nach oben

Erschienen in:

2013 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

Social Networks: The Question on Efficiency Remains

verfasst von : Harald Rau

Erschienen in: Handbook of Social Media Management

Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

It is quite easy to present and to analyze the number of possible connections and the growth of connectivity in social media—and with similar value or comparable quality of every single connection in a network, one can describe the total value or the growth of value parallel to the growing connectivity in a given timeframe. Following that: All the different models of explanation available (e.g., Reed, Metcalf) start with the growth of links in the network and they all use different rules and settings to describe the effect of this growth on network value. In the meantime we also realized, that the GFN-approach, introducing the group forming networks (brought into the discussion by Reed) is very helpful to have a closer look on everything happening (currently) in social media communication, also the existence of hubs and “super hubs” should be taken into account in this context, for these aspects give an explanation on exponentially growing value. Sadly—all the available blueprints—whether they are describing a linear or exponential curve of efficiency growth—are creating valid numbers, but they are static and inflexible if one additionally questions quality. One major task will now be, to (again) discuss quality from a teleological, normative or action based frame. It is crucial: To give an impression of social media value we today definitely could not only take connectivity into account, we have to reflect on diverging quality of possible connections and we will have to argue from an individualized point of view. In this concern one of the core questions would be: Could probably some of the theoretically driven rules of pre web era be transferred into or approached to social media? For the author future discussion will on the one hand lead back to the socio economic approaches, focusing preferences and individual decisions (consumption of media content, willingness of contribution, ‘collectivated’ dimension of wants or needs addressed by social media). One therefore has to judge, whether explainable or even measurable preferences are used to generate activity—for this question is of increasing relevance facing the rapidly growing influence of web based communication in society.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Social Media Monitoring Tools as Instruments of Strategic Issues Management

Nächstes Kapitel How to Engage the Audience? A Study on Using Twitter to Engage Newspaper Readers

Media supply, also the one with societal mission—like the European public broadcasters (“öffentlich-rechtlich”: e.g. BBC in Great Britain or ARD and ZDF in Germany)—follows an economy of attention (cf. Franck 1998), who in addition in the context of the economy of attention created the word of “mental capitalism” (cf. Franck 2005). This supply strives for quota, for recognition, for clicks, for time of recipients—and there will be no difference to a commercially based supply of media content. This may be the reason why—only to choose one research program as an example—the study on news value and newly defines news factors in German television (cf. Ruhrmann et al. 2003) came to the conclusion that in many areas there are be no differences regarding several news factors between private and public broadcasters. The valid news factors for editors of private broadcasters’ news programs in German television are mostly the same public broadcasters are referring to for creating their news supply. The core problem of commercialization lies in the pretension inherent in every media supply of efficacy by attention. Adding the aspects (cf. Rau 2007b, p. 47 ff.) of socioeconomically driven separation and socio-culturally motivated collectivization will then open up the entire field of a journalistic oriented media economy. One cannot avoid this magnitude of the research area; one cannot avoid complexity when discussing quality options.

One here would be able to list all the business transactions of the last 10 years. The increasingly Google-centered way of advertising (adsense), the (therefore growing) attraction of blogging and supporting careers by Facebook or Youtube. The potential of “personal economics” shows up in the way musicians drive their careers only by virtualization (e.g. the outstanding global success of Gotye’s song “Somebody that I used to know” would in 2011 and 2012 not have been thinkable without YouTube and the astonishing video)—the classical gatekeepers are fairly irrelevant, so to speak.

To be fair—one has to add that quality in the context of media is always a construct that needs to be discussed. However, this discussion cannot be achieved with this contribution. For ongoing research (cf. Rau 2007a, Chap. 2).

To what extent the journalistic quality process could be rectified by intentional settings is described in detail in Chap. 2 of the “Economy of Journalism” (cf. Rau 2007a: 49 ff.).

Web 2.0 still is a diffuse term that tries to cover applications based on network effects in the World Wide Web. In Wikipedia, in itself one of these applications, one will find the following definition: The term Web 2.0 is associated with web applications that facilitate participatory information sharing, interoperability, user-centered-design and collaboration on the world wide web. A Web 2.0 site allows users to interact and collaborate with each other in a social media dialogue as creators (prosumers) of user-generated content in a virtual community, in contrast to websites where users (consumers) are limited to the passive viewing of content (media and publishing that was created for them. Examples of Web 2.0 include Social networking, Wiki, Video sharing sites Web service, Web application, Mashup (web application hybrid) and Flosonomy. The term is closely associated with Tim O’Reilly because of the O’Reilly Media Web 2.0 conference in late 2004. Although the term suggests a new version of the World Wide Web, it does not refer to an update to any technical specification, but rather to cumulative changes in the ways software developer and end-user (computer science) use the Web. Whether Web 2.0 is qualitatively different from prior web technologies has been challenged by World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee, who called the term a “piece of jargon”, precisely because he intended the Web in his vision as “a collaborative medium, a place where we [could] all meet and read and write”. He called it the “Read/Write Web”. (online article at Wikipedia (English version), keyword: Web 2.0, last at January 20th, 2012).

Again—to recall: In the rule of many Bender (cf. 2005) argued with “efficiency”—here the author changed the term to the much more neutral measure “value”.

Aldrich, H. E., & Kim, P. H. (2007). Small worlds, infinite possibilities? Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1), 147–165.CrossRef

Aulinger, A. (2005). Entrepreneurship und soziales Kapital. Marburg: NetzwerkealsErfolgsfaktorwissensintensiverDienstleistungsunternehmen.

