ArticlePDF Available

The social media in the economy



Content may be subject to copyright.
Sustainability Modeling and Measurement Lab.,
Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya Barcelona Tech
“It is not the consciousness of men that determines
their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that
determines their consciousness.”
― Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy
Traditionally, economists have studied social and economic phenomena by using a
framework in which interaction is centralized and anonymous. They were taught that the
economy is the net result of the actions of individual investors, who act independently of
one another to maximise their own utility. This view of economy sees the individual as all-
important and downplays the role of society (Orrell 2010), while prices have been the
principal device of coordination among individual actions. The reality, however, is distinct. In
recent years, a growing body of empirical work has argued that the aforementioned
approach is inadequate for an understanding of a number of phenomena (Goyal 2007).
Even from the marketing point of view the things have changed. Historically, companies
were able to control the information available about them through strategically placed press
announcements and good public relations managers. Today, however, firms have been
increasingly relegated to the side-lines as mere observers, having neither the knowledge nor
the chance or, sometimes, even the right to alter publicly posted comments provided by
their customers (Kaplan & Haenlein 2010). The fundamental task of marketers has been to
spread the word about their products and services in order to get people to buy them, by
using a combination of outbound techniques, including e-mail blasts, telemarketing, direct
mail, TV, radio, and print advertising, and trade shows (or expos) in order to reach their
potential buyers. The problem with these traditional marketing techniques is that they have
become less effective at spreading the word as people get better at blocking out these
interruptions. The way people shop and learn is not controlled anymore by business with big
advertising budgets. Interruption-based, outbound marketing techniques are fundamentally
broken and in order to successfully break through the noise and connect to people,
companies need to rethink the way they marketed from the bottom-up (Halligan & Shan
2010). They have to ensure their customers can find them using social media platforms.
After the Internet revolution, that has changed almost every facet of our business and
personal lives, over the last decade another revolutionary trend arises; that of social media
(Qualmann 2009). Internet started out as a giant Bulletin Board System (BBS) that allowed
users to exchange software, data, messages, and news with each other. The late 1990s saw a
popularity surge in homepages where one could share information about his private life. The
era of corporate web pages and e-commerce started relatively recently with the launch of
Amazon and eBay in 1995. The current trend toward social media can therefore be seen as
an evolution back to the Internet’s roots, since it retransforms the World Wide Web to what
it was initially created for: a platform to facilitate information exchange between users. The
technical advances that have been made over the past 20 years now enable a form of virtual
content sharing that is fundamentally different from, and more powerful than, the BBS of
the late 1970s (Kaplan & Haenlein 2010). From the late 1990s, Blogger (1999), Wikipedia
(2001), Myspace (2003), Facebook (2004), Flickr (2004), YouTube (2005), Twitter (2006), and
a wide array of ensuing platforms began to offer web tools that sparkled old and new online
communication tactics (Van Dijck 2013). Social media are now shaping the way young people
think, connect, engage, and work together (Kanter & Fine 2010).
So what is the social media? Social media is a group of Internet-based applications that build
on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0
and that allow the creation
and exchange of User Generated Content (UGS)
(Kaplan & Haenlein 2010). It is a term used
to describe web services that receive most of the content from their users or that aggregate
the content from other sites as feeds. In social media anyone can become a producer, but
many of the people see themselves more as participants who engage in the community
(Lietsala & Sirkkunen 2008). The concept has caused lots of criticism among media
researchers. One of the metaphors that it raises is that the traditional media has been
somehow unsocial, which is not the case (Lietsala & Sirkkunen 2008). Social presence theory
states that media differ in the degree of ‘‘social presence’’ defined as the acoustic, visual,
and physical contact that can be achieved they allow to emerge between two
communication partners (Short et al. 1976). Social presence is influenced by the intimacy
(interpersonal vs. mediated) and immediacy (asynchronous vs. synchronous) of the medium,
and can be expected to be lower for mediated (e.g., telephone conversation) than
interpersonal (e.g., face-to-face discussion) and for asynchronous (e.g.,
e-mail) than synchronous (e.g., live chat) communications. The higher the social presence,
the larger the social influence that the communication partners have on each other’s
A platform developed in 2004 whereby content and applications are no longer created and
published by individuals, but instead are continuously modified by all users in a participatory and
collaborative fashion (Kaplan & Haenlein 2010).
