Chapters 6, 7, and the conclusion to New Media Cultures discussed new media’s impact on film, television, and other stuff, but I guess that the most interesting readings to me for this week were chapters 11 and 12 from The Social Media Reader, and Chapter 13 of A Networked Self. These chapters specifically dealt with an issue that I often wonder about- copyright.

Chapter 11 started the discussion. This chapter discussed the battle over copyright infringement. It appeared to make some good points about how the battle is not being won. It is simply creating a generation of criminals. I don’t want to be a criminal, who does? As will shortly be discussed, this appears to lead to my own worries about what I can and cannot post online. Chapter 12 of The Social Media Reader discussed the different rules that intermediaries of video productions face. Online intermediaries are under less stringent rules compared to traditional offline intermediaries. In fact, the chapter provided the following quote concerning this difference: “If the same sorts of rules described in the preceding section applied to the online intermediaries that provide digital storage and telecommunications services for every bit of data on the Internet, there simply would be no Internet.” “No company could hope to vet every e-mail message, website, file transfer, and instant message for copyright infringement” (p. 173). Although online intermediaries may not be completely held responsible for what individuals post on their sites such as YouTube, the individual posting is. Individuals can be sued for illegal use of copyrighted material.

Personally, what I can produce or post online is something that I have thought about on many occasions. I obviously do not understand all of the copyright laws. Does anyone? However, I do try to not participate in what I know is illegal (or sometimes what I think is illegal). For instance, I try not to watch copyrighted material that is being used illegally, and I try not to post items that I do not have permission to use. But I feel that I am very limited as to what I can do online. As I mentioned, I don’t know all of the rules and laws, so I often assume that most things online are infringing on copyright laws. It appears that I am not the only one who is concerned about this. Chapter 13 of A Networked Self states “In one of our studies, we found there was a high level of anxiety among college-age makers of online video about the risks of violating copyright (Aufderheide & Jaszi, 2007)” (p.276). Clearly there are others concerned about the legality of using material previously made by others. Chapter 13 was good in that it somewhat explained fair use, and provided some guidelines that individuals who are concerned with the issue can look to. However, it does not answer all questions.

References:

Aufderheide, P. & Jaszi, P. (2007). The good, the bad and the confusing: User-generated video creators on copyright, April, 20 pp.

Mandiberg, M. (Ed.) (2012). The Social Media Reader. New York: NYU Press.

Marshall, P. D. (2004). New Media Cultures. London: Hodder Arnold.

Papacharissi, Z. (Ed.). (2010). A Networked Self:!Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites. New York: Routledge.

Chapter 15 of The Social Media Reader discussed how fans of Star Wars often want to create their own “products” using the characters, plots, music and or other material from the famous movies. However, how should the individuals owning the rights to Star Wars and other brands feel about this? Although people want to create, should they be free to do as they please? The chapter pointed out how new technologies are making it possible for fans to create effects that rival those used in the original films, which may cause some confusion as to what are official Star Wars products. I can see both sides of the debate. You would like your fans to feel connected and free to be creative, but you would also like to keep control of where they take your original ideas. I also thought the chapter made a good point when it discussed legal reasons for maintaining control over fan productions. For instance, if the Star Wars Franchise did not claim to have the rights to material that has been created from their products, what would happen if one of their official products appeared to go in a direction similar to one that a fan proposed? Would they be sued?

Chapter 4 from A Networked Self dealt with the idea of “free” online labor. This chapter discussed how corporations can benefit from the free work we do online, and whether or not this is a form of exploitation. For instance, it is possible for corporations to benefit from the online social networks that employees have built up. The individuals that make up these networks may be viewed as potential customers or even as potential hires. But what if companies started demanding access to one’s social network as a job requirement? What if the size and value of an individual’s network played a role in whether or not he obtained employment at a particular firm? These are all interesting questions that the chapter asked. The chapter also went on to point out, from the viewpoint of the authors, two important aspects of exploitation. These are coercion and control. That is, are individuals forced into doing this free work, and do they lose control of what they produce?

