Foundations and Structure of the Social Web

Abstract

The Social Web is postulated to be a new space in which people can interact, search for information, communicate, entertain themselves, plan their actions, make purchases and learn. In this way, the philosophy underlying this version of the Internet has brought about a changed the role of the users, who have become an active part of the content that they consume, forcing companies to adapt to this situation, which is defined by the adjective “social.”

The social media that comprise the Social Web have had a large following of investigators, practitioners and the general public. Also, their use has grown at a staggering rate in recent years, to the point that they constitute common societal tools. Virtual communities, virtual social networks, blogs, wikis, forums, microblogs, etc. have emerged, creating huge advantages for their users, among whom we count companies that can now deliver greater value to their clients. This leads to e-commerce developing to include social elements, which in turn leads to the emergence of social commerce, in which the consumer assumes a predominant role, becoming a co-creator and co-producer of the products that they themselves are going to consume (prosumer).

In this chapter the main aspects of the philosophy in which the Social Web is based will be established, the users’ main motivations and available tools will be summarized, then a visual map that summarizes the main social media will be presented. Finally, the principle characteristics of social commerce will be established.

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

3.1 Rationing of the Social Web

The concept of the Social Web, exactly as it is currently employed, emerged together with the Web 2.0 in 2004, dealing with two closely related concepts. However, if there are, in fact, sources that are used in an indistinguishable, here we prefer to deal with the Web 2.0 as a technology and the Social Web as a new Web model that resulted from the technological evolution of the Web. Thus, the concept of the Social Web would not be limited to Web 2.0 technology, and would instead transcend it, and encompass new technologies and applications that could enhance the new philosophy of the Social Web. O’Reilly (2005), creator of the concept, has stated that the Social Web is represented by a class of websites and applications in which the users’ participation drives the value created; the concept of community is at the heart of this philosophy and plays an important role in media, including Web 2.0 technology. Therefore, the user’s transition from being a mere consumer of information to playing the role of creating and modifying content and participating in the Web is fundamental.

The Web 2.0 was born out of Internet users reclaiming tools that enabled participation and horizontal communication between equals beyond email at the end of the twentieth century (De Salas, 2009). Consequently, the Web 2.0 was developed as a more social Web that permitted easier communication, entertainment and sharing in such a way that its users went from being consumers to content creators (Alarcón, Lorenzo, & Gómez, 2010). This new Internet entails a certain degree of danger for companies since users now play a hand in forming the information contained in the Internet; this could also lead to perceptual conflicts if, for example, the user has an image of a company, not necessarily negative, but different from the image that the company itself wants to project (Li & Bernoff, 2009). These evolving ways of viewing the Web and society in general cause different effects in each organization and industry. Nonetheless, they must be thought of with the changes that currently encompasses them in mind (Weber, 2007), which results from a union of the following aspects (Levy, 2009):

• The maturity of the Internet as a platform and its development in recent years.

• The huge volume of users and devices with access to the Internet.

• The development and improvement of software in relation to usability and interaction with other devices and systems.

This way of understanding the Web presents a series of basic principles, essentially related to knowledge management. The Web serves as a platform whose applications ought to be treated as unique channels and as services, and not simply as technological tools. With this in mind, the user becomes an active element, creating content in addition to consuming it. Now their role can include the composing, collecting, organizing and categorizing and/or aggregating content, which adds value to the information; so users will be also consuming the content created by others (Levy, 2009).

The Web has evolved into an intelligent system and a generator of intelligence, becoming a better and faster way to deliver flexible information to users, only being slowed by the users’ and business’ sense of insecurity and lack of control over the content (Barnes, Hackathon, Power, & Ring, 2008). Social phenomena have emerged such as Groundswell, through which people use technology to get what they need from other people instead of from companies (Li & Bernoff, 2009, p. 12). Value is created thanks to the collective contributions of all the Web’s participants; this is commonly labeled as “collective intelligence” or “wisdom of the masses.” This value is produced through the aggregation of many contributions of individual users, thanks to websites and applications that allow said participation. The elements that the systems of collective intelligence have in common are the following (Gruber, 2008):

• Content generated by the users that participate in the social process.

• Synergy between people and machines, creating new and useful information.

• Better results, improving as the number of users grows.

• Emerging consciousness, allowing the computer system knowledge that would not be possible just based on human contributions.

The social dimension of the Web is based in the integration of users and their conversations with all the other aspects of the Web. In some cases this means the activity on social networks or microblogs but in others it means bidirectional conversations on e-commerce sites, on corporate websites (Kaushik, 2011). Therefore, the adjective “social” stands out; this is true to such an extent that a large amount of tools that emerged as part of the Web 2.0 are commonly known as social software. Users participate actively in the creation of knowledge, due to their desire to connect with other people, with new interactive technologies and with the online economy (Li & Bernoff, 2009).

The Social Web is comprised of a collection of resources and free, online, user-controlled, interactive applications that expand the users’ experiences, knowledge and market power in social processes and in businesses by allowing the creation of networks used to efficiently create, disseminate and editing of information (Constantinides & Fountain, 2008). This is aided by the simplification of the languages used, with technology acting as the motor of change (Martorell, Solanas, & Sabaté, 2011). With this in mind, social software must be based in the following: supporting conversational interaction between individuals or groups, enabling social feedback that allows a group to value others’ contributions and having social networks to create and explicitly manage a digital expression of individuals’ personal relationships as well as helping them forge new ones (Boyd, 2003).

New social software, along with lowered costs of other barriers to entry such as computers, allows many smaller companies to offer innovation services to millions of online participants. These new kinds of software have led to a previously unseen capacity for sharing knowledge, since it was not previously possible to have a population the size of the users currently connected to the Internet (Gruber, 2008). The new challenge will be searching effectively when it is really necessary as the knowledge shared on the Web is storable, easy to share and searchable.

On the other hand, the interaction between users and applications on the Social Web is evolving into a new paradigm of learning. The Social Web’s technologies allow users to express their opinions online; its tools and applications make it possible for active online communities where users express their opinions to exist, often on websites where people with similar tastes, professions or interests, etc. gather (Meerman, 2007). Therefore, the concepts of community and of collective intelligence act as fundamental elements of both the Social Web and its supporting applications (Joyanes, 2009).

The innovative nature of the Social Web is not so much due to the changes of technological components, since the new applications are no more complex than their predecessors, but to the way that users collaborate with one another (Constantinides & Fountain, 2008). Specifically, participation is the key concept that distinguishes the Social Web from other Web versions (Martorell et al., 2011).

New business models have emerged based in services and small businesses with a small volume of products to take advantage of all the aspects derived from user-participation on the Social Web, e.g. changes to revenue models and switching from mass markets to individual consumers (Constantinides & Fountain, 2008). It is essential to understand that the Social Web is not another channel or medium for disseminating marketing messages, but rather a new way of understanding communication; online conversations are increasingly becoming part of real world conversations. Companies have created communities via content, powerful images and conversations. Additionally, they permit people who know one another as well as strangers to share their thoughts about products, offers, faults, etc. (Weber, 2007).

Both communication models and content distribution models have changed as a consequence of greater user participation. In earlier versions of the Web 2.0, there were creators, principally companies, that distributed their contents via a website for consumption by users. Now, many new content creators are emerging, principally media and users through blogs, which distribute the information. This entails the Web growing more complicated, requiring applications that add value by connecting sources of information and content (Kaushik, 2011). Weber (2007) points out that the Social Web is not just another channel of communication, but rather a complete platform that unifies all the other channels; the users and organizations that participate in it are content aggregators and not channels of communication. Dialogue is the foundation of new communication.

