Author Archives: Alexa

Oct
03
2012

User, not Loser, Generated Content!

Posted by

Service-dominant logic has certainly made a striking impression on marketing academia. It focuses on viewing a customer as an operant resource, or a collaborative partner who co-creates value with the firm (Vargo and Lusch 2004). In short, it is a market with orientation, as opposed to a market to orientation, in which a market and customer were analyzed and products were produced to meet customer needs (Vargo and Lusch 2007). When we studied this concept that is now very popular in the marketing literature, I was surprised to learn that the term service-dominant logic was not coined until 2004. Upon reading Ritzer, Dean, and Jurgenson (2012), however, I learned that researchers such as Toffler and Kotler have been studying the idea of presumption for over thirty years, which set the stage for related ideas such as service-dominant logic. One of the most unique examples of prosumption offered by Ritzer, Dean, and Jurgenson is the Twitter backchannel at conferences. I have tweeted about various sessions at academic conferences and have found the process to be engaging because it allows me to participate in the session even if I did not give a formal presentation. Furthermore, by offering my opinions on the presentation, I am able to connect with other conference attendees who are also tweeting.

Willemsen et al.’s (2011) finding that the negativity effect occurs for experience products whereas the positivity effect occurs for search products is quite useful for marketers who maintain companies’ online presence. For instance, if a restaurant was concerned about the effect of online reviews on the patronage of the restaurant, it would be extra careful to monitor negative reviews, whereas a computer manufacturer should pay attention to whether consumers are bothering to write positive reviews about their products. However, I felt that the study should have included the number of reviews as a control variable. If there is only one positive review of a product, I tend to feel more skeptical about it than if there are many positive reviews. Additionally, if there is one scathing review among multiple positive reviews, I tend to consider the angry reviewer to be a “nitpicker”, or someone who is generally difficult to please. This would be an interesting future consideration for online review studies.

Chia (2010) mentions that some scholars believe that people who create UGC are being exploited because they are not compensated for their work. Peterson even goes so far as to say that UGC should be termed “loser-generated content” instead of “user-generated content”. While I agree that companies and marketers can make money off of user-generated data, I do not think that the people who create this content are being exploited. They are creating this content willingly, and no one (besides the authors of books that teach people how to capitalize on their blogs) is promising that they will earn any monetary compensation from it. I found it interesting that so many bloggers consider reader comments to be a form of compensation. However, as mentioned by Chia, social compensation does not translate into actual compensation. But perhaps bloggers who do not get many hits on their blogs realize that blogging is not a realistic means of substantial income. In other words, they see it as more of a hobby, in which case, social compensation may suffice.

Sep
25
2012

Advertising, Marketing, & New Media – oh, my!

Posted by

Given that mobile advertising is still so new, I do not feel that the “right to privacy” versus the “right to advertising” debate as mentioned by Wilken and Sinclair (2009) has been fully fleshed out yet. As mobile advertising capabilities grow increasingly more sophisticated, it seems only natural for companies to want to fully exploit the technology. Yet, this has not necessarily been the case, as pointed out by the authors, due to consumers’ reluctance to adopt the technology. This shift in power from the marketer to the consumer is very evident in much of the marketing literature on Web 2.0 and social networks; marketers can no longer expect that pushing their advertising strategies on the consumer will work, as noted by Kolsaker and Drakatos (2009). Therefore, it is quite interesting to observe this debate from the consumer’s point of view. While fear of spam is an expected source of consumer reluctance, desire to keep mobile phones private is a more interesting concept to consider. If consumers perceive their mobile phones to be an extension of themselves, then their desire to keep their phones private could extend into more general consumer privacy issues. It would be interesting to consider how consumers’ perceptions of online privacy or even privacy in general affect their perceptions of mobile phone privacy.

In the marketing program, we have studied classic work on source communication and persuasion (i.e. Hovland and Chaiken), which, as Paek, Hove, and Jeong (2011) mention, lead to the creation of Petty and Cacioppo’s widely used Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM). Thus, it is interesting to consider source communication and persuasion research from the perspective of modern media such as user-generated content websites. Despite the new medium, however, it appears that Paek, Hove, and Jeong’s (2011) results are similar to past work on the ELM: favorable attitudes toward peer-produced messages are more pronounced among low-involved participants, whereas high-involved participants are more favorable to expert-produced messages. It is interesting that the ELM continues to be supported in many contexts, and I find it to be a valuable model to use in persuasion research.

It is unsurprising to me that Taylor, Lewin, and Strutton (2011) found that consumers respond most favorably to entertaining SNA content, followed by informative content. The authors mentioned, however, that if entertaining message styles are inappropriate, informative content is the next best option. I would be interested to see if this speculation holds true under study. Given that consumers’ motivation to use SNSs is often to relieve stress, perhaps products that would do poorly with an entertaining ad message in traditional mediums could “get away with” using such a style in SNAs.