The Banks and Humphreys (2008) article asked the question of whether or not individuals are being tricked into doing free work for a global media industry. However, the article made reference to the fact that this free work we often provide is often enjoyable. This reminded me of Tom Sawyer attempting to trick kids into painting a fence for him by pretending that the work was fun. Who knew that it could actually be fun? This article made some very good distinctions between individuals who co-produced for economic gain, and those who just co-produced for social benefits. It was somewhat interesting when the paper discussed how placing a dollar value on co-production can sometimes take the fun out of doing the work.

The article was also good to point out some of the risks involved for companies who attempt to use user generated work. For instance, work that is outsourced to individuals may not coincide well with corporate schedules. If the work gets too demanding, these individuals may simply leave the project. After all, it may just be a hobby for them.

References:

Banks, J., & Humphreys, S. (2008). The labour of user co-creators: Emergent social network markets? Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 14, 401-418.

Mandiberg, M. (Ed.) (2012). The Social Media Reader. New York: NYU Press.

Papacharissi, Z. (Ed.). (2010). A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites. New York: Routledge.

The Correa and Jeong (2011) article attempted to identify differences among racial groups when it comes to their use of participatory online technologies. The findings identified many possible differences. One set of findings that I found most interesting was the different ways that the groups expressed using participatory tools for enacting the self. For example, African-American students discussed using these tools to express themselves while White students discussed using the tools to showcase their work. However, Asian students talked about using the tools for keeping records. Personally, I can see myself using participatory tools for all three reasons, but it is interesting to see how the discussions among the groups appeared to be somewhat different.

The Blank and Reisdorf (2012) article was somewhat interesting in that they looked at web 2.0 from the user perspective. In their literature review, they discuss some of the areas that have done research on web 2.0. The business literature appeared to be one of the major areas. The article said that some of this literature has discussed how small companies should add certain Web 2.0 features (As used by bigger successful businesses) to their online presence to better their business. However, there does not appear to be much research on the issue from a users perspective. Blank and Reisdorf (2012) state, “In summary, prior work on Web 2.0 has focused typically on organizational producers of content. There is little work examining how users actually interact with Web 2.0 platforms” (p. 541). This is an interesting point, especially for the business literature. I think that I have probably discussed this before, but in a business that utilizes the marketing concept, the consumer’s needs should be placed first. The business should learn about the consumer/user, and find out what he or she wants. Therefore, it is somewhat surprising to me that there has not been much research from the user’s perspective.

The readings in “New Media and Cultures” focused on the Internet’s impact on culture. Chapter 2 also discussed the term interactivity. This term has been discussed many times in our class, and I have grown to rely on its use in my own definition of new media. Finally, we had two readings from “The Social Media Reader” as well. Chapter 7 focused on Journalism, and how different movements within the field have had different views of the audience, and chapter 16 was a short piece on what we do with our free time. Though chapter 16 was short, I found the subject matter to be interesting. The chapter discussed how the younger generation might not be satisfied with standing still and enjoying the “show.” This generation is looking for the mouse. They want to interact with what they are viewing.

References

Blank, G., & Reisdorf, B. (2012). The participatory web: A user perspective on Web. 2.0. Informa- tion, Communication & Society, 15, 537-554.

Correa, T., & Jeong, S. H. (2011). Race and online content creation: Why minorities are actively participating in the Web. Information, Communication & Society, 14, 638-659.

Mandiberg, M. (Ed.) (2012). The Social Media Reader. New York: NYU Press.

Marshall, P. D. (2004). New Media Cultures. London: Hodder Arnold.

