3. MARKETING 2.0: HOW THE WEB CHANGES MARKETING RULES
It is well-known that we are living in a moment of opportunity and change. It is written and said everywhere: society is changing. As well as the society and the economy, also the Web is evolving from Web 1.0 to the more social and participatory Web 2.0 (Dougherty, 2004).
This term is not an accurate definition: it refers to an attitude towards collaboration and contents sharing, due to specific software developed to support on-line interaction (Di Bari, 2007, p.3) . But O’Reilly Media vice-president started thinking about that and coined this neologism in far 2004. While Dougherty was writing, someone was inventing Facebook and launching Flickr, YouTube was born in 2005, Twitter in 2006, and so on. In 2006 TIME elected “You” as the person of the year, saying that the new Web is a very different thing. It's a tool for bringing together the small contributions of millions of people and making them matter1. By now, six years later, this evolution is going to be over dated: analysts and Internet specialists are wondering about what Web 2.0 can evolve into.
Marketing is following the same way: it has to evolve into Marketing 2.0, because the next challenges are due to be handled on the Web, but it is still a step backwards. On the contrary, here the development is still in operation.
At the core of this development of the social frame there are several key factors, that lead to a networked information economy, according to a successful definition by Yochai Benkler, in his book The Wealth of Networks. The peculiarities of the information economy can be found in the following aspects.
First of all, the change in the ways of production. Production is shifting from physical products to decentralized information goods, like articles and pages in the Internet . This gives users more power, as information is non rivalrous. A non rivalry good means that
1
everyone can use it at the same time. It is also circular in that it is both input and output to its own production (Benkler, 2006, pp.36-37).
Secondly, the burst of low-cost technologies. On the one side, Internet and the Web are becoming each day more common, both for entertainment and job purposes. In fact, Internet has a triple value for the market. It can weigh on the dimensions of the market shifting and it can redefine the strategic plans and the business model of a company. Moreover, it gives rise to new marketing tools, as for example e-commerce (Vescovi, 2007, p.86). These changes are happening according to the network logic: according to the Metcalfe’s law, the value of a network (telephone, computer, people) is proportional to the square of the number of connected users (Vescovi, 2007, p.6).
On the other hand, new technologies are more inexpensive than before. This enables an increasing number of people to enhance their culture, education, job opportunity, participation and amusement.
Finally, the Internet widespread and the transition in the ways of production lead also to an exponential growth of the available information (from here derives the term “information economy”). But we have to be careful, because increasing information does not mean necessary knowledge. We are constantly surrounded by information and thanks to the Web we have multiplied our opportunities, but we have to be able to recognize which are information and which are rumors.
Basically, the Web 2.0 has changed the production and the allocation of information. Just to reflect, two emblematic cases of each: YouTube and The New York Times. The former is the paradigmatic example of the shifting in information production towards users with regard to generating, sharing, distributing and reusing Web contents. With its simple interface, YouTube made it possible for anyone with an Internet connection to post a video that a worldwide audience could watch within a few minutes. Thanks to word of mouth, the wide range of topics covered by YouTube has turned video sharing into one of the most important parts of Internet culture. An interesting development is YouTube Direct, which is oriented particularly to news organizations. It is a new platform that allows news organizations to solicit and verify news by connecting directly with video makers who want to participate in the news gathering process2.
2
The latter, one of the most well-known newspapers in the West, represents instead the allocation changing. During 2008, its daily circulation was about 1.000.665 and it is still dropping, reaching 928000 daily copies in 2009, while its website, only in March 2009, registered 250 millions of accesses3. At the same time of the falling in newspaper circulation, there is a vast rising Internet readership.
As a result, web services allow a collaborative creation of contents and people can suggest each other for the introduction of new subjects. The economics of production in a digital environment should lead us to expect an increase in the relative salience of nonmarket production models in the overall mix of our information production system. Moreover, social networks (about that I will explain later) represent an integrant part of the Web 2.0 (Di Bari, 2007, p.173).
In addition, it is to say that the emergence of the networked information economy has the potential to increase individual autonomy in three ways. First, it increases the range of things that individuals can do for and by themselves. Information networks can lift many of the material constraints and costs of the industrial economy. Most of the tools necessary for effective action and communication are now widely available to people in networked environments.
