 

van Dijck, J. (2009). Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content. Media, Culture & Society, 31(1), 41-58.

doi: 10.1177/0163443708098245

 

Wikstrom, P. (2010). Social and Creative Music Fan. In Music Industry : Music In    The Cloud (pp. 147-169).  Retrieved from https://link.library.curtin.edu.au/ereserve/DC60267084/0?display=1

 

Download PDF

Creative Commons License

This work by Ally Chua is licensed under a

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License