Finally, I particularly enjoyed Muntinga, Moorman, and Smit’s (2011) article on motivations for brand-related social media use because it is an area of research that I am interested in. Their typology organization was useful, given the many sub-motivations within each usage type. I drew a model of the typology because I thought that a visual would make it easier to digest:

COBRA Typology

Regardless of a consumer’s level of brand-related activeness, it seems that entertainment continues to be a common motivation when it comes to social media. This is aligned with Taylor, Lewin, and Strutton’s (2011) finding that consumers respond most favorably to entertaining SNA content.

Bottom line: Use cute cat videos in your ads and you can’t go wrong! :)

Sep
17
2012

Public vs. Private: Who’s to Know?

Posted by

Beldad, de Jong, and Steehouder (2011) raise some interesting points in their review of the literature related to information privacy. First, it is apparent that privacy and control go hand in hand. That is, one’s perceived privacy seems to have everything to do with the amount of control he or she possesses and would like to maintain over his or her personal information. While this differs by individual, personal data has also become a commodity, which, in my opinion, is what makes research on information privacy both challenging and interesting. Some people seem to provide access to their personal information quite freely, while others exercise great caution in determining which information to provide publicly. Furthermore, we live in an age where personal information is often not only required by governing bodies and companies, but also by other individuals (i.e., mobile application developers) in order to reap certain benefits. Sure, we consumers can use cues such as online privacy statements, third-party seals of approval, and security mechanisms, but in a society where personal data has been commoditized, how can we really know whom to trust?

I was pleasantly surprised to read Bodie’s (2011) article about Google’s privacy policy communications. I found Bodie’s take to be refreshing, given all the positive media hype that often surrounds Google. I agree that it can deceitful for companies to shift privacy protection responsibilities to the user and to use misleading linguistic forms, as mentioned in the article. Furthermore, Google’s practice of “obscurity through simplicity” and implementing different supplemental privacy policies for fifty products is doing a disservice to its users. However, I also feel that users should take responsibility for the technologies they use, similar to the way people must take responsibility for their use of any product, service, or system. To me, this is part of being a “smart consumer”.

The debate between Ford (2011; 2012) and Jurgenson and Rey (2012) about publicity and privacy as a continuum or dialectic is a curious one to consider. Ford’s (2011) distinction between spatial and personal privacy was particularly interesting. Although it may be true that “…in order to maintain personal privacy, we need private spaces in which to keep our information private” (Ford 2011), Ford (2011; 2012) and Jurgenson and Rey (2012) contend that this barrier is breaking down. I understand the points made by Jurgenson and Rey; however, it makes more sense to me to consider the modern relationship between publicity and privacy as a continuum. As noted by Ford (2011), social media users reveal much about their private lives to the public realm of the Internet. Moreover, in her rebuttal piece (2012), she makes the point that the social media technology itself impacts how users manage access to that content. As such, it appears that a continuum exists, ranging from highly private, where information is very restricted and controlled by the user, to highly public, where information is very open and not controlled by the user. In my opinion, this continuum is the best way to think about the relationship between public and private as we plunge headfirst into a digitally- and socially- connected world.

Sep
13
2012

With an Open Mind to Open Source

Posted by

I was intrigued to see that open source was one of the topics for this week’s discussion because aside from the basic concept of what it means, I was rather unfamiliar with it. Vaidhyanathan quotes Benkler, who views open source as “peer production”, which, in my opinion, gets at the very heart of what open source is all about. The opportunities for collaboration offered by open source is at the heart of what distinguishes Web 2.0 from 1.0 and, as mentioned in the readings, Linux and Wikipedia are excellent examples of how just how embedded in our society open source has become. I also thought that Vaidhyanathan brought up a good point that the copyright holder must have enough faith in the copyright system to justify his or her investment in it. Without such faith, the system cannot thrive, which is why some programmers and entrepreneurs contribute to open source. Given the popularity of the aforementioned examples, the open source concept is more powerful than one might think.

Interestingly, Hyde et al. discussed the difference between sharing of content and collaboration, two terms that can be easily confused, especially in the context of social media. As mentioned by Hyde et al., social media platforms can become collaborative when they add an additional layer of coordination such as a hashtag on Twitter. However, such platforms are not inherently collaborative, which implies a many-to-many reach. Often, users simply share content, which can be viewed as more of a one-to-many approach. In this way, it can be argued that while many social network users may feel that they are collaborating when they use social media, they are simply sharing content.

As a marketing doctoral student, I found the case studies discussed by Mandiberg to be quite interesting. Mandiberg’s main point is that participation breeds creative mutation, which leads to better ideas through collaboration. From a business perspective, it is a natural inclination to think that this mentality is a good one to have if you want your idea to be “stolen” from you. However, Mandiberg argues that as a result of others’ contributions, the original idea can be transformed into something greater than what it started as. It is interesting to note, however, that this tends to work best for a product that has some sort of digital component to it because a strictly physical product does not require collaboration, but simply, a means of production.