Within the Social Web, social media has come to play a fundamental role. The concept of social media refers to the activities, practices and behaviors exercised within communities where people meet online to share information, knowledge and opinions though media that permit conversation; they facilitate communication and interaction with members of a collective while also facilitating the creation of content, without the need for a high level of computer-expertise (Correa, Hinsley, & Gil de Zúñiga, 2010; Rivero & De Andrés, 2011; Safko & Brake, 2009). These media were developed with the primitive technological support available for Web 2.0 applications (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010).

Powell, Groves, and Dimos (2011) have pointed out that social media are maturing rapidly thanks to the evolution of their nuclear technology, to consumers adopting the format and to businesses incorporating the format into their strategic models. They explained that social media’s growth will continue and that the Internet is going to grow ever more important in people’s lives, in the global culture and in all types of companies, including relationships that they initiate between themselves.

3.2 Why Is the Social Web Used?

Using the Social Web’s tools could become the central activity for anyone who wants to buy, plan, learn or communicate. Even if it does not dominate our lives, it will become the first place to go in search of news, information, entertainment or fun (Weber, 2007).

From the users’ point of view, the main aspect that makes use of the Social Web worthwhile is the fact that they trust horizontal relationships with other similar people more than they do vertical relationships with organizations or people on different levels. This trust leads to consumers preferring to believe other consumers in their own communities, in which they co-create their products and experiences, only searching outside the community for information put forth by sources that are known to be trustworthy on the matter (Kotler, Kartajaya, & Setiawan, 2010). Social applications represent an advance not only in the range of personal relationships but also in the range of professional relationships (López, 2009). The ways in which consumers communicate amongst themselves, how they meet and exchange information, and how they obtain and consume products have changed dramatically over the last decade (Hennig-Thurau, Gwinner, Walsh, & GremleR, 2010). The new media that have appeared provide consumers many avenues for obtaining information and products (Kornfeld, 2009). In a way, consumers receive value from interacting with other people, with whom they share information. People search the Internet for responses to their problems in addition to services and products, positioning the Web as the first stop no matter the goal of their search (Meerman, 2007). Social technologies have made this even truer. They unite people through their devices, services, applications, networks and information and they create personal information systems, thanks in large part to their ubiquity and low cost (Pitt & Berthon, 2011). This bolsters the connectivity between users, who exchange all types of opinions about products and experiences. The systems of information created by the “prosumers” changes the role of their use; they have become content creators (Kotler et al., 2010). Also, as a consequence of the rapid growth in Internet usage, the methods for establishing new friendships have changed (Hui-Yi & Hung-Yuan, 2010).

Next, some issues that help explain the way in which social events on the Social Web unfold, evolve and grow enormously (Gladwell, 2000; Mason, 2008):

• The law of the few. There are not many people who are enthusiastic about spreading an idea. They are informed about ideas or new products, they are familiar with and speak about them with a lot of people and they have the ability to persuade others to try new products.

• The unification factor. Some small factors and aspects of an idea or product catch people’s attention and excite them about adopting these ideas or products.

• The power of context. The setting in which the idea or message is transmitted can influence how the message will be accepted. People are sensitive to small differences in their environments and small things can turn out to be important.

The existing literature dedicated to explaining why users employ the Social Web’s tools is still not very developed. Previous research has confirmed that models explaining attitudes (e.g., Theory of Planned Behaviour Theory, Theory of Reasoned Action) help in understanding the behaviors associated with social media use. Application of these theories has been useful in analyzing how new technologies are accepted and used (e.g., Technology Acceptance Model) (see Bigné, Curras, Ruiz, & Sanz, 2010). One topic of interest to researchers is why users give their information voluntarily to others on social media. The Darwinian models of reciprocity establishes that altruistic acts and cooperation only occur when they are helpful to an individual’s survival; i.e., the origins of sharing information with other users lies in reciprocity ultimately satisfying one’s own needs. This fact further reinforces an individual’s unique identity within a community (Palmer & Koening-Lewis, 2009).

Powell et al. (2011) have made use of Maslow’s hierarchy (pyramid) of needs in order to make sense of the motivations for using social media. This theory of human motivations originated initially in 1943, and has been used in many disciplines from business to education and technological sectors. This model is described as a pyramid that consists of five levels or categories of needs: physiological, security, social, recognition, self-esteem and, finally, self-actualization. However, this model has been criticized for its simplicity and for omitting elements that did not exist at the time. Authors such as Krasnova, Hildebrand, Günther, Kovrigin, and Nowobilska (2008) or Powell et al. (2011) found the model acceptable for analyzing Internet social networks; they believed the needs to affect and belong, along with peer-pressure, explained the high levels of participation. In general, the Social Web’s tools move between the intermediate and high levels of the hierarchy of needs, covering needs related to security and, to a greater extent, socialization, recognition, self-esteem and self-actualization. Specifically, of all the types of benefits that explain the use of social tools, several studies have concluded that socialization—the creation and maintenance of relationships—is the main motivation (Raacke & Bonds-Raacke, 2008; Subrahmanyam, Reich, Waechter, & Espinoza, 2008). Figure 3.1 shows various examples of the needs covered by different social media.

Fig. 3.1

Social needs within Maslow’s Pyramid of Needs and examples of the social tools that help to satisfy them. Source: Own elaboration based on Hopkins (2010) and Rutledge (2011)

Hart, Ridley, Taher, Sas, and Dix (2008) point to pleasure, curiosity, fun, self-expression, surprise and privacy as the main reasons that users need social tools. Jordan (2002) identified social pleasure as one of the four main categories of pleasure; seeking this pleasure largely explains the use of social tools by users.

Finally, in the same way that there exist diverse reasons for using the tools of the Social Web, their use also varies in accordance with personal characteristics such as experience, age, origin, etc.; these factors determine what tools are used and how they are used. In relation to this idea, Li and Bernoff (2009) created a system to classify a user’s profile based on social and technical aspects, establishing six groups: creators, critics, collectors, joiners, spectators and inactives. According to the classification, the most numerous profile types are the spectators and inactives, both being very common in European countries; the groups with the highest level of participation, mainly creators and critics, are mostly in Asian countries and make up less than a quarter.

3.3 Tools and Applications of the Social Web

There are a wide variety of tools used on the Social Web, each with unique characteristics and uses as well as differing degrees of ubiquity among users. In this section we analyze their types and characteristics.

Social software, which was previously talked about as a facet of the Social Web, is now seen as an emerging category of ICT that includes a range of applications and platforms designed to facilitate personal interactions through computer networks. Blogs, wikis, podcasting, social bookmarking services, recommendation systems, social networks, etc. form part of the social software base used in the current Social Web (Joyanes, 2009). All these social technologies and applications rely on peer-to-peer production based in open-source software and are enhanced by collective intelligence (O’Reilly, 2005).

Regarding the different types of social tools and applications, there are multiple classification systems but not one that is generally agreed upon. With the objective of synthesizing all these classification systems (Constantinides & Fountain, 2008; Li & Bernoff, 2009; Merodio, 2010; Safko & Brake, 2009; Tasner, 2010a; Weber, 2007), have proposed the following, primarily based around the most-used tools and applications of the Social Web:

• Virtual Communities

• Virtual Social Networks

• Blogs

• Microblogs

• Wikis

• Other social applications: RSS and syndication, forums, audio, video and photography, social bookmarking, reputation aggregators, photography and others (e.g. streaming, videogames, widgets, new exchange, etc.)

