Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Posterecreaprivacy su


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Posterecreaprivacy su

  1. 1. Audience management in social media: Affordances, cultural differences, and implications for privacy Sonja Utz ( & Jan-Hinrik Schmidt ( 1. Introduction 2. Conceptual background: Different audiences (cf. Schmidt, 2011)  Social media are blurring boundaries between Intended audience: Empirical audience: private and public communication those people the user (often those people who take notice of implicitly) regards as “proper content (vs. those who are inactive,  Users routinely have to deal with “unseen recipients” of self-disclosure or to whom content is filtered out) audiences” (Scheidt, 2006) or “imagined audiences” (Marwick/boyd, 2010) Addressed audience: Potential audience: those individuals or sub-groups a those people who might eventually  Technical characteristics of digital networked user is directly “targeting”, e.g. by take notice, e.g. due to specific communication – persistence, replicability, @-replying or posting a link “for all privacy settings scalability, and searchability (cf. boyd, 2008) – of you interested in music” complicate audience management  Intended/addressed audience will not necessarily be congruent with empirical/potential audience  RQ 1: How are audiences in social media composed?  RQ 1a: Are there differences between different services?  RQ 1b: Are there differences between cultures?3. Context and content of survey 4. Potential audience on SNS vs. Microblog 5. Potential vs. intended audience on SNS part of international and interdisciplinary 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 research network on “Privacy and Web 2.0” (cf. Trepte & Reinecke 2011) friends Online survey among n=1.934 social media other family members users from USA, UK, Netherlands, Germany, other family members China, Hongkong parents Field time: 15 Nov to 14 Dec 2011 colleagues ex-partner SNS users: 92.0 % (Facebook: 83.5 %, partner partner 5.1 %)  avg. contacts: 388.12 ( 884.4) colleagues ex-partner Microblogging actively: 24.1 % (Twitter: 67.9 %, Sina Weibo: 24.8 %) boss/teacher people Im interested in  avg. followers: 174.5 ( 478.5) Looped questions, personalized for services used friends parents  Potential audience: “Are the following people "online only" "online only" among your [contacts] / [followers]?”  Intended audience: “If you think of a typical people Im interested in boss/teacher [SNS status update] – who do you intend to address or reach with it?” celebrities celebrities  Empirical audience: “And who is usually reacting to your [SNS status update] , either strangers strangers online or offline?” SNS twitter potential audience intended audience6. Critical cases and cultural differencesIntended, but not empirical audience (% occurring / country) Empirical, but not intended audience (% occurring / country) American British German Dutch Chinese American British German Dutch Chinese Intended audience 100100 yes no 90 90 80 80  “too much Empirical Audience 70 70 yes attention” 60 60 50 50 40 40  30 “not enough 30 attention” 20 20 no 10 10 0 0 boss/teacher boss/teacher parents parents romantic other family romantic partner expartner members partner expartner strangers strangers "Online only" people Im interested in celebrities6. Conclusion 6. Literature differences potential audiences on SNS vs. microblogging services:  boyd, d. (2008): Taken out of context. American teen sociality in networked publics. Ph.D. Dissertation, Berkeley. Online: SNS: mostly friends & family  microblog: more distant & more diverse ties [12/10/2012] SNS: intended audience are primarily the friends, mismatch potential/empirical audience!  Marwick, A., & boyd, d. (2010). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined Problematic cases of audience management audience. New Media & Society, 13 (1), 114-133.  Scheidt, L. A. (2006). Adolescent diary weblogs and the unseen  intended, but not empirical (not enough attention): people I’m interested, partner and ex-partner audience. In D. Buckingham & R. Willett (Eds.), Digital Generations: Children, Young People, and New Media (pp. 193–  Chinese - celebrities & people I’m interested in => more strategic SNS use, less focus on close ties 210). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.  Schmidt, J.-H. (2011). (Micro)Blogs: Practices of Privacy  British don’t get enough attention from parents/family members Management. In S. Trepte & L. Reinecke (Eds.), Privacy Online (pp. 159-173), Heidelberg: Springer.  empirical, but not intended (too much attention): parents, people I know but never met personally,  Trepte, S., & Reinecke , L. (eds.), Privacy Online. Heidelberg: ex-partners & strangers Springer.  Dutch & Germans: more problematic cases in the interpersonal domain (parents, partner, ex), less so when it comes to strangers  Americans & British: most often reactions of boss/teacher This research has been supported by the “Young Scholar’s Network on Privacy & Web 2.0” (DFG TR 498/11-1)  Chinese: strangers & people I know but never met problematic!