Word of mouth on the web

centercenterqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmWord of mouth on the WebA psychological and sociological research for more effective online campaigns1/14/2010 By Dimitris Mitsopoulos, Ma Marketing with Advertising2009 Table of Contents TOC quot;
1-3quot;
1.Introduction PAGEREF _Toc251898938 22.The Internet and the online capitals PAGEREF _Toc251898939 32.1 Evolution of the Net PAGEREF _Toc251898940 32.2 The WEB 2.0 Era PAGEREF _Toc251898941 53.First Generation Online communities PAGEREF _Toc251898942 73.1 Online communication and anonymity PAGEREF _Toc251898943 83.2 Online Communities as social capitals PAGEREF _Toc251898944 103.3 Identity Orientation – The focus of ritual activities PAGEREF _Toc251898945 114.Second Generation Online Capitals PAGEREF _Toc251898946 144.1 Media YouCracy vs. Media Feudalism PAGEREF _Toc251898947 155.Third Generation online capitals PAGEREF _Toc251898948 205.1 The Facebook and YouTube Era PAGEREF _Toc251898956 20 5.2 CyberGens PAGEREF _Toc251898957 275.3 Generation Reveal PAGEREF _Toc251898960 285.4 Connecting with the CyberGens - key trends PAGEREF _Toc251898961 295.5 Implications for brands PAGEREF _Toc251898966 306.Greek Users of Online Social Media Sites PAGEREF _Toc251898967 316.2 They always have an opinion and they express it. PAGEREF _Toc251898968 327.Advertising in Social Networking PAGEREF _Toc251898969 338.Word of mouth on the Web PAGEREF _Toc251898970 359.Viral Advertising PAGEREF _Toc251898971 4210.Research about viral as an outcome/viral as an influencer PAGEREF _Toc251898972 4510.1 Statistical Findings PAGEREF _Toc251898973 4710.2 Statistical conclusions PAGEREF _Toc251898974 7411. Viral advertising in the Greek market PAGEREF _Toc251898975 7512. Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc251898976 7713. References PAGEREF _Toc251898977 7713.1 Books PAGEREF _Toc251898978 7713.2 Papers PAGEREF _Toc251898984 7713.3 Internet PAGEREF _Toc251898985 79Appendix A PAGEREF _Toc251898986 81 Introduction This paper deals with the issue of electronic word of mouth (e-WOM or word of mouse), which is one of the new trends nowadays. As we shall see later, a lot of researches have been made for the importance of WOM and the affect it has on people. Furthermore, world of mouth is something that WEB 2.0 and its interactivity can be offered, so as one user cab share information with the others. No academic research has been made in Greece, despite that e-WOM is applicable in many areas. Brands and advertisers use the computer mediated technologies to create brand awareness. Despite the heavy academic articles in countries like USA and China, no serious academic research has been made in Greece, with the question to arise of whether this data are in fact applicable to Greek internet users. This paper, hence, will take an important player of online word – of – mouth, viral advertising, and will search how this technique affects and influences the Greek Internet users. The affect as well as the effectiveness of viral advertising will be analyzed with the aid of experiments and participants in the project. The Internet and the online capitals 2.1 Evolution of the Net Let us first discuss about the Internet. What is the Internet? The Internet is a global system of interconnected computer networks. We shall try to avoid complicated technological terms, and instead try to understand its history, and its basic structure. At first it was for military purposes (Arpanet) and it was far away from what we know today. Later, some American universities tried to make interconnections through their local networks (TCP / IP). While suddenly, Tim Berners Lee, in Cern, discovered the World Wide Web as we know it today. This user – friendly, browser based interconnection of computers globally, made the Internet grow rapidly. The 90’s are considered the decade of the evolution of the Internet , as online communities started to arise , communication started to be “real time” with instant messengers , a lot of social media Websites were born etc. One main pillar in the growth of the users globally, was the growth of communication speed with the birth of ADSL and later ADSL2 +, which provides high speed Internet access. Computer friendliness during the years has helped as well. A very interesting diagram follows that shows the radical growth of Internet users through the last 10 or so years: 2.2 The WEB 2.0 Era In the beginning it was the Web 1.0, and the only thing that you could use were tools like personal websites, and tools like DoubleClick. With the launch of Web 2.0 there are so many tools that can be used. Web 1.0 Web 2.0DoubleClick-->Google AdSense Britannica Online-->Wikipediapersonal websites-->bloggingdomain name speculation-->search engine optimizationpage views-->cost per clickscreen scraping-->web servicespublishing-->participationcontent management systems-->wikisdirectories (taxonomy)-->tagging (quot;
folksonomyquot;