I have often wondered about some of Dawson’s points in her argument for a DIY Academy. However, she begins the chapter by saying that “…scholars illogically hand over their hard-won knowledge virtually for free to presses…” While this is true, I believe that part of the beauty of scholarly research lies in its tenets of peer revision and journal selectivity. After all, by electing journal editors who have vast experience in a given field and by allowing all authors to review one another’s work, this system helps to maintain the prestige that academia is known for, while still allowing for the acceptance of a variety of viewpoints through the security of the tenure system. I agree that in light of developments in digital technology, the current publishing system should be revised, but I’m not sure that a completely open-access arrangement is the best move for scholarship either.

 

Sep
05
2012

Thoughts on Week 2 Readings – Alexa Sullivan

Posted by

To begin our discussion on networks, Marshall references a fundamentally different type of communication that was unimaginable prior to 1990 but is thriving in today’s society. Interestingly, he discusses how this digital culture has facilitated cross-institutional discussions and globally connected politics. The effect of a phenomenon on politics is not often considered in the business academic literature, so this discussion intrigued me. Marshall also mentions, however, that not everyone in the world has access to the information flows that we often take for granted, such as email. Not only has such a medium become second nature to many people, but also it is considered by many individuals to be an inexpensive form of communication. However, email access is unavailable in many countries due to the substantial upfront cost of the technology. Therefore, while the digital culture has allowed for increased global connectedness, it is interesting to think that we are still unable to connect with so many cultures whose perspectives could shift our everyday norms.

boyd’s view of social network sites as a genre of networked publics is also quite interesting because she views networked publics as both a space and a collection of people. She defines profile generation as “an explicit act of writing oneself into being in a digital environment”, which spurred the thought that one’s profile on a social networking site is, essentially, his or her digital existence or identity. One’s digital identity differs from one’s actual identity because in the digital world, a user seems to have more control over how he or she is represented, which may or may not be an accurate portrayal of one’s actual self. boyd argues that social networking site users converse and share through digital profiles, which does not give participants complete control over their self-representation. I agree with this to an extent, but it is also easier to monitor, modify, and delete contributions to one’s digital profile than to their real-life reputation. Furthermore, in the “real” world, one can act like or aspire to be someone he or she is not, but it may be more difficult to execute than in the digital world.

Finally, Stalder’s review of Castells’s theory of the network society raised several interesting points. It offers a new, more detailed perspective of what a network truly is. According to Castells, when it comes to networks, one must see a bigger picture; a network is more than just a way of organizing processes: it is the signature of a new era. Additionally, he mentions that networks recreate themselves; thus, while they continually undergo structural changes, they preserve their patterns of organization. In this way, an environment is subject to a network, which is determined by the redefinition of and differences among its participants. In my opinion, this makes sense in the context of the social networking site, Twitter. Twitter’s users are very diverse and tweet about many different topics, yet all users tweet using the same network. Therefore, it is not the similarity of Twitter’s users that defines the popular social networking site, but rather, the explicit purpose of making their voices heard on platform that strives “to instantly connect people everywhere to what’s most important to them” (Twitter 2012).

Aug
21
2012

Introduction – Alexa Sullivan

Posted by

Hi, everyone! My name is Alexa Sullivan and I am a second-year Ph.D. student in the Department of Marketing and Supply Chain Management here at The University of Memphis. I moved to Memphis from Ohio with a strong interest in researching the development and application of emerging technologies in consumer behavior, as well as consumer awareness and attitudes toward online privacy and identity management. I am eager to integrate existing knowledge, new technology and methods, and societal shifts in to my academic research.

Prior to moving to Memphis, I worked closely with a variety of companies, including Fortune 100 firms, mid-sized corporations, government entities and not-for-profit organizations as a Project Assistant for a strategic marketing firm. I also worked as a Program Consultant for a nonprofit organization that focuses on economic development in Northeast Ohio, where I developed and managed the organization’s general branding and marketing strategies and implemented social media strategy and communication. I was also a SEM Copywriter at an online marketing company, where I researched relevant topics and created compelling, online content for clients. I completed my M.B.A. in Strategic Marketing and B.S.B.A. in International Business at The University of Akron.

I really enjoy using new media in both my professional and personal life. Not only does it enhance my productivity as a student, but it also allows me to stay current on topics I am interested in and keep in touch with my family and friends on a regular basis. As is the case with almost anything, I believe that too much technology can be dangerous. Individuals who sacrifice aspects of their physical life for time and energy spent using new media are likely missing out on major opportunities in the “real world”. But as long as new media remains as a part of one’s life and not his or her entire life, I believe that it is changing the way we learn, work and play for the better, and that the best is yet to come – which is why I am so excited to take this course! I am looking forward to meeting all of you.