Second, the networked information economy provides alternatives to the proprietary sources of information and communication typical in the industry economy. The presence of these nonproprietary alternatives decreases the extent to which individuals are being acted upon by the owners of the communication facilities. The culture of passive televiewing subjects its participants to the manipulations of the communication and broadcasting companies. Although this culture lives on, it is losing its dominance in today’s information environment. The already mentioned YouTube, for example, enables single users to create their own videos without order. In this way it reflects the fact that there is not only an audience minded to receive contents, but there is even more a public that is able to be an editor and a producer.
At the moment, the fruition of video productions passes through several devices, not only on television, such as mobile phones, personal digital assistants, notebooks, so it is moving into an atypical fruition. Consequently, digital and satellite TV, the programming personalization and the possibility to organize its own programmes lead
3
to a reconsideration of the television meant as traditional and no-thematic. This is happening also in Malta, where cable television remains the most common mass media, but an increasing number of consumers are subscribing to digital and on-demand scheduling.
A valuable case is the Italian Rai Click, that represents a good example of media converging (television, mobile phone, computer). This media overlap allows the diffusion of both television and web products, which form an out-and-out programmes schedule on demand (Di Bari, 2007, pp.268-271).
Third, Internet increases the range and the diversity of information available to individuals. This diversity and accessibility of information radically changes the universe of options that individuals recognize as open for them to pursue. An increase in available options can create a richer basis to form critical judgments, expanding opportunities for critical reflection (Benkler, 2006, pp.133-134).
In brief, what has changed, but it is still changing in the shift towards the networked information economy, is that the material conditions of productions are becoming ways that increase salience of social sharing and exchange as a modality of economic production. Furthermore, now these patterns of behavior have become effective beyond the domains of building social relations of mutual interest and fulfilling our emotional and psychological need of companionship and mutual recognition. They have come to play a substantial role as modes of motivating, informing and organizing productive behavior at the very core of the information economy (Benkler, 2006, p.92).
To sum up, the management of the relationships and of the networks require the construction of new marketing paradigms, instead of a new definition of marketing. These paradigms cannot be based anymore on the predominant position of the producer, but they need to recognize the consumer as an active protagonist, instead of a passive receptor. Substantially, we are present at the displacement from the Manufacturer-Active Paradigm (MAP) – that is a business model completely driven by the company- to the Consumer-Active Paradigm (CAP), a model of innovation based on a collaborative approach, in which the consumer involvement in the relationship with the company is enhanced (Prandelli, Verona, 2006, p.298). A summarizing scheme is findable below.
Figure 1. Manufacturer-Active Paradigm versus Customer-Active Paradigm4 Manufacturer-Active Paradigm Consumer market Consumer Consumer research Consumer-Active Paradigm Consumer
Consumer New ideas Consumer from a user
Therefore, it does not seem to be appropriate to talk about new marketing on Internet. Instead, talk about web marketing means understanding what type of new opportunities the Web offers to the enterprises and how these companies, together with consumers, can use and integrate them with traditional marketing practices. The final aim of marketing remains customers satisfaction and retention, but nowadays it has at its disposal a richer and malleable toolbox (Chiarvesio, Di Maria, 2008, p.20). Internet technologies – ubiquitous, dynamic and interactive – allows an effective and efficient fulfillment of marketing strategies.
In the following paragraph I am going to analyze the most relevant features and evolution of web marketing practices, according to my project research. This is not the proper place, both for time and space, for dealing in depth with all the aspects of the development of this subject.
3.1 Web Marketing characteristics: a relative picture
In order to understand the following features that distinguish web marketing from the traditional subject, it is necessary to take into account the setting modification in which
4
Source: E.Prandelli, G.Verona, Marketing in rete. Oltre Internet verso il nuovo marketing, McGraw-Hill, 2006, p.299 Company • Needs analysis • Ideas generation • Ideas selection Company • Ideas selection
we are going to operate. As already mentioned before, the connection, the management of non material contents, signs and symbols define the new marketing frame, especially in front of structural shifts, due to the passage from goods sale to services sale (Fabris, 2009, p.207).