UGS is the sum of all ways in which people make use of Social Media. The term achieved broad
popularity in 2005 and is usually applied to describe the various forms of media content that are
publicly available and created by end-users (Kaplan & Haenlein 2010).
In December of 2011, 1.2 billion users 82% of worlds’ Internet population over age 15
logged on to a social media site, up from 6% in 2007 (Van Dijck 2013). As of December 2012,
the online social networking application Facebook registered more than a billion monthly
active users (see Figure 1). For mobile users, the numbers reached the 680 million (Anon
2013a). At the same time, in YouTube, 800 million unique users were registered watching
over 4 billion hours of videos each month, while 72 hours of video were being uploaded
every minute (Anon 2013b). To compare the increase in the use of these media during the
last four years, in January 2009 the active users for Facebook were reaching the 175 million
and the uploaded hours per minute in YouTube the 10 (Kaplan & Haenlein 2010). That
corresponds to a growth of roughly 82.5 and 86.1 % in total or 20.6 and 21.5% per year
respectively. Smartphones accelerate the connection processes and the dependence from
social media even more. As a result of a study launched in March 2013 (Levitas 2013)
concerning smartphone users between 18 and 44 years old in the U.S., half of U.S.
population is already using smartphones (181.4 million users) and the first uses that they
give them are checking and writing e-mails (by 78%), web browsing (by 73%) and checking
Facebook (by 70%), while the time spend on calls is reaching only the 16%.
Figure 1: World map of social Networks, December 2012. Facebook established its leadership
position in 127 of the 137 countries analysed for the study.
Source: (Cosenza 2013).
Social media can be classified in different ways, depending on their content and the user
interaction. One of which, proposed by (Lietsala & Sirkkunen 2008), classifies them into the
following genres: i) content creation and publishing (blogs, v-blogs, podcasts), ii) content
sharing (YouTube, Flickr) iii) social network sites (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Pinterest, My
Space, Google Plus+
), iv) collaborative productions (Wikipedia), v) virtual worlds (Second
Life) and vi) add-ons. Independently of the category they belong to, social media, rather
than being finished products, are dynamic objects that are tweaked in response to their
Social network sites have been actualised from the list proposed by Lietsala & Sirkkunen,
according to the eBizMBA Rank (eBizMBA 2013).
user’s needs and their owner’s objectives, but also in reaction to competing platforms and
the larger technological and economic infrastructure through which they develop (Feenberg
So how does individual behaviour aggregate to collective behaviour? And where do social
media enter? According to the atomic theory of economics, individual people or business are
supposed to be independent of one another, so they are uninfluenced by each other’s
decisions. In this picture, their desires and preferences therefore remain fixed. But in fact,
every decision made is affected by what is going on around (Orrell 2010). People interact
and affect each other’s behaviour. Markets are largely driven by things like rumours and
trends. These in turn affect the larger economy, and ultimately measures of activity like the
gross domestic product. We buy things not just because of necessity but because everyone
else is also buying. We are under constant social and psychological pressure to buy things.
Individual choices concerning the gathering of information are actually shaped by the
pattern of connections between persons in a society. This line of reasoning leads to the idea
that the pattern of connections that obtain in a society will themselves reflect rational
decision making of individuals (Goyal 2007). The possibilities of group intelligence, at least
when it came to judging questions of fact, were demonstrated by a host of experiments
conducted by American sociologists and psychologists between 1920 and the mid-1950s
(Surowiecki 2005). So, when group dynamics take over, the wisdom of individuals can
quickly break down. And in general, the bigger the crowd the better the result. Behavioural
psychologists describe this type of behaviour as herd behaviour. Although it does not seem
so rational, there is plenty of evidence to show that emotion plays a large role in decision-
making. Our actions reflect the fact that we are part of a global network connected socially
and financially to friends, community, the media, and even remote events on the other side
of the world (Orrell 2010).
