Programme: MA Brand Development Department of Media and Communications Course: Branding II MC71111A Lecturers: Carolin Gerlitz and Liz

z Moor

How are social media changing brands?

Wordcount: 3814

Student number: 33227990 Term: Spring 2012

33227990

MC71111A

The emergence of digital technologies has given rise to a highly networked public. Multiple media and sociology writers have ascribed to this phenomenon with different terms: network culture (Terranova, 2004), network society (Castells, 2000), network economy (Barabasi, 2002) and networked publics (Boyd, 2010; 2007; Langois et al, 2009). These approaches to social network theory are relevant when analysing social media platforms. The purpose of this article is to apply a network approach to social network analysis as a starting point to examine the effects of social media on branding practices. Due to restrictions of this article, the emphasis will lay on two methods of network appropriation by brands, whilst not neglecting writings on other opportunities for brands and consumers. We will start by providing a short introduction to both social media and general network theory from for instance Galloway and Thacker (2007) and Barabasi (2002). These theories focus on the interpersonal connections (ties) between different elements (nodes) in a social network and their significance within contemporary societies. We will emphasise more novel writings (e.g. Boyd, 2008; Ferrara et al, 2012) that highlight the current relevance of linking network approaches to Internet-based social networks on for instance Facebook and Twitter. Both academic marketing theory (Cova and Dalli, 2009; Zwick et al, 2008) and popular marketing books have studied the influence of web 2.0 (OReilly, 2005) on branding activities. While this is often regarded as an empowerment of the consumer giving consumers 'the possibility to voice and represent themselves' (Cova and Dalli, 2009: 321), this article scrutinizes two common marketing practices which brands increasingly appropriate to exploit social consumer networks using digital technologies. The first way for brands to benefit from existing social networks is by utilizing established social ties within the network to maximize the distribution of an idea and values. This method of viral marketing (Varnelis, 2008; Parikka 2007), is based on the acknowledgment of the significance of word-of-mouth in the creation of brand value. In practice, influential nodes in the network are recognized by the usage of online services as Klout. It is important however, to question to what extent the analysis of data can provide a genuine insight in ones social influence in a network. The second method will be discussed as the de- and recomposition of existing networks in the creation and advancement of tribes (Maffesoli, 1996; Cova, 1997) or brand communities (Cova and Pace, 2006; Muniz and OGuinn, 2001) while taking potential constraints into account.

33227990
Network theory and social networking sites

MC71111A

Theorists as OReilly (2005) and Cormode and Krishnamurthy (2008) have described changes on the Internet as web 2.0: a second version of the Internet that is mainly characterised by its user-generated content, social component (user profiles and network connections to other users) and specific technical implications (Cormode and Krishnamurthy, 2008). It is within the web 2.0 spheres that social media websites and social network sites have been developed. But, as Danah Boyd (2006) pointed out, it is significant to distinguish social network sites from social networking sites by their distinct concepts of relation (Ferrara et al, 2012). The former are websites as Facebook and MyHeritage that primarily consist of existing offline networks of relationships between individuals in society (Boyd, 2006). The latter refer to platforms as LinkedIn and Twitter that activate the process of seeking to build ones social network (Boyd, 2006) based on the idea that a relationship is not necessarily mutually established (Ferrara et al., 2012). Nonetheless, to avoid confusion in this article, we will use the term social network sites to refer to both types of social media sites, except when distinguishing is relevant. Before discussing the influence of the accretion of social network sites on brand management, we will provide an introduction to network theory and its relevance in analysing social network sites. Network theory is described as the counter to individualistic, rational choice approaches which span the social sciences that finds its roots in social anthropology and social network analysis (Knox et al, 2006: 118). For Barabasi, the most significant reference for network theory is graph theory, which was founded by Leonhard Euler in the eighteenth century (Barabasi, 2002). Galloway and Thacker have defined a graph as a finite set of points (nodes) connected by a finite set of lines (edges) (2007: 31). While the first approaches to network theory were mathematical analyses of regular graphs (such as beehives and grids), only the examination of random graphs (for instance, the interrelatedness between a group in society) is relevant in relation to social network sites (Barabasi, 2002). According to numerous theorists (Boyd, 2010; Castells, 2000; Terranova, 2004), the current growth of networked publics is grounded in the spread of digital technologies as newspapers, television and most recently, Internet technologies (stated by Mizuko Ito in Varnelis, 2008: 5). Networked (mediated) publics are different from unmediated publics in the way they construct and maintain interconnectedness and engagement between individuals (Boyd, 2007). Nevertheless, as suggested by Boyd, the affordance of network publics as social network sites do not dictate participants behavior, but they do configure the environment in a way that shapes participants engagement (Boyd, 2010: 39). Hence, brands may be affected

