Social Media? Get Serious! Understanding the Functional Building Blocks of Social Media

Abstract

Traditionally, consumers used the Internet to simply expend content: they read it, they watched it, and they used it to buy products and services. Increasingly, however, consumers are utilizing platforms--such as content sharing sites, blogs, social networking, and wikis--to create, modify, share, and discuss Internet content. This represents the social media phenomenon, which can now significantly impact a firm's reputation, sales, and even survival. Yet, many executives eschew or ignore this form of media because they don't understand what it is, the various forms it can take, and how to engage with it and learn. In response, we present a framework that defines social media by using seven functional building blocks: identity, conversations, sharing, presence, relationships, reputation, and groups. As different social media activities are defined by the extent to which they focus on some or all of these blocks, we explain the implications that each block can have for how firms should engage with social media. To conclude, we present a number of recommendations regarding how firms should develop strategies for monitoring, understanding, and responding to different social media activities.

Full text

Social media? Get serious! Understanding the
functional building blocks of social media
Jan H. Kietzmann *, Kristopher Hermkens, Ian P. McCarthy,
Bruno S. Silvestre
Segal Graduate School of Business, Simon Fraser University, 500 Granville Street, Vancouver, BC V6C 1W6,
Canada
1. Welcome to the jungle: The social
media ecology
Social media employ mobile and web-based tech-
nologies to create highly interactive platforms
via which individuals and communities share, co-
create, discuss, and modify user-generated con-
tent. Given the tremendous exposure of social me-
dia in the popular press today, it would seem that we
are in the midst of an altogether new communica-
tion landscape. The New York Times recently hired a
social media editor (Nolan, 2009); the Catholic Press
Association (2010) offers a webinar on how the
church can use social media; and the Governor of
California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, is on Twitter
with 1.8 million followers. Even Northwest Organic
Valley brand milk cartons now display ‘find, friend,
and follow us’ slogans. But unknown to many, this
Business Horizons (2011) 54, 241—251
www.elsevier.com/locate/bushor
KEYWORDS
Social media;
Social networks;
Web 2.0;
User-generated
content;
Facebook;
Twitter;
LinkedIn;
YouTube
Abstract Traditionally, consumers used the Internet to simply expend content: they
read it, they watched it, and they used it to buy products and services. Increasingly,
however, consumers are utilizing platforms–—such as content sharing sites, blogs,
social networking, and wikis–—to create, modify, share, and discuss Internet content.
This represents the social media phenomenon, which can now significantly impact a
firm’s reputation, sales, and even survival. Yet, many executives eschew or ignore this
form of media because they don’t understand what it is, the various forms it can take,
and how to engage with it and learn. In response, we present a framework that defines
social media by using seven functional building blocks: identity, conversations,
sharing, presence, relationships, reputation, and groups. As different social media
activities are defined by the extent to which they focus on some or all of these blocks,
we explain the implications that each block can have for how firms should engage with
social media. To conclude, we present a number of recommendations regarding how
firms should develop strategies for monitoring, understanding, and responding to
different social media activities.
#2011 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. All rights reserved.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jan_kietzmann@sfu.ca (J.H. Kietzmann),
khh5@sfu.ca (K. Hermkens), ian_mccarthy@sfu.ca (I.P. McCarthy),
bruno_silvest@sfu.ca (B.S. Silvestre).
0007-6813/$ — see front matter #2011 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2011.01.005

landscape of social media sites and services started
forming more than a dozen years ago. For instance,
in 1997, the social network site Sixdegrees allowed
users to create profiles, list their friends, and add
friends-of-friends to their own lists (Boyd & Ellison,
2008). Sound familiar?
There currently exists a rich and diverse ecology
of social media sites, which vary in terms of their
scope and functionality. Some sites are for the
general masses, like Friendster, Hi5, and–—of
course–—Facebook, which opened only 4 years
after Sixdegrees closed its doors. Other sites, like
LinkedIn, are more focused professional networks;
in fact, Facebook started out as a niche private
network for Harvard University students. Media
sharing sites, such as MySpace, YouTube, and Flickr,
concentrate on shared videos and photos. And after
a slow start in the late 1990s, weblogs (blogs) have
become very popular, because they are easy to
create and to maintain. Their authors range from
everyday people to professional writers and celeb-
rities. Today, the resulting ‘blogosphere’ of more
than 100 million blogs and their interconnections
has become an important source of public opinion.
There are even search engines, like Technorati, that
are dedicated to searching blogs. Similarly, with the
help of social news and bookmarking sites like Reddit,
Digg, and Delicious (formerly known as Del.icio.us),
users can rank sites by voting on the value of content.