Relationships among individuals have a number of different dimensions. The first task is
therefore to find a conceptual framework within which they can be described and then
measured in a meaningful manner. A language within which variations in relationships can
be naturally expressed is also needed. The concept of a network addresses these
requirements nicely: a network describes a collection of nodes and the links between them
(Newman 2010). Individuals, firms, countries or even collections of such entities may be the
nodes. A link between the nodes signifies a direct relationship between them; for instance,
in a social context a link could be a friendship tie, while in the context of countries a link may
be a trade agreement or a mutual defence pact (Goyal 2007). The nodes are important, of
course, but without the links the network doesn’t exist. Hubs are the larger nodes within
networks, meaning the people or organizations that have lots of connections. Hubs are the
influencers in the network, the people who know everyone and are known by everyone.
They enjoy sharing information and connecting people to one another and resources. They
are the responsible for making things go “viral” online; that is when huge numbers of people
have watched a video or read a blog post or clicked on something (Kanter & Fine 2010).
Individuals can exploit their network position to their own advantage. These advantages are
related systematically to aspects of the network structure. In many contexts, the
connections that define a network arise out of investments in relationships made by the
individual entities themselves. Connections take on different forms and so the nature of
investment will vary (Goyal 2007). The networks can be divided into the following
categories, i) small-world network, where the connections between individual nodes are
arranged in such a way that it takes only a small number of steps to link one node to
another, i.e. World Wide Web and ii) scale-free networks, where there is no typical or
expected number of connections for any node: most nodes have few connections to other
nodes, but a small number of hubs are highly connected, i.e. air traffic network (Orrell 2010).
Social media belong to small-world networks, such as the World Wide Web, and that is why
their network is expanding with such velocity. They make even stronger those connections
between the individuals and affect the economy. People value the opinion of other people
and social media make it easier to disseminate information. Social media enable users to
inform their friends what they are doing every minute of the day. The most popular feature
of Facebook, LinkedIn and Google+ is status updates. By using it, users can continuously
drag, boast, inform, and vent to everyone in their network (Qualmann 2009). Consumers do
not simply consume anymore; they recommend what they like to their friends, who
recommend it to their friends and so on. They do not simply buy cultural goods; they buy
into a cultural economy which rewards their participation (Jenkins et al. 2013). People
primarily shop and gather information through search engines, such as Google. The average
information seeker conducts dozens of searches per day. Then they cross the obtain results
with information published in the blogosphere. And finally, they turn to the social networks
(Halligan & Shan 2010).
Why all of this is important? Where can it lead? Well, the potential impact of social media in
the economy seems to be huge. Social media seem to have penetrated almost every culture,
forming a new online layer through which people organise their lives. Today, this level of
platforms influences human interaction on an individual and community level, as well as on
a societal level, while the worlds of online and offline are increasingly interpenetrating.
Originally, the need for connectedness is what drove many users to these sites. Connectivity
quickly evolved into a valuable resource as engineers found ways to code information into
algorithms that helped brand a particular form of online society and make it profitable in
online markets serving a global market of social networking and user-generated content.
Large and influential platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and LinkedIn exploded in
terms of users and monetizing potential, alongside countless smaller profit and non-profit
sites. As a result of the interconnection of platforms, a new infrastructure emerged: an
ecosystem of connective media with a few large and many small players. The transformation
from networked communication to “platformed” sociality, and from a participatory culture
to a culture of connectivity, took place in a relatively short time span of ten years.
Social media built the foundations for a participatory economy where participants gain use-
value as the result of community action. People collaborate on social media, and as a return,
the action of the individuals produces something new, even unexpected results. The
emergence may be profitable business and provide income for firms, but it also has an
impact on the social relations and the well-being of individuals.
Anon, 2013a. Facebook Newsroom, Key-Facts. Facebook. Available at: [Accessed March 28, 2013].
Anon, 2013b. YouTube Statistics. YouTube. Available at: [Accessed March 28, 2013].
