The Growing Use of Social Media Essay

[Changing customer perception with the growing use of social media: an explorative approach] by [Author’s Name] [Faculty Name] [Department or School Name] [Month Year] Acknowledgement I would take this opportunity to thank my research supervisor, family and friends for their support and guidance without which this research would not have been possible. DECLARATION I, [type your full first names and surname here], declare that the contents of this dissertation/thesis represent my own unaided work, and that the dissertation/thesis has not previously been submitted for academic examination towards any qualification.

Furthermore, it represents my own opinions and not necessarily those of the University. Signed __________________ Date _________________ Abstract Purpose –The ?ur???e ?f thi? ???er was t? ex?l?re customer perception with the growing use of social media ?nd the rel?ti?n?hi?? between ???ter? ?n ???i?l netw?rk? u?ing the wine ?e?t?r ?? the re?e?r?h b??i?. Design/methodology/approach – The ???er ex?mine? the ?urrent u??ge ?f di??u??i?n f?r? by wine enthu?i??t? thr?ugh ? netn?gr??hi? ???r???h. ? n?n-?r?b?bility ?ur???ive ??m?le ?f wine di??u??i?n f?r? in three ??untrie? i? em?l?yed t? determine the ??ntent ?nd ?tyle ?f the ??ntributi?n? ???ted.

We will write a custom essay sample on
The Growing Use of Social Media Essay
or any similar topic only for you
Order now

Findings – The ???er indi??te? th?t individu?l? within f?r? devel?? rel?ti?n?hi?? with e??h ?ther, the netw?rk it?elf ?nd br?nd?. ?u?h rel?ti?n?hi?? ?re ?redi??ted ?n tru?t between member?, ?h?red intere?t? ?nd ex?erien?e? ?nd rel?ti?n?hi?? with the br?nd? th?t they di??u??. The?e rel?ti?n?hi?? ??n devel?? int? ?tr?ng b?nd? ?nd even ev?lve int? ?ffline ??tivitie?. Research limitations/implications – The ???er i? ?n ex?l?r?t?ry ?tudy with ? ??m?le limited t? ?ne ?r?du?t ty?e ?nd thu? gener?li??ti?n i? diffi?ult. Practical implications – The ???er ?utline? the ?trength ?nd ty?e? ?f rel?ti?n?hi?? between ???i?l netw?rk member?.

It dem?n?tr?te? h?w netn?gr??hy ??n ?r?vide in?ight? int? ??n?umer beh?vi?ur ?nd rel?ti?n?hi?? between ??n?umer? ?nd ?r?du?t?. M?rketer? ?h?uld ??n?ider the ??ntent ?f di??u??i?n f?r? ?? ? v?lu?ble re??ur?e f?r le?rning ?b?ut ??ntem??r?ry ??n?umer ??mmuni??ti?n ?nd ???re?i?te the ??wer ?f ?eer-t?-?eer ?nline rel?ti?n?hi??. Table of Content Abstract4 CHAPTER I7 INTRODUCTION7 Aims And Justification For The Research9 CHAPTER II10 LITERATURE REVIEW10 The Changing Media Environment12 Communities16 Relationship Building Via Online Communities19 CHAPTER III26 METHODOLOGY26 Research Method26

Selection Of Fora28 CHAPTER IV31 ANALYSIS31 GENERALIZED RECIPROCITY IN RELATIONSHIPS31 Social And Structural Bonding In Relationships32 Peer-To-Peer Recommendations And Referrals As Relationship Development33 Brand Democratization And Development Of Relationships34 Discussion and implications35 CHAPTER V38 CONCLUSIONS38 REFERENCES40 APPENDIX52 References52 Chapter I Introduction Whil?t ?till in it? inf?n?y, the termin?l?gy ?urr?unding ??m?uter-medi?ted ??mmuni??ti?n need? ?l?rifi??ti?n, ?lth?ugh ?? the u??ge ev?lve? the v???bul?ry u?ed will n? d?ubt refle?t ?ub?equent ?h?nge? in u?e. ???i?l netw?rk” i? the l?bel ?tt??hed t? ?ny ??n?umer-initi?ted ??mmuni??ti?n with ?ther ??n?umer? wh? ?h?re ?n intere?t ?nd u?e the w?rld wide web ?? ? ?l?tf?rm f?r ?re?ting ? ??mmunity. The term ???i?l netw?rk in?lude? bl?g? ?nd f?r?. ?n in?re??ing ???e?t?n?e ?f te?hn?l?gy ?nd the gr?wth in ??nfiden?e whi?h ??me? with f?mili?rity ?f u?e ?f ?nline ?e?r?he? ?nd ?ur?h??ing, ?nline ??n?umer? h?ve be??me m?re ???hi?ti??ted in their u?e ?f the internet (R?wley, 2000). They m?y n?w j?in di??u??i?n gr?u?? t? ??k f?r ?dvi?e, inf?rm?ti?n ?nd f?r ???i?t?n?e in de?i?i?n m?king, ?ri?r t? ?ur?h??ing. nd ?l?? t? ex?h?nge view? ?nd ide?? ??e?ifi? t? their intere?t?. The?e r??idly devel??ing f?r? ?re?te virtu?l ??mmunitie? ?nd ???i?l netw?rk? th?t ?r?vide the ??nne?ti?n? t? ?ll?w ??n?umer? t? f?rm ?tr?ng rel?ti?n?hi?? th?t ??n influen?e ??n?umer beh?vi?ur. The ????ibility ?f thi? redefiniti?n ?f rel?ti?n?hi?? w?? ?ugge?ted by R?wley (2000) ?nd h?? ?in?e be??me ? f??t gr?wing re?lity. ? re?ent e?tim?te ?f the number ?f UK bl?gger? i? 2. 1 meter? ?nd ri?ing (?eder?en ?nd M???fee, 2007) ?nd 37 ?er ?ent ?f UK ???i?l netw?rker? n?w vi?it ?t le??t ?n?e ? d?y (Bedn??h ?nd Mi?h?elide?, 2007).

The?e figure? illu?tr?te n?t ?nly the ex?l??i?n in gr?wth ?f ???i?l netw?rk? but ?l?? the level ?f ??rti?i??ti?n. ? re??rt by M???nn Eri???n (2009) highlight? th?t m?rketing ?r?fe??i?n?l? ?h?uld ??n?ider h?w be?t t? u?e ???i?l medi?. The ty?e ?f inf?rm?ti?n ?r?vided by re?e?r?h int? internet te?hn?l?gie? ??ver? n?t ?nly h?w ??n?umer? u?e the te?hn?l?gy t? ??mmuni??te but ?l?? the n?n-te?hn?l?gi??lly ?entred inf?rm?ti?n, ?u?h ?? the level ?f rel?ti?n?hi?? f?rmed between individu?l? ?nd gr?u?? in the virtu?l w?rld (dire?t ?nd indire?t re?e?r?h inf?rm?ti?n; Thelw?ll et ?l. 2005). F?r the ?ur???e? ?f thi? ???er, the ?uth?r? ??n?entr?te ?n indire?t re?e?r?h inf?rm?ti?n. Th?t i?, the ??ntent ?f di??u??i?n? r?ther th?n h?w ??rti?i??nt? u?e the te?hn?l?gy ?nd their level ?f te?hni??l ex?erti?e. ???e?? t? the internet h?? gr?wn ?ub?t?nti?lly ?nd the u??ge ?f the internet in the UK h?? in?re??ed by 17 ?er ?ent during 2005 (Br??k ?nd Timm?, 2005), ???r?xim?tely 66 ?er ?ent ?f ?u?tr?li?n? h?ve ???e?? t? the internet ?nd regul?rly u?e it (?u?tr?li?n Bure?u ?f ?t?ti?ti??, 2007) thu? m?re ?e??le h?ve the ????rtunity t? ?ur?h??e ?nline. urely ?nline ?r?vider? h?ve benefited fr?m their ?bility t? ?ervi?e time-?re??ured ?u?t?mer? wh? ??n ?rder fr?m h?me ?r their ?ffi?e ?nd h?ve their ?ur?h??e? delivered. Aims And Justification For The Research The ?ur???e ?f thi? ???er was t? ex?l?re customer perception with the growing use of social media . T? d? thi?, ? netn?gr??hi? ???r???h w?? ?d??ted in ex?mining the ??ntent ?f inter??ti?n? between ???ter? ?n ???i?l netw?rk? rel?ted t? the ?ur?h??e ?f ?ne ??e?ifi? ?r?du?t ??teg?ry. Chapter II Literature Review Dire?t m?rketing be??me ? ??werful t??l ?t the time when the ???t ?f ??mmuni??ti?n w?? f?lling r??idly.

The ?ub?equent ?r?lifer?ti?n ?f l?w-???t internet ???e?? ??ened u? ????rtunitie? f?r ??m??nie? t? de?l dire?tly with th?u??nd? ?r milli?n? ?f individu?l ?u?t?mer? in ? w?y th?t w?? ?revi?u?ly unim?gin?ble, ?nd ?nly m?n?ge?ble thr?ugh the u?e ?f intermedi?rie?. The ???t ?f ??mmuni??ti?n h?? ??ntinued t? f?ll with new ??mmuni??ti?n ?h?nnel? emerging, ?re?enting ????rtunitie? ?? well ?? ?h?llenge? f?r dire?t m?rketing. The ????rtunitie? derive fr?m the gre?ter ?h?i?e ?f l?w-???t me?n? ?f ??mmuni??ting with ?urrent ?nd ??tenti?l ?u?t?mer?.