Most recently, the phenomenon of micro-blogging
focuses on offering real-time updates. Twitter has
been driving this development since it was founded in
2006. Today, more than 145 million users send on
average 90 million ‘tweets’ per day, each consisting
of 140 characters or less (Madway, 2010). These are
mostly short status updates of what users are doing,
where they are, how they are feeling, or links to other
sites. In turn, Foursquare ties these real-time up-
dates into location specific information by rewarding
users for ‘checking in’ to real sites at any location
worldwide, and for leaving their comments forothers
to view.
With this rise in social media, it appears that
corporate communication has been democratized.
The power has been taken from those in marketing
and public relations by the individuals and commu-
nities that create, share, and consume blogs,
tweets, Facebook entries, movies, pictures, and
so forth. Communication about brands happens,
with or without permission of the firms in question.
It is now up to firms to decide if they want to get
serious about social media and participate in this
communication, or continue to ignore it. Both have
a tremendous impact.
For instance, when United Airlines broke Dave
Carroll’s guitar in 2008, it likely was not the first
time a musical instrument had been broken during
the course of a flight. It was, however, probably the
first time that the owner of the instrument recorded
a music video about the experience and posted it on
YouTube. The video, portraying United in a very
unfavorable light, went ‘viral’ and has been viewed
almost 9.5 million times (Carroll, 2009). Amongst
other highlights, United Breaks Guitars was cited by
Time.com as one of YouTube’s best videos, and even
discussed by Wolf Blitzer on television’s CNN Situa-
tion Room. Such attention led to a brand and public
relations crisis for United, as the story was cheered
on by a global community of passengers who under-
stood all too well the frustrations of dealing with
airline service failures. United did not respond and,
to this day, an Internet search of the term ‘United’
returns Carroll’s damaging YouTube video link at the
top of the results list. This high profile example
illustrates how ill-prepared firms can be in dealing
with social media conversations about them. As BBC
Business Editor Tim Weber (2010) explains: ‘‘These
days, one witty tweet, one clever blog post, one
devastating video–—forwarded to hundreds of
friends at the click of a mouse–—can snowball and
kill a product or damage a company’s share price.’’
Although it is clear that–—for better or for worse–—
social media is very powerful, many executives are
reluctant or unable to develop strategies and allo-
cate resources to engage effectively with social
media. Consequently, firms regularly ignore or mis-
manage the opportunities and threats presented by
creative consumers (Berthon, Pitt, McCarthy, &
Kates, 2007). One reason behind this ineptitude is
a lack of understanding regarding what social media
are, and the various forms they can take (Kaplan &
Haenlein, 2010). To help address this gap in knowl-
edge, we herein present and illustrate a honeycomb
framework of seven social media building blocks.
Utilized individually and together, these blocks can
help mangers make sense of the social media ecolo-
gy, and to understand their audience and their
engagement needs. In true social media fashion,
the origins of this framework can be attributed to
a number of bloggers: principally, Gene Smith (2007)
of the Atomiq.org, who developed and combined
ideas discussed by Matt Webb (2004) of intercon-
nect.org; Stewart Butterfield (2003) of sylloge.com;
and Peter Morville (2004) of semanticstudios.com.
We have taken their ideas and advanced them in
four ways, each of which forms a part of our article.
In Section 2, we explain how executives would
use the framework to understand the functional
traits of different social media activities, and dis-
cuss and illustrate the fundamental implications
that each block presents to firms as they seek to
fathom the engagement needs of their social media
242 J.H. Kietzmann et al.

audience. In Section 3, we explain how the frame-
work can be used to compare and contrast the
functionalities and implications of different social
media activities. Finally, in Section 4, we conclude
by presenting guidelines for how firms should devel-
op strategies for monitoring, understanding, and
responding to different social media activities.
2. The seven functional blocks of
social media
The framework we use (see Figure 1) is a honeycomb
of seven functional building blocks: identity, con-
versations, sharing, presence, relationships, repu-
tation, and groups. Each block allows us to unpack
and examine (1) a specific facet of social media user
experience, and (2) its implications for firms. These
building blocks are neither mutually exclusive, nor
do they all have to be present in a social media
activity. They are constructs that allow us to make
sense of how different levels of social media func-
tionality can be configured.
2.1. Identity
The identity functional block represents the ex-
tent to which users reveal their identities in a
social media setting. This can include disclosing
information such as name, age, gender, profes-
sion, location, and also information that portrays
users in certain ways. For instance, Kaplan and
Haenlein (2010) explain that the presentation
of a user’s identity can often happen through
the conscious or unconscious ‘self-disclosure’ of
subjective information such as thoughts, feelings,
likes, and dislikes. Consequently, users and
social media sites have different discourse prefer-
ences and aims. Many individuals who participate
in online activities use their real names (e.g., Guy
Kawasaki, a leading blogger and managing director
of Garage Technology Ventures), while other
influential social media mavens are known by their
nicknames, or ‘handles’ (e.g., hummingbird604
is Raul Pacheco, a blogger and educator on envi-
ronmental issues).