Of the five articles we were assigned, three of them stood out the most to me. I was most intrigued by Tufekci and Wilson (2012), Gerodimos (2012), and Castells (2007). Tufekci and Wilson (2012) looked at how social media impacted participation in the 2011 Egyptian protests. To me, what was most interesting about this article was the risks that the researchers must have taken in obtaining the data. I’m sure that most of us remember some of the violent scenes we saw on television, and although it is an interesting article, I’m just not sure if obtaining the data was worth the risk. That being said, it is impressive to have so much data from such a historic event. The article states that 1,200 individuals were surveyed. It is amazing how this much data was collected during such a chaotic event. The article found that social media use did appear to positively impact first day protest attendance. The article also discussed how individual attenders worked sort of like reporters in taking their own photos and videos of the event, and then displaying these findings for others to see over the Internet. The study found that most who did this used Facebook. It was also interesting to read about how the Egyptian government tried to stop the information spread by shutting down the Internet. However, information continued to spread as a small amount of people were able to find a way around the government’s actions (Tufekci & Wilson, 2012).

I also found Gerodimos’ (2012) article to be interesting. This article looked at the willingness of young people to engage with civic websites. The most interesting findings to me where the two tables that displayed civic motivators and de-motivators. For example, one civic motivator was coded as “feeling I could make a difference or that my voice counts” (Gerodimos, 2012). I think that most of us can probably relate to this one. Why would we be motivated to do something if we did not feel that it made any difference? I think that this qualitative work can help future studies in this area.

As previously stated, I also found Castells (2007) article to be interesting. Although I may not agree with everything in the article, I found one quote early in his article to be very informative. Castells (2007) stated “the fundamental battle being fought in society is the battle over the minds of the people. The way people think determines the fate of norms and values on which societies are constructed” (p.238). We can see this battle taking place everyday. This is especially true as we come upon next weeks presidential election. Each candidate is trying to influence how voters think, and therefore, the voters are being infiltrated with a myriad of political messages.

References:

Castells, M. (2007). Communication, power and counter-power in the network society. International Journal of Communication, 1, 238-266.

Gerodimos, R. (2012). Online youth civic attitudes and the limits of civic consumerism. Information, Communication & Society, 15, 217-245.

Tufekci, Z., & Wilson, C. (2012). Social media and the decision to participate in political protest: Observations from Tahrir Square. Journal of Communication, 62, 363-379.

This weeks readings dealt with how different types of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) impact civil and political engagement (Rojas & Puig-i-Abril 2009). Though some of the findings were somewhat interesting, I was most intrigued by the discussion of how the network among certain sites and technologies can drastically differ.

For example, in the book A Networked self, chapter 9 discussed the potential differences among networks within social networking sites like YouTube, Facebook, and MySpace. Chapter 9 (Papacharissi, 2010, p. 187) states “A third important distinction between YouTube and other social network sites is that the networks on sites such as Facebook and MySpace often (though not exclusively) feature interactions between users who also have interpersonal connections offline, potentially resulting in homogeneous networks of likeminded individuals interacting with one another in the networked space.” To me, this can certainly explain why much of the dialogue on sites such as Facebook appear to be more civil than what you may find when reading the comments under a YouTube video. In a homogeneous network, individuals are more likely to agree about things due to their similarity. Therefore, there may not be as many arguments as one may find in heterogeneous network like YouTube where individuals may clash with one another due to differing opinions or ideas.

Also, as the above quote mentions, individuals who are friends on Facebook often have relationships offline. That is, the discussions on these sites are not between anonymous individuals. You may actually run into these individuals in your daily life. However, individuals may not personally know the others with whom they are conversing with on sites like YouTube that are characterized has having heterogeneous networks. Although heterogeneous networks may sometimes result in more aggressive discussions, there are also some advantages to networks like this. These networks can introduce individuals to differing viewpoints, and potentially result in a better understanding of the individuals holding these views (Papacharissi, 2010).

A couple of this weeks articles also discussed the type of ties that mobile communication seems to gravitate towards. For instance, Campbell and Kwak (2011) state, “although mobile communication is sometimes used to connect with new and weak ties (Boase & Kobayashi, 2008; Wilken, 2011), it has become a primary resource for connecting with close personal ties, who have an especially important influence on technology’s use and consequences” (p. 1006). Thinking about last week, I wonder what may create stronger social capital, a text message or a Facebook wall post. They could both create a stronger bond between the individuals, but one is more public than the other. It is somewhat interesting to think about which individuals we communicate with while using a certain type of technology or website.