Cosenza, V., 2013. World Map of Social Networks. Vincos Blog. Available at: [Accessed March 20, 2013].
Van Dijck, J., 2013. The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical history of Social Media, New
York: Oxford University Press.
eBizMBA, 2013. Top 15 Most Popular Social Networking Sites | March 2013. Available
at: [Accessed
March 23, 2013].
Feenberg, A., 2009. Critical Theory of Communication Technology: Introduction to the
Special Section. The Information Society, 25(2), pp.7783.
Goyal, S., 2007. Connections: an introduction to the economics of networks, Princeton &
Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Halligan, B. & Shan, D., 2010. Inbound Marketing, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Jenkins, H., Ford, S. & Green, J., 2013. Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a
Networked Culture, New York & London: New York University Press.
Kanter, B. & Fine, A.H., 2010. The Networked Nonprofit, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kaplan, A.M. & Haenlein, M., 2010. Users of the world, unite! The challenges and
opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53(1), pp.5968.
Levitas, D., 2013. Always Connected: How Smartphones and Social Keep Us Enganged,
Available at:
Lietsala, K. & Sirkkunen, E., 2008. Social Media: Introduction to the tools and processes of
the participatory economy, Tampere: Tampere University Press.
Newman, M., 2010. Networks: An introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Orrell, D., 2010. Economyths: How the science of complex systems is transforming
economic thought, London: Icon Books Ltd.
Qualmann, E., 2009. Socialnomics: How social media transforms the way we live and do
business, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Short, J., Williams, E. & Christie, B., 1976. The social psychology of telecommunications,
New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Surowiecki, J., 2005. The Wisdom of Crowds, New York: Anchor Books.
... The Internet revolutionized business activities and personal lives. The Internet started out as a giant bulletin board system (BBS) that allowed users to exchange software, data, messages and news with each other (Papachristou 2013). In a survey 2017-2018, nearby 38.43% moved to social media on advised by friends, around 18.78% joined after advised by relatives, nearly 16.59% moved to platforms in order to enhance business while about 28.20% followed others on social media over period of time to start available business opportunity (Graph 6.4). ...
... On social media, individuals knew to anyone through their status, which gave very relevant information about that person or organization. Social media are now shaping the way young people think, connect, engage and work together Papachristou (2013). When the Internet emerged in 2000, teenagers were the first who used the computers and accessed the Internet and taught their older relatives about how to use the computers and Internet. ...
This book offers a spatial insights on the social mediasphere in the context of digital shutdowns and reflects the dimensions of political economy and of social media in general. Internet shutdowns have been found to be more prevalent in developing countries than in developed countries, with India leading in Internet shutdowns in the world. Internet shutdowns have occurred in India for several reasons, mainly to hinder the spreading of information through social media – this is discussed in detail along with political motives behind this and how this can conflict with government policies, such as the flagship program “Digital India” which is ostensibly meant to improve the infrastructure and expansion of digital information throughout the country. This book suggests new dimensions in the digital spatiality. Furthermore, the digital space is defined and discussed, including its role and how this might be reflected in concepts around spatiality and spaces. More concretely, the book considers the following questions: How is social media reflected in spatial sciences? How does the space differ from more tangible spaces, such as the hydrosphere or atmosphere? How do (computer/mobile phone) screens behave as a space/place in the context of behavioural sciences? How is this reflected in what is shaping and reshaping the spatiality of digital gadgets? Do digital gadgets change the socialization process that’s often considered a path towards how we develop in society? How do internet shutdowns affect the political economy and what patterns can be seen in how individuals, companies and the internet industry in particular react to these shutdowns in India?
... Wikipedia was also launched in 2000, and LinkedIn, MySpace or Hi5 appeared in 2003. Thus, in 2004 Harvard Facebook was launched, and in 2005 YouTube, Yahoo! 360 or cyword [4]. ...
... Some of the biggest nodes in a network are hubs because they have a lot of connections, which manage to connect people to each other, to establish connections, being the biggest network influences. In other words, hubs make things more efficient in the online environment, just as it happens when viewing a video or reading a blog post, by clicking [4]. ...