Of course, there are many different social media
platforms built around identity that require users to
set up profiles (e.g., Facebook). This has led to the
formation of secondary services like DandyID, which
allows users to store their online social identities in
one place. Similar in nature to business cards and
email signatures, social media users now create
social media profile cards, using tools like Retaggr,
to advertise their different identities and encourage
others to follow them. While these new forms of
communication attracted many early adopters, new
demographics are now participating. In particular,
those 55 and older–—who were relatively rare con-
tributors in Web 1.0–—are now the fastest growing
demographic on Facebook, with women outnumber-
ing men 2:1 (Marketingcharts, 2009).
Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media 243
Figure 1. The honeycomb of social media

As identity is core to many social media plat-
forms, this presents some fundamental implica-
tions for firms seeking to develop their own social
media sites or strategies for engaging with other
sites. One major implication is privacy. Users will-
ingly share their identities on social media sites
such as Facebook and Twitter, yet this does not
mean they do not care what happens to this
information. Indeed, users have serious concerns
about how secondary firms use their information
as a source for data mining and surveillance
(Kietzmann & Angell, 2010), and the extent to
which social media sites passively facilitate or
actively encourage these activities. This has re-
sulted in users and government agencies initiating
class-action lawsuits for invasion of privacy
(Kravets, 2010). Users have also developed iden-
tity strategies (e.g., real identity versus virtual
identities), while others focus on self-promotion
(e.g., Facebook) or self-branding (e.g., LinkedIn).
Professional photographers, for example, pay a
premium to share their photographs on Flickr to
develop their professional brand, and start con-
versations within their community.
However, this does not suggest that firms should
insist on profiles that are complete or accurate. In
fact, in an effort to protect their privacy, people
tie different identities to the context of the
different social media platforms they use (e.g.,
hobbies and pictures on Facebook might be differ-
ent from those on LinkedIn). In some cases,
though, identities remain anonymous. For exam-
ple, social networks like Divorce360 work for those
in complicated relationships or in various stages of
breakups, who strongly need support but wish to
remain anonymous. Consequently, technologies
such as OAuth (Hammer-Lahav, 2007) have been
developed as an open standard for authorization,
for ‘‘giving access to your stuff without sharing
your identity at all (or its secret parts).’’ Although
OAuth is now required for all third party Twitter
applications, it does not work for everyone. For
instance, users of the infamous Internet counter-
culture 4chan–—who brought us the ‘rickrolling’
meme: a cultural practice whereby users are
tricked into watching a cheesy music video–—
prefer to know each other only by their handles.
One of their members, an individual who goes by
the name ‘moot,’ has been described as ‘‘the most
influential Web entrepreneur you’ve never heard
of’’ (Smith, 2008). Striking a careful balance be-
tween sharing identities and protecting privacy is
crucial in selecting social media tools; the wrong
mix can lead to a lack of accountability among
users, encourage cyber-bullying, and pave the way
for off-topic and off-color comments.
2.2. Conversations
The conversations block of the framework repre-
sents the extent to which users communicate with
other users in a social media setting. Many social
media sites are designed primarily to facilitate
conversations among individuals and groups. These
conversations happen for all sorts of reasons. People
tweet, blog, et cetera to meet new like-minded
people, to find true love, to build their self-esteem,
or to be on the cutting edge of new ideas or trending
topics. Yet others see social media as a way of
making their message heard and positively impact-
ing humanitarian causes, environmental problems,
economic issues, or political debates (Beirut, 2009).
The enormous number and diversity of conversa-
tions that can take place in a social media setting,
means that there are format and protocol implica-
tions for firms which seek to host or track these
conversations. Twitter, for instance, is centered
around exchanging short messages that are mostly
real-time status updates, so as to create an ‘ambi-
ent awareness’ of issues (Kaplan & Haenlein, in
press). Mostly, these messages are of an ephemeral
nature, without any obligation to respond. Review-
ing past tweets requires an archiving service like
Google Replay, which lets users search through and
review tweets. Twitter, then, is more about conver-
sation than identity. Blogs, on the other hand, are
less about staying connected synchronously than
about facilitating rich, often lengthy conversations
that can be traced back on the blog itself.
Drawing from research on industry dynamics
(McCarthy, Lawrence, Wixted, & Gordon, 2010),
we argue that differences in the frequency and
content of a conversation can have major implica-
tions for how firms monitor and make sense of the
‘conversation velocity’: the rate and direction of
change in a conversation. The rate of change is the
number of new conversations over a specified period
of time, and the direction of change is the continuity-
discontinuity of the conversation (i.e., changes in
how favorable or unfavorable a conversation is
toward a firm and its products). For instance, to
make collective sense of the short, speedy, and
numerous conversations hosted by sites such as
Twitter, firms need tools and capabilities that allow
them to connect the dots. That is, the conversations
are like pieces of a rapidly changing puzzle which,
when aggregated, combine to produce an overall
image or message. In contrast, people such as Marc
Andreeson (a co-founder of Netscape) use regular
blogstopostdetailed,butlessfrequentaccounts.