But it i? ? ?h?llenge f?r firm? t? ev?lu?te the effe?tivene?? ?f thi? ?r?lifer?ti?n ?f new ?h?nnel?. ? m?re ?ignifi??nt ?h?llenge i? the l??k ?f ??ntr?l ?ver ??mmuni??ti?n whi?h thi? in?re??e ?f ?h?nnel? im?lie?, ?? ??n?umer? ?re in?re??ingly ?ble t? ??mmuni??te ?m?ng them?elve?, ?nd in thi? high l??d ??mmuni??ti?n envir?nment, the dire?t m?rketer h?? t? ??m?ete f?r ?ttenti?n with me???ge? fr?m ? wide r?nge ?f ?eer gr?u?-b??ed medi?. The ?ur???e ?f thi? ???er i? t? ?riti??lly review re?ent devel??ment? in ???i?l netw?rk medi?.

While m?ny in the m?rketing ??mmunity ?re ??r?t?hing their he?d? w?ndering h?w the re?ent gener?ti?n ?f web-b??ed ???i?l medi? will gener?te ?r?fit?, thi? ???er t?ke? the ?er??e?tive ?f dire?t m?rketing by ??king why ?nd h?w ? me???ge ?ent by ? ??m??ny m?y be m?re effe?tive if it i? t?rgeted ?t individu?l? thr?ugh ???i?l netw?rk medi?. In ??rti?ul?r, the n?ti?n i? ex?l?red th?t u?er?’ ex?erien?e ?f u?ing ???i?l medi? will ?redi????e them t? l??k m?re f?v?ur?bly u??n ? ??m??ny ???n??red me???ge when it i? embedded in ???i?l medi?, r?ther th?n t?rgeted dire?tly ?t the individu?l.

There i? ? dilemm? f??ed by ??m??nie? ?l?nning t? inter??t with ???i?l netw?rk?. ?n the ?ne h?nd, they m?y ?eek t? ??ntr?l the ??mmuni??ti?n envir?nment within the netw?rk, in ?n eff?rt t? m?ke ?ure th?t their br?nd me???ge ??me? thr?ugh ?le?rly. They m?y ?l?? be ?ttr??ted by the ?v?il?bility ?f dem?gr??hi? ?nd life?tyle inf?rm?ti?n ?v?il?ble t? im?r?ve their t?rgeting t? individu?l member? ?f the netw?rk.

But ?n the ?ther h?nd, ? true ???i?l netw?rk im?lie? member? feeling ? ?en?e ?f ?wner?hi? ?f the ??mmunity, ?nd there i? eviden?e th?t individu?l? m?y be re?entful ?f ??r??r?te intru?i?n int? wh?t i? ?er?eived t? be their ?wn ??mmunity ????e (?r?ft, 2008; Hitwi?e, 2008). Individu?l ?nline ???i?l netw?rk? h?ve ?ften g?ne thr?ugh very r??id life ?y?le? ?f gr?wth, m?turity ?nd de?line ?? ??mmunitie? ?re fir?t ?een ?? vibr?nt ?nd ?ttr??tive, ?nd then l??e their ???e?l t? member? ?f the ??mmunity ?? they be??me d?min?ted by ??mmer?i?l intere?t? (B?yd ?nd Elli??n, 2007).

It h?? been re??rted th?t m?ny ?n?e widely u?ed web ?ite? ?u?h ?? Friend?ter ?nd Friend? Reunited h?ve g?ne int? de?line, t? be re?l??ed by newer ?ite? ?u?h ?? F??eb??k ?nd Twitter whi?h were beginning their life ?y?le?. The Changing Media Environment M?in?tre?m ?rint ?nd br??d???t medi? h?ve f??ed m?j?r ?h?llenge? in re?ent ye?r?, with m?ny new????er title? f??ing ?l??ure ?nd televi?i?n ?h?nnel? ?uffering ?h?rtf?ll? in revenue. ?n im??rt?nt re???n f?r thi? h?? been migr?ti?n ?f ?ignifi??nt ?m?unt? ?f ?dverti?ing budget? t? ?nline ?h?nnel?.

Re?e?r?h by F?rre?ter Jenning?(2007) h?? indi??ted th?t ?udien?e? ?nd ?ttenti?n i? ?hifting t? ?nline ?h?nnel? ?? 52 ?er ?ent ?f Eur??e?n? ?re regul?rly ?nline ?t h?me. ?r?und 36 ?er ?ent ?f Eur??e?n internet u?er? w?t?h le?? TV, 28 ?er ?ent h?ve redu?ed their new????er ?nd m?g?zine re?ding ?nd 17 ?er ?ent h?ve de?re??ed li?tening t? the r?di? ?in?e g?ing ?nline. Thi? ?hift ?w?y fr?m ??nventi?n?l medi? h?? been further ex??erb?ted by the re?e??i?n fr?m 2008 whi?h led m?ny ?dverti?er? t? ?ut their budget?, re?ulting in ?rint ?nd br??d???t medi? re?eiving ? dimini?hing ?h?re ?f the de?lining t?t?l budget (Jenning?, 2007). nline ?dverti?ing h?? been the benefi?i?ry ?f re?ent ?h?nge? in the ?ll???ti?n ?f ?dverti?ing budget?, but thi? gener?l ?hift hide? ? number ?f different f?rm?t? f?r ??mmuni??ting with t?rget ?udien?e?, r?nging fr?m m??? ???e?l b?nner ?d? ?l??ed ?n frequently vi?ited web ?ite?, thr?ugh t? ?er??n?li?ed e-m?il ??m??ign? in whi?h the me???ge ??n be uniquely t?il?red t? the requirement? ?f individu?l t?rget buyer?. The f??u? ?f thi? ???er i? the ?r?lifer?ti?n ?f ?nline medi? whi?h i? driven by u?er-gener?ted ??ntent. The term? ???i?l netw?rk medi? h?? tended t? be u?ed inter?h?nge?bly with the term “Web 2. ”, ?nd ?ne ?umm?ry by ??n?t?ntinide? ?nd F?unt?in (2008) identified the f?ll?wing ?rin?i??l ??teg?rie? ?f ???i?l medi?: •Bl?g?. ??m?ri?ing individu?l?’ ?r firm?’ ?nline j?urn?l?, ?ften ??mbined with ?udi? ?r vide? ??d???t?. •???i?l netw?rk. ???li??ti?n? ?ll?wing u?er? t? build ?er??n?l web ?ite? ???e??ible t? ?ther u?er? f?r ex?h?nge ?f ?er??n?l ??ntent ?nd ??mmuni??ti?n. •??ntent ??mmunitie?. Web ?ite? ?rg?ni?ing ?nd ?h?ring ??rti?ul?r ty?e? ?f ??ntent. •F?rum?/bulletin b??rd?. ?ite? f?r ex?h?nging ide?? ?nd inf?rm?ti?n u?u?lly ?r?und ??e?i?l intere?t?. ??ntent ?ggreg?t?r?. ???li??ti?n? ?ll?wing u?er? t? fully ?u?t?mi?e the web ??ntent they wi?h t? ???e??. ???i?l medi? ??n be ?h?r??teri?ed ??: “?nline ???li??ti?n?, ?l?tf?rm? ?nd medi? whi?h ?im t? f??ilit?te inter??ti?n?, ??ll?b?r?ti?n? ?nd the ?h?ring ?f ??ntent” (Univer??l M????nn Intern?ti?n?l, 2008, ?. 10). The im??rt?n?e ?f ???i?l netw?rk medi? lie? in the inter??ti?n between ??n?umer? ?nd the ??mmunity, ?nd in the f??ilit?ti?n ?f “??yn?hr?n?u?, immedi?te, inter??tive, l?w-???t ??mmuni??ti?n?” (Miller et ?l. , 2009, ?. 306). ??i?l netw?rk ?ite? ?ll?w individu?l? t? ??n?tru?t ? ?ubli? ?r ?emi-?ubli? ?r?file within ? b?unded ?y?tem; t? ?rti?ul?te ? li?t ?f ?ther u?er? with wh?m they ?h?re ? ??nne?ti?n, ?nd t? “view ?nd tr?ver?e their li?t ?f ??nne?ti?n? ?nd th??e m?de by ?ther? within the ?y?tem” (B?yd ?nd Elli??n, 2007, ?. 211). ?n l?rger ???i?l netw?rk ?ite?, individu?l? ?re ty?i??lly n?t l??king t? meet new ?e??le but ?re m?re intere?ted in m?n?ging rel?ti?n?hi?? by m?int?ining ??nt??t? with ?ld friend? wh? ?re ?lre?dy ??rt ?f their extended ???i?l netw?rk (B?yd ?nd Elli??n, 2007; H?rt et ?l. 2008). T? ?um u?, ???i?l netw?rk ?ite? ??n be ?een ?? ?ltern?tive ??mmuni??ti?n t??l? whi?h ?u???rt exi?ting rel?ti?n?hi?? ?nd ??tivitie? in ? fun ?nd ??l?urful w?y th?t ??n enri?h the u?er?’ ex?erien?e? (?f??m, 2008). M?ny ???i?l netw?rk web ?ite? h?ve emerged; ?ttr??ting di?tin?tive gr?u?? ?f u?er? in term? ?f their dem?gr??hi??, f?r ex?m?le the ?ver?ge ?ge ?f u?er? ?f Beb? i? l?wer th?n f?r F??eb??k. M?ny ???e?l t? ??mmunitie? with ??e?ifi? ?h?red intere?t? (e. g. the “D?g?ter” ?nd “??t?ter” netw?rk? ?re t?rgeted ?t ?et ?wner?).