Conference Paper
Over the last few years, the new technologies have "invaded" both the social and the economic perimeter, changing the way people communicate with each other remotely, through the creation of a digital society. In addition to its maturation over time, social media offers real opportunities for growth in the market, remaining to date the largest area with the potential for economic growth. This paper aims to analyze the economic effects of the media in the formation of a digital society, which generates sales and profit. The methodology used to analyze social media in the context of the economic relations system is the date of logical and comparative analysis used through the literature. This paper highlights the economic effects of using new media in terms of online sales both before the pandemic generated by Covid-19 and during the coronavirus period. The use of social networks has the role of intensifying the competition between companies from a microeconomic point of view. On the other hand, at the macroeconomic level, the use of social networks helps to develop the internal market, but at the same time, the costs for maintaining and controlling economic institutions will also increase.
... Additionally, lower usage of broadband and hence access to e-commerce channels was found to be directly linked to digital illiteracy, especially in rural areas. . However, despite the huge impact and importance of social media on economic growth(Papachristou 2013) and digitisation (Hofmann and Osterwalder 2017), some countries like China, Iran, Cuba and Bangladesh are banning it for political and security reasons (Tuncay 2018). Undoubtedly, the usage of Web 2.0 and 3.0 technologies in social media proved to have a favourable impact on e-commerce where 5% of global sales were driven by social media channels in 2015 (Scheoder and Campos 2016), as a result of decision-making process improvement (Hanafizadeh et al. 2012). ...
Full-text available
Following the invention of the internet, several industries got disrupted and emerged over time. E-commerce is one of these industries that emerged over time and started to take high share from regular off-line shopping. Despite that, there is a significant gap in e-commerce performance among countries. Several studies showed various factors that may act as a barrier or enabler for e-commerce. However, none of these studies proposed a pragmatic approach to assess the countries readiness to establish or expand e-commerce based on these factors. This study aims to improve the process of assessment for any possible e-commerce establishment or growth in the future, either in developed or emerging country. Additionally, it offers a holistic and sequential approach for e-commerce assessment differentiating it from previously published studies. Based on the literature review on e-commerce enablers and barriers, several questions were developed to conduct six semi-structured interviews aiming to support the explanatory nature of this study. A thematic approach was adopted to analyse participants' responses and identify the seven themes which are political and economic, internet, logistics and shipment, payment methods, legal regulations, time of moving and cultural stability. The results of this analysis proposed two categories of factors, where the first factor's category was called necessity factors where all of them are mandatory to be fulfilled in order to establish an e-commerce business. Moreover, second category were called the sufficient factors category, and it was found that the more sufficient factors are satisfied, the more developed e-commerce business is. Additionally, three tools were proposed based on this study to support the pragmatic approach including "Battery Charge Model", "Spiral Model" and E-commerce Tier Matrix. Finally, further study is required to strengthen the proposed tools and identify new factors that may impact e-commerce establishment and growth.
Social media became a powerful and profitable platform for companies to increase its visibility. Social media revolutionized e-commerce and shaped e-business in the shapes of ekart when online business thrived into many folds over a period of time. E-commerce became a centre stage as people used it for shopping clothes, electronic devices and so on. The corporates, consumers, stakeholders all come in one platform to interact, share and connect with each other. Doing business on social media invite risk factors and digital fraud at the same time? This chapter outlined the potentialities of social media in digital business in marketing and human resource perspectives.
Full-text available
The concept of Social Media is top of the agenda for many business executives today. Decision makers, as well as consultants, try to identify ways in which firms can make profitable use of applications such as Wikipedia, YouTube, Facebook, Second Life, and Twitter. Yet despite this interest, there seems to be very limited understanding of what the term “Social Media” exactly means; this article intends to provide some clarification. We begin by describing the concept of Social Media, and discuss how it differs from related concepts such as Web 2.0 and User Generated Content. Based on this definition, we then provide a classification of Social Media which groups applications currently subsumed under the generalized term into more specific categories by characteristic: collaborative projects, blogs, content communities, social networking sites, virtual game worlds, and virtual social worlds. Finally, we present 10 pieces of advice for companies which decide to utilize Social Media.