These postings can be rich and useful, but not
necessarily connected to a greater social media
exchangeonthesamesubject.
244 J.H. Kietzmann et al.

Another fundamental implication of conversation
is the issue of firms starting or manipulating a
conversation. For example, Unilever gave its com-
munity something to talk about upon launching the
Dove Campaign for Real Beauty in 2004. People not
only conversed on Dove’s own blog or discussion
board, but also talked very positively about the
campaign across many social media platforms. To
spark more conversation, one billboard in the series
asked viewers to vote on whether a woman dis-
played was ‘fat’ or ‘fab,’ with the results posted
in real-time on the board. Thus, there are benefits
and risks in joining and manipulating conversations.
Firms which know when to chime in–—and, when not
to–—show their audience that they care, and are
seen as a positive addition to the conversation; this
is in contrast to firms which flood conversations that
were not ‘theirs’ in the first place.
2.3. Sharing
Sharing represents the extent to which users ex-
change, distribute, and receive content. The term
‘social’ often implies that exchanges between peo-
ple are crucial. In many cases, however, sociality is
about the objects that mediate these ties between
people (Engestro
¨m, 2005); the reasons why they
meet online and associate with each other. Consider
Groupon, which publishes a 50% - 90% discount
coupon for local businesses each day via email,
Twitter, mobile phone applications, and its own
website. The coupon is only valid, however, once
a critical mass has agreed to purchase the special
offer. Social shopping services like Groupon leverage
the ‘social graph,’ a mapping of users’ connectivity,
to share the news via email across their entire social
network. Consequently, social media consist of peo-
ple who are connected by a shared object (e.g., a
groupon, text, video, picture, sound, link, loca-
tion). Sharing alone is a way of interacting in social
media, but whether sharing leads users to want to
converse or even build relationships with each other
depends on the functional objective of the social
media platform. For instance, the objects of social-
ity are pictures for Flickr, Indie music for MySpace,
and careers for LinkedIn.
We suggest there are at least two fundamental
implications that the sharing block of the honey-
comb has for all firms with ambition to engage in
social media. The first is the need to evaluate what
objects of sociality their users have in common, or
to identify new objects that can mediate their
shared interests. Without these objects, a sharing
network will be primarily about connections be-
tween people but without anything connecting them
together. Of course, these objects and the type of
sharing that can be built into a social media platform
very much depend on the aims of the platform. For
example, YouTube started as a platform to allow
individuals to upload and share homemade videos;
the first of these showed one of the founders enjoy-
ing a day at the San Diego Zoo. This case illustrates
that even though the object medium is video, You-
Tube was established primarily to enable users to
share personal objects–—experiences and observa-
tions–—with the world.
A second implication concerns the degree to
which the object can or should be shared. As You-
Tube grew, users increasingly uploaded video not
created by them. This led to criticism and lawsuits
against YouTube for failing to ensure that uploaded
material complied with copyright laws. YouTube has
also been denounced for hosting videos that contain
offensive content. As a result, YouTube developed
controls and allocated resources to filter and then
screen the content that it helps share. This includes
requiring users who want to upload video, to regis-
ter and agree to terms of use; providing a content
management system that allows content owners
(e.g., movie studios) to identify and manage their
content on YouTube; asking users to flag inappropri-
ate content; and employing an army of people who
screen and remove content that is in violation of the
terms of use.
2.4. Presence
The framework building block presence represents
the extent to which users can know if other users are
accessible. It includes knowing where others are, in
the virtual world and/or in the real world, and
whether they are available. In the virtual world,
this happens through status lines like ‘available’ or
‘hidden.’ Given the increasing connectivity of peo-
ple on the move, this presence bridges the real and
the virtual. For instance, actor Ashton Kutcher and
his actress wife Demi Moore are both active on
Foursquare, and when they ‘check in’ at a particular
location, fans and traditional media can view this
information and know where to go for celebrity
gawking. Similar presence-focused platforms center
on geographical spaces, not specific locations.
Friends Around Me allows users to share their status
updates and check-ins across networks–—Facebook,
Twitter, Foursquare, and Gowalla–—and displays
which friends are in close physical proximity. Flash-
mobs like T-Mobile’s Welcome Back (Lifesforsharing,
2010) are a similar phenomenon, whereby large
groups of people, organized mostly via social media,
practice an unusual but enormously powerful act:
assembling in a public place to suddenly perform for
a brief time, then dispersing just as quickly. Another
Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media 245

example of real-time presence is Trapster, a vehicle
speed trap sharing system that relies on user-
generated content to warn drivers of live police speed
traps, red light cameras, speed cameras, and so forth.
In other cases–—for instance, LinkedIn–—knowing
who else is online or where others are located physi-
cally does not matter.