References:

Boase, J., & Kobayashi, T. (2008). Kei-Tying teens: Using mobile phone e-mail to bond, bridge, and break with social ties – a study of Japanese adolescents. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(12), 930–943.

Campbell, S. W., & Kwak, N. (2011). Political involvement in ‘mobilized’ society: The interactive relationships among mobile communication, network characteristics, and political participation. Journal of Communication, 61, 1005-1024.

Papacharissi, Z. (Ed.). (2010). A Networked Self:!Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites. New York: Routledge.

Rojas, H., & Puig-i-Abril, E. (2009). Mobilizers mobilized: Information, expression, mobiliza- tion and participation in the digital age. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 902-927.

Wilken, R. (2011). Bonds and bridges: Mobile phone use and social capital debates. In R. Ling & S. Campbell (Eds.), Mobile communication: Bringing us together or tearing us apart? (pp. 127–150). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Vitak and Ellison (2012) interviewed 18 Facebook users to explore support and information seeking activities along with barriers to these exchanges. Some of what the interviewees had to say really hit home with me. For example, one of the interviewees discussed how Facebook easily allowed her to keep members of her network updated on a recent surgery that she went through. She did not have to send out individual email; rather, she was able to send a mass message out through her status update. She also discussed how the comments people would post in reply would really lift her spirits.

My brother recently went through several serious surgeries and Facebook did allow our family to quickly update others on his condition. As a Christian, I view this as a significant advantage of social networking sites. For example, Facebook allowed our family to quickly inform other praying individuals of prayer requests. As the article stated, these messages are not only sent to your closest friends. These messages also inform weaker ties, and allow them to show support through prayer or other words of encouragement.

However, I also understand the point that another interviewee made that highlights a potential barrier to information sharing. This individual discussed not wanting to immediately post information requesting support due to concerns with how it may be perceived. This individual did “not want to appear ‘needy’ or have people ‘feel sorry for her’ (Vitak and Ellison 2012).” I can completely understand where she is coming from. In fact, I could almost see myself thinking these very thoughts, but it is something that I feel I should get over. We do have friends on Facebook, and we should be willing to lean on them from time to time. We should not let our pride get in the way. I should take my own advice. To me, the benefits far outweigh the costs, but I do not always act in this way.

As can be seen, this article discussed how people use social networking sites. The other two readings discussed the issue of whether or not these sites increase social capital. Burke et al. (2011) define social capital as “the actual or potential resources which are linked to a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance or recognition.” In this article, I liked how the authors classified our SNS activities into three groups.  These groups included “(1) directed communication with individual friends,” “passive consumption of social news,” and “broadcasting (Burke et al. 2011).” I think that this classification makes great intuitive sense and can be adopted very easily by future studies. Both of these readings did show some support for the idea that social networking sites can impact social capital.

Burke, M., Kraut, R., & Marlow, C. (2011, May). Social capital on Facebook: Differentiating uses and users. Paper presented at the ACM CHI 2011: Conference on Human Factors in Comput- ing System, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Vitak, J., & Ellison, N. B. (in press). ‘There’s a network out there you might as well tap’: Explor- ing the benefits of and barriers to exchanging informational and support-based resources on Facebook. New Media & Society. doi: 10.1177/1461444812451566

Like Nike or Adidas, athlete’s themselves can also be thought of as a brand. And many athletes have been able to boost their brand and cash in on their popularity through the micro blogging site Twitter. For example, back in 2011, Shaquille O’Neal’s media strategists estimated that he could earn one to five million dollars through brand shout-outs on Twitter alone (“$5 million in 140 characters,” 2011). This was due to his 4.3 million followers, which has since grown to around 6.3 million in less than a year (“$5 million in 140 characters,” 2011; ; https://twitter.com/SHAQ).