The use of these social tools is of interest to companies due to the wide array of potential benefits, into which we will delve deeper in Chap. 4 (Celaya, 2008; Lim, Zegarra, & Zegarra, 2011; Martínez-Priego, 2009; Safko & Brake, 2009):

• Obtaining information in real time about new ideas and products and concepts.

• Branding: a brand constructs the experiences through which the client lives with its products. Media or social tools become especially relevant channels for carrying out said experiences; they help to put together unique and valuable brands as well as to improve their reputation and influence.

• Customer Relationship Management (CRM): through the use of social media, organizations can manage contact with different target markets.

• Search Engine Optimization (SEO): actively participating in social media conversations results in a higher number of links directing users to the company’s website, which will positively affect its natural positioning in search engine results.

• The possibility to listen to markets: social tools afford companies the opportunity to listen more closely to their clients, thanks to the conversations they are having with them. This is useful, for example, to obtain information about new ideas and concepts for products in real time.

• Improving knowledge of clients: through these tools and processes, companies can understand exactly what their clients’ expectations are.

• Enabling participatory construction: The participation of clients and other users in the transformation of ideas will help to improve and create new products.

• Improving visibility: conversations, participation and voluntary interaction will place companies in the virtual world, naturally improving their search position and their position in the consumer’s mind.

• Gaining advertising efficiency: the use of social tools makes it possible to direct ads and their messages at smaller audiences while having higher rates of response of diffusion, making investment in advertising more efficient.

• Improving the internal culture of participation: searching for interaction with and growth of a company’s client base necessitates increased internal participation as well as corporate and dynamic participation.

• Augmenting the value of the experience: organizations must abandon the interrelation based in a message in order to deepen the fundamental relationship between the client and the company or between clients.

Finally, and prior to introducing the tools and applications previously commented upon, we would like to point out that any organization seeking success on the Social Web must be rooted in a foundation that is solid, coordinated and has a coherent Social Media Plan. To achieve this, designing a plan, commonly known as a Social Media Plan, is necessary. There are myriad recommendations and tips that academics and practitioners have offered on how to create, maintain and optimize social media use. For example, Silver (2009) put forth eighteen strategies for generating loyalty and passion in users; Funk (2013) has focused on giving examples of the best practices and platforms; Chaney (2012) explained how reality has changed for small businesses, how they could take advantage of social media and make use of the changes of WOM, the creation of products and the relationship with clients in said context; Success Sculpting Coach (2012) described, in language that is simple and easy to understand, how to use the principal social media to achieve a better reputation; finally, Safko and Brake (2009) highlighted through links, examples of better practices, interviews, etc., how to exploit the advantages of the different social media and how to plan for them.

3.3.1 Virtual Communities

Without getting into too much detail, since this will be the central topic of the next chapters, communities, in general, are groups of people that share social interactions, bonds and common space (Kozinets, 1999). This involves going beyond simple aggregators that allow temporal interactions between users.

Virtual communities are social associations that emerge when a group composed of a considerable number of people maintains public conversations for a considerable period of time, with sufficient bonds to become stable places of discussion on the Web, or with important support from ICT (De Moor & Weigand, 2007; Rheingold, 1994). Additionally, they have the goal of organizing and sharing certain types of content among their members (Constantinides & Fountain, 2008), that in turn have their common needs, orientations, behaviors, profiles and goals (Mayordomo, 2002).

This component of community, using the Web to share data, collaborate and exchange messages, has been the heart of the Internet since its inception (Wang, Yu, & Fesenmaier, 2002). Virtual communities began gaining importance in the 1990s, when they were presented as the center of Internet business models; they aided in collaboration and fostering relationships between companies and clients, modifying organizational and social structures (Kozinets, 1999). A virtual community must contain people interacting to try to satisfy their needs or working towards a common goal, politics that guide their interactions, as well as an electronic system that gives support and mediates social interaction (Preece, 2000).

Within virtual communities the dominant focus is relationships, which are more important that the actual geographic locations of the users (Koh & Kim, 2004; Wellman & Gulia, 1999). These relationships go beyond the exchange of information, as participants can be as emotionally involved in the online setting as in physical spaces (Brown & Duguid, 2000). On the other hand, offline communities are, to a large extent, more similar to traditional communities, such as family, friends, coworkers, classmates, neighbors, etc. than virtual communities, which are primarily composed of groups of users that interact and share information amongst one another via Internet platforms (Bishop, 2009). However, the two types of communities are not incompatible; virtual communities can complement relationships that exist outside of the Web, and can help in the search for relationships (Näsi, Räsänen, & Lehdonvirta, 2011; Whitty, 2008).

Communities can be classified according to their users and intentions (Vossen & Hagemann, 2007):

• Transaction-based communities establish processes for sales, purchases and auctions.

• Interest-based communities are centered around a topic of common interest to the users.

• Relationship-based communities establish a nucleus around lived experiences that are common among users.

• Fantasy communities are imaginary virtual settings that can be based around a game.

Wang et al. (2002) developed a conceptual model for virtual communities based on two concentric circles that represent the community. In the first circle we find the place of creation (the platform), the potential of the community and the group of symbols in which the community is based, meaning the basic components of the community. In the second circle, which encompasses the primary elements and the community itself, we find electronic systems, politics, goals and the people who interact and develop the community—in other words, the elements that define the community. This model groups people similarly to offline groups (cities, towns, etc.) as well as by other variables such as lifestyle, identity, etc. Additionally, they point out that their users’ needs that are met by participating in virtual communities are the same ones satisfied by belonging to offline communities, specifically the following: functional (e.g., transactions, information entertainment, value, etc.), psychological (identification, participation, belonging, creativity, etc.) and social (relationships, interactivity, trust, communication, etc.).

3.3.2 Virtual Social Networks

3.3.2.1 Overview

Internet social networks (e.g., Facebook, LinkedIn, Bebo, Google+, Friendster and many more) perfectly exemplify the Social Web, being the most recognizable and most frequently used tools (Merodio, 2010). Their appearance brought about an increase in social interactions by promoting them as well as facilitating their management. They are defined by being virtual communities in which the users create and manage profiles through which they maintain relationships, share information, create content, etc. These benefits explain the rapid proliferation of their use among individuals and organizations (Alarcón et al., 2010). It should be made clear, however, that while the majority of virtual communities can be put under the umbrella of social networks, not all social networks involve a community (Celaya, 2008).

Social networks are defined as a collection of individuals united by the relationships they have established with one another. They have existed since the beginning of society, since humans have social needs that are of utmost importance to people’s psychology (Barabasi, 2002). Furthermore, human nature makes humans behave dynamically and evolve over time (Zhou, Ding, & Finin, 2011).

Despite the fact that social networks based in the physical world have been studied extensively (see Coleman, 1990; Freeman, 1979; Milgram, 1967), the increase of their importance, use and growth on the Internet, specifically within new media, leads to new questions and research challenges (Zhou et al., 2011). Virtual or Internet social networks are places where people with common interests or worries meet to find others with similar interests, express themselves and/or make sales. They connect with one another via nodes, forming social complexes through which each user is connected (Constantinides & Fountain, 2008; Joyanes, 2009; Liberos, 2010; Weber, 2007), which also enables relationships with organizations (Preece, 2000; Wiertz & De Ruyter, 2007). Part of their success is derived from the combination of a series of emerging societal topics such as trust, Internet security measures, the union of the virtual and the real worlds, users’ generational characteristics, the concept of privacy, etc. (Palvia & Pancaro, 2010). In relation to these factors, the reason for their rapid growth is due to members providing and consuming the content, to hedonism, to free registration, to security options and control of various profile aspects, etc. Consequently, individuals find social networks more attractive and perceive them as less risky than other websites. This has made companies interested in the possible commercial, operational and strategic benefits they could gain, such as improved brand loyalty (Sledgianowski & Kulviwat, 2009).