)stickiness-->syndication By comparing Web 2.0 to Web 1.0, we see that the essence is the participation of the user itself. Interactivity is the key to this. Let us try to analyze the new tools. Google AdSense for example is the key to the search engine optimization, by tagging specific words in your website or your web application, so when a user queries the phrase: “Greek Hotels” for example, he can find several ads linking him to products and services related to this query. Not only that, but he can find information that someone could have written in a wiki page, in his personal blog, or in an online forum, concerning for example his experience in Greek hotels. Reviews, comparisons and much other useful information are all around the Web. This is the essence of Web 2.0: interactivity. Of course, there are many tools that are being used like the mailing lists, where each company can call on the user to subscribe to its mailing list so as to receive news, updates, new offers etc. Banners still pose an important role in online advertising, but have been replaced to interactive banners. First Generation Online communities The first online communities that existed began during the Web 1.0 Era, where someone could post an opinion, a subject, a thesis, anything he wanted and other people could comment on it. People, especially academics and students, were collaborating on projects, and someone could post a question about a topic while others tried to help him , by giving responses. With the beginning of the Web 2.0 era, this became rapidly used via a new tool, the forums. People were able to participate in forums that concerned a matter of their interest like science, sports, movies etc. Exchanging opinions, seeking for advice or giving advice was the motives that drove more and more people to participate. This new social connection, the feeling of belongingness and these online spaces that worked as online social capitals are worth analyzed. This form of communication, though, was based on anonymity. People were using avatars (i.e. small pictures that represented them) and pseudonyms when they joined. In this chapter, the sociological and psychological motives as well as the effects of this new movement are analyzed thoroughly. 3.1 Online communication and anonymity There are good grounds for arguing that the (Tom Postmes, 2002) Internet is primarily a social medium. A majority of Internet users rely on the technology for communication, rather less to search for information or for services such as e-commerce (Kraut, Mukhopadhyay, Szczypula, Kiesler, & Scherlis, 1998). Indeed, the Internet has a potential to connect people irrespective of time or place, enabling interactions from interpersonal to mass communication. Both factors contribute to the belief that communication over the Internet, with computer-mediated communication (CMC) systems, can and will break down boundaries of nationality, race, language, and ideology. Beyond pragmatic reasons of facilitation, there are social–psychological grounds for arguing that the Internet breaches social boundaries. Electronic communication creates an environment in which individual differences of status, social class, and group membership are less visible, and thus—according to some—insignificant (e.g., Sproull & Kiesler, 1991). In other words, electronic communication is sometimes seen as depersonalized or less individuated in the sense that the presence of individuals with whom one may interact is less visible or visible in a different way than in face-to-face interaction (Hiltz, Turoff, & Johnson, 1989; Jessup, Connolly, & Tansik, 1990; Kiesler, Siegel, & McGuire, 1984). The traditional assumption is that depersonalization may weaken traditional social influences. By implication, interaction via computers may give the individual greater freedom from social strictures. Thus, as we have argued elsewhere in more detail, the relative anonymity2 of CMC has promised reduced intergroup differentiation and increased equality (Postmes, Spears, & Lea, 1998). As applied to CMC, the relative anonymity associated with this medium provides a context in which individual differences between group members are sometimes less visible. As a result, the salience of group memberships is likely to be accentuated in depersonalized settings as found on the Internet, which has consequences for how people perceive in-group members, out-group members, and themselves. In intergroup interactions over the Internet,this means that depersonalized communication via CMC could potentially increase differentiation between groups on dimensions ranging from bias, through stereotyping, to divergence in attitudes (see Postmes et al., 1998; Spears & Lea, 1994). In terms of social identity theory, depersonalized CMC could shift intergroup interactions from defining the situation in interpersonal terms (“me” and “you”) to defining it in intergroup terms (“us” vs. “them”). Thus, depersonalized interactions over the Internet could stimulate our natural tendency for differentiation between social categories (Tajfel, 1978). Indeed, the Internet can be the forum for stereotyped and biased intergroup relations, and the possibility even exists that intergroup boundaries are reinforced rather than breached. 