In ?dditi?n t? ??n?umer-?riented ???i?l netw?rk ?ite?, m?ny ?r?fe??i?n?l ?nd tr?de ?????i?ti?n? h?ve ?et u? netw?rk? t? ex?h?nge inf?rm?ti?n ?f ??rti?ul?r intere?t t? member? (f?r ex?m?le the ???i?l netw?rking ?ite “LinkedIn” i? ??rti?ul?rly ?imed ?t ?r?fe??i?n?l?). Thi? ???er i? ?rim?rily ??n?erned with ?er??n?l u?er? ?f ???i?l netw?rk ?ite?, r?ther th?n ?itu?ti?n? where there i? ? bu?ine?? u?e. It i? ??rti?ul?rly ??n?erned with the u?e ?f ???i?l netw?rk medi? by y?ung ?e??le.

There i? n?w ? l?t ?f eviden?e th?t ???i?l netw?rk ?ite? h?ve be??me m?in?tre?m ?nd it h?? been re??rted th?t gl?b?lly, the?e ?ite? ????unt f?r ?ne in every 11 minute? ??ent ?nline. In the UK, thi? figure i? even higher – ?ne in every ?ix minute? (Niel?en ??m??ny, 2009?). ?ver h?lf (54 ?er ?ent) ?f internet u?er? between 16 ?nd 24 h?ve ?et u? their ?wn ??ge ?r ?r?file ?n ? ???i?l netw?rking ?ite (?f??m, 2008). In the U??, 67 ?er ?ent ?f ?nline u?er? between 18 ?nd 32 m?ke u?e ?f ???i?l netw?rking ?ite? ?nd 60 ?er ?ent h?ve ?et u? their ?wn ?r?file (J?ne?, 2009).

It i? ?l?? re??rted th?t ???i?l netw?rking ?nd bl?gging ?ite? ?re n?w m?re ???ul?r then e-m?il ?? ? me?n? ?f ???i?l ??mmuni??ti?n – Niel?en ??id “???i?l netw?rking ?ite? e?li??ed e-m?il in gl?b?l re??h ?t 68. 4 % v? 64. 8 % in Febru?ry 2009” (Niel?en ??m??ny, 2009b, ?. 9). The t?ke u? ?f ?nline ???i?l medi? h?? been ?t the ex?en?e ?f tr?diti?n?l medi?, ?nd ? ?tudy by ?f??m ?f the medi? h?bit? ?f UK 15-24 ye?r ?ld? ?h?w? th?t ?in?e u?ing ?u?h medi? f?r the fir?t time, the ?m?unt ?f time they ??ent re?ding n?ti?n?l new????er? de?lined by 27 ?er ?ent; re?ding ???l new????er? by 22 ?er ?ent; re?ding m?g?zine? by 21 ?er ?ent; li?tening t? r?di? by 15 ?er ?ent ?nd w?t?hing TV by 13 ?er ?ent (?f??m, 2006). ?nline ???i?l medi? ?ffer? ????rtunitie? t? ??nne?t with the?e h?rd-t?-re??h ?udien?e? drifting ?w?y fr?m tr?diti?n?l medi?. ?ver?ll, there i? eviden?e th?t ?nline ???i?l netw?rk ?ite? ?re ?een by y?ung ?e??le ?? ?n integr?l ??rt ?f their life (??n?t?ntinide? ?nd F?unt?in, 2008). ? number ?f ?tudie? h?ve ?h?wn, th?t emerging ?dult? u?e ???i?l netw?rking ?ite? t? ??nne?t with ?e??le fr?m their ?ffline live?, ?u?h ?? friend? ?nd f?mily (?f??m, 2008; ?em?ek? et ?l. 2009; ?ubr?hm?ny?m? et ?l. , 2008). It h?? even been ?t?ted, th?t y?ung ?e??le live their live? ?nline ?nd in ?ubli? vi? the?e ?ite? (?ubr?hm?ny?m? ?nd Greenfield, 2008). Communities ?n ?nline ??mmunity ??n ?r?vide ? neutr?l, f?irly l?w ri?k envir?nment thr?ugh whi?h ??me?ne ??n ex?re?? ?n ??ini?n, le?rn m?re ?nd devel?? rel?ti?n?hi?? with ?ther? if they de?ire. The ??ntent ?f wh?t i? ??id in di??u??i?n f?r? ?ften mixe? ?riv?te ??ini?n? with ?ubli?ly ?v?il?ble inf?rm?ti?n (M?rten?en ?nd W?lker, 2002).

In ?dditi?n ?er??n?l inf?rm?ti?n ?b?ut member?’ ??y?h?gr??hi? ?r?file? i? ?ften given, in?luding di?????ble in??me, life?tyle? ?nd view? ?nd belief? ?b?ut w?rld event?. Thu?, ? di?emb?died di??u??i?n ?ll?w? glim??e? ?f the ?er??n?lity ?f the ???ter?. ?ver time member? f?rm ?er?e?ti?n? ?b?ut ?ther member? (?itt? ?nd F?wler, 2005) whi?h le?d t? the f?rm?ti?n ?f ??nne?ti?n? ?nd b?nd? ?nd thu? the building ?f rel?ti?n?hi?? bey?nd the ????e ?f the ?ubje?t f??u? ?f the ?ite. F?r? ??n be??me netw?rk? ?f inter?er??n?l tie? th?t ?r?vide ???i?bility, ?u???rt, inf?rm?ti?n, ? ?en?e ?f bel?nging ?nd ???i?l identity (Wellm?n, 2005).

In ?dditi?n, the ???ti?l flexibility ?f ??m?uter-medi?ted ??mmuni??ti?n get? rid ?f the ?r?blem? ?f ge?gr??hi? b?und?rie? (Dh?l?ki? ?nd Zh?ng, 2004) ?nd time ??n?tr?int? be??me irrelev?nt, ?? ??nver??ti?n m?y be ?yn?hr?n?u? ?r ??yn?hr?n?u?. ?nline ??mmunitie? were ?l???ified by ?rm?tr?ng ?nd H?gel (1996) int? f?ur different ty?e?; ??mmunitie? ?f intere?t, ??mmunitie? ?f rel?ti?n?hi?, ??mmunitie? ?f tr?n???ti?n ?nd ??mmunitie? ?f ?r??ti?e. ?t fir?t ?ight, wine f?r? w?uld be ?l???ified ?? ??mmunitie? ?f intere?t ?wing t? ? ?h?red f??u?, h?wever, wine f?r? ?ften devel?? int? ??mmunitie? ?f rel?ti?n?hi?? ?nd ?????i?n?lly tr?n???ti?n, thu? he ???erti?n ?f ?rm?tr?ng ?nd H?gel th?t the?e ?l???ifi??ti?n? were ex?lu?ive i? ??en t? que?ti?n. The limit? ?f thi? ??teg?ri??ti?n w?? ?l?? illu?tr?ted by ?itt? ?nd F?wler (2005) wh? were ?f the view th?t di??u??i?n f?r? ??n be b?th ??mmunitie? ?f ?r??ti?e ?nd ??mmunitie? ?f intere?t. ? ??mmunity ?f intere?t being ? ?h?red intere?t gr?u? linked t? ? ?r?du?t ?r ?r?du?t gr?u?, f?r ex?m?le, wine. Whil?t ? ??mmunity ?f ?r??ti?e f??u?e? ?r?und wh?t the?e ?e??le d? t?gether, f?r ex?m?le giving wine buying ?dvi?e.

Member? m?y ?l?? ?h?re wh?t they h?ve le?rnt thr?ugh their mutu?l eng?gement in ??tivitie? ?r?und the ?r??ti?e, f?r ex?m?le t? im?r?ve their level ?f kn?wledge ?b?ut ? viney?rd ?r their under?t?nding ?f vini?ulture termin?l?gy. R?wley (2004) h?? di??u??ed ??mmunitie? ?f ??ntent ?? ?n exten?i?n ?f ?rm?tr?ng ?nd H?gel’? ?rigin?l ?l???ifi??ti?n?. Ty?e? ?f ?nline ??mmunitie? h?ve ?l?? been ?l???ified by ?uth?r? ?u?h ?? ??rter (2004) ?nd ?t?n?ev?k?-?l?bev? (2002), in ?rder t? try t? identify gr?u?? ?nd the under?inning ?rin?i?le? guiding thi? r??idly gr?wing virtu?l ex?h?nge ????e.