To briefly analyze their evolution, virtual social networks originated 1995 with the creation of Classmates.com, the purpose of which was to find and contact old classmates. This website proved to be the starting point for the creation of other spaces that promoted friend networks like MySpace or Orkut (Valladares & Gacimartín, 2011). However, it was not until 2002 that virtual social networks truly began to take off (Caldevilla, 2009). At that point new social networks began appearing in rapid succession: MySpace (2003), Hi5 (2003), Second Life (2003), Facebook (2004), Orkut (2004), Flickr (2004), LinkedIn (2004), Youtube (2005), Ning (2005), Twitter (2006), Technocrati (2008), Goear (2008), Foursquare (2009), Pinterest (2010), Instagram (2010) and Google+ (2011).

Today’s virtual social networks differ greatly from their predecessors, due to how substantially the Internet and society have changed. Their capabilities have increased and their structures have been refined (Caldevilla, 2010), improving the user’s experience and the usability of the social network itself (Hart et al., 2008). These networks are used as complementary channels of communication as well as for leisure, the exchange of information, entertainment, creation and maintenance of relationships and even as a reward in the form of social recognition (Burgos & Cortés, 2009; Celaya, 2008). Consequently, the concept of classic social relationships and of investment of free time has been revolutionized. However, social networks have sparked a debate about privacy, the risks of these new relationships, the addiction of being connected with hundreds of friends, the decrease of productivity in the workplace, etc. (Caldevilla, 2010).

Additionally, mobile devices have allowed for increased use of private social networks. Mobile devices now allow connectivity anywhere and anytime and have added additional functions like creating friend lists, following friends’ geographical movements and developing customized maps and alerts that advise the user of updates on their networks (Corrocher, 2011).

Internet social networks can be divided into three basic types based on their specialization (Celaya, 2008; Joyanes, 2009):

• General networks have a high number of users that are very diverse and exhibit wildly varying behaviors. They allow users to create subgroups based on common interests; e.g. MySpace, Facebook, Google+ or Hi5.

• Specialized networks facilitate the finding of other people with similar tastes, interests or needs; e.g. Meetic, TripAdvisor, Flickr, etc.

• Professional networks are usually used to increase and manage the user’s network of professional contacts. Therefore, the number of participants tends to be fewer than in general networks. The principle reasons for joining are establishing professional contacts in order to change jobs, recovering contacts from previous jobs, sharing knowledge and searching for new channels of communication and marketing, e.g. LinkedIn, Xing y Viadeo.

The world’s most important virtual social networks are (in parentheses, % of Internet users) (GlobalWebIndex, 2013): Facebook (51 %), Google+ (26 %), Youtube (25 %), Twitter (22 %), Sina Weibo (21 %), QZone (21 %), Tencent (20 %), Tencent Weibo (19 %), Youku (12 %), Ren Ren (10 %), Tudou (9 %), LinkedIn (8 %), Kaixin (6 %), Pinterest (4 %) and 51.com (4 %). See also—Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 The most popular virtual social networks by continent/region

With this in mind, it is clear that Facebook is the dominant social network on a global level, boasting more than 12 billion users (GlobalWebIndex, 2013); after Facebook follow others such as Google+, Youtube or Twitter, which are mainly used in Asian countries. The use of local social networks stands out in China (Sina Weibo, Renren, Tencent QQ and Youku) and Russia (V Kontakte).

3.3.2.2 Social Networks and Business

From a business standpoint, virtual social networks hold the possibility of bringing together four aspects of business: human resources, marketing, sales and senior management (ONTSI, 2011). Social networks could act as a means of connection between employees with differing levels of experience and from different parts of the company (Vossen & Hagemann, 2007) and could also facilitate personal and professional relationships as well as relationships between companies, between public administrations and between all types of people and organizations (Joyanes, 2009). Specifically, the interest of marketing researchers lies in knowing how to understand, organize and manage social networks to brand-promotion ends (Okazaki, Rubio, & Campo, 2010).

Companies have various options for best exploiting their presence on social networks (Celaya, 2008):

• Creating a corporate profile, which can be seen as less intrusive by users since the choice of adding or not adding this profile to their contacts will be up to them. This option therefore becomes a way for the user to show their affinity for a certain brand.

• Forming a common-interest group with the objective of aggregating people interested in the company, product or service, trying to impart a brand-experience to the user. The main objective is to invite clients to start a relationship with the brand, speaking about it and recommending it (González & Aparici, 2008).

• Segmenting the market by a wide array of criteria from demographics (age or gender) to geo-targeting (who is speaking with whom and of what) to tailor offers to meet users’ specific needs.

• Carrying out surveys to, for example, obtain market information prior to a product’s release.

• Analyzing the user’s behavior, identifying who is the person or group that initiates WOM about certain products. Furthermore, it would be interesting to examine who turned out to be the first buyers and which users do not buy, yet recommend, the product.

• Improving customer service through continual updating of their profiles and the development of applications that improve the user’s experience (e.g., games) (Muñiz, 2010). Also, through ‘appvertising’ (Godoy, 2009) and the integration and synchronization of social networks with contact centers (Valladares & Gacimartín, 2011).

• Advertising online.

• Listening to conversations to determine how people are relating and who the leaders or groups are that can support the company’s communications (Ibáñez, Liege, Herrero, & Lostalé, 2011).

Companies must take advantage of their presence on social networks in order to establish bonds with clients, workers, collaborators, etc. through the creation of profiles on various social networks. A company’s presence on these platforms will play an important role in brand recognition and corporate reputation. Furthermore, this will prove to be of importance to brand enthusiasts, who in certain cases will share their positive feelings about the company with others in their networks of contacts and followers (Maciá & Gosende, 2010). Along these same lines, Muñiz (2010) highlights the attraction of social networks for brands, given that users spend more time on social networks than on other conventional media like television or print.

Companies’ participation in social networks is a key element in the economy of knowledge, given that transmitting knowledge facilitates coordination and helps to reduce conflicts (Torrent, 2009). Organizations, by means of these platforms, can interact with users, opening dialogue with them and building brand-value, which helps their brand on a global level in the long-term. Also, they offer opportunities for improving the performance of the organizations (Bulkley & Van Alstyne, 2007).

Of the main benefits companies see for participating in social networks, the following are the most noteworthy (González & Aparici, 2008):

• Brand management: Social tools make fluid communication between organizations and their clients or the general population possible. Accordingly, they can serve as an important tool for creating brand recognition, customer loyalty and even the perception that the brand is at the forefront of using new communication channels.

• Relationship marketing: This involves all participants. Social networks become channels of communication between the brand, various target audiences and consumers, which can create sense of trust and belonging within a community.

• Lowered marketing cost: A greater value is achieved relative to what is spent on marketing when an ad goes viral.

• Development of new products and actions: The information generated on the various social networks can help organizations develop new products or adapt their marketing strategies to the different needs of their target audiences.