33227990

MC71111A

by or find opportunities in some of the characteristics of networked publics and social network sites. Before focusing on two opportunities for brands, this article will continue by defining two of the most relevant influential notions of social network sites for branding activities. A first relevant characteristic is that mediated communication on social network sites is, in contrast to traditional unmediated conversations, not ephemeral but perpetual. This persistence (Boyd, 2010: 45) potentially leads to a prolonged effect of both positive and negative brand communication by consumers, as a form of consumer empowerment (Cova and Dalli, 2009). A Canadian musician was unsatisfied with the service delivered by United Airlines, hence motivating him to create a YouTube song called United Breaks Guitars to spread his frustration. Whereas such consumer discontent would automatically fade out in unmediated publics, this video, launched in 2009, potentially still generates negative brand awareness for United Airlines. Nevertheless, it is important to note that this feature is not applicable to the entire set of social media websites. Specific social networking sites such as Twitter will portray an archive of only a limited amount of time (although, there are numerous tools for brands and purposeful consumers to avoid this limitation). A second influential notion is related to the content of recent research, which is investigating to what extent network theory founded in an unmediated or mass-mediated environment is still applicable in our contemporary network society. The revision of Granovetters theory on the strength of weak ties (1983) by both Facebook-research (Bakshy, 2012) and network research (Ferrara et al, 2012) is just one example of the high interest in network approaches to social network sites. These studies on the one hand recognize the importance of strong ties as most influential edges (Bakshy, 2012), and on the other hand, suggest weak ties are responsible for providing novel information and opportunities (Ferrara et al, 2012) by bridging the gap between clusters of strong ties (Bakshy, 2012). In unmediated publics, the frequency of exposure to the communication and conversations of weak links less is significantly lower than on social network sites where spatial and family bonds are withdrawn (Cova, 1997). This third influential element of the identity of networks for brands means that weak ties on social network sites between consumers (although less authoritative) can for instance provide novel product information and brand awareness for previously unknown products and services. However, popular writers as Eli Pariser (2011) have argued that this democratic understanding of social network communication should not be taken for granted. Algorithmic processes are continually defining what for instance shows up in our Facebook newsfeed, thereby progressively hiding alternative viewpoints on a range of topics and hence destroying the notions of democracy and narrowing our worldview (Pariser, 2011).

33227990

MC71111A

In general, while critical sociological approaches define contemporary consumer culture as including invasive objects that spread via epidemic processes (Lazzarato in Parikka, 2007) and as a generally capitalist hostile virus (Negri and Hardt in Parikka, 2007) clearly optimistic writings state that understanding network effects become the key to survival in a rapidly evolving new economy (Barabasi, 2002: 200). This article will continue by describing a first method utilized by brands to take advantage of the potential of network effects in social network sites. Brands and the viral logic of networks The capitalist mode of production and marketing has recognised how networks can be utilised as dynamic systems, which work on contagion and transversal, non-linear and multi-scalar vectors. (Sampson in Parikka, 2007: 303) The whole concept of viral marketing (Jurvetson and Draper, 1997) is essentially based on the appropriation and exploitation of the power of relations in networks between consumers (Varnelis, 2008). These networks are used as marketing vehicles (Arvidsson, 2007: 9) to trigger the distribution of branded messages (text, image, video) as viruses (Parikka, 2007). Brands in this case benefit from social network sites through the scalability, replicability the effortless reproduction of content and absence of spatial and temporal boundaries of communication (Boyd, 2010; Cova, 1997). This concept has often been examined as a mode of immaterial labour that puts the consumer the work (Zwick et al, 2008; Parikka, 2007) to generate brand value (Arvidsson, 2006). Viral marketing works through the consumers need for identity construction through linking brand values to ones identity in which social network sites play an increasingly significant role (Firat and Dholakia, 1998; Zwick et al, 2008). The emanation of viral marketing is founded on two main beliefs. First of all, there is an emerging scepticism towards the effectiveness of traditional mass-media advertising practices by both marketing theorists (Arvidsson, 2006) and practitioners, hence announcing the arguable - death of the 30s TV-commercial (Jaffe, 2005). In contrast, there is a rising enthusiasm embracing the potential and cost-effectiveness of word-of-mouth in social network sites (Varnelis, 2008). This is partly countered by the critical note that the collective of consumers chooses what to amplify (Boyd, 2010: 47) and therefore not advertisers or marketers. Countless branded YouTube videos have failed to reach great audiences regardless of the money spent on production or celebrity endorsement. Furthermore, others have, because of failed viral marketing, received critical reactions and thereby been subjected to