F?r ex?m?le, whether ? ?ite i? member initi?ted ?r ?rg?ni??ti?n ???n??red. R?b?n ?nd R?f?eli (2007) dem?n?tr?ted th?t ?nline ??mmunitie? ??n le?rn t?gether ?b?ut ? ?ubje?t ?nd ?uwer?l??t ?nd ?dekerken-??hr?der (2008) re?ently ?ugge?ted th?t ?nline ??mmunitie?, th?ugh ?t fir?t ?ight h?m?gen?u?, were in f??t m?de u? ?f ?e??le with very different m?tiv?ti?n? f?r be??ming ??mmunity member?, th?ugh wh?t they h?ve in ??mm?n i? their wi?h t? ?h?re with ?ther?.

Thi? ?h?ring m?y tr?n??end the ?rigin?l f??u? ?f the f?r? ?nd m?y ?l?? devel?? int? ?ffering ?nd re?eiving ?u???rt ?n ?ther m?tter? ?nd the f?rm?ti?n ?f ?nline rel?ti?n?hi?? between member? (?hu, 2009). Relationship Building Via Online Communities The ??qui?iti?n, retenti?n ?nd nurturing ?f ?u?t?mer rel?ti?n?hi?? i? fund?ment?l t? ?n ?rg?ni??ti?n eng?ging in m?rketing in the twenty-fir?t ?entury. The enh?n?ing ?nd building ?f ? rel?ti?n?hi? between ?rg?ni??ti?n? ?nd ?u?t?mer? t? en??ur?ge ? ?en?e ?f l?y?lty i? ?n e?t?bli?hed bu?ine?? g??l.

In term? ?f ???i?l ??nne?ti?n?, it i? ????ible th?t u?er? ??n t? build ?nd m?int?in netw?rk? ?f rel?ti?n?hi?? with ?ther?. Gr?n?vetter’? (1973) e?rly w?rk differenti?ted between we?k tie? ?nd ?tr?ng tie? in netw?rk?. He ?ugge?ted th?t ???i?l netw?rk? m?y n?t bring ?b?ut the ????rtunity t? in?re??e ?tr?ng tie? (i. e. em?ti?n?lly ?l??e, l?ng-term, ?u?t?ined rel?ti?n?hi??), but th?t netw?rk? m?y well ?ll?w ?e??le t? in?re??e we?k tie? (em?ti?n?lly di?t?nt, l???e, infrequent ?nd ???u?l rel?ti?n?hi??).

In ?dditi?n Br?wn ?nd Reingen (1987) ?r????ed th?t ?e??le tended t? inter??t with ?ther? ?imil?r t? them?elve? ?nd devel??ed ?tr?nger tie? with ?u?h ?e??le. The ?dvent ?nd ?d??ti?n ?f te?hn?l?gy ?nd in ??rti?ul?r the u?e ?f the internet f?r bu?ine?? ?nd m?rketing ?ur???e? h?? br?ught ?b?ut ? re-ev?lu?ti?n ?f the?e ?r????iti?n?. ?’M?lley ?nd Tyn?n (2000) re??rt th?t m?rketer? in ??n?umer ?e?t?r? ?lm??t ign?red rel?ti?n?hi? m?rketing until the ?dvent ?f d?t?b??e te?hn?l?gie? whi?h en?bled dire?t m?rketing ??tivitie?, ?u?t?mer rel?ti?n?hi? m?n?gement (?RM) ?nd rel?ti?n?hi? m?rketing t? t?ke ?l??e. ? ? re?ult, the term rel?ti?n?hi? m?rketing i? ?ften u?ed ?? ? ??t?h-?ll ?hr??e t? de??ribe dire?t m?rketing ?r d?t?b??e m?rketing (T???, 2005). Mitu?i? et ?l. (2006) di??u??ed the ??m?lexity ?f rel?ti?n?hi? ?r??e??e? ?nd th?t the devel??ment ?f ?RM h?d t?? he?vily f??u??ed ?n m?n?ging rel?ti?n?hi?? with the end ?u?t?mer ?? ?????ed t? devel??ing rel?ti?n?hi?? with ?ll the intermedi?rie? ?nd influen?er?. ?ne ?f the key influen?er? in ? rel?ti?n?hi? ??uld be th??e individu?l? wh? ??ntribute t? ???i?l netw?rk?. ??n?equently, it i? u?eful t? m?rketer? t? under?t?nd the rel?ti?n?hi?? within ???i?l netw?rk?. lth?ugh Br?wn et ?l. (2007) ?ugge?t th?t the ??t?r? in ?nline ???i?l netw?rk? rel?te t? the web ?ite r?ther th?n the individu?l? wh? ???t ?n th?t web ?ite, it i? ????ible th?t individu?l ???ter? d? devel?? rel?ti?n?hi?? with ?ther member? ?f the ??me f?rum. Muniz ?nd ?’Guinn (2001) re??rted th?t ??mmunitie? l??k ?ut f?r ?nd hel? ?ther? within ? br?nd ??mmunity. Thi? i? reinf?r?ed by ?itt? ?nd F?wler (2005) wh? illu?tr?te h?w rel?ti?n?hi?? ??n be built ?ut?ide the m?in ??mmunity, thu? ?re?ting ? mini-netw?rk ?f ??n?umer? with ??e?ifi? intere?t?.

The?e r??idly devel??ing f?r? ?re?te virtu?l ??mmunitie? ?nd ???i?l netw?rk? th?t ?r?vide the ??nne?ti?n? t? ?ll?w ??n?umer? t? f?rm ?tr?ng rel?ti?n?hi?? th?t ??n influen?e ??n?umer beh?vi?ur. Be??u?e they ?re driven by their member? (?tr?ud, 2008) it f?ll?w? th?t rel?ti?n?hi?? devel?? between th??e wh? ??ntribute t? the di??u??i?n? within ? f?rum. Rel?ti?n?hi? m?rketing i? under?inned thr?ugh ?h?red ??mmuni??ti?n. The devel??ment ?f rel?ti?n?hi?? between ??n?umer? within ???i?l netw?rk? re?ult? in ???i?l ?nd even em?ti?n?l b?nd? being f?rmed. ??i?l b?nding ??n ?re?te ? ?en?e ?f l?y?lty where there m?y be multi?le ?ther ??ur?e? ?f ?u??ly ?f inf?rm?ti?n, i. e. the m?re y?u ??rti?i??te, the ?tr?nger y?ur ???i?l b?nd? ?nd the le?? likely y?u ?re t? l??k el?ewhere. M?rg?n ?ited in ?heth ?nd ??rv?tiy?r (2002) ?ugge?t? th?t be??u?e the?e rel?ti?n?hi?? ?re f?unded ?n ???i?l b?nd? they ?re le?? e??ily ???ied by ??m?etit?r?. The?e rel?ti?n?hi?? ??n ?re?te ? b?rrier t? entry t? ?ther ??n?umer? ?r even ?rg?ni??ti?n? ?nd ??tenti?lly le?d t? ?u?t?in?ble ??m?etitive ?dv?nt?ge. ??i?l netw?rk? ??n be ??werful (Fergu??n ?nd Hl?vink?, 2006) ?nd exert lever?ge b?th intern?lly (in giving dire?ti?n?l br?nd ?dvi?e) ?nd extern?lly (by ?re?ting b?rrier?). The devel??ment ?ver time ?nd ??rti?i??ti?n reinf?r?e? ? ?en?e ?f ??mmunity ?? ??ntribut?r? get ???itive reinf?r?ement (J?y?e ?nd Kr?ut, 2006) ?f their eff?rt? by re?eiving ??mment? b??k fr?m ?ther ??mmunity member?, thu? building ??kn?wledgment ?nd re??gniti?n ?nd theref?re the ??mmunity ?nd the rel?ti?n?hi?? be??me? ?trengthened. ?zmigin et ?l. 2005) ?ugge?t th?t the m?dern netw?rked ???iety ?ffer? extended ????rtunitie? f?r ?rg?ni??ti?n? t? devel?? rel?ti?n?hi?? with ?u?t?mer?. They ???it th?t ?nline ??mmunitie? enh?n?e rel?ti?n?hi? m?rketing in tw? w?y?: fir?t, by ?r?viding ?n ????rtunity f?r inter??ti?n with the relev?nt gr?u? ?nd ?e??nd, by under?t?nding the n?ture ?nd ??ntent ?f ??mmunitie?, ?rg?ni??ti?n? ??n better meet the need? ?f th??e member?. ?ver ? ?eri?d ?f time, ?? ??mmunity member? ex?h?nge inf?rm?ti?n ?n the ?ubje?t ?nd ?l?? le?rn ?b?ut e??h ?ther, the level ?f ?er??n?l rel?ti?n?hi? dee?en?.