• Attracting new client: Companies participating in social networks can help recruit new clients, who are more loyal when they find the company through the recommendation of another member.

Finally, it is essential to keep in mind that social networks also pose certain threats to companies. For one thing, they provide a channel for rapidly spreading fads, which can cause a displacement, reduction or boost for the brand (Li & Bernoff, 2009). For another, they provoke lasting negative feelings in members of the community, which can lead to users resenting the company’s intrusion into what they perceive to be their own community (Croft, 2008; Hitwise, 2008). Additionally, Meerman (2007) reminds us that any business that wants to meet its marketing goals through social networks must keep in mind that authenticity and transparency are of paramount importance in this setting.

3.3.3 Blogs

John Barrer coined the term “weblog” in 1997 from the term “log” (Muñiz, 2010). It is believed that the first blog was created on April 1st, 1997 when Dave Winer wrote the entry of “Scripting News,” a history blog (Celaya, 2008; Villanueva, Aced, & Armelini, 2007). In 1999, Pyra Labs created Blogger, a tool that allowed the free publication of text, images, etc. Blogger later merged with Google in February 2003, which led to the worldwide blog explosion (Celaya, 2008).

Blogs are personal or group journals that are comprised of “entries” or “posts” in which thoughts, links, photos, etc. are shared (Li & Bernoff, 2009), acting like a magazine with a newspapers characteristics, brief and in chronological order (Ortíz, 2008; Weber, 2007). Blogs are elements of conversation and publication, oftentimes trying to position themselves as agents of influence over their readers (Burgos & Cortés, 2009). To this end, they often specialize in a specific topic and the author or authors have the freedom to publish whatever they believe to be pertinent in an informal and personal style (Celaya, 2008; Maciá & Gosende, 2010; Sanagustín, 2009). Furthermore, some companies or departments create) corporate blogs as their own communication channels (Meerman, 2007). One of the keys of blogs’ success is the ease of use and efficiency of their supporting technologies, which allow anyone to create a professional-looking blog in very little time (Constantinides & Fountain, 2008; Villanueva et al., 2007).

The social nature of blogs is supported by their collective creation and their open content. For this reason they mesh well with the changes that have been produced in society as a consequence of Social Web technologies. This fit allowed the emergence of what is known as “blog culture” (Fumero, Roca, & Sáez, 2007). Blog authors interact by reading, citing and commenting on one another’s blogs. This web of links between blogs creates the ‘blogosphere’ (Li & Bernoff, 2009).

The methods of creating and maintaining blogs are varied. Thus, a blog’s topic can be general or focused, the blog can be free or can cost money and can allow or not allow comments and opinions. This permits the content to be enriched through the opinions of users and added links (Muñiz, 2010). However, many editors tend to reserve the right to eliminate inappropriate comments (Meerman, 2007).

There is a wealth of opinion about how to classify the different types of blogs, although authors generally fit into the following types (Burgos & Cortés, 2009; Celaya, 2008; Maciá & Gosende, 2010; Sanagustín, 2009):

• Personal: the authors of these blogs share their most personal opinions through their articles, complementing them with photos and videos related to their day-to-day life. Their most intimate circle of friends and family reads these blogs.

• Themed/professional: these blogs are managed by people that write in a personal style but with professional goals about topics within their realm of specialties. Trendsetters are found on this type of blog.

• Corporate: these are used as a means of communication. They are common tools in corporate websites due to their simplicity, affordability and ability to permit personal communication of a corporate opinion or message to the public (Joyanes, 2009). They take advantage of the viral nature of content, which is easily distributed through social media (Singh, Veron-Jackson, & Cullinane, 2008), although the risk of losing control of the message does exist (Li & Bernoff, 2009). This category can be broken down into the following subcategories (Celaya, 2008; Rosen & Phillips, 2011):

• External corporate blogs: These are used to maintain conversations with clients, associates, suppliers or competitors. Within this category one can find:

• Sales/marketing blogs for products (certain products that need the support of direct communication to be correctly positioned in the market); management team blogs (generally updated by members of the management team to impart the business with a new personality that is more in line with the client and more attentive to their needs); customer service blogs.

• Other blog classifications (Orihuela, 2006): brand blogs (used to introduce, change or strengthen a brand); workers’ blogs (created and directed by employees, and recognized by the company as such); event blogs (dedicated to preparing, launching and developing of an event; also used to create an online record of an event); industry blogs (organizations promote or sponsor a niche blog aimed at their market sector, focusing on the niche topic and not on the business itself).

• Internal corporate blogs: These are used to establish internal relationships with the goal of involving all the members of the organization in the communication strategy. These blogs have one of two focuses: knowledge (designed so that one or several experts share their knowledge internally) or corporate (designed to create and maintain a corporate culture through the creation and development of shared projects).

The main platforms for editing and creating blogs are Wordpress, Blogger and Tumblr, which are all free.

3.3.4 Microblogs or Nanoblogging

Microblogging, or the use of microblogs, constitutes a specific type of blog. Microblogs involve short posts about what is happening in the author’s life or sharing information that is relevant for the user (Muñiz, 2010). In order to read what other users share, one must follow the poster; followers can then read each post. Sites like Twitter, Pownce and Jaiku allow people to communicate with their networks in real time in a very abbreviated format (Harris & Rae, 2009).

The principle microblogging platforms emerged in 2006 with channels of microcommunication like Twitter, Pownce, Pluk, Twitxr, Sina Weibo, etc. and have revolutionized personal communication (Celaya, 2008; Merodio, 2010). All of them are based around a form of communication or publication that consists in sending short text messages through tools that were specifically created for this purpose. Their functions include to explain what is happening in a specific moment, to share information with other users or to post links to other websites (Burgos & Cortés, 2009) while taking advantage of the fact that they can be read simultaneously by thousands of people that the sender may or may not know (Celaya, 2008).

Microblogging applications have several characteristics in common: They have a maximum length of 140 characters; it is not necessary to download a program to one’s computer or devise to use them; they allow users to answer messages written by other users; messages from a specific user can be viewed together; they provide alternatives to the web for posting messages and following others’ messages (Burgos & Cortés, 2009). Of all the platforms, Twitter is the most globally successful. It is even used by companies for commercial ends and to improve their brand image, to interact with clients, to identify users’ complaints and to participate in online conversations (Fischer & Reuber, 2011). The most prevalent microblogging sites are currently Twitter (on a global level) and Sina Weibo and Tencent in China.

3.3.5 Wikis

Wikis (from “wiki,” a Hawaiian word that means fast) are collaborative applications comprised of a collection of hypertext websites, each of which can be visited by anyone at any time (Burgos & Cortés, 2009). Therefore, wikis are sites where multiple people participate collaboratively creating and maintaining content in the format of text or images (Li & Bernoff, 2009).

Wikis are presented as websites that permit users to upload, delete or edit their content (Meerman, 2007). Their main characteristics are the following: they are open platforms that allow anyone to access the content; there is no division between the consumer and the author of content, anyone can play either or both roles; they are very easy to use (Burgos & Cortés, 2009). Out of all the wikis, the most commonly used and known is Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia based on the idea that an entry can be aggregated and corrected by any user (Celaya, 2008; O’Reilly, 2005).