Although Twitter allows sports athletes to present their own message, communicate with followers, and potentially earn a significant amount of advertising revenue dollars, the media is filled with a number of Twitter horror stories. The fact is that these ‘tweets’ are often unfiltered by marketers or public relation professionals (Pegoraro, 2010). This lack of filtration has gotten some of the tweeting athletes into more than a little hot water.

Athletes in this summer’s past Olympic games were not immune to the negative ramifications that can come from inappropriate Twitter remarks. For example, Swiss soccer player Michel Morganella was sent home from the Olympic games for tweeting insulting comments about another team, while Greek triple jumper Paraskevi Papahristou was booted from his team for his own derogatory Twitter comments which were shared over 100 times (Belson, 2012).

According to an article in the LA Times, Twitter can allow for one to quickly build up a brand. However, Twitter’s simplicity of use and “a lack of social-media training” can lead to missteps that can quickly destroy a brand as well (Holmes, 2011). But if a mistake does take place, all may not be lost. Experts say, “brands can be repaired if demands for transparency are met – quickly (Holmes, 2011).”

The above discussion clearly points out the need to further study athletes on Twitter. There is already a significant amount of research on the topic with some of the studies focusing on classifying what athletes are saying while on Twitter (Hambrick et al., 2011; Pegoraro, 2010; Blaszka, 2011). This article may draw on some of these findings and further the investigation by taking a look at athlete brand equity development as a function of being formed and co-created through athlete ‘tweets’ and follower interactions. More specifically, this article will look at the attention Twitter missteps may bring, the acceptance or non-acceptance of athlete apologies, and how this impacts brand image, knowledge, and ultimately equity.

According to Keller (1993), brand equity can occur only in the presence of brand knowledge. Keller (1993) further breaks brand knowledge into two components, brand awareness and brand image. Berry (2000), in his service-branding model appears to present the same two concepts giving one a different title. Berry (2000) suggests that brand awareness and brand meaning (brand image) both impact service brand equity. Clearly brand awareness and brand meaning represent important concepts within the branding literature and will be of use to this present article.

As presented by Berry (2000), external brand communication can impact both brand awareness and brand meaning. Berry (2000) defines external brand communication as “information customers absorb about the company and its service that essentially is uncontrolled by the company.” In the present context, an athlete’s tweet is the “presented brand” while “external brand communication” can be thought of as the comments posted by the athlete’s followers. In essence this can be viewed as a type of word of mouth (WOM) (Berry, 2000).

The above explanation meshes nicely with the idea of the prosumer and service dominant logic. The prosumer is one who both consumes and produces (Ritzer et al., 2012). This is exactly the case when it comes to some of the followers of athletes on Twitter. These followers not only consume the message of the athlete, but they develop its meaning and significance with their own comments as well. Ritzer et al. (2012) stated, “this process is also clear in the case of brands where consumers play a major role in producing the shared meanings that are the brand; they do not simply accept the brand messages created by marketers and advertisers. Thus, in a real sense, prosumers produce the meaning that surrounds brands such as McDonald’s, BMW, and Nike.” This same line of reasoning is displayed in the idea of service dominant logic. Lusch et al. (2007) states the importance of co-creation in adding value as a foundational premise of service-dominant logic.

As can be seen in recent cases, mistakes made by athletes on Twitter, such as that made by Greek triple jumper Paraskevi Papahristou, can have grave consequences. A poor statement can bring a great deal of attention for the athlete who makes the mistake bringing a greater level of brand awareness to the athlete. However, this can come at cost to the athlete in the form of a hit to his or her own brand image. This is often followed by a tweet with an explanation, excuse, or apology. But how accepting are followers of the athlete’s response? What drives acceptance, and how does this impact the brand image of the athlete and ultimately brand equity? This article proposes that a consumer’s acceptance of an athlete’s explanation, excuse, or apology following a Twitter mistake is not only dependent on what the athlete communicates (i.e. the presented brand), but also on the reactions (WOM) presented by other followers. In essence, the athlete’s brand image and ultimately brand equity is co-created with his or her fans, haters, and spectators.