Bender, W. (2005). In: Triangles and curves: The shapes of new media, MIT Media Lab; Contribution to the “International Seminar on Journalism”, October 1st, Tampere, Finland

Boltze, A., & Rau, H. (2011). The end of the target group. In J. Müller-Lietzkow (Ed.), Economy, quality and management of entertainment media—theory and developments in entertainment markets. Row of media economy. Tape 1. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

Borgatti, S. P., & Foster, P. C. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29, 991–1013.

Bourdieu, P. (1997). Zur Soziologie der symbolischen Form. Suhrkamp: Frankfurt a.M.

Castells, M. (2001). Das Informationszeitalter; Band 1: Der Aufstieg der Netzwerkgesellschaft, Leverkusen: Leske und Budrich Verlag. Original (1996): The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture, Volume 1: The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford and Malden, MA: Blackwell

Castells, M. (2001). Das Informationszeitalter; Band 3: Jahrtausendwende; Opladen, Campus Verlag. Original (1998): The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture, Volume 3: End of Millennium. Oxford and Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Castells, M. (2002). Das Informationszeitalter, Band 2: Die Macht der Identität; Leverkusen, Leske und Budrich Verlag. Original (1997): The information age: Economy, society, and culture, Volume 2: The power of identity. Oxford and Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Castells, M. (2003). Das Informationszeitalter. Wirtschaft, Gesellschaft, Kultur, Band III, Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Dunbar, R. (1992). Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates. Journal of Human Evolution, 22, S469–493.CrossRef

Dunbar, R. (1993). Coevolution of neocortical size, group size and language in humans. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16(4), 681–735.CrossRef

Elizabeth, B. (1964). Family and social network: Roles, norms, and external relationships in ordinary urban families (2nd ed.). London: Tavistock.

Franck, G. (1998). Ökonomie der Aufmerksamkeit. München: Hanser.

Franck, G. (2005). Mentaler Kapitalismus. München: Hanser.

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.CrossRef

Jansen, D. (2006). Einführung in die Netzwerkanalyse. Grundlagen, Methoden, Forschungsbeispiele. Wiesbaden: VS.

Mayfield, R. (2003). The Network Ecosystem Model, verfügbar als Onlinedokument, Stand 11.4.2007. http://radio.weblogs.com/0114726/2003/02/12.html

Mayfield, R. (2005). Social network dynamics and participatory politics. In: Lebowsky, Jon; Ratcliffe, Mitch: Extreme Democracy, pp. 116–132.

McQuail, D. (2002). McQuails Mass Communication Theory, London.

Michell, J. C. (1969). Social networks in urban situations: Analyses of personal relationships in Central African towns. Manchester: University Press.

Moran, P. (2005). Structural vs. relational embeddedness: social capital and managerial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 1129–1151.CrossRef

Narahari, Y., Garg, D., Narayanam, R., & Prakash, H. (2010). Game theoretic problems in network economics and mechanism design solutions. Berlin: Springer.

Rau, H. (2007a). Qualität in einer Ökonomie der Publizistik. Wiesbaden: VS.

Rau, H. (2007b). Metajournalismus. In H. Rau (Ed.), Zur Zukunft des Journalismus (p. 31). Berlin: Peter Lang.

Rau, H. (2008). Journalism between Commercialization and Adaptation in a Today’s View. Questioning Quality—from Frankfurt School to Game Theory. Research Paper, presented at ICA’s annual conference 2008, Montreal, Canada. Online document available at www.ostfalia.de/imm(last:January20th,2012).

Reed, D. P. (1999/2012): That Sneaky Exponential—Beyond Metcalfe’s Law to the Power of Community Building. In Context Magazine, n.P., document online available: http://www.reed.com/dpr/, last: 10.5.2012.

Reed, D. P. (1999). That sneaky exponential—Beyond Metcalfe’s Law to the power of community building. In: Context magazine, Spring 1999.

Reed, D.P. (2001). The law of the pack. In: Harvard Business Review. February 2001, pp 23–24

Ruhrmann, G., Woelke, J., Maier, M., Diehlmann, N. (2003). Der Wert von Nachrichtenwerten. Ein Modell zurValidierung von Nachrichtenfaktoren, Opladen. Summary at URL: http://www.lfm-nrw.de/downloads/studie-nachrichtenwert.pdf;Stand:Jan2012.

Simmel G (1995) Aufsätze und Abhandlungen 1901–1908, 1. Teilband. Band 7 der Georg-Simmel-Gesamtausgabe, herausgegeben von. R. Kramme, A. Rammstedt und O. Rammstedt. Frankfurt a.M., Suhrkamp.

Stegbaur, C., & Häußling, R. (Eds.). (2010). Handbuch Netzwerkforschung. VS: Wiesbaden.

Strauß, F., & Hollstein, B. (2006). Qualitative Netzwerkanalyse: Konzepte, Methoden, Anwendungen. Wiesbaden: VS.

Thiel, T. (2005). Wir sind Sprengstoff! In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 7.8.2005, Netzwirtschaft.

White, H. C. (1981). Where do markets come from? American Journal of Sociology, 87, 517–547.CrossRef

White, H. C. (2002). Markets from networks: Socioeconomic models of production. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Titel: Social Networks: The Question on Efficiency Remains
verfasst von: Harald Rau
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Buch: Handbook of Social Media Management
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-28896-8

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-642-28897-5

Copyright-Jahr: 2013
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28897-5_40