The way that users sustain their relationships is based on each page’s “comment page,” which allows collaborators to debate which content will be published (Li & Bernoff, 2009). This, along with the participatory nature of the users in the publication process, is the main threat that wikis pose to businesses. As a result of being well known and commonly used, they have become powerful tools for their users; the masses determine the content, which can dictate the image of a company. Companies can use this tool in two different ways (Burgos & Cortés, 2009): As internal collaborative settings. Through the use of a wiki, a company can enjoy a space where members of their organization can share information for the purpose of dissemination or editing; (2) As external collaborative settings. Through wikis, companies initiate actions directly related to customer service, the testing and development of products, community building and the exchange of knowledge.

In any case, while wikis are not the best tools for managing a company’s internal and/or external conversations, they are useful for managing a company’s image cheaply and efficiently (Celaya, 2008).

3.3.6 Other Social Applications

3.3.6.1 RSS (Really Simple Syndication)

Web syndication allows users to aggregate content in multiple formats, from sources of their choosing. Syndication systems act as connection elements for users of the Social Web; this means that subscribing to an RSS service does not involve social activity but does help social activities flow smoothly (Li & Bernoff, 2009). These applications allow users to completely customize the content of the website that they wish to visit (Constantinides & Fountain, 2008).

Despite the fact that the use of the RSS format does not directly affect businesses, it does accelerate the rate at which users consume content. This strengthens the effects of other applications, in some cases uncontrollably and dangerously, for businesses (Li & Bernoff, 2009). Examples of RSS readers are FeedDemon, Feedly and Google Reader.

3.3.6.2 Forums and Opinions

Forums are places in which ideas and information, normally related to a specific topic or special interest, are shared (Constantinides & Fountain, 2008). They were originally conceived of as a means for experts of a specific field to share their knowledge or as a tool to enable informative meetings. Forums enable the exchange of information, assessments and opinions; they are, to a certain extent, bidirectional, as one can respond to an asked question or comment on other users’ posts (ONTSI, 2011).

There are many diverse types of discussion forums on the Internet. Usually, individuals, once registered as users, enter and publish content or respond to other users’ questions. Discussion forums are basically conversations where people can respond to one another online.

Prior to the existence of forums in which users participated, companies only had to worry about the influence of experts; now any buyer with problems can complain (Meerman, 2007). Forums have evolved into virtual spaces in which consumers can have a dialogue about products or brands, which can just as easily be negative or positive. Therefore, it is key that organizations react to dissatisfaction both rapidly and honestly (Meerman, 2007). It is no longer sufficient to influence experts so that they share a favorable opinion; companies now have to analyze various conversations in order to be able to counteract the effects that can be triggered by their clients’ criticism. In this sense, it is necessary to avoid what is known as the “Streisand effect,” meaning situations in which the intent to correct or erase content from a specific forum results in its widespread dissemination (Li & Bernoff, 2009).

Furthermore, corporations can analyze the dialogues produced in discussion forums to obtain information about consumers’ doubts, answer their requests for help and respond to their queries (Mayordomo, 2002).

3.3.6.3 Audio, Video and Pictures

Audio on the Web is nothing new as it has been available from the web’s earliest incarnations. In the beginning, audio files were not widely used, due to the difficulty of identifying them, the impossibility of searching for them and the fact that playing them was complicated; the result was that the majority of audio files were long and the users had no idea what they contained without listening to them in their entireties (Meerman, 2007). But this soon changed. The most common audio format found on the Internet is the podcast. The advent of allowed for the syndication of audio or video files designed to be downloaded by the user to be listened to whenever he or she wants (Safko & Brake, 2009; Sanagustín, 2009). Companies have various resources in their communication, training and consulting departments to create and make use of podcasts (Meerman, 2007), to ends of using them as personal or corporate promotional tools, product presentations, conferences, seminars and other activities (Joyanes, 2009).

Similar to audio files, publishing video consists of locating them on websites or designing original platforms to view them. Publishing videos has become one of the cornerstones of the Social Web (Celaya, 2008). YouTube is the most noteworthy platform. It was founded in February 2005 and acquired by Google a year later.

Additionally, there are social platforms designed for the exchange of all types of image files, which offer a unique opportunity to convey the value and the attributes of a brand or specific product through visual communication. These websites offer users the free service of housing, labeling and sharing images that they have created themselves or that they have found on the Social Web (Celaya, 2008; Safko & Brake, 2009).

Among audio platforms we find iTunes, SoundCloud and Voocaroo. In video format, YouTube is by far the most used platform; other examples are: Dailymotion, Viadeo, Tudou and Youku. In photography, we find applications and networks such as Instagram, Flickr, Picasa and Pinterest.

3.3.6.4 Social Bookmarking

Social bookmarking sites offer tools that permit users to present, store, share and label web pages or important information available on the Internet. The majority of social bookmarking websites offer the same fundamental characteristics: posts, commentaries, the ability to label, classify or categorize information, etc. (Corrocher, 2011; Joyanes, 2009). Their links and labels form part of the community and are available for other users to browse (Joyanes, 2009).

The social aspect emerges when they are used to share saved content (through tags) in such a way that anyone can access them; people, not automatic algorithms, do the tagging (Burgos & Cortés, 2009). Furthermore, they allow grading, commenting, importing and exporting, adding notes, revising, linking through emails, sending automatic notifications, requesting subscriptions, annotating and creating groups and social networks (Corrocher, 2011).

Additionally, they give the option of labeling information through a system of folksonomy (Celaya, 2008). This is a collaborative classification style that uses keywords that are freely chosen and frequently referred to as tags. Tagging content allows for multiple associations, more in line with how the human brain categorizes items instead of using rigid categories (O’Reilly, 2005).

The social bookmarking websites with the most traffic are (Corrocher, 2011; Joyanes, 2009; Kim et al., 2010): Delicious, Digg, CiteUlike, Cannotea, StumbleUpon, Yahoo Buzz, Reddit and Technorati.

3.3.6.5 Reputation Aggregators

Reputation aggregators are search engines that can help companies promote their websites, blogs or links with Internet users. These search engines aggregate pages that offer the best product or service and usually order them according to their reputation (Weber, 2007). The main reputation aggregators are (Merodio, 2010): Google, MetaTube, Yahoo, Ask and Bing.

The site provides rankings of content and of websites. In this way, they prove to be indispensable for users finding the content they are searching for. People use these sites to decide which content they want or need when they are prepared, for example, to buy or to search for study centers, statistics, information etc.

3.3.6.6 Other Social Applications

There are a huge number of different social applications beyond those that have already been discussed. Among them some standouts are: widgets, news exchange tools, viewing streaming video and online games and videogames.

Widgets are mini-applications that connect to the Internet with a specific function. They are presented as small files or documents that are executed by the widgets’ engine (Li & Bernoff, 2009; Maciá & Gosende, 2010). Widgets have a social component due to how they are spread, since they tend to have a button that allows others to download and install them on their pages (Li & Bernoff, 2009). Therefore, the widget is like a piece of code that the users can insert into their webpage, with or without a social function, that normally assumes a graphic form and functions like a mini application or program (Burgos & Cortés, 2009). The widget allows users to receive content in various formats—text, images, audio or video—and they can interact, view or share it, helping it to spread virally (Sanagustín, 2009). Its usefulness is rooted in how it makes commonly used functions easier to access and how it provides visual information (Maciá & Gosende, 2010). Widgets come in many types with different specialties, from schedulers to PC games and mobile devices (Maciá & Gosende, 2010).

News exchange is another social tool rooted in the idea that community members vote for and comment on news articles that have already been published in various places on the Internet (Celaya, 2008). Some examples of news aggregators are Digg, Reddit, Mister Wong, Technorati, Yelp, Wikio and CoRank.