First and foremost, it is essential to give a definition of web marketing, although it is not easy since the Web 2.0 on which it is based for its implementation is subject to continuously adjustments. Thus, also the web marketing definition cannot be definitive and accurate, but only general. Broadly speaking, web marketing refers to the branch of the marketing activities of a company that exploits the online channel for studying the market and developing its business (promotion and advertising, distribution, sale, assistance to clients, etc.) throughout the Web.
Below there are the distinguishing characteristics of web marketing that will be recovered and analyzed in depth in my research work, thanks to a concrete example. These features are: the value shifting from transaction to relation, the many-to-many communication paradigm, the customer empowerment and the changing in the definition of the marketing mix.
3.1.1 From transaction to relation
The fundamental input provided by the Internet, and in particular by the Web, on the marketing activities is related to the creation of surplus value. Value is not equivalent to profit, but it is something more, as it incorporates a series of other dimensions, not only the budget. The value has to be shared and participated by the stakeholders. Moreover, thanks to Internet and its devices, the added value for customers has moved from a transaction to a relationship.
In this circumstance, relationship means a relation that lasts though the time, in contrast with the one shot of the transaction. A long lasting relationship allows exchange, feedback and active involvement from the end users. This can happen because Internet is the enabling tool of web marketing, as it is an inexpensive, flexible and easy to use technology. For the first time the companies can enter in direct contact with the single user: the key insight is on the dialogue between the companies and among companies and consumers (Chiarvesio, Di Maria, 2008, p.15). Therefore, the
much more fundamental effect on the marketing model is that social production is changing the relationship of firms to individuals outside of them, and through this changing the strategies that firms internally are exploring. Consumers are changing into users: more active and productive than the customers of the industrial economy. The change is reshaping the relationships necessary for business success, requiring closer integration of users into the process of production, both in inputs and outputs.
In this perspective, it is possible to talk about relationship marketing. Relationship marketing refers to all marketing activities directed to establishing, developing, and maintaining successful relational exchanges. It represents a remarkable shift from mass marketing to a marketing able to really connect with customers, understanding their habits, desires and attitudes, in order to create a shared groundwork (Fabris, 2009, p.246).
Consequently, social behavior, that traditionally was relegated to the peripheries of the economy because it is a nonmarket behavior, has become central to the most advanced economies. Sources of knowledge and cultural edification, through which we come to know and comprehend the world, to form our opinion about it and to express ourselves have shifted from heavy reliance on commercial, concentrated media, to being produced on a much more widely distributed model, by many actors who are not driven by the imperatives of sale. (Benkler, 2006, p.56).
Figure 2 describes briefly the shift in marketing management after the introduction of Internet.
Figure 2. From transitional marketing to relationship marketing5
Transitional marketing Relationship marketing Offer definition Driven by marketing Driven by consumer Offer personalization Mass customization Customer configuration
Offer pricing Based on value Based on relationship Offer communication Information Permission
Consumer support Information-based Access--based
5
Source: adapted from E.Prandelli, G.Verona, Marketing in rete. Oltre Internet verso il nuovo marketing, McGraw-Hill, 2006, p.15
3.1.2 A peculiar intent: communicate
The aim of online communication, like any other form of marketing communication, remains the spread of information, in order to conveniently affect the relationship between provider and consumer.
The main differences compared to traditional communication are, on the user’s side, the opportunity of interaction with the message and the onward fragmentation of the attention, due to the multiply of issuing. On the supplier’s side, the difference is on the segmentation until the personalization, and more difficulties in involving users emotionally (Prandelli, Verona, 2006, p.403).
The whole leads to a complete rethinking of the communication flows between company and consumer, in the past typically one-way, that is unidirectional from the former to the latter. Nowadays communication is becoming more and more a many-to-many interaction (Chiarvesio, Di Maria, 2008, p.19), in which users can interact with the company and among them, adding value to their knowledge and experiences.
There are three aspects particularly considerable in the many-to-many communication paradigm in Internet, one of which takes also part in the three C on which the Web is established on. They are: virtual community, users generated content (UGC) and word of mouth.
Virtual community
First, the virtual community. As I stated before, Internet and especially the Web constitute a remarkable virtual place in which people can meet, debate and build relationships exploiting the multimedia potential.