The implication of presence is that firms need to
pay attention to the relative importance of user
availability and user location. In some cases, this is
tied very directly to a desire to interact synchro-
nously, whether this is through voice or sharing data.
Should users prefer to engage in real-time, then the
social media platform should offer a presence or
status line indicator, along with a suitable mecha-
nism through which these users can contact each
other and interact. A firm might also want to inves-
tigate if users have a desire for selective presences,
where one can be visible to some people while
staying hidden to others. Another direct implication
of presence is that it is linked to the traits of other
functional blocks in the honeycomb framework,
including conversations and relationships. For in-
stance, drawing upon ideas by Kaplan and Haenlein
(2010), firms should recognize that social media
presence is influenced by the intimacy and immedi-
acy of the relationship medium, and that higher
levels of social presence are likely to make conver-
sations more influential.
2.5. Relationships
The relationships block represents the extent to
which users can be related to other users. By ‘re-
late,’ we mean that two or more users have some
form of association that leads them to converse,
share objects of sociality, meet up, or simply just list
each other as a friend or fan. Consequently, how
users of a social media platform are connected often
determines the what-and-how of information ex-
change. In some cases, these relationships are fairly
formal, regulated, and structured. LinkedIn, for
instance, allows users to see how they are linked
to others and how many degrees of separation they
are from a ‘target’ member–—possibly an employer
they would like to meet. Member profiles also need
to be validated by others to be complete. With a
focus on relationship building, LinkedIn has a refer-
ral system so that these users can be introduced,
through a chain of friends-of-friends, to the person
they intended to meet so that they can be closer to
the people they would like to meet. Of course,
growing a network as large as possible likely reduces
the degrees of separation to these individuals. In
other cases, social media platforms are centered on
existing relationship maintenance, not expansion.
Social software like AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) and
Skype allow people to talk to ‘buddies’ or ‘contacts’
they already know. On other platforms, relation-
ships are informal and without structure. Blogs, for
instance, can allow users to develop a relationship
with each other, without a formal arrangement of
what and how much information they should share.
In yet other cases, including Twitter and YouTube,
relationships hardly matter. The general rule is that
social media communities which don’t value identi-
ty highly, also don’t value relationships highly.
Because the implications of the relationship block
are numerous, we use two properties–—structure
and flow–—from social network theory (Borgatti &
Foster, 2003; Granovetter, 1973) to explain the
importance of different relationship traits. The
structural property of a user’s relationships refers
to how many connections they have and their posi-
tion in their network of relationships. Research
shows that the denser and larger a user’s portfolio
of relationships is, and the more central his or her
position in the portfolio, the more likely that user is
to be an influential member (‘influencer’) in their
network. The flow property of user relationships
refers to the types of resources involved in individ-
ual relationships and how these resources are used,
exchanged, or transformed. It describes the
strength of a relationship: strong relationships are
‘‘long-lasting, and affect-laden’’ (Krackhardt, 1992,
p. 218), while weak ones are ‘‘infrequent and dis-
tant’’ (Hansen, 1999, p. 84). It also refers to the
‘multiplexity’ of relationships; that is, when users
are connected by more than one type of relationship
(e.g., they are work colleagues and friends).
Consequently, if a social media community values
relationships, the issue of structural and flow prop-
erties becomes important. Social media sites and
firms seeking to engage with their users must un-
derstand how they can maintain or build relation-
ships, or both. If the relationships need to be formal
and regulated, then a process should be developed
to validate authenticity of users. If a social media
platform adopts a brokering role or facilitates trans-
actions, social mechanisms via which other individ-
uals act as an approval step (e.g., LinkedIn), or legal
steps can be employed. If users mostly expect to
maintain existing relationships, then a simple iden-
tification process is required. For instance, users can
send a ‘friend request’ that needs to be accepted by
the other party before the two can add each other to
their contact list. If the nature of the engagement
among users is to grow their networks, then more
information might need to be displayed to create
meaningful relationships; this, of course, must hon-
or the users’ expectation of both identity and pri-
vacy, as outlined above. Another alternative is that
246 J.H. Kietzmann et al.

users of the community enter into a legally binding
transaction (e.g., the social commerce site Bonanza),
which is an altogether different relationship.
2.6. Reputation
Reputation is the extent to which users can identify
the standing of others, including themselves, in a
social media setting. Reputation can have different
meanings on social media platforms. In most cases,
reputation is a matter of trust, but since information
technologies are not yet good at determining such
highly qualitative criteria, social media sites rely on
‘mechanical Turks’: tools that automatically aggre-
gate user-generated information to determine
trustworthiness. For instance, Jeremiah Owyang’s
70,000 and Guy Kawasaki’s 292,000 followers on
Twitter attest their reputations as social media
maven and emerging technology expert, respective-
ly. Another example is LinkedIn, which builds the
reputation of one individual based on endorsements
from others. However in social media, reputation
refers not only to people but also their content,
which is often evaluated using content voting sys-
tems. On YouTube, the reputation of videos might be
based on ‘view counts’ or ‘ratings,’ while on Face-
book this could be ‘likes,’ and so forth. Via the
StumbleUpon platform, for example, one can only
see content that has already been filtered by users
who share a common interest. The more Stumble-
Upon knows about a user, the better it can match up
preferences of like-minded individuals who have
given the particular website a ‘thumbs up’ or
‘thumbs down’ verdict.