33227990

MC71111A

negative word-of-mouth communication. For instance, the recent Popchips virals have been attacked by popular lifestyle magazine Vice (Taete, 2012) for its artificial celebrity endorsements and Sonys All I want for xmas is a PSP attempt at viral marketing with its deceptive fake blogs in 2006 have disappointed fans and potential consumers of the Sony gaming console. To avoid inadequate results, advertisers acquire agencies to generate spreadworthy branded content, which often benefits from emotive subjects as sex, humour and shock. To provide an example, in 2006 The Viral Factory successfully created shocking commercials to launch the novel Ford SportKa portrayed as a decapitating animal-hating evil twin - and create brand awareness with a low production budget. Secondly, in addition to the belief in the strength of social network sites, the starting point of viral marketing lies in the recognition of the significance of consumer networks in the creation of brand value, in contrast to the role played by brands themselves (Varnelis, 2008). As Cova and Cova describe and concur, proximate networks of consumers have more influence on their behaviour than either modern institutions or other formal authorities (Cova and Cova, 2002: 596-597). To exploit existing networks more efficiently, brands utlize wordof-mouth services as BzzAgent and Tremor, which offer free products and services to consumers who want to disseminate positive word-of-mouth communication (Wuyts et al, 2009). A first criticism rises since, as marketing theorists Wuyts et al point out, it is questionable to what extent paid word-of-mouth is as effective as genuine naturally spread consumer communication (Wuyts et al, 2009). A second critique is delivered by De Bruyn and Lilien, suggesting that not all social networks are suitable for viral marketing practices, considering that networks of friends (as opposed to networks of professionals or colleagues) are more suited to the rapid and effective diffusion of peer-to-peer online referrals (De Bruyn and Lilien, 2008: 161). To maximally benefit from network effects, brand management may focus on the most authoritative elements i.e. nodes with a high degree of strong ties, such as celebrities and bloggers - of the targeted audience. Brands are attracted to them for their access to and influence on a consumer network and will therefore provide financial and material benefits while expecting them to create positive brand awareness amongst their social ties (Arvidsson, 2006). A common method is offering a free product to an influential blogger (e.g. the newest version of the Canon EOS 5D camera to photographer and famous blogger Chase Jarvis) or inviting them to an exclusive event (e.g. a spectacular product launch with after party). Next to the distribution of pleasing reviews on ones product or service, brands might demand highly networked consumers to disseminate a video commercial or other branded content (Arvidsson, 2006). To identify the most influential consumers in a target group, online services as Klout and PeerIndex examine the social influence of different consumers based on algorithmic calculations of a consumers interactions and followers on social network sites