Howard Rheingold, one of the pioneer in communities studies, defines the virtual community as a social aggregation of individuals who interact through specific media, potentially crossing geographical and political boundaries in order to pursue personal relationships and mutual interests in a cyberspace (Rheingold, 1994). A more exhaustive definition dates back to Micelli, who identifies virtual community as a group of people which share practices, activities or working interests, using Internet for obtaining access to specific information, getting in touch and building relationships in order to exchange knowledge and experiences (Micelli, 2000). It is to underline that the access to unsaid knowledge owned by others enables the acquisition of new knowledge.
If the process of creating value by the company is more and more linked to establishing a lasting relationship with the consumer, the firm should be able to define a suitable language to communicate, in order to understand the market demands and provide a consistent offer with the needs.
To achieve this aim, the company has to play a substantial role. In the first place, it can make available development platforms and toolkits that consumers can use for innovation.
Secondly, it can create and provide complementary products and services, useful for the community.
In the end, it can manage a direct contact with the market by offering customized services to clients (Chiarvesio, Di Maria, 2008, p.108). It is undoubted that in this way virtual communities become a key element of the marketing mix.
The discerning characteristics of virtual communities are the succeeding, according to Rheingold (Prandelli, Verona, 2006, p.272), Chiarvesio and Di Maria (2008, p.94). They will be resumed in the next chapter according to specific web marketing applications.
• Double role of users, which are author and recipient of messages at the same time.
• Shifting from the traditional mass media paradigm to the network model, in which are combined on demand fruition and push communication, that is activated by the company.
• Essentiality to build a continuous exchange of ideas and experiences that share a common value, in order to reach a sense of cohesion.
• The relationships among members should last through the time for enabling a collective identity and a sense of membership.
The differences between traditional communities and virtual communities are summarized in the table below.
Figure 3. Traditional communities versus virtual communities6
Traditional communities Virtual communities
Centered and deep-rooted knowledge Shared knowledge
Defined and static borders Dynamic and evolving borders
Mutual confidence Confidence harder to build
Orientation in consolidating traditions and accumulating knowledge
Orientation in innovating and sharing emerging knowledge
Even unwilling affiliation Explicit voluntary affiliation
User-generated content (UGC)
Unlike the virtual community, user-generated content is a more recently definition and phenomenon. The term refers to various kinds of media content, publicly available, that are produced by end-users (Di Bari, 2007, p.13).
The word entered mainstream usage during 2005 having arisen in web publishing and new media content production circles, after the burst of YouTube. It is used for a wide range of applications including problem processing, news, gossip and research reflects the expansion of media production through new technologies that are accessible and affordable to the general public. All digital media technologies are included, such as digital video, blogging, podcasting, mobile phone photography and wikis. In addition to these technologies, user generated content may also employ a combination of open source, free software, and flexible licensing or agreements to further reduce the barriers to collaboration, skill-building and discovery.
This is a further evidence that the active, participatory and creative audience is prevailing today with relatively accessible media, tools and applications, and its culture is in turn affecting mass media corporations and global audiences.
A special characteristic of user-generated content is its creative effort. This implies that a certain amount of creative effort was put into creating the work or adapting existing works to construct a new one. In an increasing number of popular Web services, key behavioral goals for the service depend on users creating content, inviting others to use the service, and otherwise directly contributing to the value of the service.
6
Source: E.Prandelli, G.Verona, Marketing in rete. Oltre Internet verso il nuovo marketing, McGraw-Hill, 2006,
Another feature is that user-generated content is generally created outside of professional routines and practices. It often does not have an institutional or a commercial market context.
User-generated content was featured in TIME magazine's 2006 Person of the Year, in which the person of the year was "you", meaning all of the people who contribute to user generated media such as Flickr and Wikipedia7. One more proof of its relevance is that, since 2005, the BBC set up a user generated content team as a pilot (Di Bari, 2007, p.23), followed the next year by the CNN, which launched CNN iReport, a project designed to bring user generated news content to CNN8. In Italy I can point out the interesting case of YouReporter. It is the first Italian platform for citizen journalism aimed at broaden the communication point of views. Since 2008, thanks to YouReporter, users’ videos and pictures can be used to integrate articles and reports on the main national newspapers and newscasts, as TG5, Studio Aperto, Sky TG 24 and so on9.
