Web 2.0 technologies represent developments in marketers’ communication paradigms, whereby individual consumers became publishers of information (Chaney, 2009). During the 1990s and early 2000, Internet users were predominantly consumers of information. With the onset of social media, customers become producers of information.
Friedman and Friedman (2008) differentiate between the different generations of Internet applications, known as Web 1.0, Web 2.0 and Web 3.0. The initial Internet phase known as Web 1.0 was typically static, and was represented by Internet web pages and sites. Web 1.0 had an ‘anonymous dimension’, which assured the Internet user of a degree of privacy (De Notaris, 2010).
33
Subsequently Web 2.0 characteristically was user-interactive and typically contains ‘user- generated content’ (Schweidel, Rindfleisch, O’Hern and Antia, 2010). Phillips and Young (2009) typify Web 2.0 as enriching on-line experiences and making communications more exciting. They consequently pointed out that ‘Web 2.0’ had been named by O’Reilly in 2003 because he believed that the media ensured equal opportunities in online conversations, facilitating interactions amongst online communities. Web 3.0 refers to the futuristic ‘Semantic Web’, when logical reasoning will be integrated into the Internet to enable computers to interactively interpret, infer and comprehend data (Floridi, 2008).
Whereas the Internet originally promised the world knowledge sharing, according to Safko and Brake (2009), social media has superseded this by promising the world interactive and rich communicative content via users creating knowledge that can be shared amongst millions (Stokes, 2008; Elkin-Koren, 2010). Stokes (2008:125-126) simply defines social media as ‘the ways that we create, connect and share online’, and social networking as ‘using a type of website model where individual members become part of a broader virtual community’. Thus, he sees social networking as a primary function of social media. In line with the concept of networking, Stephan and Galak (2009) mention the concept of online ‘word-of-mouth’ as a form of social media. It includes referrals and forums where user-generated content is shared and evaluated. Chaney (2009:xxvii) illustratively states that social media is ‘more than a toolset; [it is] a mindset as well’. The statement illustrates his view of how the recent changes in communication have shifted the marketing paradigm. Customers have become increasingly suspicious of traditional forms of marketing. Being bombarded by elaborate monologues filled with promises frequently suggests a fake understanding of individual needs. Consequently, expectations increase but often reality does not deliver on the promised experiences.
In social media, apparently the opinion of the average user is much more valuable than that of a professional critic (Onishi and Manchanda, 2009; Thevenot, 2007). This is explained by evidence of a lack of trust in the traditional media, whereas it seems more reliable sources of accurate information have been found by peer-to-peer dialogues in social media. Customers and employees have become increasingly credible advocates of their valued businesses online. This has further necessitated the new required ‘conversationalist’ skill-set in the development and success of social media (Chaney, 2009; Safko and Brake, 2009). This is substantiated by Safko and Brake (2009:25) in describing primary ways to effectively engage people with social media – ‘communication, collaboration, education, and entertainment’.
34
Illustrating the scope of Facebook as the most popular current communication medium in social media, the following extract applies:
‘There are far more people on Facebook than live in the United States. On July 21, Facebook announced it had reached a milestone: signing up its 500 millionth user. In addition to adding more than a half billion users in the six years since its launch, Facebook is also now the most- visited site on the Internet.’ (Time Magazine, 2010)
In addition to this, the Facebook statistics page proclaims that there were more than a 100 million users as at July 2010 accessing Facebook through their mobile. Similarly, LinkedIn is also topping 70 million users worldwide (Econsultancy, 2009). Social networks in total are frequented by three quarters of the global consumers that go online and have raised consumer expectations in regard to collaboration, sharing and participation in online conversations. To demonstrate the contextual shift in social media marketing development, Phillips and Young (2009) draw opposing comparisons between mass and micro communications: differentiating between a characteristic static and deliberating text for the former and rich, dynamic content but limited in reach, for the latter. The deeper dynamics of the relationship between ‘old media’ (mass communications) and ‘new media’ (micro communications) has not yet fully been determined (Onishi and Manchanda, 2009). This important relationship provides scope for further study.
Web 2.0 brings the old and new media together in allowing all business stakeholders to interactively communicate without restraint, with the added potential that dialogues can be spread exponentially (Phillips and Young, 2009). It can thus be seen as an open system of collaboration. More importantly, the social media environment has diffused the confines and distinctions between customers and businesses with the creation of consumer-generated content. In further illustrating this point, Chaney (2009:3) refers to the ‘insurgent consumers’ who currently identify their freedom of expression in making virtual impacts by creating content for the masses. This content is expressed and subsequently received by all interested parties who can digitally connect and appreciate it.
In describing the development of social media, Band and Petouhoff (2010) have come up with an illustration that depicts the communication shift from old to new media, as shown in Figure 2.1.