Full-text available
The debate over the contribution of new communication technology to democracy is far from settled. Some point to the empowering effects of online discussion and fund-raising on recent electoral campaigns in the United States to argue that the Internet will restore the public sphere. Others claim that the Internet is just a virtual mall, a final extension of capitalist rationalization into every corner of our lives, a trend supported by an ever denser web of surveillance technologies threatening individual autonomy in the advanced societies of the West. This introduction to the special section on critical theory of communication technology argues for the democratic thesis with some qualifications. The most important contribution of new technology to democracy is not necessarily its effects on the conventional political process but rather its ability to assemble a public around technical networks that enroll individuals scattered over wide geographical areas. Communities of medical patients, video game players, musical performers, and many other groups have emerged on the Internet with surprising consequences. New forms of resistance correlate with the rationalizing tendencies of a technologized society.
This book studies the rise of social media in the first decade of the twenty-first century, up until 2012. It provides both a historical and a critical analysis of the emergence of networking services in the context of a changing ecosystem of connective media. Such history is needed to understand how the intricate constellation of platforms profoundly affects our experience of online sociality. In a short period of time, services like Facebook, YouTube and many others have come to deeply penetrate our daily habits of communication and creative production. While most sites started out as amateur-driven community platforms, half a decade later they have turned into large corporations that do not just facilitate user connectedness, but have become global information and data mining companies extracting and exploiting user connectivity. Offering a dual analytical prism to examine techno-cultural as well as socio-economic aspects of social media, the author dissects five major platforms: Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, YouTube, and Wikipedia. Each of these microsystems occupies a distinct position in the larger ecosystem of connective media, and yet, their underlying mechanisms for coding interfaces, steering users, filtering content, governance and business models rely on shared ideological principles. Reconstructing the premises on which these platforms are built, this study highlights how norms for online interaction and communication gradually changed. "Sharing," "friending," "liking," "following," "trending," and "favoriting" have come to denote online practices imbued with specific technological and economic meanings. This process of normalization is part of a larger political and ideological battle over information control in an online world where everything is bound to become "social."
The following conversation is an edited excerpt from a broader roundtable discussion, organized and moderated by Cinema Journal between June and July 2013. In this section, the conversation focuses on popular culture, fans, and niche cultures. The contributors responded to a series of prompts that asked them to consider the relationship between Spreadable Media and past and current work in fan studies (including Henry Jenkins’s Textual Poachers and Convergence Culture).1 Participants also explore Spreadable Media’s relationship to fan studies scholarship and ask whether Spreadable Media represents a shift in the way we think of fans in relationship to popular culture. The full conversation addresses Spreadable Media’s engagement with questions of transmedia, digital culture, and online social activism more broadly, and it will be published online in an upcoming edition of Transformative Works and Cultures. [End Page 152] Although Spreadable Media is ultimately not a fan studies book, nor does it try to be, it purposefully engages the concept of the fan and thus gets read in conjunction with fan scholarship, including Jenkins’s previous works, Textual Poachers and Convergence Culture. Given that trajectory and the way the book repeatedly deploys specific examples of fan activities within its larger project, it raises the question as to how Spreadable Media uses the fan and how it engages with fan scholarship. Looking at the way Spreadable Media stretches the concept of being a fan to a point of seeming unrecognizability, I would suggest that the book is ultimately not interested in fans, except what they tell us about larger audiences. There are obviously strategic reasons to expand the term fan from the narrow confines that Henry Jenkins’s earlier Textual Poachers set out. In the intervening years, many aspects of fandom have mainstreamed, a move that Henry has both described extensively and partly helped bring about. There are many benefits to conceptualizing active audiences as fans, but I’d like to look at some of the drawbacks. In particular, I’d like to look at what happens when the definition of fan changes from one based on identity to one based on action. I’d like to look at what gets left out when the definition of fan is as broadly conceived as it is in Spreadable Media, when any “like” click on Facebook, any forwarding of a YouTube link, constitutes a fan activity. I am concerned that such a broadening