3.2 Online Communities as social capitals Online communities are among the most trafficked web Sites. McKinsey & CO and Jupiter Media Metrix ( Brown , Tilton and Woodside , 2002 ) found that one third of the visitors to e-commerce sites used community features such as chat rooms and bulletin boards. Furthermore, these users make two thirds of all purchases at e-commerce sites. Also, site visitors who contribute to community features are nine times as likely to come back to that site, and twice as likely to make a purchase. Even users who read, but do not participate in the community sections of an e-commerce site tend to come back more often than those who do not visit the community features at all. One of the most profound challenges of marketers is to understand the dynamics of the relationships among the community members and to develop appropriate mechanism as part of their business strategies. Hagel ( 1999) stated that Internet- based communities started as “spontaneous , social events on electronic networks , gathered around common areas of interest , engaging in shared discussions that persist and accumulate over time , leading to a complex network of personal relationships and an increasing identification with the group as a community” (p.55). Within the context of electronic communities, the virtual spaces where relationships can be formed include chat areas where people can speak in real time to others about their topics of interest, bulletin boards services that enable people to exchange information, special debate forums where members can communicate their views, product and service reviews where members can post their evaluations about products and services. Participants may be seeking advice, giving advice, or both; exchanging technical information; giving or receiving moral support in a time of crisis; (Galasciewicz, 1996). A lot of studies and definitions have been made about the communities, which emphasized the concept of a physical space where social scientists can engage in participant observation (Jones, 1998). Several debates have been made about whether a network society can be thought as a society as we know it. Anderson (1993), states that a community’s reality should be evaluated based on how it is imagined and not on the space in which it exists. Thus , it can be argued that if consumers log on , form relationships in cyberspace , and believe they have found communities , these must be “real” for them( Fernback , 1999). 3.3 Identity Orientation – The focus of ritual activities Belonging to a group (whatever size and distribution) is largely a psychological state that is distinct from being a unique and separate individual. As such, it confers social identity; a shared, collective representation of who one is and how one should behave (Turner, 1982). Inter-individual attraction, which is grounded in group membership and is generated by the process of self – categorization, is responsible for psychological group belongingness. The notion that social identity and group belongingness are inextricably linked is based on the perception that one’s conception or identity is largely composed of self –description in terms of the defining characteristics of social groups to which one belongs (Hogg & Abrams, 1998). Social identity theory and self-categorization theory provide the foundations for our ritual activities typology in advocating that the self is not a fixed entity, but is socially defined in the context. Hence, there are different possible identities that participants can assume within the same interactive context. As Schegloff (1995) emphasized: “the number of parties into which those participants may be seen to be organized (because they see themselves so to be organized and to embody that stance in their conduct) can change continuously as to contingencies of the talks change, contingencies most centrally supplied by the participants themselves and the nature of the talk which they undertake one another” (p.35). Accordingly, the choice about what possible self to show is driven by individuals’ perceptions of how the social situation is characterized and what features could be more relevant and more effective in a given situation. Furthermore, identities built during the interaction are not only depending on what each one decides to show about his self in that context, but also the context itself plays an active role in guiding and modeling the possible choices. In fact, the context gives salience to some specific characteristics of each person, according to what is happening in the community. .Correspondingly, the way people use identity during discourse in interaction shows that identity is occasioned (i.e. the specific context shapes the way participants choose to negotiate their identity) and indexical (i.e. participants choose to give salience to specific aspects of the self, according to their goals in that specific interactive moment). (Sacks, 1992). Elemers , Kortekaas and Ouwerkert ( 1999, p 372) suggested that members of a group achieve a social identity that is manifest in : 1) a cognitive component made up of self-awareness of membership 2) an affective component consisting of attachment of feeling of belongingness and 3) an evaluative component inherent in collective self-esteem. Social identity and self- categorization theories assume