Finally, streaming platforms where users view, upload and share videos without the need to download them (e.g., TalkShoe, ShoutCast, Live 365, Justin.tv, BlogTalkRadio) as well as game and videogame tools that allow users to interact with one another in virtual worlds or through web-based games (e.g., World of Warcraft, Everquest, Halo3, Entropia Universe) are other applications that permit users to interact. The last few years have shown a rise in companies using them for commercial and advertising purposes.

3.4 Visual Map of the Social Web’s Tools and Applications

With the objective of illuminating the principle categories and components of the Social Web as well as its relationships and objectives, we have created a visual map (see Fig. 3.2). To do this, we have examined different classification systems that have been proposed over the past few years. As a reference, we have used the web map proposed by O’Reilly (2005), which specifies the defining elements of companies’ strategic positioning on the Social Web and their main responsibilities. We have provided examples of social platforms that have been tailored to the web and have described their main characteristics and components.

Fig. 3.2

Visual map of the Social Web. Source: own elaboration

Other authors have proposed different visual maps. For example, Carter (2008) came up with a classification system based on four main types of Social Web applications: games (e.g., Farmville); social networks, divided into virtual communities (e.g., Facebook) and virtual worlds (e.g., Second Life); sharing (e.g., Wikipedia, Youtube, etc.); and blogs (e.g., Tumblr, Twitter, etc.). Hayes and Papworth (2008) divided their system into five categories: relating (Facebook, Twitter, Blogger, etc.); creating (Flickr, Youtube, WordPress, etc.); discussing/arguing (Digg, etc.); promoting (Ustream, MySpace, etc.); and measuring (Google, etc.).

Foundation Orange and Internality (2007) as well as The Conversation Prism (2012) established relationship and classification maps of social applications, based primarily on the applications’ purposes and functions.

Based on these contributions, together with classification systems proposed by other sources (see Constantinides & Fountain, 2008; Li & Bernoff, 2009; Safko & Brake, 2009; Tasner, 2010a; Weber, 2007), we have designed a visual map that represents the Social Web’s distinct applications and tools, their shared characteristics and their distinctive features in comparison with other versions of the Web.

3.5 Social Commerce

3.5.1 What Is Social Commerce? A Conceptualization

Social media has created opportunities for new models of electronic commerce, falling under the umbrella of “social commerce.” Social commerce was birthed from the use of the Social Web technologies discussed earlier and their associated behaviors such as word-of-mouth and value co-creation with the purpose of buying/selling products. This led to the emergence of a new platform for entrepreneurship and innovation, a fact that is considered to be one of the marketing topics that will be most important in the future (Liang & Turban, 2011).

The resulting revolution, due to the emergence and expansion of social media, has helped e-commerce evolve and innovate rapidly (Zhang, Zhou, & Zimmermann, 2013), becoming increasingly social (Huang & Benyoucef, 2013; Liang & Turban, 2011). Social commerce has permitted companies to evolve from being centered around the products that they are offering to being focused on social aspects and on the consumer (Huang & Benyoucef, 2013; Wigand, Benjamin, & Birkland, 2008). Now businesses are beginning to be able to establish better business strategies based on consumers’ shopping experiences and expectations (Constantinides & Fountain, 2008). Practicing social commerce allows consumers to improve their social relationships (Liang, Ho, Li, & Turban, 2011), to improve their relationships with companies by having more social and interactive relationships with them (Huang & Benyoucef, 2013) and to make the decision to buy more easily (Constantinides & Fountain, 2008; Huang & Benyoucef, 2013).

Therefore, as Huang and Benyoucef (2013) have pointed out, social commerce creates new ways to increase consumer participation, promote their relationships and create economic value. With such objectives, hundreds of new commercial initiatives were born in the area of social commerce, rapidly advancing through the stages of life for technologies (buzz, experimentation, adoption and maturity) (Liang & Turban, 2011).

Social commerce is a multifaceted phenomenon that encompasses multiple disciplines (Gonçalves & Zhang, 2013) such as: strategic analysis, consumer analysis, organizational behavior, virtual social networks, analytical techniques, system design, business practices, research methodology and value creation (Zhou, Zhang, & Zimmermann, 2013). However, despite the amount of attention it is receiving, due to the newness of the topic, there is not yet an agreed upon definition for social commerce. To date, there has been little published on the matter or on the social commerce platform designs (Huang & Benyoucef, 2013). Next, some interesting attempts at conceptualizing social commerce are presented.

Basically, social commerce is a form of commerce that transpires through social media and the services of virtual social networks (Gonçalves & Zhang, 2013; Liang & Turban, 2011). It could be seen as a type of e-commerce that uses social media (Kim & Srivastava, 2007; Liang & Turban, 2011) in transactions as well as in the rest of its services, allowing for social interactions and user-generated content.

Qualman (2010) believes that the concept of social commerce was born in 2006, when it was named for the first time by Rohit Bhargava. Liang and Turban (2011) and Huang and Benyoucef (2013) have highlighted Stephen and Toubia’s (2010) definition: a form of Internet-based social media in which people actively participate in the marketing and sale of products and services in online markets and communities. There is, therefore, a power shift from companies to consumers. Zhang et al. (2013) have established that social commerce involves the union of four components:

• 1. Commercial activities like marketing, selling, purchasing, etc. (business component).

• 2. Social media, including those that connect markets and communities online and offline (technology component).

• 3. Representative members of communities, venders, buyers, etc. (human component).

• 4. Information about products and services (information component).

Huang and Benyoucef (2013, p. 247) define social commerce as:

An Internet-based commercial application, leveraging social media and Web 2.0 technologies which support social interaction and user generated content in order to assist consumers in their decision making and acquisition of products and services within online marketplaces and communities.

Other authors’ (e.g., Constantinides, Romero, & Boria, 2008; Michaelidou, Siamagka, & Christodoulides, 2011; Swamynathan, Wilsom, Boe, Almeroth, & Zhao, 2008) contributions suggest that social commerce helps: to improve a company’s reputation, to strengthen the relationships they have with their clients, to identify business opportunities, to support brand and product development, to increase track to the company’s website, to offer higher quality products, to predict the market’s tendencies and to maximize the return on marketing investments. Thus, social commerce goes beyond virtual social networks, and is a source of economic value (Stephen & Toubia, 2010).

In general, most definitions of social commerce take into account the ideas of community participation and its socioeconomic impact on e-commerce. Social commerce is the most social, innovate and collaborative means of doing business (Parise & Guinan, 2008); it is transforming e-commerce into something that is more social and user-centric (Wigand et al., 2008).

Various authors (e.g. Grange & Benbasat, 2010; Jascanu, Jascanu, & Nicolau, 2007; Leitner, Grechenig, Krishnamurthy, & Isaias, 2007; Shen & Eder, 2011) highlight a series of characteristic elements of social commerce that are useful for consumers like: wish lists, chat options, forums, geo-tagging, geo-locators, blogs, podcasts, virtual social networks, etc.