As with the other blocks in the honeycomb frame-
work, reputation has significant implications for
how firms should effectively engage social media.
If firms and users value their reputations and those
of other users, then a metric must be chosen to
provide this information. The number of followers
on Twitter has limited value in that it only indicates
how popular a person is, not how many people
actually read the posts. Since people can follow
as many others as they like, they also do not have
a reason to ‘unfollow’ anyone. For a firm, this means
the engagement needs of its community should
inform the choice of reputation system. If time
and activity in a community matter, a measure of
the number of posts over time might be a better
metric. If the quality of an individual’s contributions
matters, a rating system would be an appropriate
choice.
Once a firm has identified appropriate metrics for
the reputation of its community’s social media en-
gagement, the appropriate evaluation tool must be
chosen. This could either be based on objective data
(e.g., number of views or followers) or collective
intelligence of the crowd (e.g., rating system). For
example, social media service sites such as Social
Mention search and compile user-generated content
from over 80 social media sites. It enables firms and
individuals to monitor how many times they and
others are mentioned, using a number of metrics
including: strength (the number of times you are
mentioned); sentiment (the ratio of mentions that
are positive to those that are negative); passion
(how often certain users talk about you); and reach
(the number of different users talking about
you divided by the total number of times you are
mentioned).
2.7. Groups
The groups functional block represents the extent
to which users can form communities and sub-
communities. The more ‘social’ a network becomes,
the bigger the group of friends, followers, and
contacts. A widely discussed relationship-group
metric is Dunbar’s Number, proposed by anthropol-
ogist Robin Dunbar (1992), who theorized that peo-
ple have a cognitive limit which restricts the number
of stable social relationships they can have with
other people to about 150. Social media platforms
have recognized that many communities grow well
beyond this number, and offer tools that allow users
to manage membership. Two major types of groups
exist. First, individuals can sort through their con-
tacts and place their buddies, friends, followers, or
fans into different self-created groups (e.g., Twitter
has lists). Second, groups online can be analogous to
clubs in the offline world: open to anyone, closed
(approval required), or secret (by invitation only).
Facebook and Flickr have groups, for instance, with
administrators who manage the group, approve
applicants, and invite others to join.
The direct implication of groups is fairly straight-
forward. It can be assumed that a social media
community would enjoy a way to group its users,
even when the number of likely contacts is low for
each member initially. It is good practice to enable
this feature from the start such that members don’t
have to sort through lengthy contact lists to order
their contacts later. If the members just need to
order their contacts to manage followers, friends,
fans, and the like, then simple user-generated
grouping will suffice. This resembles allowing users
to label their contacts, without these contacts being
aware of it. If, however, a group wants to pursue an
agenda and grow its membership, then more formal
group rules and functions would be required.
The indirect implications of groups are compli-
cated. Groups in social media are more than just a
Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media 247

listing of users. There is a focus on different per-
missions for different group membership activity
and content. Given the enormous traffic on social
media and the amount of noise it generates daily,
the need for filtering is paramount. To connect to
some of the earlier honeycomb blocks, groups can
vary in how they allow individuals to share specific
details with some contacts, but not others. Differ-
ent parts of an identity could be set up for each
block. In terms of presence, a user could choose to
be available to some (e.g., those in the friends
group) on the weekend, but not others (e.g., col-
leagues). But what happens when life is multiplex
and one friend is also a colleague? Permissions
management is inherently difficult, and the more
flexibility that is embedded in the system, the
more difficult it is to manage for the users. For
this reason, many social media platforms have
chosen to offer a few categories of groups and a
few combinations of permissions. Of course, these
choices are highly contextual, and a firm would
benefit from studying exactly what kinds of groups
their community would support, and how these
should affect their engagement with other honey-
comb pieces.
3. Differences matter: The 4 Cs
It is difficult to stay abreast of the choices people
have for social media platforms. It seems that new
sites and services emerge every day, vying for the
248 J.H. Kietzmann et al.
Figure 2. Contrasting the functionalities of different sites

attention of individuals and communities online.
When examining the social media ecology, it quickly
becomes clear that many sites have struck a careful
balance among the different blocks of the honey-
comb. Some focus more on identity, some more on
sharing, et cetera. None of today’s major social
media sites focus solely on just one block. Gene
Smith (2007), one of the bloggers who helped evolve
this framework, argues that sites tend to concen-
trate on three or four primary blocks. In Figure 2 we
illustrate this with four examples: LinkedIn, Four-
square, YouTube, and Facebook. The darker the
color of a block, the greater this social media
functionality is within the site.