of the concept facilitates a shift from the fans studied in Textual Poachers to general audiences. Such a shift moves the focus away from the marginal media fan, who was mostly commercially nonviable, often resistant, and uncooperative, and whose dedication to a gift economy was often in spite of capitalist alternatives and not because they didn’t exist. In its stead, the fans who take center stage in Spreadable Media are the commercializable audiences, who happily seem to collaborate in their own exploitation, free laborers creating value of which they cannot even assume ownership. What gets excluded and marginalized in Spreadable Media, then, are the very founders of the concept of fan, the unruly and aggressively anticommercial, the queered and sexually explicit, the anticapitalist and anticopyright. What gets excluded are the audiences whose practices may have been adapted and adopted and celebrated but whose presence is ultimately not desired in this brand-new, commercially viable fan universe. Spreadable Media acknowledges this danger: “We all should be vigilant over what gets sacrificed, compromised, or co-opted by media audiences as part of this process of mainstreaming the activities and interests of cult audiences.”2 But when reading through the chapters, I am distressed by observing that very compromise the authors warn against. I fear the actual driving force of...
The scientific study of networks, including computer networks, social networks, and biological networks, has received an enormous amount of interest in the last few years. The rise of the Internet and the wide availability of inexpensive computers have made it possible to gather and analyze network data on a large scale, and the development of a variety of new theoretical tools has allowed us to extract new knowledge from many different kinds of networks. The study of networks is broadly interdisciplinary and important developments have occurred in many fields, including mathematics, physics, computer and information sciences, biology, and the social sciences. This book brings together the most important breakthroughs in each of these fields and presents them in a coherent fashion, highlighting the strong interconnections between work in different areas. Subjects covered include the measurement and structure of networks in many branches of science, methods for analyzing network data, including methods developed in physics, statistics, and sociology, the fundamentals of graph theory, computer algorithms, and spectral methods, mathematical models of networks, including random graph models and generative models, and theories of dynamical processes taking place on networks.
Spreadable Media maps fundamental changes taking place in our contemporary media environment, a space where corporations no longer tightly control media distribution and many of us are directly involved in the circulation of content. It contrasts "stickiness"-aggregating attention in centralized places-with "spreadability"-dispersing content widely through both formal and informal networks,some approved, many unauthorized. Stickiness has been the measure of success in the broadcast era (and has been carried over to the online world), but "spreadability" describes the ways content travels through social media. Following up on the hugely influential Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide, this book challenges some of the prevailing metaphors and frameworks used to describe contemporary media, from biological metaphors like "memes" and "viral" to the concept of "Web 2.0" and the popular notion of "influencers." Spreadable Media examines the nature of audience engagement,the environment of participation, the way appraisal creates value,and the transnational flows at the heart of these phenomena. It delineates the elements that make content more spreadable and highlights emerging media business models built for a world of participatory circulation. The book also explores the internal tensions companies face as they adapt to the new communication reality and argues for the need to shift from "hearing" to "listening" in corporate culture. Drawing on examples from film, music, games, comics, television,transmedia storytelling, advertising, and public relations industries,among others-from both the U.S. and around the world-the authors illustrate the contours of our current media environment. They highlight the vexing questions content creators must tackle and the responsibilities we all face as citizens in a world where many of us regularly circulate media content. Written for any and all of us who actively create and share media content, Spreadable Media provides a clear understanding of how people are spreading ideas and the implications these activities have for business, politics, and everyday life.
The safe days of walled gardens are over. People collaborate on web sites, and as a return, the action of individuals produces something new, even unexpected results. The emergence may be profitable business and provide income for firms, but it also impacts on the social relations and the lives of individuals. In this book, Katri Lietsala and Esa Sirkkunen describe the great variety of practices within the social media. They suggest some general principles how the traditional media could deal with the new situation. The authors show with the help of their case studies what motivates people to participate. The book includes also a short introduction to the Finnish social media history.