Thi? i? de?endent u??n ? ??mbin?ti?n ?f the time ?nd the ?m?unt ?f inf?rm?ti?n ex?h?nged n?t ?nly ?b?ut the ?ubje?t but ?l?? ?b?ut the individu?l?. Thi? refle?t? the th?ught? ?f R?wley (2004) wh? ???erted th?t rel?ti?n?hi?? ?re built ?? inter??ti?n? in?re??e ?nd th?t ?er?e?ti?n? ?re b??ed u??n ex?erien?e whether they be ???itive ?r neg?tive. In the ?nline envir?nment, D?vi? et ?l. (1999) ?ut f?rw?rd the ide? th?t ret?iler? ???ly ? tru?t building ???r???h t? ??n?umer m?rketing rel?ti?n?hi??.

Thu?, rel?ti?n?hi?? in the virtu?l w?rld ?re m?der?ted by the ??rti?i??nt?’ ?bility t? tru?t in e??h ?ther. In ?rder t? build l?y?lty in the ?nline envir?nment tru?t mu?t be e?t?bli?hed fir?t ?nd ?ub?equently reinf?r?ed in?rement?lly (H?rridge-M?r?h ?nd Quint?n, 2005) in ?rder t? ?ver??me ?ny relu?t?n?e ?n the ??rt ?f the w?uld be ??n?umer. Ndubi?i (2007) ?ugge?ted th?t ?u??e??ful rel?ti?n?hi?? ?re ??hieved by the mutu?l fulfilment ?f ?r?mi?e?. The level ?f ??mmitment i? im??rt?nt in etermining rel?ti?n?hi?? ?nd ??mmitment i? higher ?m?ng?t ??n?umer? wh? believe they re?eive v?lue fr?m th?t ??rti?ul?r rel?ti?n?hi?. The level ?f eng?gement with ? ???i?l netw?rk h?? been ??teg?ri?ed by ?ever?l re?e?r?her?. The term “lurker?” w?? fir?t ??ined by N?nne?ke ?nd ?ree?e (2001). Intere?ted ??n?umer? m?y “lurk” ?n ? ???i?l netw?rk t? f?mil?ri?e them?elve? with the ??er?ting ?ulture ?f th?t netw?rk bef?re ??tively ??ntributing. H?ving the ??tenti?l t? ?b?erve (lurk) ?ri?r t? ??ntributing ?r ?? ?n ?ltern?tive t? ??ntributing m?y l?wer the ?er?eived ri?k ?f be??ming ? regi?tered member.

G?lder (2003) ?nd K?zinet? (1998) u?ed the term? “newby?” ?nd “t?uri?t?”, re??e?tively, t? de??ribe th??e di??u???nt? wh? h?d ju?t ?t?rted t? ???t ??mment? but wh? h?d n?t dem?n?tr?ted ?ny ?ign? ?f ??mmitment ?r ?ignifi??nt eng?gement with ? netw?rk. G?lder (2003) ?l?? identified “?elebritie?” wh? he ?h?r??teri?ed ?? h?ving high ??m?eten?e level?, being ?r?lifi? ???ter?, ?nd dev?ting time ?nd energy t? ? ??mmunity. K?zinet? (2006) ??ntinued hi? ??teg?ri??ti?n ?f ??mmunity member? with “mingler?”, “dev?tee?” ?nd “in?ider?”. Mingler? ?re th??e wh? ???t but with n? ??rti?ul?r regul?rity ?r frequen?y. Dev?tee?” ?re ??n?idered t? be enthu?i??ti? member? wh? ??ntribute regul?rly ?nd wh? h?ve begun t? devel?? ???i?l tie? within the netw?rk. “In?ider?” ?re th?ught t? ????e?? ex?ert judgement ?b?ut the t??i?, ?re ?r???tive in ?t?rting di??u??i?n t??i?? ?nd exhibit ?tr?ng ???i?l ?nd em?ti?n?l tie? t? the netw?rk. ?itt? ?nd F?wler (2005) ?ugge?ted ? further level, th?t ?f “le?d member” f?r the netw?rk member wh? w?? ?ne ?f the m??t numer?u? ???ter?, wh? influen?ed the netw?rk ?nd wh? w?? highly inv?lved in the netw?rk ?t ?ll level?. Lee et ?l. (2006) n?med thi? ?m?ll gr?u? ?f le?d member? the “ev?ngeli?t?”.

The level ?f eng?gement ? ??mmunity member h?? with ? ???i?l netw?rk will im???t u??n the ty?e ?f b?nd? ?nd rel?ti?n?hi?? th?t ?re built u? between member?. ?nline rel?ti?n?hi?? m?y be ju?t ?? ?tr?ng ?nd dee? ?? th??e in the ?ff line w?rld. The?e b?nd? ??nn?t ?nly be between ??ntribut?r? but ?l?? between ? ??ntribut?r, the ??m??ny ?nd ?r ? br?nd. H?rri??n-W?lker (2004) ?r????ed three ty?e? ?f rel?ti?n?hi? b?nding between ??m??nie? ?nd ??n?umer? (e??n?mi? b?nd?, ???i?l b?nd? ?nd ?tru?tur?l b?nd?) vi? the internet ?nd the?e ??uld be extended t? ???ly t? ???i?l netw?rk?.

E??n?mi? b?nd? in?lude the ?m?unt ?f m?ney ?nd time ??ent devel??ing ? rel?ti?n?hi?, ???i?l b?nd? in?lude the virtu?l inter??ti?n between member? th?t f??ter ? rel?ti?n?hi?. ?tru?tur?l b?nd? ?re the ??mmitment? t? ? netw?rk th?t m?ke it diffi?ult t? exit th?t rel?ti?n?hi?. F?r ex?m?le, be??ming ? m?der?t?r ?r ?rg?ni?ing ?ff line f??e t? f??e event?. Chapter III Methodology Research Method ?wing t? the rel?tive newne?? ?f the meth?d?l?gy em?l?yed in thi? ex?l?r?t?ry re?e?r?h, ? det?iled ?utline ?f the meth?d f?ll?w? t? ?id under?t?nding ?nd under?in the r?ti?n?le ?f ?d??ting ? netn?gr??hi? ???r???h.

Netn?gr??hy i? ?n e?t?bli?hed t??l f?r ??n?umer ?nd m?rketing re?e?r?h d?ting fr?m the mid-1990? b??ed ?n ?tudying internet b??ed ?r ?nline ??mmunitie?. It w?? derived fr?m the ???r???h t?ken t? re?e?r?h ?re?? ?u?h ?? ???i?l ?nthr???l?gy. ? definiti?n ?f “netn?gr??hy” ?t?te? th?t it i? “? qu?lit?tive, inter?retive re?e?r?h meth?d?l?gy ?nd ?d??t? the tr?diti?n?l re?e?r?h te?hnique? ?f ?nthr???l?gy t? the ?tudy ?f ?nline ?ulture? ?nd ??mmunitie? f?rmed thr?ugh ???i?l Netw?rk?” (Ju??, 2006, ?. 193).

It u?e? l?rgely textu?l d?t? ??lle?ted fr?m field n?te? ?nd ?rtef??t? ?f the ??mmunity. In the ???e ?f ?nline ??mmunitie? thi? m?y be ???ting? by ??ntribut?r? (K?zinet?, 1998). Netn?gr??hy i? re??mmended ?? ? meth?d by whi?h t? ?tudy ??mmunitie? whi?h exi?t ?nly in ?yber????e ?nd the virtu?l w?rld ?nd where n?rm?l ???e?? w?uld ?r?ve t? be diffi?ult (Be?km?nn ?nd L?nger, 2005). ?ne ?dv?nt?ge ?f u?ing netn?gr??hy i? th?t the d?t? rem?in ?v?il?ble f?r inve?tig?ti?n ?nd ?n?ly?i? thr?ugh?ut the entire ?eri?d ?f re?e?r?h ?nd ??n be revi?ited f?r further ?n?ly?i? (?’Reilly et ?l. 2007). Ju?tifi??ti?n f?r the u?e ?f the internet ?? ? d?t? ??lle?ti?n t??l h?? been ?utlined by G?rt?n et ?l. (1999), Ev?n? et ?l. (2001) ?nd N?n??rr?w et ?l. (2001). The ?rin?i?le? ?f netn?gr??hi? re?e?r?h (K?zinet?, 2006) e?h? th??e ?f ethn?gr??hy ?nd th??e guideline? were em?l?yed f?r the re?e?r?h undert?ken (?l?rity ?f re?e?r?h que?ti?n?, dire?t ???y fr?m ??m?uter medi?ted ?nline ??mmuni??ti?n?, ?l???ifi??ti?n ?nd ??ding ?nd ??ntextu?li??ti?n ?f ???ting?, u?e ?f ?n?nymity ?f inf?rm?nt?, the u?e ?f ? ??uti?u? ???iti?n ?ver ?ny ??e?ifi? ???ting? whi?h m?y be qu?ted).

It w?? de?ided t? “lurk” within the di??u??i?n f?r? ?nd ??lle?t d?t? ??vertly in ?rder t? ?bt?in h?ne?t ?nd true d?t? fr?m intr?-member?’ di?l?gue. Reve?ling ?ur?elve? ?? re?e?r?her?, r?ther th?n “lurker?”, w?uld h?ve ??tenti?lly im???ted u??n the level ?nd ty?e ?f d?t? ?bt?ined (?????gnell?, 1997) wh? went ?n t? ?ugge?t th?t it i? m?re di?ru?tive t? enter ? ???i?l netw?rk ?nd reve?l y?ur?elf ?? ? re?e?r?her th?n it i? t? rem?in “invi?ible”. ? vi?ible re?e?r?her w?uld h?ve ?h?nged the dyn?mi?? ?f the rel?ti?n?hi?? within the netw?rk.