that there are two types of self-regulation : as a group member ( called “social identity salient”) and as an individual ( called “personal identity salient”)(Reichner , 1987).The extent to which a categorization is applied at a particular level is referred to as salience .Salience relates not just to the general relevance of a group memberships but refers to a selective change in self-perception whereby people actually define themselves as unique individuals or as members of groups. Following the conceptualizations of social identity theory and self – categorization theory, it is suggested that when members of a community define themselves as members of a group (i.e. social identity salient), they discover a world of meanings and transform these meaning to a shared organizations of meanings, thus, forming a social entity and a world of meanings of and for themselves. This practice provides members who act in line with this shared organization of meanings a sense of security and common understanding of their belongingness to a particular, distinguished group. Second Generation Online Capitals First generation online capitals were a revolution in whatever optical angle you see it. It made people participate, it gave them the feeling of belongingness and it made them feel more important by giving them the opportunity to exchange ideas with other people. It gave the user an online identity, which although it was anonymous, with the use of avatars and pseudonyms, it gave him a personal Internet signature, and everything written by a specific user was followed by this signature. With the introduction of 2nd Generation Online capitals, and Media YouCracy, (especially with the new online capitals like Hi5 and MySpace – which relied on photo publishing), users started publishing more and more stuff on the Internet, thus their self-image became an issue. Ties became stronger and stronger, because now you could actually connect with friends and people all over the world, and communicate real time and more personally, with less moderation. Moreover, this new type of communication was media- type based (you could share music, pictures, animations etc. The user becomes a free person in the global online society and takes control of his personal web spaces. This chapter discusses what marketers had to do in order to advertise people that had now taken over control of what to see , what to do , and how to do it. In fact, we discuss this lack of control, and the transition where the user-consumer has become the marketer-advertiser of himself . 4.1 Media YouCracy vs. Media Feudalism As the name suggests, Media Youcracy is all about how individuals act and behave in a digital democracy and how advertisers can harness new and existing media to interact with individuals. In the era of Media Youcracy the consumer has become a user. No longer do a few large media conglomerates and powerful brand owners control the advertising environment. The user decides what to watch, when, where and for how long. More importantly, the user is now empowered to make or break any new product, advert or brand. Admittedly, it seems like a state of chaos but sometimes a certain level of chaos is necessary for advertisers to move on to the next stage in the media evolution. A time of chaos can often be a time of innovation where people and marketers find new solutions. In Media Youcracy, consumers have become users, and users have become marketers for themselves. The increasing number of blogs and members of social networking sites speak for themselves. Self-promotion is inherent to Media Youcracy. Users have endless possibilities to promote themselves - or their brand - to the entire online population. And they do it all the time. When we turn to look at the companies driving the Media Youcracy, the pace is set by a number of newcomers. It is the non-traditional media companies who are shaping the future while the old-school giants of Media Feudalism are struggling to keep up. Google is no longer confined to being the world’s #1 search engine but has arguably grown into the web’s most aggressive player, introducing a tidal wave of new services for free while simultaneously proving that it is actually possible to make serious money from online advertising. YouTube appeared almost out-of-the-blue and is suddenly a “serious” media company with more than 100 million daily views. MySpace went through the roof, attracting so much traffic even News Corp couldn’t afford to ignore it. Flickr introduced free photo sharing to the world and was acquired by Yahoo! The list goes on and in the meantime new and potentially strong players are emerging as we speak. Identifying the right niche markets is central to launching successful advertising campaigns, for the same reason the era of Media Feudalism is over: People are turning away from the big networks and spending more time online. For the advertiser this means the media plan has to be much more broadly anchored than ever before. Users are fragmented and spread across a growing number of niches and sub-segments that offer greater and more unique value for every individual. Moreover, they offer an even greater potential for