33227990

MC71111A

and other social media platforms. Although quantitative measurements of the abstract concept of influence are welcome, more and more critics point out different concerns. Firstly, Krotoski (2012) claims that these measurements are based on past online activities that are not representative for potential future intentions. Individuals that receive a high level of attention in the past are regarded as highly influential while these two concepts are not necessarily related and definitely not consequently synonymous (Krotoski, 2012). Secondly, social influence measurement tools are quantifying genuine human attributes that are regarded as notably emotional. This might for example explain why a technology blogger received an unrealistically higher Klout-score than American president Obama (Shontell, 2011). Yet, is it not the general basis of human sciences to transform human behaviour and emotions into tangible assets? Thirdly, manipulation of profiles is a common activity amongst narcissistic individuals who work together to obtain higher social influence scores (Krotoski, 2012). Consumers on Klout for instance can ascribe influential topics to one another in order to gain free products and services, described by Klout (2012) as perks. To conclude, social network sites with their scalability, replicability (Boyd, 2010) and high connectivity create occasions for brands to distribute ideas (e.g. video commercials) and products (e.g. product reviews) amongst consumer networks by approaching elements of the consumer network to generate social contagion (Arvidsson, 2006). Brands and communities A second approach to the exploitation of network effects is tapping into existing networks by the de- and re-compositing of social formations. Callon et al (2002) argues that the entire logic of competition between brands is based on the idea of detaching and attaching consumers to brand networks. Brand management seeks to break the consumers current connection to rival brands (Callon et al, 2002). Then, marketers desire to create an attachment to the detached consumer through common values and beliefs (Callon et al, 2002). This entire process is linked to the sociological idea of tribes. Both sociological literature (Maffesoli, 1996) and marketing writings (Cova 1997; Cova and pace, 2006; Muniz and OGuinn, 2001; Cova and Cova, 2002) have in the last two decades focused on the rise of tribes. Contemporary terms as postmodern tribes or neo-tribes (Cova and Cova, 2002; Maffesoli, 1996; Cova, 1997) are utilized to define this phenomenon of re-emergence of quasi-archaic values: a local sense of identification, religiosity, syncretism, group narcissism (Cova, 1997: 597) within societal micro-groups, in which individuals share strong emotional links, a common subculture, a vision of life (599). Muniz and OGuinn (2001) recognize the relevance for brand management by arguing that

33227990

MC71111A

consumption of a product or service or even merely the love for an exclusive luxury brand as Ferrari - might be or become the shared cultural practice of postmodern consumer groups. A tribal marketing approach (Cova and Cova, 2002) desires to turn a brand and its products or services into the central shared value of a consumer network by the generation or maintenance of a brand community: Any group of people that possess a common interest in a specific brand and create a parallel social universe (subculture) rife with its own myths, values, rituals, vocabulary and hierarchy. (Cova and Pace, 2006: 1089) The breakthrough of digital technologies and online consumers has a growing effect on the phenomenon of brand communities (Rauch and Thunqvist in Cova and Cova, 2002) for two main reasons. First, online consumers appear to be more engaging, active and social than consumers were ever beforehand (Cova and Pace, 2006: 1090). Moreover, whereas one would previously uniquely belong to one subculture, consumers nowadays are frequently associated with multiple neo-tribes (Shankar and Elliott, in Cova and Cova, 2002). Second, edges between individual nodes on Internet-based platforms lack spatial and temporal restraints due to the technological implications of the Internet (Muniz and OGuinn, 2001) and - more specifically of social network sites. Social network sites can work as an efficient costless infrastructure for and mobilisation of branded communities. One might distinguish three different situations in which brand management seeks to benefit from the notions of brand communities. The first being the appropriation of pre-existing networks that gather around a brand, such as a Coca-Cola Facebook-page triumphantly developed by two fans (Green, 2012) - or Star Wars fan communities (Cova and Pace, 2006) that are founded by fans and approached by brands. Instead of simply trying to buy the existing platform, Coca-Cola worked together with the two fans and eventually, acquired the two as full-time staff members (Green, 2012). The objective is to transform existing platforms into an official brand community facilitated by both the brands marketers and fans. When the latter refuse to work together with marketers to maintain control over the future of the brand, one might speak of brand hijacking (Wipperfrth in Cova and Pace, 2006). A second situation is the one in which brands create their own online community (e.g. Dell Ideastorm and Nikes fan forum), often to benefit from the value of co-creation and crowdsourcing opportunities (Zwick et al, 2008) that work through consumer user-generated content on a created social media platform. Lastly, brands try to connect with existing tribes consisting of networks based on a subculture and shared values, emotions and beliefs and hopes to turn these into a profitable brand community by interacting with and facilitating the tribe (Cova,