The netw?rk ??uld be ??m?r?mi?ed ?nd the tru?t exhibited ?nline d?m?ged. Thu?, the de?i?i?n w?? m?de t? rem?in hidden. Indeed, L?nger ?nd Bl??km?n (2005) ?ugge?ted th?t ??vert ?tudie? ?f ?nline ??mmunitie? ?re ?refer?ble ?nd give ? truer ?i?ture ?f the ??mmunity. The ?ng?ing ethi??l deb?te ?f rem?ining invi?ible t? the unwitting ??rti?i??nt? ?f thi? ex?l?r?t?ry re?e?r?h i? re??gni?ed (K?zinet?, 1998, 2006). Selection Of Fora The intern?ti?n?l wine m?rket h?? been ex?erien?ing r??id ?nd ?ub?t?nti?l ?h?nge in ?u?t?mer dem?nd.

The UK wine ?e?t?r h?? been gr?wing ?te?dily ?ver the l??t de??de ?nd i? ?redi?ted t? ??ntinue gr?wing ?lth?ugh the gr?wth r?te in v?lue i? ?l?wing (Mintel, 2007). UK, ?meri??n ?nd ?u?tr?li?n ??n?umer? ??n n?w ?ur?h??e wine thr?ugh ? wide v?riety ?f ?h?nnel?. The?e three n?ti?n? ?re the m??t frequent ??n?umer? ?f wine when ??m??red t? ?ll ?ther m?j?r wine ex??rting m?rket? (Vinitr??k, 2007). ?ix wine di??u??i?n f?r? were ?ele?ted ?? the ??m?le f?r the ex?l?r?t?ry re?e?r?h.

The ?riteri? u?ed f?r the ?ele?ti?n ?f the f?r? were: •?ll ?ite? were live ?nd w?rking during the ?eri?d ?f re?e?r?h (June 2007-J?nu?ry 2008). •?ll the ?ite? were inde?endently re??mmended by ? minimum ?f tw? ?e??r?te ??ur?e?, ?ll ?f whi?h were then ?he?ked. •?ll the ?ite? were inde?endent ?f ??mmer?i?l ???n??r?hi?. •?ll the ?ite? were ??lely f??u?ed ?n the t??i? ?f wine ?nd it? ??n?um?ti?n, n?t it? ?r?du?ti?n. •?ll the ?ite? h?d ? regi?tered member?hi? ?f 1,000 member? ?r m?re. •?ll ?ite? h?d ? m?der?t?r, either the f?under ?f the ?ite ?r ?n ????inted member. ?ll the ?ite? ??nt?ined ? ?t?tement ?utlining the ?ubli? n?ture ?f ?ny ???ting?. Re??mmend?ti?n? f?r the ?ite? ??me fr?m ??ur?e? ?u?h ??, but n?t limited t?, ?r?fe??i?n?l wine j?urn?li?t?’ ?ite?, wine ?dvi??ry ?ite?, ?nline tr?de ?ubli??ti?n? ?nd ?e?r?h engine gr?u?? ?u?h ?? M?N gr?u?? li?t?. E??h new thre?d ??n?i?ting ?f five ?r m?re ???ting? ?nd e??h new ???ting ?n ?n exi?ting thre?d were viewed ?nd n?te? t?ken. T? ?trengthen the reli?bility ?f the finding? the tw? re?e?r?her? viewed ?nd ?n?ly?ed three ?ite? e??h ?nd then ?w???ed ?ne ?ite e??h f?r ?r??? ?he?king.

The r?w d?t? ??n?i?ted ?f multi?le ??r?el? ?f ???ting? ?nd ??mment? (Mi?hne ?nd Gl?n?e, 2006) ?n new ?nd exi?ting thre?d?, whi?h t?t?lled ?ver 800 ???ting?, ??l?ul?ted fr?m the number ?f thre?d? ?nd the number ?f ???ting? t? th??e thre?d? ??lle?ted ?ver ? ?eri?d ?f f?ur week?. D?t? ?n?ly?i? ??n?i?ted ?f u?ing ? ??n?t?nt ??m??r?tive meth?d ?? e???u?ed by Gl??er ?nd ?tr?u?? (1967) in whi?h the ???ting? were re?d ?ever?l time? e??h in ?n iter?tive ?r??e??, theme? were n?t de?ided in ?dv?n?e but emerged fr?m the d?t? ?nd then gr?u?ed int? ??teg?rie?.

The ??teg?rie? th?t emerged f??u?ed ?n f?ur di?tin?t theme? within rel?ti?n?hi??; gener?li?ed re?i?r??ity in rel?ti?n?hi??, ?tru?tur?l ?nd ???i?l b?nding, ?eer-t?-?eer rel?ti?n?hi? devel??ment thr?ugh re??mmend?ti?n, ?nd br?nd dem??r?ti??ti?n ?nd rel?ti?n?hi? devel??ment. The?e f?ur key theme? ?re di??u??ed bel?w ?? finding?. Chapter IV Analysis Generalized Reciprocity In Relationships ? kind ??ul w?nt? t? buy me ? wine b??k. Wh?t ?re y?ur t?? re??mmend?ti?n? (f?r ??me?ne wh? f??u?e? ?n Eur??e?n viney?rd?, ??rti?ul?rly Burgundy ?nd Germ?ny)? l?? h?w u?eful i? ?rt ?nd ??ien?e ?f Wine – The ?ubtle ?rti?try ?nd ???hi?ti??ted ??ien?e ?f the Winem?ker by H?llid?y, J?me? ?nd J?hn??n, Hugh? I ?lre?dy h?ve J?hn??n’? W?rld ?tl?? ?f Wine (3rd editi?n 1985)? ?ugge?ti?n? gr?tefully re?eived (UK ?ite, 7 June 2007). Thi? illu?tr?ti?n ?u???rt? the ??n?e?t ?f n?t ?nly ?eer-t?-?eer re??mmend?ti?n but ?l?? gener?li?ed re?i?r??ity whereby hel? i? given t? ?ne ?er??n ?nd thi? i? re?i?r???ted by ??me?ne wh? w?? n?t the initi?l re?i?ient ?f th?t hel? (Titmu?, 1971; K?ll??k, 1999).

Re?i?r??ity w?? further dem?n?tr?ted by the m?ny in?t?n?e? ?f reque?t? f?r hel? ?nd inf?rm?ti?n ?nd ?ll ?f the?e within the ??m?le viewed were re???nded t? ???itively by the ??mmunity, gener?lly the regul?r ???ter? were the ?e??le wh? ?ffered the l?rge?t qu?ntity ?f u?eful inf?rm?ti?n. ?dvi?e ??ught r?nged fr?m h?w t? ?ell ?ff ?n inherited ?ell?r in ?meri?? fr?m ? n?n-wine enthu?i??t, the ?referred ty?e ?f wine fridge t? buy f?r d?me?ti? u?e, re?t?ur?nt re??mmend?ti?n? f?r the M?n?he?ter ?re?, viney?rd? t? vi?it in ? ??rti?ul?r regi?n ?f Fr?n?e.

M?rten?en ?nd W?lker (2002) ?t?ted th?t f?r ? ??ntent? ?ften mix b?th ?ubli? ?nd ?riv?te inf?rm?ti?n. Thi? i? eviden?ed by the re?e?r?h where ??e?ifi? kn?wledge ?nd ???i?t?n?e w?? freely ?h?red, ?? well ?? ?n individu?l’? ?riv?te view? ?n their ?wn wine ?referen?e? ?nd ex?er?t? fr?m their ?wn live?: In l?w? ?rrived ye?terd?y f?r ? vi?it, Bet?y m?de ? ????n with lem?n ?nd thyme, br?wn ri?e, ??in??h ?nd ??rr?t?. I find ????n ?retty ver??tile, but with the lem?n th?ught white. ??ened the 2006 ?nne ?mie ?in?t Gri? (?reg?n). Fir?t ?f ?ll I ?h?uld n?te th?t the re?t ?f the t?ble l?ved it.

I w?? m?re in the like th?n l?ve ??teg?ry (U? ?ite, 3 J?nu?ry 2008). Social And Structural Bonding In Relationships B?th ???i?l ?nd ?tru?tur?l b?nding w?? eviden?ed by the re?e?r?h finding?. The frequen?y ?f ???ting? by the “dev?tee?”, “in?ider?” (K?zinet?, 1998) ?nd “ev?ngeli?t?” (Lee et ?l. , 2006) refle?ted ??ret?’? 80/20 rule. The?e highly ??tive ?nd ???i?lly b?nded member? (H?rri??n-W?lker, 2004) be??me the glue ?f the f?r?, hel?ing t? ?h??e ?nd guide the di??u??i?n t??i??, ?t?rt new thre?d? ?nd ??t ?? m?der?t?r? t? the ??ntent.

