CC BY
40Альманах теоретических и прикладных исследований рекламы. 2014. №1. I. ЗАРУБЕЖНЫЕ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ РЕКЛАМЫ
TRUST, SOCIAL MEDIA AND BRAND COMMUNITIES.
A LITERATURE REVIEW
David W. L. Reid
Swinburne University of Technology, Australia, dreid@swin.edu.au
This literature review is framed in the context of the following research agenda: an investigation of trust and how one Australian brand, a large telecommunications company, addresses (the nature of) trust first within the business and secondly in their online social media-based 'brand' communities.
First I offer a background to the key word that forms the crux of my research question. The etymology of trust is early-middle English (c.1200) and over time it has come to mean a variety of things to different cultures. Defining trust is complex and so too is the placement of that trust. Trust for Dowell is: "An expectancy about another party's benevolence, contractual integrity, ability and character.... Trust involves a willingness to be vulnerable and to take risks" [3, p. 37]. In the online environment where trust can be seen to be existing it is seen as "a decision by an agent A (the trustor) to rely on another agent B (the trustee) to perform a given action" [10, p. 335]. What then is social media? Ellison, Steinfield and Lampe's [2007] definition is widely referenced: "Social Media, especially SNS (Social Network Services), enable users to present themselves, establish and maintain social connections with others" [4, p. 1143]. In contemplating this definition it is important to take into account the fact that Ellison identifies participants in the online space as users, and not consumers. This is important and I will address this later in this literature review. Finally it is essential to have an understanding of what constitutes a brand community. Muniz and O'Guinn define brand communities in the virtual space as "a structured set of brand-consumer social relations articulated online" [2, p. 6]. Muniz and O'Guinn interestingly define the user as a consumer, which high-
lights one of the many dichotomies that academic research into online communities must address. What then is the make-up of the community?
There are a number of mitigating factors that need to be addressed when taking trust into account including assessment, reputation, risk, and security. Before that can be done it's important to clarify the social context wherein trust is to be assessed as: "trust is foundational to human existence ... and specifically to friendship and democratic deliberation" [5, p. 289].
Ess suggests that in order to define trust it is important to first address its source by breaking it down into cognitive and non-cognitive accounts. What then are these accounts? Ess refers to Philip Petits' definition of trust as a product of a cognitive (or rational process): "Narrowed to 'interactive, trusting reliance' on others upon whom we may be dependent in one way or another - reasons of loyalty, reasons of virtue, and reasons of prudence" [5, p. 290]. By contrast a non-cognitive definition of trust sees "trustful attitudes, affects, emotions, or motivational structures that are not focused on specific people, institutions, or groups" [5, p. 290].
Another consideration that needs to be taken into account is the impact of technology on an individual's perception of trust in any shape and form. Here there is another view. Taddeo and Floridi [2011] define this area simply as 'e-trust', and suggest that we consider the user, (or the consumer), as an 'agent': "A decision/condition achieved by one artificial agent with regard to an input provided it by another" [9, p. 1].
For the sake of this research project and the necessity to delimit the focus and subsequent research avenues I am addressing (and hopefully developing) the definition and interpretation of trust in the online environment as the most pertinent.
In searching for literature in the field it has become apparent to this researcher that whilst the field is evolving rapidly, it has not kept up with the frenetic pace of technological development. The Internet has evolved from Web 1.0 that was static with limited interactivity to Web 2.0 that was about social interaction and community to what is defined as the semantic web (what we have today), which some
technologists such as Hoffman1 also define as Web 3.0. So too has research into online trust migrated from an analysis of smaller web communities to that which has a much greater complexity. For example the understanding of the nature of risk, what I term a mitigating factor when considering the nature of trust in an online environment, was considered somewhat of an issue in the late 1990s. Kollock stated that "the presence of trust turns out to be a key factor with a riskier environment" [10, p. 336]. This was followed up by Johnson who saw the web as an environment of limited clarity: "trust is difficult to develop in an environment in which one cannot be sure of the identities of the people with whom one is communicating" [10, p. 337].