Therefore, the word of mouth online (also called word of mouse) is becoming one of the key factors of success in Internet.
Word of mouth
Another basic element of the many-to-many communication paradigm is the word of mouse, that enables the transfer of the impressions of satisfaction and gratification from users to others, using the word of mouth (Prandelli, Verona, 2006, p.8).
The word of mouth exists both offline and online, but what makes it particularly effective and suitable for Net strategies is its simplicity and likely rapidity of dissemination, together with its richness of forms of expressions (audio, video, photos, etc.). It is not the information reliability that convinces the customers: this was the model of the Web 1.0. It is the sharing of opinions and views, that is a more human kind of persuasion, even if it is mediated by a technological system. On the Web 2.0 operates what Fogg and Eckles call “the behavior chain for online participation”: successful online services share a pattern of target behaviors that can be viewed as part of an
7 Ibidem, p.50 8 <http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/08/01/ireport.first.year/index.html> 9 <http://www.youreporter.it/il_progetto.php>
overall framework. Its principal peculiarity is the mutual influence among each other (Di Bari, 2007, p.174).
A freshly example of mutual influence is Kindle, a software and hardware platform
developed by Amazon.com for rendering and displaying e-books and other digital media. Although its technical limitations, thanks to word of mouse Amazon’s first offering of Kindle in November 2007 sold out in five and a half hours and the device remained out of stock for five months, until April 200810.
Ultimately, many-to-many communication paradigm, besides be delineated by these elements that marks it from the obsolete one-to-one communication, consists of three specific purposes. These are generally brought back to the three C establishing the Web 2.0, often repeated in this section: conversation, community and collaboration (Di Bari, 2007, p.148). One of these, the community, also represents one of the considerable features of the many-to-many model.
The three C are not independent from the setting in which they are applied, but they need to be adapted to the macro field reference context, that is made of technology, institutions, market and competitors, as indicate in the figure below.
Figure 4. Three C adapted to the reference setting11
This emerging communication paradigm has, as a direct result, a new centrality of the user/consumer, that a decade before was not possible nor conceivable. This position implies the user empowerment.
10
<www.amazon.com/kidle-store> 11
Source: adapted from E.Prandelli, G.Verona, Marketing in rete. Oltre Internet verso il nuovo marketing, McGraw-Hill, 2006, p.248 Community Collaboration Conversation Technology Institutions Competitors Consumers
3.1.3 Customer empowerment
As I observed before, thanks to the ICT technologies customers can be progressively more involved by the companies themselves in order to exchange knowledge. As a result of the opportunities offered by the Web, the client can become a co-creator of the company’s supply, even in term of innovation.
This trend deals with the term customerization, according to Wind and Rangaswamy (Prandelli, Verona, 2006, p.233). Consumer orientation means the shift from an historical period of time in which the goods offer is in function of the company’s goals to a new perspective. This position is completely oriented to consider as priorities the users’ requirements, according to a new consumer approach.
With regard to this tendency, two neologisms have been coined in the marketing literature: ConsumActor and Prosumer. They both refers to an active consumer but in different ways. From the one side, the former acts along two dimensions: as a creator of context (action) and as a creator of content (knowledge). A ConsumActor is more aware and informed; he looks for information outside traditional media and he makes himself a promoter of his positive experience with the firm, turning into a creator/actor of the community (Fabris, 2009, p.24).
From the other side, the latter, as defined by Toffler, is a portmanteau formed by contracting either the word professional or producer with the word consumer. It can be thought of as converse to the consumer with a passive role, denoting an active role. The individual gets more involved in the process, assuming the role of producer or co-producer, as he shares his own knowledge (Fabris, 2009, p.279).
These coinages recognize once again how deeply this shift towards customer empowerment is affecting the economy, especially in Internet-based industries.
Thus, it is feasible to talk about reverse marketing, in order to highlight the change in marketing management. Reverse marketing is the concept of making the customer seek the firm rather than marketers seeking the customer. The client remains the focus of the company strategies, but, unlike preceding technologies that did not allow the effective customer involvement, Internet permits the user to request for a specific product system (Prandelli, Verona, 2006, p.13).