Using tools like the honeycomb framework to
understand and develop social media platforms,
and the social media landscape more generally, is
increasingly important. Consequently, we now pres-
ent a guideline–—the 4 Cs: cognize, congruity, cu-
rate, and chase–—relating how firms should develop
strategies for monitoring, understanding, and re-
sponding to different social media activities.
3.1. Cognize
A firm should first recognize and understand its
social media landscape, using the honeycomb
framework. This will unveil the social media func-
tionality and engagement implications for under-
standing your customers. Similarly, it is important to
find out if and where conversations about a firm are
already being held, and how these are enabled by
the different functionalities in the honeycomb
framework. At the same time, firms need to pay
attention to other critical elements of the social
media landscape, including who some of the main
influencers are. Listorious, for instance, provides
details of key experts on topics on Twitter. While
reviewing the social media landscape, a firm should
also collect competitive intelligence to determine if
its rivals are already active, and what the response
level is for their particular social media strategy.
3.2. Congruity
Next, a firm needs to develop strategies that are
congruent with, or suited to, different social media
functionalities and the goals of the firm. This in-
volves focusing on the core honeycomb blocks of a
social media activity that will facilitate the needs of
its business. Are they seeking to drive more custom-
ers into a bricks and mortar store, to increase sales
online, or to create new leads directly attributable
to a social media tool? What are the metrics for
evaluating the success of the social media platform?
Important success measures might focus on the
velocity of a conversation. The mantra ‘customer
service is the new marketing’ emphasizes that the
firm is no longer in control of the conversation, and
that any social media strategy should also focus on
increasing customer happiness (e.g., how well cus-
tomer issues are resolved) and customer input (e.g.,
suggestions for improving a product or service). The
plan also needs to integrate a social media strategy
tightly with other marketing strategies, whereby
one points the audience to the other. Unless users
are made aware of the existence of a social media
forum, they are unlikely to discover it by chance.
The ‘find us, friend us, and follow us’ slogan on milk
containers is a suitable example for how ‘bought’
media (e.g., advertising) and ‘owned’ media (e.g.,
the brand or the product itself) can be integrated
with social media (the ‘earned’ media) to seed and
drive conversations, sharing, relationships, and so
forth. Other choices in the planning stage require
another look at the honeycomb to learn what key
activities–—conversations, for instance–—will help
the firm gain trust with a key influencer and within
the community.
3.3. Curate
A firm must act as a curator of social media inter-
actions and content. This involves developing a
clear understanding of how often and when a firm
should chime into conversations on a social media
platform, and who will represent the firm online.
Social media involvement is not an exact science,
but to reduce the ambiguity, firms should develop
policies that outline how their employees look after
and preserve different forms of social media en-
gagement. The key here is to identify employees
who have the ability to listen and who care about
the chatter online, and those who can create con-
tent that is emotionally appropriate for the com-
munity (Armano, 2009). Another important option is
to create ‘mash-ups,’ which combine content and
functionality from a variety of sources that already
exist. For example, organizations can curate con-
versations by showing YouTube videos of credible
individuals on their site, or by presenting existing
research from other sites.
In any event, to effectively follow and use social
media can be a challenge, and it is likely that many
firms initially won’t have the talent or capabilities
to succeed. So, when firms hire consultants who act
on their behalf, they are well advised to conduct
due diligence to ensure that opportunities are max-
imized and risks are minimized–—not the other way
around. Having the right controls in place is espe-
cially important, as individuals who communicate
with customers must be given enough discretion and
Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media 249

authority to develop relationships by solving cus-
tomer issues, not just sympathizing with the cus-
tomer as often seems to be the case with traditional
customer service.
3.4. Chase
Of course, a constant chase for information about
social media activity is tremendously time-consum-
ing. Yet, firms must scan their environments in order
to understand the velocity of conversations and
other information flows that could affect current
or future position in the market (McCarthy et al.,
2010). The honeycomb framework provides a valu-
able tool for evaluating the changing social media
ecology. If used as an ongoing lens, a firm can revisit
the assumptions about a community’s engagement
needs, observe how other social media platforms
are evolving, and gauge how competitors are re-
sponding. More specifically, it is important to follow
conversations and other interactions that include a
particular firm, brand, product, or individual. For-
tunately, social media analytics tools like Tweet-
Deck, Social Mention, and Google Alerts exist to
make this process more manageable. It is important,
though, to note that positive social media exposure
often results more from inbound than outbound
conversations, and real-time is much better than
post-hoc. For instance, when a customer tweeted
his disappointment that a chain restaurant had run
out of corn tortillas, a full time social media em-
ployee alerted the branch manager in less than
2 minutes and the issue was resolved even before
the customer left the restaurant (Armano, 2009).