Thi? ??re gr?u? ?f individu?l? ?ften ???t multi?le me???ge? in ? ?ingle d?y ?nd regul?rly vi?it ? ??e?ifi? di??u??i?n ?ite ?t ?ever?l time? during the d?y ?nd night. ?n in?re??e in regi?tr?ti?n? ?nd number ?f ???ting? will in?re??e the utility ?nd ?er?e?ti?n ?f ? ???i?l netw?rk ?ite f?r ?ll level? ?f member? (F?rquh?r ?nd R?wley, 2006). Indeed, intern?ti?n?l time z?ne? were frequently di?reg?rded. Thi? level ?f ??tivity indi??te? the devel??ment ?f ?tru?tur?l b?nd? (H?rri??n-W?lker, 2004) ?? ??ntribut?r? ?re ??mmitted t? ?d??ting their beh?vi?ur f?r the benefit ?f ?ll the ??rti?i??ting member?:

Peer-To-Peer Recommendations And Referrals As Relationship Development Ret?iler? were frequently n?med ?nd ??mment? b?th ???itive ?nd neg?tive m?de ?b?ut the qu?lity ?nd r?nge ?f the ?t??k held ?nd the ?u?t?mer ?ervi?e ex?erien?ed by the ??mmunity member?. Fr?m the ex?h?nge? bel?w intern?l lever?ge (Fergu??n ?nd Hl?vink?, 2006) ??n be illu?tr?ted. B??ed ?n the gr?u?? ?b?erved vir?l m?rketing thr?ugh the fr?ternity i? ??mm?n?l??e (Mi?hne ?nd Gl?n?e, 2006): Be?utiful wine. ?ll the tr??i??l fruit ?f M?rlb?r?ugh but ? di?tin?tive miner?lly ?lm??t flinty fini?h.

Truly ex?e?ti?n?l ?he?? ?t ? 9 ?nd ??uth ?fri??’? be?t ??uv by ? mile. ?v?il?ble ?t **** (UK ?ite, 11 June 2007). I’m ?l?? ? big f?n ?f thi? v?riet?l, ?nd try t? get my h?nd? ?n them when I ??n, but there i? ?re?i?u? little in the?e ??rt?. The r?nge? ?re l?rge t?? fr?m **** ($100+) d?wn t? **** whi?h i? ?r?und $15 (U? ?ite, 5 J?nu?ry 2008). *** 2005, thi? wine re?lly i? ? ?tunner f?r the ?ri?e, it h?? it ?ll, d?rk fruit?, well-judged ?ed?ry ??k, ?u?er fine t?nnin? ?nd ? ?u?t?ined ????i? fini?h with ? t?u?h ?f mu?k. R?ther better th?n 2004, I think (?u?tr?li?n ?ite, 28 De?ember 2007).

Virtu?l inter??ti?n? th?t f??ter rel?ti?n?hi?? ?re eviden?ed by the f??t th?t ?ert?in ??ntribut?r? m?ke referen?e t? multi-medi? ?h?nnel? ?nd dire?t ?ther member? t? them ?nd thi? w?? ????rent ??r??? ?ll three ??untry ?ite?. Referr?l? were m?de with hy?ertext link? given t? ?r?m?ti?n? ?v?il?ble ?nline. In ?dditi?n, dire?ti?n w?? given t? ? wine br?nd’? terre?tri?l TV ??mmer?i?l ?v?il?ble t? view ?n ? ??mmer?i?l ???i?l netw?rk. Thu?, ?eer-t?-?eer re??mmend?ti?n? ??n devel?? rel?ti?n?hi?? by ?r?xy, th?t i? t? ??y ?ne ??ntribut?r re??mmend? ? br?nd t? ?n?ther member wh? then f?rm? ? rel?ti?n?hi? in their ?wn right with th?t br?nd:

Brand Democratization And Development Of Relationships The ????bility ?f the internet t? f??ilit?te inf?rm?ti?n ex?h?nge ?nd level? ?f eng?gement h?? br?ught ?b?ut br?nd dem??r?ti??ti?n (Nei??er, 2006). ?nline ??mmunitie? n?w h?ve the ?bility t? re?e?r?h ?nd, if de?ired, m?ni?ul?te ??r??r?te ??mmuni??ti?n? me???ge?. The?e ??mmunity member? ?h?re inf?rm?ti?n ?nd influen?e ?ther? in their netw?rk. ?n ? ?tr?tegi? level, di??u??i?n f?r? member? dem?n?tr?ted kn?wledge ?f the merger? ?nd ??qui?iti?n? ?f wine ?r?du?er? ?nd br?nd ?wner? ?nd the ??rtf?li? ?f br?nd? m?n?ged by ??rent ??m??nie? in the ?e?t?r.

Thi? higher level ?f kn?wledge ?b?ut the indu?try indi??te? the extent ?f intere?t within the?e ??e?i?li?t gr?u??. Key ??ntribut?r? be??me “?u?t?mer-inf?rmedi?rie?” (B?rn?tt, 1998) ?nd ??-?r?du?er? ?f ?r?du?t ?nd br?nd inf?rm?ti?n (?h??, 2009). F?rum member? wh? ?re b?nded thr?ugh the f?rum ??n exert influen?e ?ver the ??r??r?te br?nd (B?glieri ?nd ??n??li, 2009): ?u?tr?li? i? ??m?eting with ?rgentin?, ?hile, ???in, Fr?n?e, It?ly ?nd ?ther “?unny n?ti?n?” in m???-?r?du?ed ?rdin?ry ?r?du?t ?u?tr?li? w?nt ?u??eed bey?nd tem??r?ry f??hi?n? ?nd gl???y ?helft?lker? (?u?tr?li?n ?ite, 7 J?nu?ry 2008).

Discussion and implications The ex?li?it di??u??i?n ?f ??e?ifi? ?r?du?t?, ?ri?ing, ?r?m?ti?n ?nd ?v?il?bility (n?mely the element? ?f the m?rketing mix) w?uld be ?f immedi?te intere?t t? m?rketer?. Inf?rm?ti?n w?? ?h?red by member? reg?rding ?ri?e di???unt? ?ffered by wine ??e?i?li?t ret?iler? ?? well ?? n?ti?n?l ?u?erm?rket ?h?in?. Re?e?r?h int? virtu?l ??mmunitie?, ???i?l netw?rk? ?nd ??n?umer gener?ted ??mmuni??ti?n i? ?till in it? inf?n?y. F?rre?ter Re?e?r?h (2007) re??rted th?t m?rketer? need t? under?t?nd h?w ?nd why di??u??i?n f?r? m?y im???t u??n their ??rti?ul?r bu?ine??.

The re?e?r?h illu?tr?te? the ri?e ?f ??lle?tive individu?li?m ?nd the r?le th?t ?nline ??mmunitie? m?y ?r?vide in ?re?ting ?n envir?nment f?r ???i?l b?nding ?nd rel?ti?n?hi? devel??ment. The in?re??ing inv?lvement ?f ??n?umer? with ???i?l netw?rk? i? ?h?nging the dyn?mi?? ?f wh? the ?u?t?mer tru?t? ?nd t? wh?m they l??k f?r ex?ert ?dvi?e. Rel?ti?n?hi?? th?t ?re devel??ed thr?ugh ???i?l netw?rk? ??n be ??werful. Thi? ?ie?e ?f re?e?r?h h?? illu?tr?ted the de?ire f?r ?e??le t? ?h?re their kn?wledge, intere?t? ?nd ex?erien?e ?f wine rel?ted ?r?du?t? ?? well ?? le?rning fr?m e??h ?ther.

It w?uld ???e?r fr?m the finding?, ?u???rted by indu?try ??mment?ry, th?t there i? in?re??ed im??rt?n?e ?l??ed ?n ?eer-t?-?eer re??mmend?ti?n? b??ed ?n the tru?t e?t?bli?hed thr?ugh ?n ?nline rel?ti?n?hi? (Niel?en, 2009). ???i?l netw?rk? ?r?vide ? ??luti?n f?r the new ?ulture ?f dem?nded immedi??y with the ??eed ?f re???n?e? t? ?nd fr?m ??ntribut?r? ?f th?ught? ?nd inf?rm?ti?n within the f?r? ??ti?fying the new ex?e?t?ti?n? ?f ??n?umer?. M?rketer? ??uld determine the effe?t ?f w?rd ?f m?uth by ex?mining ? f?rum.