35
Figure 2.1:
The Old Customer Relationship Model versus The New Model
Source: Band and Petouhoff (2010)
Figure 2.1 illustrates how the information era has moved past the immediate business interest of the parties (i.e. traditional relationships in commerce) to more of a participatory role of providing information (i.e. interactive and interdependent contemporary). Customers are increasingly connected, as are competitors and business partners (i.e. intermediaries, suppliers and other stakeholders). In fact they are all directly interconnected in being able to create information content, as much as they are in receiving it.
Besides online communication becoming interactive, marketing attempts at mass customisation to reach target markets have given way to individual customisation with the advent of social media (Phillips and Young, 2009). One-on-one communications have enabled the recognition of a customer’s specific needs in adapting their products and services according to consumer requests. This subsequently leads to stronger customer relations, satisfaction and subsequent positive experiences.
Gaining customer knowledge from social media makes credibility a crucial variable to be considered regarding a business’s reputation (Phillips and Young, 2009; Jones, 2009; Peterson, 2010). People gain knowledge from their on-line experiences and their peers’ on-line experiences and expertise. The extent of Web 2.0 claims a wider evidence of experiences, ideas, insights, values and judgements than ever seen before on the Internet (Phillips and Young, 2009). The sharing of knowledge is fundamental to social media expectations. Expertise as a subject form has consequently become a commodity within the community of knowledge- seekers, and as such, risks losing credibility. Alternatively, the open collaboration with experts in the creation of new knowledge changes these initial threats into potential new-found opportunities.
36
It is useful to elaborate on Safko and Brake’s (2009) identified social media variables to identify some of the social media tools available. Table 2.2 gives to some extent an idea of the tools available:
Table 2.2: Social Media Variables
Variable Description Tools
Social networking Establishing an online profile and posting content on areas of interest/expertise
Facebook; LinkedIn; Bebo; MySpace
Publish Incorporates content for public relations, like e-mail campaigns, blogging, wikis
Wikipedia; WordPress;
SlideShare Photo Archiving and sharing photos to communicate,
collaborate and educate
Flickr; Photobucket; Twitxr
Audio Sharing music or voice audio for entertainment, information, news or education
iTunes; Podbean; Podcast.net
Video Creating and sharing of video content by computer or mobile phones or devices
YouTube; Google Video;
Metacafe Micro blogging Communicating meaningful messages within 140
characters
Twitter; Twitxr; Plurk
Livecasting Internet radio and other live-stream applications for entertainment or education
BlogTalkRadio; SHOUT cast; TalkShoe
Virtual worlds Creating a persona in a virtual community to connect with others with similar goals
Active Worlds; Kaneva; Second Life
Gaming Cooperation and competition within virtual online worlds
Halo3; Entropia Universe; EverQuest
Productivity applications
Variation of applications that enhance business productivity by sharing
AOL; Google Alerts; Google Gmail; ReadNotify
Aggregators Accumulation and management of information for easy access
Digg; Google Reader; Reddit; Yelp
RSS Rich Site Summary – feeds current content to the user from websites identified
FeedBurner; Atom; RSS 2.0
Search Internet search sites which require SEO (Search Engine Optimisation)
MetaTube; Google Search; Technorati
Mobile Application to use most of the social media tools on a mobile phone
airG; SMS.ac; CallWave
Interpersonal Applications that facilitate communication and collaboration
Acrobat Connect; iChat; Skype
37
Table 2.2 summarises the various social media variables, describes them and indicates some of the tools that relate to the variable. The average global user would be able to identify only a few of the tools available mostly by virtue of popularity. However, social media is much more extensive in scope than is generally perceived. It was found that four out of five US online adults were participating socially in online networks (Band and Petouhoff, 2010). Surveyed American respondents were on average aware of 20 to 30 specific social media tools, although they only had limited experience [i.e. 5 to 10 out of 80] of the most popular social media tools (Safko and Brake, 2009). The 2010 USC Annenberg Digital Future Study found that the Internet use in the USA is one of the highest globally with 82% of the population online (Digital Center, 2010). This finding illustrates that although the US population has an obvious high exposure to the Internet and social media, people are generally not familiar with the variety of social media tools. As the US is regarded as the social media front-runner, this is not necessarily the case for most global users.
From a business context, most contemporary literature and research emphasise the rapid growth in social media. The University of Maryland’s The State of Small Business Report found that during 2009, social media usage in the US has increased from 12% to 24% (Van Grove, 2010). Additionally, one in five businesses uses social media as part of their marketing strategy. Further findings conclude that professional service firms, and more specifically restaurants, rely more on e-mail marketing as a form of social media than any other businesses.
In conclusion, there seems to be sufficient evidence to suggest that social media is rapidly transforming the way communication take place in commerce. The new media have brought many opportunities for a richer customer experience. Social media provides many available interactive tools for various customer applications. Next, in paragraph 2.4, the discussion proceeds by bringing the customers’ social media participation into focus.