33227990

MC71111A

1997). The value of brand communities lies in the possible brand engagement with members of the tribes - who supposedly, share values the brand seeks to link to which ideally, supports the construction of its desired brand identity (Cova & Pace; 2006). As maintained by Cova and Cova, after facilitating and supporting a tribe by providing linking value (2001: 10), the company returns to the market with the support of a tribe; a kind of partnership to influence the public domain (2001: 20). We should however add that this, in multiple occasions, is a time-consuming, long-term strategy without a fixed outcome. For instance, how to reach tribes that are hardly identifiable and reachable (Cova and Cova, 2001)? An extra critique is provided by Muniz and OGuinn (2001: 427), who note that brand communities may collectively reject marketing efforts or product change, and then use communal communications channels to disseminate the rejection. Furthermore, marketing theorists Muniz and OGuinn (2001) and Cova and Pace (2006) focus on the question whether all brands and products are suitable for branded community management. By examining the Nutella community, Cova and Pace (2006) conclude that not only luxury brands but also convenience goods are appropriate for brand community development. But, is Nutella not a rare example rather than a representative case of a fast moving consumer good with its strong image and brand awareness? As a result, Muniz and OGuinn do not distinguish by type of product, but suggest brand communities are most likely to form around brands with a strong image, a rich and lengthy history, and threatening competition (2001: 425). Nevertheless, we may doubt this statement when looking at brands like Innocent Drinks, having achieved a flourishing Facebook brand community whilst lacking a rich and lengthy history. In short, based on sociological interpretations of tribes, marketing writers and practitioners have recognized and appropriated the opportunities of exploiting existing or developing new branded networks and communities. The influence of social network sites is not be underestimated as an infrastructure to recognize, facilitate and develop both tribes and existing brand communities. Brand management adopts brand communities to benefit from its implications on brand engagement and equity (Muniz and OGuinn, 2001).

33227990
Conclusion

MC71111A

Numerous theorists from both marketing and sociological perspectives have recognized the emergence of networked publics, as a consequence of arising digital technologies. These digital technologies as web 2.0 and moreover, social media and network sites, are affecting brand management. Following Boyd (2010; 2008), we approached social network sites and its implications for branding from a network theory perspective. The influence of web 2.0 has often been regarded from a consumer perspective, i.e. as an empowerment of the consumer. Nevertheless, this article approached the influence from a branding point-of-view by emphasizing two relevant influences: viral marketing and brand communities. Before describing viral marketing and brand communities more thoroughly, we described the perpetual identity of mediated networks and recent research on the strength of weak ties in relation to Facebook. We connected these to brand management by its effects on brand engagement and awareness. Based on the advantages social network sites (scalability, replicability and absence of boundaries), contemporary brand management may apply the method of viral marketing to exploit existing consumer networks in the distribution of branded content and brand values amongst the target audience. A common practice is to identify and approach influential nodes in a network (e.g. bloggers and celebrities). To calculate ones social influence on social media, brands utilise online services as Klout and PeerIndex. We have argued that these tools are merely an indication of ones past attention, rather than an exact measurement of future authority in consumer networks. Related to the rise of networked publics, Maffesoli (1996) recognizes the time of tribes in our society. Social network sites accelerate this process of tribalisation (Cova and Cova, 2002) with its socially active users moving within a costless infrastructure lacking spatial and temporal constraints. In the creation of brand communities, brand management seeks to benefit from potential connections between brands and tribes where the brand and its products ideally become the main shared value of a consumer group. We distinguished the adoption of a pre-existing brand community (such as fan communities), from brand-created communities and infiltration of existing tribes. Brands exploit social network sites to recognize, facilitate and develop tribes and brand communities in order to gain brand equity.