Finally, the research into social commerce deals with diverse topics like: the changes produced (e.g. Serrano & Torres, 2010) and competition (e.g. Lee, De Wester, & Park, 2008) of small and medium companies; the impact of competition, relationships with clients, products and services offered and the growth of benefits (e.g. Zhou et al., 2013); consumer’s needs with respect to social commerce (e.g. Wigand et al., 2008); online shopping and its effects on behavior (e.g. Grange & Benbasat, 2010); changes to the decision-to-buy process (e.g. Kim & Srivastava, 2007); motivational aspects of social commerce and its consequences (e.g. Kang & Park-Poaps, 2011); the design of social commerce platforms (e.g. Huang & Benyoucef, 2013); its main components (e.g. Grange & Benbasat, 2010; Jascanu et al., 2007; Leitner et al., 2007; Shen & Eder, 2011); the barriers to social commerce (e.g. Michaelidou et al., 2011; Zhou et al., 2013); the creation of a framework of study (e.g. Liang & Turban, 2011; Wang & Zhang, 2012; Zhou et al., 2013) or its use (Gonçalves & Zhang, 2013).

3.5.2 Social Commerce vs. e-Commerce

The definitions and components of social commerce seen up to now could lead one to believe that it is nothing more than an evolution of e-commerce applied to social media (Huang & Benyoucef, 2013; Wang & Zhang, 2012). However, social commerce is more than just the union of e-commerce and social media (Zhou et al., 2013).

Gonçalves and Zhang (2013) proposed a model for the study of e-commerce that focuses on the transactional, relational and social sides of marketing. According to their model, e-commerce can be classified by the structures and technologies applied to transactions (buying and selling occurs), relationships (lasting relationships with companies are built and maintained) and sociality (consumers have the option to interact with others). In this way, social commerce would be e-commerce but with a structure and purposed designed with the objective of helping the consumer to improve their consumption experience through socialization with other consumers. On the other hand, Huang and Benyoucef (2013) have pointed out the differences between commerce and social commerce, which can be described by the following:

• The business’s objectives: e-commerce is focused on maximizing efficiency with search strategies, one-click sales, catalogues and recommendations based on past purchases, while social commerce is based on social objectives, networks, collaboration and information, leaving sales as a secondary goal.

• The consumer’s connection: in e-commerce the consumer interacts with the platform, while in social commerce they can have conversations with other consumers.

• Interaction with the System: e-commerce offers the consumer navigation that lacks information from other consumers, compared with social commerce, which allows consumers to express themselves and share their information with other users and with the company.

Additionally, social commerce could be confused with social shopping or collaborative shopping, to which it is closely related, although their component pieces distinguish them. Social commerce would include shoppers, vendors and the platforms that enable the activities, while the other only include the shoppers (Gonçalves & Zhang, 2013; Rad & Benyoucef, 2011).

There are many success stories about the implementation of social commerce by large companies (e.g. Coca-Cola, Starbucks, etc.) and service providers (banks and airlines), but there are also stories of massive failures (e.g. Wal-Mart), which caused friction with consumers and did not provide a satisfactory return on their investment (Liang & Turban, 2011). In light of these successes and failures, studies of models that explain how to design social commerce platforms are especially interesting. Huang and Benyoucef (2013) designed a model of the characteristics of social commerce platforms, based on Fisher’s (2010) model, that is useful for designing social applications. They have discovered that the basic elements fit into four levels, three of which—individual, conversation and community—are similar to those presented in Fisher’s model, plus a fourth—commerce. Through these levels, established in this order, they expose the differences between e-commerce and social commerce, as well as between social commerce and online communities.

• Individual level: users interact with the virtual community in order to learn about themselves and enjoy the community (personal profile, activity profile, etc.).

• Conversation level: people express themselves through comments and exchanges with other users, expanding user-generated content and collective intelligence (topic focus, content creation, etc.).

• Community level: strong conversation-based relationships are created (connection, community support, etc.).

• Commerce level: makes it possible to do business in an already-established community (group purchase, authority, reciprocity, etc.). Therefore, social commerce helps the existing relationships between community members.

Thus, e-commerce is based on the individual level and social commerce is community conversation based. Therefore, the four layers or levels represent social commerce. Furthermore, Huang and Benyoucef (2013) offer specific recommendations to companies: they need to identify applications and their current capabilities in both e-commerce and in social media; additionally, they must decide which developmental path their social commerce strategy is going to take (i.e., e-commerce-based or social media-based); if they have an e-commerce operation, they should complement both the “individual” and “commerce” layers; finally, they should implement the “community” and “conversation” layers.

Social commerce allows businesses to reach consumers around the globe more efficiently by integrating user-generated content into product displays; therefore, consumers can exchange information about products and services and get advice from other users. The model that Wang and Zhang (2012) proposed to understand and analyze the distinct facets of social commerce is noteworthy (Zhou et al., 2013). Such a model gives a lot of importance to people through its capacity for socialization and commerce and also to information in all its stages (creation, sharing, storage, etc.). One is able to understand the multidisciplinary components of social commerce, including technology and business. Each element is connected with the others, showing interdependence and mutual influence.

However, Zhou et al. (2013) consider the model useful for understanding social commerce but not for understanding the key to its success. To better understand this, they have connected each factor to a characteristic related to its strategic fit, which helps envision why some practices of social commerce are successful while others are not. Pöyry, Parvinen, and Malmivaara (2013) describe two key elements of Zhang et al. (2013) model. On one hand, the interdependencies between businesses and people that are such that the mere presence of companies on social media does not guarantee their success; they should create value for the client and, as a consequence, increase the benefits to the company; their presence provides companies the opportunity to know their users’ motivations and locations. On the other, the central role of information, thanks to its crucial role in the search for products, is such that companies must create content that attracts consumers.

Liang and Turban (2011), with the goal of guiding other researchers and professionals, have offered another research framework for social commerce. Such a framework allows researchers to classify themes, distinguish lines of research, compare and synthesize the existing literature and identify new potential lines of research. These authors distinguish between social commerce’s two basic platform configurations. Depending on the platform used, they can be: (1) virtual social networks that can serve as vessels for advertisements and transactions; and (2) e-commerce platforms, which can include social elements to exploit their advantages. Therefore, they have focused their interest on two elements that they consider fundamental for social commerce: social media and commercial activities. The latter are structured in four groups (Liang & Turban, 2011): Social Media Marketing (CRM social, viral marketing, direct sales, video marketing, etc.); business administration (recruitment of human resources, open innovation, product development, etc.); technology, support and integration (security, platform integration, social media optimization, etc.); and administration and organization (social media planning, globalization, privacy, etc.).

There are four other elements of interest to academic researchers that are also included in this model: research themes and theoretical foundations related to the paradigms on which researchers base their work; and outcome measures and research methods, which represent research goals, referred to by authors as enrichment elements. All these elements help to classify and guide social commerce research.

Finally, according to Gonçalves and Zhang’s (2013) model, the type of marketing that regularly takes place in the e-commerce context has evolved, going from transactional to relational and finally to social. The emergence of Social Media Marketing, which deals with identifying and exploiting the opportunities afforded by the interaction between consumers on social media, was previously discussed. Also there is trust in the relationship and agreement between consumers and companies, which allows spaces to exist in which brand knowledge is strengthened, potential clients are attracted and the brand-related user-generated content is exploited (Evans & Mckee, 2010; Weber, 2007). Therefore, the companies’ revenue models are evolving from transactional to relational customer orientation (either B2C or B2B), while also considering the typical C2C interactions fostered by social commerce; customers are going from mere buyers of products to an element of value-creation for companies (Gonçalves & Zhang, 2013). Social commerce will continue to evolve rapidly in the coming years, advancing in ICT function, in order to meet consumers’ demands, in the benefits reaped from user-generated content and in companies’ ability to respond to this situation (Zhou et al., 2013).