But to what extent do comments from Twitter followers really influence an individual’s perception of an athlete, and to what extent do these comments influence one’s acceptance of an athlete’s apology? This article attempts to shed some light on these questions, and add to the persuasion literature by incorporating the elaboration likelihood model with a focus on an individual’s involvement level (Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann, 1983; Petty and Cacioppo, 1986).

References

$5 million in 140 characters. (2011, November 10). Men’s Journal, Retrieved from http://archive.mensjournal.com/5-million-in-140-characters

Belson, K. (2012, July 30). Swiss athlete sent home for twitter remark. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/sports/olympics/swiss-soccer-player-michel-morganella-sent-home-for-twitter-remark.html?_r=0

Berry, Leonard L. 2000. “Cultivating Service Brand Equity.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28 (1): 128-137.

Blaszka, M. An Examination of Sports Consumers’ Twitter Usage. Georgia State University Departmen of Kinesiology and Health, May 7, 2011.

Hambrick, M.E., Simmons, J.M., Greenhalgh, G.P., & Greenwell, T.C. (2011). Understanding professional athletes’ use of Twitter: A content analysis of athlete tweets. International Journal of Sport Communication, 3(4), 454-471.

Holmes, B. (2011, May 15). When athletes post on twitter, controversy can follow. Los angeles times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/15/sports/la-sp-0516-athletes-twitter-20110516

Keller, Kevin Lane (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring., & managing customer-based brand equity, Journal of Marketing, 57 (January), 1–22

Lusch, R.P., Vargo, S. L., and O’Brien, M., (2007), “Competing Through Service: Insights from Service-Dominant Logic,” Journal of Retailing, Vol. 83, No. 1, 5-18.

Petty, Richard E., John T. Cacioppo, and David Schumann (1983), “Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement,” Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (September), 135-146

Petty, R.E. & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986b) The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, pp. 123–205.

Ritzer, G., Dean, P., & Jurgenson, N. (2012). The coming of age of the prosumer. The American Behavioral Scientist, 56, 379-398.

Pegoraro, A. (2010) Look who‘s talking—athletes on Twitter: a case study. International Journal of Sport Communication,3, 501-514.

In chapter 6 of The Social Media Reader, Boyd discussed this idea of being always-on when it comes to the Internet. She does not necessarily mean that these individuals are always surfing the web or checking their email, but rather that these individuals have access to the Internet at almost any moment.  The chapter described a world of individuals plugged into a network with tons of information that no one could ever sort through. It is true; there is so much information out there. It almost makes me dizzy just thinking about it. In the chapter, Boyd raised the question of how does she sort through all of this information? Clearly there is no formula or step-by-step process that we all can follow. I guess we can only do like Boyd does. We can try our best. However, I felt that she brought up an important question at the end. She stated, “but aren’t we living in a world where knowing how to get information is more important than memorizing it? (pg. 75)” As discussed, we do have so much information at our finger tips, so shouldn’t there be more of a focus on learning how to access this information as opposed to rote memorization?

Back when I was working on my undergraduate degree, I had a professor who told us that his tests would be open book. He said something along the lines of, “if you don’t know the answer in the “real world,” you’ll just go look it up.” Therefore, he allowed us to look in the book while on the test. I appreciated this gesture since it took some of the pressure off due to the fact that I would not have to memorize everything for the tests, but it didn’t mean that I didn’t have to study. In fact, some may argue that these tests are harder because you never have time to look everything up, but I disagree. Sure you have to be familiar with the material and know where to find the answer, and I think that this is what Boyd is getting at.

Chapter 11 of A Networked Self discussed Twitter. Much of what is discussed in this chapter is pertinent to my abstract that I am posting today. Though I did not cite this chapter, much of the ideas go hand in hand with some of the ideas that I present.

Chapter 12 of A Networked Self analyzed the photos of college students on Facebook. I did not find their results to be that surprising. Much of their findings were what I would expect. In fact, my own experience with Facebook can relate to some of these findings. I think that there is a lot of substance to the idea that posting a photo helps to build and express the relationships with the individuals in the photo.