F?r ex?m?le, by f?ll?wing ? thre?d in ? f?rum, the re?ult? ?f the re?lie? fr?m re??mmend?ti?n? m?de, ??n dem?n?tr?te wh?t w?? t?ken u? ?nd the feedb??k ?b?ut the ?ugge?ti?n. Thi? ?re?te? ? d??umented re??rd ?f the reque?t, the re???n?e ?nd the re?ult? whi?h i? n?t n?rm?lly ????ible f?r w?rd ?f m?uth referr?l?. Thi? i? ? devel??ment ?f referr?l m?rketing whereby the l??? ?f inf?rm?ti?n i? n?w ??m?leted ?nd thu? ??n be fed int? future m?rketing ?l?nning ?t ? ?tr?tegi? level. ?rg?ni??ti?n? ??uld benefit fr?m ???nning exi?ting f?r? by lurking t? g?in in?ight int? b?th ??ntribut?r? ?nd the ??ntent. u?h inf?rm?ti?n ??ntribute? t? m?rket kn?wledge ?nd theref?re ??n be in?trument?l in ?r?viding ?tr?tegi? ?dv?nt?ge. ?n ?rg?ni??ti?n ??uld ??lle?t u?eful inf?rm?ti?n ?n ?u?t?mer ?er?e?ti?n? ?f their ?wn br?nd? ?nd ?l?? ??m?etit?r?’ br?nd?. It i? n?t kn?wn whether ???i?l b?nding w?uld t?ke ?l??e in ?n ex?li?itly ??mmer?i?lly ???n??red f?rum. ?u?t?mer di?tru?t ?f tr?diti?n?l meth?d? ?f m?rketing ??mmuni??ti?n? ?nd the re?ult?nt ?yni?i?m ?b?ut the ?l?im? m?de ?n ? ???n??red f?rum m?y le?d t? relu?t?n?e t? ??rti?i??te.

Th?ugh ?ut?ide the ??r?meter? ?f thi? ???er, ??rti?i??ti?n in ???n??red f?r? m?y be w?rth further inve?tig?ti?n. Chapter V Conclusions ?? ??n?umer ???iety h?? be??me m?re ??m?li??ted there i? ?n ?rgument whi?h ?r????e? th?t ??n?umer re?e?r?h ?h?uld ?l?? ev?lve t? meet the ?h?llenge? ?f ?bt?ining rig?r?u?, relev?nt ?nd ?urrent inf?rm?ti?n ?b?ut ??n?umer? ?nd the w?rld they inh?bit. Theref?re, thr?ugh the u?e ?f netn?gr??hy in thi? ???er, the d?t? ??lle?ti?n t??l w?? ?r?ven t? be ???r??ri?te, th?r?ugh ?nd timely.

The re?ult?nt d?t? were ri?h in ??ntent, ???i?u? in qu?ntity ?nd d??umented re?l ??n?umer ex?h?nge in re?l time r?ther th?n hy??theti??l ??en?ri??. The u?e ?f netn?gr??hy in ??n?umer re?e?r?h ?h?uld be en??ur?ged within the ??ntext ?f ?nline buyer beh?vi?ur ?nd ?nline ??mmunitie?. Thi? ???er ??ntribute? t? kn?wledge by ?utlining the ?r??e?? ?f u?ing netn?gr??hy in re?e?r?h whi?h i? benefi?i?l t? re?e?r?her? in the ???i?l ??ien?e?. Thi? ???er ?dd? t? the very limited liter?ture ?n the ju?tifi??ti?n ?nd u?e ?f netn?gr??hy f?r m?rketing re?e?r?h.

Thi? ???er h?? illu?tr?ted th?t ?wing t? the devel??ment ?f rel?ti?n?hi?? within the virtu?l w?rld, e?t?bli?hed thinking ?n rel?ti?n?hi??, tie? ?nd the h?m??hily ?h?uld be re-ex?mined. ?trength ?f tie? ?re n?t ?? Gr?n?vetter (1973) ?ugge?ted, ?? ?im?le ?? we?k ?r ?tr?ng. Tie? in ???i?l netw?rk? ??n be highly influenti?l ?nd ?re?te ?tr?ng b?nd?. Furtherm?re, thi? ?tudy h?? r?i?ed the emerging i??ue ?f ??ur?e ?redibility ?nd it? influen?e ?n ??n?umer beh?vi?ur. Br?wn ?nd Reingen’? (1987) w?rk ?r????ing th?t ??n?umer? tru?ted ?nd v?lued th??e ?e??le ?imil?r t? them?elve? ??n n?w be que?ti?ned.

In ?nline ??mmunitie? ?nd ???i?l netw?rk? member? m?y h?ve ?nly ?ne ?h?red ?ttribute (?n intere?t in the netw?rk) yet differ in ?ll ?ther re??e?t?, but the ??ur?e ?redibility i? ?till ?tr?ng ?nd tie? f?rmed ?nd influen?e exerted. B??ed ?n thi? ???er, the future re?e?r?h dire?ti?n i? t? inve?tig?te the ty?e? ?nd ?trength ?f influen?e between member? ?f ? f?rum ?nd their multi-dimen?i?n?l rel?ti?n?hi?? th?t ??n be f?rmed in br?nd ??mmunitie?. The e?t?bli?hed ??r?digm ?f rel?ti?n?hi? m?rketing m?y require re-ex?mining in the ??m?lex ???i?l web envir?nment th?t ??n?umer? n?w inh?bit.

The dem??r?ti??ti?n ?f ??mmuni??ti?n ??r??? ?ll ?t?keh?lder? i? le?ding t? m?rketer? needing t? be ?lert t? the new re?litie? ?f intr?-??n?umer di?l?gue in the f?rm ?f ???i?l netw?rk? if they wi?h t? kee? ???e with ??n?umer?. References Aris, A. , Bughin, J. (2005), Managing Media Companies: Harnessing Creative Value, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, . Arnould, E. , Price, L. (1993), “River magic: extraordinary experiences and the extended service encounter”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 24-45. Axelrod, R. 1984), The Evolution of Co-operation, Basic Books, New York, NY, . Banks, S. K. (1979), “Gift-giving: a review and an interactive paradigm”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 319-24. Barrett, R. (2006), Building a Values-Driven Organisation, Elsevier, Amsterdam, . Blythe, M. , Overbeeke, K. , Monk, A. , Wright, P. (2003), Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment, Kluwer, Dordrecht, . Boyd, D. M. , Ellison, N. B. (2007), “Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship”, Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 210-30.

Brown, J. B. , Broderick, A. J. , Lee, N. (2007), “Word of mouth communication within online communities: conceptualizing the online social network”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 2-20. Burnett, G. (2000), “Information exchange in virtual communities: a typology”, Information Research: An International Electronic Journal, available at: www. shef. ac. uk/? is/publications/infres/ircont. html (accessed 17 October 2008), Vol. 5 No. 4, . Cardwell, A. (2002), “Viral marketing, subliminal advertising”, ZD Net [email protected] Week, available at: www. nnex. com/? Marshall/viral/ref/20020401-Cardwell. asp (accessed 10 July 2008), . Collins, J. C. , Porras, J. I. (1994), Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies, HarperBusiness, New York, NY, . Constantinides, E. , Fountain, S. J. (2008), “Web 2. 0: conceptual foundations and marketing issues”, Journal of Direct, Data, and Digital Marketing Practice, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 231-44. Cova, B. (1997), “Community and consumption: towards a definition of the ‘linking value’ of product or services”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 3/4, pp. 97-316. Cova, B. , Cova, V. (2002), “Tribal marketing: the tribalisation of society and its impact on the conduct of marketing”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 5/6, pp. 595-620. Croft, M. (2008), “Consumers in control”, Marketing Week, Vol. 31 No. 14, pp. 29-30. Croteau, D. , Hoynes, W. (2003), Media/Society. Industries, Images, and Audiences, 3rd ed. , Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks, CA, . Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988), “The flow experience and its significance for human psychology”, in Csikszentmihalyi, M. , Csikszentmihalyi, I. S. Eds),Optimal Experience: Psychological Studies of Flow in Consciousness, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 15-35. Dawkins, R. (1976), The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press, Oxford, . Dilworth, D. (2009), “Ford debuts social media campaign for new Fiesta”, DM News, available at: www. dmnews. com/Ford-debuts-social-media-campaign-for-new-Fiesta/article/130445/ (accessed 2 May 2009), . Doz, Y. , Kosonen, M. (2007), Fast Strategy: How Strategic Agility Will Help You Stay Ahead of the Game, Wharton School Publishing, Harlow, . Edelman and Intelliseek (2005), Trust ‘MEdia’: How Real People are Finally Being Heard – The 1. Guide to the Blogosphere for Marketers & Company Stakeholders, available at: www. edelman. com/image/insights/content/ISwp_TrustMEdia_FINAL. pdf (accessed 1 September 2008), . Edgell, S. , Hetherington, K. (1996), “Introduction: consumption matters”, in Edgell, S. , Hetherington, K. , Warde, A. (Eds),Consumption Matters: The Production and Experience of Consumption, Wiley, Oxford, pp. 1-8. Ferguson, R. (2008), “Word of mouth and viral marketing: taking the temperature of the hottest trends in marketing”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 79-82. GamesBlog (2006), “New Sony viral marketing ploy angers consumers”, The Guardian, available at: www. guardian. co. uk/technology/gamesblog/2006/dec/11/newsonyviral (accessed 2 May 2009), . Gillin, P. (2007), The New Influencers: A Marketer’s Guide to the New Social Media, Quill Driver Books/Word Dancer Press, Sanger, CA, . Gogoi, P. (2006), “Wal-mart vs The Blogosphere”, BusinessWeek, available at: www. businessweek. com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/oct2006/db20061018_445917. htm (accessed 28 April 2009), . Graft, K. (2006), “Sony screws up: first


Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one? Check it out