10

33227990 Bibliography

MC71111A

Arvidsson, A. (2006) Brands: meaning and value in media culture. London and New York: Routledge. Arvidsson, A. (2007 Creative Class or Administrative Class? On Advertising and the Underground, Theory and politics in organization, 7(1), 8-23. Bakshy, E. (2012) Rethinking Information Diversity in Networks, Facebook, Available at: http://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook-data-team/rethinking-information-diversity-innetworks/10150503499618859 [accessed 3 April 2012]. Barabasi, A-L (2002) Linked: The New Science of Networks, New York: Perseus. Boyd, D. (2006) The term social network(ing) sites, Zephonia. Available at: http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2006/09/18/the_term_social.html [accessed 3 April 2012]. Boyd, D. (2007) Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life, MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Learning - Youth, Identity, and Digital Media Volume (ed. David Buckingham). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 119-142. Boyd, D. (2010) Social Network Sites as Networked Publics: Affordances, Dynamics and Implications, Networked Self: Identity, Community and Culture on Social Network Sites (ed. Zizi Papacharissi), 39-58. Callon et al (2002) The Economy of qualities, Economy and society, 31(2), 194-217. Caroll, D. (2009 ) United Breaks Guitars, Youtube, Available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YGc4zOqozo [accessed April 5 2012]. Castells, M. (2000) The Rise of the Network Society: The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture Vol. 1, Cambridge, MA; Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Cormode, G. and Krishnamurthy, B. (2008) Key differences between web 1.0 and web 2.0., First Monday, 13(6). Cova, B. (1997) Community and consumption. Towards a definition of the linking value of product or services. European Journal of Marketing. 31, 3/4, 297-316. Cova, B. and Cova, V. (2002) Tribal marketing: The tribalisation of society and its impact on the conduct of marketing, European Journal of Marketing, 36, 5/6, 595-620. Cova, B. and Dalli, D. (2009) Working Consumers: the next step in marketing theory?, Marketing Theory 9(3): 315-39. Cova, B. and Pace, S. (2006) Brand community of convenience products: new forms of customer empowerment the case of my Nutella The Community, European Journal of Marketing. 40, 9/10, 1087-1105. De Bruyn, A. and Lilien, G-L. (2008) A Multi-stage Model of Word-of-mouth Influence through Viral Marketing, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 25, 151-63. Ferrara et al. (2012) The role of strong and weak ties in Facebook: a community structure perspective. Paper presented at the International Conference on Computational Science, ICCS 2012. Firat, A. F. and Dholakia, N. (1998) 'Consuming People: From Political Economy to Theaters of Consumption ', Journal of Consumer Policy 21(3): 339-44. Forkyfork (2006) All I want for Xmas is a PSP. Youtube, Available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G0LlXv-nyI [accessed April 7 2012].

11

33227990

MC71111A

Galloway, A-R and Thacker, E. (2007) The Exploit: A Theory of Networks, Minneapolis: U Minnesota. Granovetter, M.S. (2009) The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. In: Marsden, P.V. and Lin, E. (eds) Social Structure and Network Analysis. Sage, 105-130. Green, C. (2009) Killer Facebook fan-pages. Mashable. Available at http://mashable.com/2009/06/16/killer-facebook-fan-pages/ [accessed 28 March 2012]. Jaffe, J. (2005) Life after the 30s spot. New Jersey: John Wiley and sons. Joostharry (2008) Fordka commercial with cat, Youtube. Available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTj0XYuYv8o [accessed April 7 2012]. Jurveson, J. and Draper, T. (1998) Viral marketing, Business 2.0, November (also available at www.dfj.com/files/viralmarketing.htm). Klout (2012) About Perks, Klout. Available at http://klout.com/corp/perks [accessed April 3 2012]. Knox et al (2006) Social networks and the study of relations: networks as method, metaphor and form, Economy and Society, 35(1), 113-140. Krotoski, A. (2012) Your Klout-score is meaningless, Wired. Available at http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2012/03/ideas-bank/aleks-krotoski [accessed March 21 2012]. Langlois et al (2009) Networked Publics: The Double Articulation of Code and Politics on Facebook, Canadian Journal of Communication, 34 (3): 415-434. Maffesoli, M. (1996) The Time of Tribes. The Decline of Individualism in Mass Society. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Muniz, A.M. and OGuinn, T.C. (2001) Brand Community, Journal of Consumer Research, 27(3). OReilly, T. (2005) Network: What is web 2.0?, OReilly, Available at: http://facweb.cti.depaul.edu/jnowotarski/se425/What%20Is%20Web%202%20point%200.pdf [accessed 29 March 2012]. Parikka, J. (2007) Contagion and repetition: On the Viral Logic of Network Culture, Theory and politics in organization, 7(2), 287-308. Pariser, E. (2011) The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You, New York: Penguin Press. Shontell, A. (2011) The truth about your Klout-score, Business Insider. Available at http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-02/tech/30466708_1_klout-score-facebook-comments [accessed March 28 2012]. Taete, J-L (2012) Is this the worst attempt at viral marketing ever?, Vice. Available at http://www.vice.com/read/is-this-the-worst-attempt-at-viral-marketing-ever [accessed April 10 2012]. Terranova, T. (2004) Network Culture: Politics for the Information Age, London: Pluto. Varnelis, K. (2008) Networked Publics, London: MIT Press. Wuyts, S., Dekimpe, M-G., Gijsbrechts, E., Pieters, R. (2009) The Connected Customer. London: Routledge. Zwick, D., Bonsu, S.K. and Darmody, A. (2008) 'Putting Consumers to Work: "Co-creation" and New Marketing Govern-mentality', Journal of Consumer Culture 8(2): 163-96.

12