Papacharissi, Z. (Ed.). (2010). A Networked Self:!Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites. New York: Routledge.

Mandiberg, M. (Ed.) (2012). The Social Media Reader. New York: NYU Press.

The Ritzer et al. (2012) article discussed the idea of the prosumer. The article stated, “the term prosumption was coined by Alvin Toffler in 1980 and refers to a combination of production and consumption (Ritzer et al., 2012).” The article discusses how production and consumption go hand in hand. This article also cited Lusch and Vargo’s (2006) concept of a “service-dominant logic of marketing.” This idea has been very influential within my academic field. One of the foundational premises of S-D logic is that “the customer is always a co-creator of value (Lusch et al., 2007). That is, the customer plays a role in both the producing and the consuming. This idea meshes nicely with the marketing concept, which basically informs marketers and businesses to be customer focused. It appears that this co-creation is not a new concept; rather, it has been more noticeable with the development of new technologies and platforms.

Although the consumer is providing free labor, he or she does appear to be voluntarily providing it. For instance, I know that I am giving Facebook data about myself, and that I am freely providing content for the site. However, I choose to do this, but I do agree that companies can be and should be more forthright in letting us know that they will be using our data. But what are we getting in return for our labor? As the Chia (2012) article points out, there are plenty of bloggers out there who provide all of this content, but only to a small audience. These bloggers do not have much hope of making a lot of money off their blogs, but they can find reward in the conversations they generate with a handful of others who are willing to take the time to read their blog and interact with them. Money isn’t everything!

Much of this weeks articles also discussed blogs and advertisements.  The Kozinets et al. (2010) article had an interesting analysis of how individuals present WOMM within their own blogs, and how their readers responded to the endorsements. It was interesting to see how the content of a person’s blog impacts the norms that are expected within a certain community. It appears that context may matter in whether or not WOMM will be accepted by potential consumers. Jensen (2011) also discussed blogs and advertisements. However, this book chapter was more concerned with the ethics of sponsored posts. I was most alarmed by the idea of flogging. “Flogging occurs when fake or false accounts of happy imaginary customers and consumers are created (Jensen, 2011). I cannot believe that any company would risk their reputation by participating in such an unethical activity. I think that I agree with the idea of disclosure. If someone is being paid to post about a product, he or she should inform the readers of this happening. I can remember receiving a note from my apartment that offered to put me in a drawing for a cash prize (if I remember correctly) for posting a review about the complex. I do not believe that they said it had to be a positive review, but they gave an example in the note of a shining review. I did not participate. It just felt funny.

Although individuals may rely on WOM from other online users, it appears that the unethical acts by businesses and bloggers may bring into question the legitimacy of much of these claims. Willemsen et al. (2011) also pointed out that “negative arguments along with positive arguments contribute to higher perceived usefulness” when it comes to online consumer reviews. Therefore, it appears that blogs that display unwavering favoritism toward a brand or product, may not be judged as being useful to potential consumers. An individual reading a blog like this may assume some form of flogging, whether or not this has taken place.

References

Chia, A. (2012). Welcome to me-mart. The American Behavioral Scientist, 56, 421-438.

Jensen, R. (2011). Blogola, sponsored posts, and the ethics of blogging. In B. E. Drushel & K. German (Eds.), The ethics of emerging media: Information, social norms, and new media technology (pp. 213-232). New York: Continuum.

Kozinets, R. V., de Valck, K., Wojnicki, A. C., & Wilner, S. J. S. (2010). Networked narratives: Understanding word-of-mouth marketing in online communities. Journal of Marketing, 74(2), 71- 89.

Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2006). Service dominant logic: Reactions, reflections, and refinements. Marketing Theory, 6(3), 281-288.

Lusch, R.P., Vargo, S. L., and O’Brien, M., (2007), “Competing Through Service: Insights from Service-Dominant Logic,” Journal of Retailing, Vol. 83, No. 1, 5-18.