For this reason, in the process of customer empowerment his knowledge has become a source of power, and all the processes and tools aimed at sharing experiences determine the reconfiguration of the powers system and a new confidence management.
New interactions require more amount of trust and building these confidence relationships seem to be the new competitive advantage. As a matter of fact, an open and networked relation is trust-based. Such relationship represents a benefit that can be turned into customers’ willingness to purchase. Managing and running the confidence community is a new activity that cannot be limited to the customer satisfaction research, as it goes over the product use satisfaction, as already stated before (Vescovi, 2007, pp.174-175).
On the whole, at a deeper level, it is to say that what has changed is the underneath structure, the framework on which all the activities are established on. Today it had to be adopted the model of the Web, the social networked model (Di Bari, 2007, p.271). In Internet the relationship paradigm wins and the evolution of Web 2.0 follows steady rhythms, constantly developing new modalities of interaction among users and companies, that makes customers more active and purposeful.
3.1.4 From 4P to 4E
As well as the web marketing itself, also the strategies are changing. Therefore, on account of what I stated before, there is also a shift in the definition of the marketing mix from the four P (product, price, placement and promotion) to the four E (engagement, experience, enhance, emotion), as showed in the figure below.
Figure 5. The changing in the outline of marketing mix12
12
Source: adapted from E.Prandelli, G.Verona, Marketing in rete. Oltre Internet verso il nuovo marketing,
McGraw-Hill, 2006, p.241 Four P Four E Product Price Placement Promotion Engagement Experience Enhance Emotion
According to Venturini, the four E refer to13:
• Engagement: focusing marketing and communication on target involvement,
promoting an active participation of the audience, possibly through actions based on more than one media and tools.
• Experience: let the public test the service/product, trying to create a good user
experience.
• Enhance: make the relationship between the company and its stakeholders
better.
• Emotion: this relationship and the communication should become highly
emotional.
This modification is actually a theory on how to involve users, creating a more dynamic relationship that can modify attitudes and behaviors through forms of interaction.
The exploiting of Internet and the marketing strategies can be consequently divided in three macro stages. The first approach is informative, so it is not for using Internet as a way of purchasing, but instead for communicating to customers the basic information. This step, basically one-way, includes the creation of a website.
The second phase is relational, and it is substantially aimed at pursue a dialogue with users who surf the website. It is a two-way relationship, dialogical and dialectical, with a strong attention to give ear to clients’ needs. This is definitely the area in which the firm has to play its role for enacting the conversion from a transaction to a relationship. Finally, the third stage is collaborative and it goes over the stress on the enhancing strategies of relationship. Collaborative, in marketing setting, means taking into account the dynamic role of the consumer and that it is crucial to gain knowledge not about him, but from and with him. The developed step of collaboration is the employment of the user’s competences in order to involve him in the whole production process (Fabris, 2009, pp.444-448).
To conclude, at a higher frame level, the management should then follow the same paradigm shift, from a mere and simple Customer Relationship Management (CRM) to a more engaging Customer Knowledge Management (CKM). CRM broadly embraces processes implemented by a company to handle its contact with its customers. The overall goals are to find, attract, and gain new customers, nurture and retain those the
13
company already has, entice former customers back into the fold, and reduce the costs of marketing and customer service (Chiarvesio, Di Maria, 2008, p.95).
Differently, CKM intends to find the ways through which come into possession of a resource that before was unthinkable, that it is the customer knowledge and experience themselves. CKM means actively involve the customer in planning goods and services, requesting for his collaboration in the communication processes, making him participate to the whole process chain and providing him non serial products. User-generated content can be a tremendous instance of how to apply CKM. Once again, it is important to recognize an active customer with an own individuality and not a featureless user (Fabris, 2009, pp.239-240).
3.2 A glance at social media marketing
Social networks and related social media marketing are recently remarkable developments that fall within the web marketing paradigm shift.
Define a social network is not easy because of its different meanings, according to different settings. Generally, in sociology a social network is a social structure made of individuals (or organizations) called "nodes," which are tied (connected) by one or more specific types of interdependency, such as friendship, kinship, financial exchange, dislike, sexual relationships, or relationships of beliefs, knowledge or prestige.