Today, as I write this, it is easy to ridicule such notions from a consumer-brand interaction point of view. The development of technology has afforded the user and the consumer the great privilege of significant insight (should it be so chosen) into the online communities in which participation takes place. There is simply so much information available via the World Wide Web and online tools to analyse that very data, it is virtually impossible to hide as every user/consumer has an online record. Here is where online reputation plays a significant part. "Reputation is widely recognized as one of the main criteria used to assess the trustworthiness of a potential trustee" [10, p. 338]. For example, I personally use 20 to 30 social networking platforms, for a number of different reasons, including Fa-cebook (primarily for communication and interaction with friends, family and work colleagues), LinkedIn (for professional engagement), and Twitter (for professional engagement and active research). My online profiles are viewed by not only my family, but also my friends, colleagues and peers. Without requesting it I automatically have an online reputation.
What then if the coin is flipped? Is it possible to consider the companies that manage these platforms or more specifically the consumer's perception of them? The experience of popular platforms and applications is consumed by a significant majority of people, without hesitation. For example; Mark Zuckerberg announced that
i
Reid Hoffman is the founder of LinkedIn. In a keynote address at the SXSW Interactive Conference in Dallas, Texas, USA (15-03-2011) he highlighted the developmentof Web 3.0.
Facebook passed 1 billion users in October 20122. Is Facebook trustworthy? Albrechtslund terms this reverse situation as participatory surveillance and a problem: "the lateral surveillance of social networking sites... such trust is restricted to very limited circles" [5, p. 297]. This requires further consideration.
What therefore is Brand Trust? If I accept Demolombe's position that "online trust is successful when the communication is honest and transparent" [10, p. 343], does it apply to companies and their respective brands in the online environment? As I mentioned earlier, the impact of the most recent technological revolution has had a fundamental impact on the brand consumer relationship. The impact of media convergence and the current simplicity of means of communication and interaction granted us firstly by the World Wide Web and most recently by mobile technology have created a role reversal. Historically it is possible to see how brands might have gone about relating to consumers. Advertising and Marketing communication messages, in the greater majority of cases, were directed by the brand. Doney and Cannon have called it a "Calculative Process" [6, p. 1759]. Chaudhuri and Holbrook defined the process as "the willingness of the average consumer to rely on the ability of the brand to perform its stated function" [6, p. 1759].
With the advent of Web 2.0 in particular and the launch of social networking platforms like Facebook, the user, who remains a consumer from a brand's perspective, wields significant power. Brands that have historically utilised traditional media platforms for the dissemination of advertising and marketing communication have moved to the internet. First they have developed their own websites (web presence), after which they developed and implemented a variety of digital advertising solutions (e.g. banner ads), and more recently they have gravitated to SNS because that's where everyone is, including their present and future consumers. A Nielsen report reinforces this: "Social networking sites have become so pervasive that they are the most popular Internet destinations" [1, p. 14].
The users are defined in this research as social media consumers. They now interact with a brand in an online social media com-
2 Mark Zuckerberg is the Co-founder and Chief Executive of Facebook. Press announcement 04-10-2012
munity (a brand community) and have the opportunity to drive the growth or the decline of a brand's presence in that space. This can be achieved in many shapes and forms, and as with the growth of technology, is evolving. Two clear paths exist: through 'eWOM', electronic word of mouth, or through 'COBRA', consumer online brand-related activities. Kozinets highlights the importance of eWOM for brands: "Online communities foster impressionable facts about the brand through WOM" [6, p. 1759] whilst Laroche reveals that consumers' online brand-related activities create a unique brand-consumer relationship as social media consumers are "co-creators of value" [6, p. 1758]. Playing into this area of brand co-creation is Chi's opinion that "brands must create whatever consumption experience users desire when social networking online" [2, p. 5]. Thus social media-based brand communities are set up and managed by social media managers (brand representatives); they are desirable social media consumer experiences that are partially driven by the participants.