Ritzer, G., Dean, P., & Jurgenson, N. (2012). The coming of age of the prosumer. The American Behavioral Scientist, 56, 379-398.

Willemsen, L. M., Neijens, P. C., Bronner, F., & de Ridder, J. A. (2011). ‘Highly recommended!’ The content characteristics and perceived usefulness of online consumer reviews. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(1), 19-38.

A common theme among some of this weeks articles was that technology has opened the doors for many new types of advertisements. As discussed in (Taylor et al., 2011), Social Networking Sites provide ample opportunities for advertisers, and Wilken and Sinclair (2009) discussed how mobile technology also represents an arena of seemingly untapped advertising opportunities. Although companies would be able to reach many people at one time with these technologies, there appears to be a problem. The problem is that advertisers and other stakeholders do not want to scare off users by over advertising, or crossing some boundary and violating the privacy of the users. Personally, I don’t really care too much about the ads on Facebook. For the most part, I just tune them out. However, I am against receiving advertisements on my mobile device. I guess that I have had some ads sent to my phone before, but as Wilken and Sinclair (2009) put it, mobile media advertising is still “waiting for the kiss of life.” If mobile advertising never receives this awakening, that would be okay with me!

Kolsaker and Drakatos (2009) had an interesting take on studying mobile advertising. They looked at “the influence of emotional attachment to mobile devices on consumer receptiveness” to mobile advertising (Kolsaker and Drakatos, 2009). Their findings indicate that individuals who hold a greater emotional attachment to their mobile devices are more likely to be receptive to mobile ads, but that in general, this form of advertisement irritates individuals. This article also introduced me to an interesting study by Henley (2003) that categorized mobile device users into three groups. Users can be classified as “‘Connected but Unattached’ who use devices mainly for calls and little else; ‘Prosthetics’ who remember life before mobile devices and consider them to be an extension of self, used mainly for administration and organizing; and ‘Cyborgs’ who cannot imagine life without their mobile device (Kolsaker and Drakatos, 2009).”

The Muntinga et al. (2011) article interviewed individuals in an attempt to uncover the antecedents of consumer online brand-related activities (COBRAs). Just like the (Taylor et al., 2011) article, Muntinga et al. utilized the uses and gratifications approach to study the topic at hand. Within this approach, I am most interested in the personal identity motivation. It was interesting to see how this motivation may specifically lead individuals to contribute or make their own brand-related content. This is a great insight for marketers since as discussed in the Paek et al. (2011) article, user generated content can impact attitudes. The Paek et al (2011) article looked at public service announcements (PSA) and the impact of producer type on attitudes, issue importance, and behavioral intention. Their discussion of ELM was also important in this context. According to ELM, individuals low in involvement are more likely to attend to source characteristics, while individuals high in involvement are more likely to attend to message claims. The ELM makes it clear that a marketer must know his or her audience before attempting to communicate a persuasive message.

Henley Management College. 2003. People discover the joy of text. Summit (no. 8), http://www.henleymc.ac.uk/henleymc03.nsf/files/SummitIssue8.pdf/$FILE/SummitIssue8.pdf (accessedAugust 18, 2008).

Kolsaker, A., & Drakatos, N. (2009). Mobile advertising: The influence of emotional attachment to mobile devices on consumer receptiveness. Journal of Marketing Communications, 15, 267-280.

Muntinga, D. G., Moorman, M., & Smit, E. G. (2011). Introducing COBRAs: Exploring motivations for brand-related social media use. International Journal of Advertising, 30(1), 13-46.

Paek, H.-J., Hove, T., Jeong, H. J., & Kim, M. (2011). Peer or expert? The persuasive impact of YouTube public service announcement producers. International Journal of Advertising, 30(1), 161- 188.

Taylor, D. G., Lewin, J. E., & Strutton, D. (2011). Friends, fans, and followers: Do ads work on social networks? Journal of Advertising Research, 51(1), 258-275.

Wilken, R., & Sinclair, J. (2009). ‘Waiting for the kiss of life’: Mobile media and advertising. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 15, 427-445.