But in this context, social network refers to all the Web services focus on building and reflecting social relations among people. A social network essentially consists of a representation of each user (often a profile), his/her social links, and a variety of additional services. Thus, it can be understood that this application is based on the above sociological assumption. Common social networks include Twitter, blogs, LinkedIn, Facebook, Flickr and YouTube. It has to be kept in mind that a social network is not a web community, but instead it is a particular typology of community. Deeply different from Web 1.0 communities, a social network is not a mass of individuals, but it is a body of relationships among people (Di Bari, 2007, p.85). While the community value is on the amount of participants, the focus of social networks is on the relationship cohesion: attendance, continuity, richness, intensity.
As well as the social network, the social media marketing cannot be defined in an accurate way. Moving from this definition, the social media marketing can be thought as a term that describes use of social networks, online communities, blogs, wikis or any other collaborative media for marketing, sale, public relations and customer service. Social media marketing is based on the crucial concepts I have defined in the paragraph about communication. It has three important aspects.
Firstly, creating entries that attract attention, and become viral in nature, that it is what makes this kind of marketing work. It replicates a message through user to user, rather than the traditional method of purchasing of an advert or promotion a press release. Secondly, building ways that enable fans of a brand or a company to promote a message themselves in multiple online venues. Thirdly, it is based around online conversations: the organization encourages user participation and dialogue, not control the actions14.
According to Lloyd Salmons, first chairman of the Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB) social media council, social media is not just about big networks like Facebook and YouTube, it is about brands having conversations (Vaccaro, 2008, ibidem).
As a consequence, the companies can consider social networks as ecosystem models (Di Bari, 2007, p.197) rather than markets, as these are able to produce ideas exchanges between inside and outside and to promote communication, from which the firms can take advantages. Nevertheless, a communication enhancement gives raise to positive effects in every fields: that is the real innovation of social networks.
Furthermore, I think that a glance at social network and social media definitions and paradigms are really useful because of the majority of the tools and applications that I am going to analyze later on fall within this marketing perspective. The relevant features and the social network classification will be outlined in the following chapter, as more suitable to the direct and pragmatic analysis.
Briefly, social networks strength stands in their cohesive power for aggregating contents, information and especially people. Moreover, they are topical, everyone discusses about them, and they are functional, amusing and easy to use. Social networks represent thus a high-potential tool for companies, in order to face up challenges discovering new fields and ways of communication.
14
3.3 Potentialities of Enterprise 2.0
As analogy with the Web 2.0, according to McAfee, the Enterprise 2.0 can be defined as the use of social software in an emerging way within companies, or among companies and their clients and stakeholders. Thus, the Enterprise 2.0 can be enclosed into three macro concepts: sociality, platforms and emergence.
• Sociality: refers to software tools thought for enabling and making communities creation and people collaboration easier.
• Platforms: means that collaboration pass through digital environments in which contributions and interaction are persistent and visible to everyone.
• Emergence: intends that structure, processes and patterns are not decided prior, but instead they become notable thanks to continuous people interaction through the time (Di Bari, 2007, p.207).
Anyway, although Where’s Everybody is following this trend, as we are going to find out later, it falls within the clicks and mortar typology. This is a term describing traditional companies that are taking advantage of the Internet and the networked information economy it has introduced. The term derives from bricks and mortar, used in the context of the Web to describe traditional companies with physical (rather than Web site) locations. As typically used in the media, a clicks and mortar company is one that has begun to exploit the Internet, not only in marketing and sales, but also in terms of its total business process (Fabris, 2009, p.444).
To sum up, the new way of providing services, typical of the Enterprise 2.0, is largely adaptive, as it does not require a set structure. Instead it allows that this comes out as a consequence of customers usage. In addition, Enterprise 2.0 platforms are immediate and simply to use. Thanks to their simplicity and availability, the tools permit users to be at the core of the system, knocking down the usage barriers and aiming at involve them to collaborate. Therefore, Enterprise 2.0 implies a great change in ways of collaboration among people and companies. Benefits and strategies in order to maintain a competitive advantage will be illustrated at the conclusion of the research work, at the end of the analysis of web marketing tools and applications.
Afterwards I am going to analyze in detail several web marketing tools and applications, as employed by Where’s Everybody, and to estimate their effectiveness, according to surveys outcomes.