From an economic standpoint, this theoretically becomes a 'win win ' for the brand. Engagement in the brand and brand-related activities grows organically within the social media-based brand communities. As the brand experience is online the technology, the platform, supplies rich information (data) back to the brand. "Social Media and online social networking sites provide social graphs that depict networked social interactions" [2, p. 5]. This insight allows for greater control over a marketing strategy. The larger the brand the more important is the data identifying market segmentation. Analytical tools both freely (e.g. Google Analytics) and commercially available (e.g. HowSocialable) supplies this detail, addressing such important consumer attributes as activities, interests and opinions. Another way of looking at this is that analytical tools provide enhanced psychographic analysis.
What then defines a brand community? Brand communities in the virtual space are "a structured set of brand-consumer social relations articulated online" [6, p. 1757). It "encourages them (social media users) to engage in brand-centred social relations" [2, p. 2). Within these social relations are a complex series of shared social processes, which Muniz defines as brand community markers [6, p.
1756). They include a shared consciousness, obligations to society and shared rituals.
Whilst the social media consumer maintains a "sense of freedom" and also "belonging" [6, p. 1757], ultimately they join communities, brand communities, to engage with like-minded individuals. They have "cognition with others" that maintain, "shared norms, values, interests" [2, p. 5]. Laroche also points out that "participants derive social and hedonic values" [6, p. 1757]. A brand community also excerpts significant power and authority, whilst they "execute important tasks on behalf of the brand" [6, p. 1756]; they are also good at "influencing consumer behaviour" [6, p. 1759]. Chi's research highlights a significant correlation between social networking online presence, and interest in goods which can convert to the purchasing of said goods: "social networking experience is important in influencing attitudes toward shopping for virtual items (hedonic experience goods)" [2, p. 5].
Brands also engage in a number of social media-based brand community management tactics. The key driver for this community engagement practice is to "reinforce members' escalating engagement" [6, p. 1759]. Tactics include mile stoning and documenting important events and evolving cohesive personal brand narratives.
Lopez has addressed a number of factors that are important for brands to consider in the online space. The relationship between brands and consumers is of "presence and being" and involves "listening and talking" but he also identifies that "within Social Networks, brands are an 'alien' element - brands are not persons [8, p. 2].
At the heart of the question is the social media consumer. Lopez sees them as three distinct figures or groups. The traditional consumer; the prosumer, where consumers utilise producers' tools and "actively control and shape what the web offers" (Wertime & Fenwick, 2011) and the dotsumer "who does not only intervene, but also sells" [8, p. 3].
For big brands, the consumer is a complex combination of age, race, gender, social status, geographic location and employment status. Within this rich demographic combination, brands seek 'advocates' or as Lopez has termed them, 'Digital Shamans', because "they can have great influence though their opinions" [8, p. 4]. Such
social media consumers, the advocates and the digital shamans are at the forefront of "consumer evangelism" [11, p. 280]. In the social media space they drive engagement, conversation, sharing, collaboration and all with an openness/flatness and human voice: "There is an inherent trust of a consumer by consumers" [11, p. 281].
It appears then that online trust exists [9] and that it is constantly evolving and developing, however its exact nature is complex, both cognitive and non-cognitive [5] and dependent on a significant number of variables. For example Turilli and colleagues point out that it leaps boundaries - both social and geographical: "Online trust can occur and does not require the presence of a shared cultural and institutional background, certain knowledge of the trustee's identity, or physical interaction" [10].