But even when it seems too late, an appropriate
social media response may turn the tide. Imagine if
United Airlines had released an apologetic United
Loves Guitars video on YouTube, possibly starring
Eric Clapton, Slash, Jimmy Page, or B.B. King!
4. Final thoughts
Social media introduce substantial and pervasive
changes to communication between organizations,
communities, and individuals. This presents an
enormous challenge for firms, as many established
management methods are ill-suited to deal with
customers who no longer want to be talked at;
instead, customers want firms to listen, appropri-
ately engage, and respond. Firms interested in get-
ting serious about social media will find a useful tool
in the honeycomb framework. By analyzing the
seven building blocks–—identity, conversations,
sharing, presence, relationships, reputation, and
groups–—firms can monitor and understand how so-
cial media activities vary in terms of their function
and impact, so as to develop a congruent social
media strategy based on the appropriate balance
of building blocks for their community.
References
Armano, D. (2009, November 2). Six social media trends for 2010.
Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/
2009/11/six_social_media_trends.html
Beirut. (2009, August 21). Why do people really tweet? The
psychology behind tweeting! Retrieved November 5, 2010,
from http://blog.thoughtpick.com/2009/08/why-do-people-
really-tweet-the-psychology-behind-tweeting.html
Berthon, P., Pitt, L., McCarthy, I., & Kates, S. (2007). When
customers get clever: Managerial approaches to dealing with
creative consumers. Business Horizons, 50(1), 39—47.
Borgatti, S., & Foster, P. (2003). The network paradigm in organi-
zational research: A review and typology. Journal of Manage-
ment, 29(6), 991—1013.
Boyd, D., & Ellison, N. (2008). Social network sites: Definition,
history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer Mediated Com-
munication, 13(1), 210—230.
Butterfield, S. (2003). An article complaining about ‘social soft-
ware’. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://www.
sylloge. com/personal/2003_03_01_s.html#91273866
United breaks guitars. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YGc4zOqozo
Catholic Press Association. (2010). Using social media: Best prac-
tices. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://www.
catholicpress.org/?page=SocialMediaWebinar
Dunbar, R. I. M. (1992). Neocortex size as a constraint on group
size in primates. Journal of Human Evolution, 22(6), 469—493.
Engestro
¨m, J. (2005, April 13). Why some social network services
work and others don’t –— Or: the case for object-centered
sociality. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://www.
zengestrom.com/blog/2005/04/why-some-social-network-
services-work-and-others-dont-or-the-case-for-object-
centered-sociality.html
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American
Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360—1380.
Hammer-Lahav, E. (2007, September 5). A little bit of history.
Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://oauth.net/about/
Hansen, M. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak
ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Ad-
ministrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82—85.
Kaplan, A., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The
challenges and opportunities of social media Business Hori-
zons, 53(1), 59—68.
Kaplan, A., & Haenlein, M. (in press). The early bird catches the
news: Nine things you should know about micro-blogging.
Business Horizons.
Kietzmann, J., & Angell, I. (2010). Panopticon revisited. Com-
munications of the ACM, 53(6), 135—138.
Krackhardt, D. (1992). The strength of strong ties: The importance
of philos in organizations. In N. Nohria & R. Eccles (Eds.),
Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action
(pp. 216—239). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kravets, D. (2010, March 17). Judge approves $9.5 million Face-
book ‘beacon’ accord. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/03/facebook-
beacon-2/
Lifesforsharing. (2010). The T-Mobile welcome back. Retrieved
November 5, 2010, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=NB3NPNM4xgo
250 J.H. Kietzmann et al.

Madway, G. (2010, September 14). Twitter remakes website, adds
new features. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://
www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1411135520100915
Marketingcharts. (2009). Women over 55 take Facebook by storm.
November 5, 2010, from http://www.marketingcharts.
com/interactive/women-over-55-take-facebook-by-storm-
7879/
McCarthy, I., Lawrence, T., Wixted, B., & Gordon, B. (2010). A
multidimensional conceptualization of environmental veloci-
ty. The Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 604—626.
Morville, P. (2004, June 21). User experience design. Retrieved
November 5, 2010, from http://semanticstudios.com/
publications/semantics/000029.php
Nolan, H. (2009, May 26). New York Times ‘social media editor’
playing out exactly as suspected. Retrieved November 5,
2010, from http://gawker.com/5270593/new-york-times-
social-media-editor-playing-out-exactly-as-suspected
Smith, D. (2008, July 20). The 20-year-old at heart of web’s most
anarchic and influential site. Retrieved November 5, 2010,
from http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jul/20/
internet.google
Smith, G. (2007, April 4). Social software building blocks.
Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://nform.ca/
publications/social-software-building-block
Webb, M. (2004, April 28). On social software consultancy.Re-
trieved November 5, 2010, from http://interconnected.org/
home/2004/04/28/on_social_software
Weber, T. (2010, October 3). Why companies watch your every
Facebook, YouTube, Twitter move. Retrieved November 5,
2010, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11450923
Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media 251