A brand's online presence, whilst managed by the brand (or a sub-contractor) has significantly changed with the impact of the social media 'revolution'. Brands need to engage across the social media community as that is where a significant percentage of humanity congregates [1]. Social media also provides brands with rich data [2]. However what was historically a brand directed consumer experience (Web 1.0), has migrated to one that has the consumer to a large degree at the helm. Trust in these communities is facilitated to some degree by Digital Shamans [8]. These brand advocates are embraced by the brands as they are seen as "co-creators of value" [6].
Yet the social media consumer appears community focused, they maintain, with "shared norms, values, interests" [2]. Whilst the social media consumer can drive consumer behaviour [6], and is trusted by other consumers [11] they can see brands as an alien element [8]. The brands themselves can engage both internally and externally by effecting positive relationship management; "the actions of either can impact the economic, social, cultural or political well-being of the other" [7, p. 184].
It appears that in this research window there is an opportunity to contribute to an understanding of how companies view trust and additionally how that very trust is facilitated in social media-based brand communities. There is a rich complexity to this area of research. Therefore in moving forward now to develop a methodology for my research the key question I ask at this juncture is: what is the
company perspective of trust and how is trust facilitated in social
media-based brand communities?
References
1. Burmaster, A. (2009). Global faces and networked places., from http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/wpcontent/uploads/2009/03/ nielsen_globalfaces_mar09.pdf
2. Chi, H. H. (2011). Interactive digital advertising vs. virtual brand community: Exploratory study of user motivation and social media marketing responses in Taiwan. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 12(1), 44-61.
3. Dowell, D. J. (2009). Elements of trust in a business-to-business relationship. Thesis (PhD)-Faculty of Business, Charles Sturt University, 2009.
4. Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook "friends:" Social capital and college students' use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143-1168.
5. Ess, C. M. (2010). Trust and new communication technologies: vicious circles, virtuous circles, possible futures. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 23(3), 287-305.
6. Laroche, M., Habibi, M. R., Richard, M. O., & Sankaranaraya-nan, R. (2012). The effects of social media based brand communities on brand community markers, value creation practices, brand trust and brand loyalty. Computers in Human Behavior.
7. Ledingham, J. (2003). Explicating Relationship Management as a General Theory of Public Relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15(3), 181-198. doi: 10.1207/S1532754XJPRR1502_4
8. Lopez, A. a. Quijada, L. (May 2012). Social Media Experiences: Consumers or people? Paper presented at the ESOMAR: Latin America, Mexico City.
9. Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2011). The case for e-trust. Ethics and Information Technology, 13(1), 1-3.
10. Turilli, M., Vaccaro, A., & Taddeo, M. (2010). The case of online trust. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 23(3), 333-345.
11. Weinberg, B. D., & Pehlivan, E. (2011). Social spending: Managing the social media mix. Business horizons, 54(3), 275-282.
12. Wertime, K., & Fenwick, I. (2011). Digimarketing: The essential guide to new media and digital marketing: Wiley.
AUDIENCE ATTITUDE TOWARDS ADVERTISEMENTS ON YOU TUBE
Daivata Patil, Aishwarya Chavan
University of Mumbai, India
Представленная работа посвящена изучению отношения аудитории к рекламе на YouTube. В статье рассматриваются различные типы рекламы, которые «вмешиваются» в процесс просмотра, описаны такие факторы, как «доверие», «возмущения», «информативность» и «развлечение», которые помогает в определнии отношения к подобной рекламе.
Ключевые слова: Интернет-реклама, социальные медиа, YouTube, потребительское отношение, аудитория
This research delves into the attitudes of audiences towards the advertisements on YouTube. The study examines the different types of advertisements that intervene the viewing of the audiences by studying factors such as Credibility, Disturbance, Informativeness and Entertainment that helps in shaping the attitudes towards such advertisements.
Keywords: Internet Advertising, Social Media, YouTube, Consumer Attitude, Audience
Research Design
Statement of the problem:
The goal of the paper is to study the attitudes of the audiences towards the advertisements on YouTube. The study examines the attitudes on the basis on Credibility, Entertainment and Disturbance.