savvy marketers. The challenge is to reach users through thousands of different channels rather than just booking a campaign on a couple of the big networks that - previously - could deliver the required reach and frequency. The transition from Media Feudalism to Media Youcracy means the requirements of content have sharpened significantly. The users can take responsibility. They rate, grade and rank. It is no longer the privilege of big media networks or large companies to produce and distribute content. We can all do that. Users of Media Youcracy are increasingly impervious to the vast number of messages that hit their screens. Even if one wanted to, the human mind would never be capable of absorbing and remembering the multiple different messages that online users face every day. The basic advertising goal of awareness, therefore, seems to be less achievable in Media Youcracy. DoubleClick’s’ December 2006 study showed that influencers view online advertising as a welcome part of their purchasing decision process and increasingly use online advertising more for learning about products, and less for discovering new products. The implications of this are that online advertising does not necessarily work in the same way as offline advertising, which often simply aims at generating awareness. Rather, online advertising has the potential for engaging and keeping users’ attention. Using online advertising, it is possible to promote oneself in a more thorough way than would be possible in offline media, where advertising is often perceived as annoying. The tendency is clear: Online users welcome advanced online advertising which can be informative as well as entertaining. Third Generation online capitals 5.1 The Facebook and YouTube Era Created in 2004, by 2007 Facebook was reported to have more than 21 million registered members generating 1.6 billion page views each day (Needham & Company, 2007). The site is tightly integrated into the daily media practices of its users: The typical user spends about 20 minutes a day on the site, and two-thirds of users log in at least once a day (Cassidy, 2006; Needham & Company, 2007). Capitalizing on its success among college students, Facebook launched a high school version in early September 2005. In 2006, the company introduced communities for commercial organizations; as of November 2006, almost 22,000 organizations had Facebook directories (Smith, 2006). In 2006, Facebook was used at over 2,000 United States colleges and was the seventh most popular site on the World Wide Web with respect to total page views (Cassidy, 2006). Much of the existing academic research on Facebook has focused on identity presentation and privacy concerns (e.g., Gross & Acquisti, 2005; Stutzman, 2006). Looking at the amount of information Facebook participants provide about themselves, the relatively open nature of the information, and the lack of privacy controls enacted by the users, Gross and Acquisti (2005) argue that users may be putting themselves at risk both offline (e.g., stalking) and online (e.g., identify theft). Other recent Facebook research examines student perceptions of instructor presence and self-disclosure (Hewitt & Forte, 2006; Mazer, Murphy, & Simonds, 2007), temporal patterns of use (Golder, Wilkinson, & Huberman, 2007), and the relationship between profile structure and friendship articulation (Lampe, Ellison, & Steinfield, 2007). Facebook is the most popular web sites as seen on the figure below and has some very important characteristics: ,[object Object]

People spend an average of 20 minutes on the site daily

More than 6 million active user groups on the site

Over 55,000 regional, work-related, collegiate and high school networksActivity and loyalty are two key characteristics of the Facebook community. Before moving on, we need to distinct the differences between media site and social sites. ,[object Object]

It is a “portal” history with a common homepage for users, with little customization

Even when the sites are collaborative, the 1% rule applies(stating that only around 1% of users actively contribute vs 9% comment and 90% only consume content : Flickr, YouTube, Wikipedia)

Social sites allow a better- balanced communication, where users produce and receive content

Users seek to keep in touch with people they care about

All actors publish content to an extent, but different types of influential people can be identified as “Connectors” who have wide social networks and act as hubs, “mavens” who are knowledgeable people, and “salesmen” with high negotiation skills

Social sites offer a customizable homepage and a way to keep track of your friends (feed, pulse)

One has access to a variety of media and platforms YouTube can be considered a Media site where you can upload your videos , while Facebook as a Social site where you can communicate. Or is it different? The very important finding here, is to understand that both Facebook and YouTube are both Social AND Media sites, to provide to their participants the best communication and more experiences. Besides interaction , both YouTube allows you to comment to each video , while Facebook , allows you to embed videos and pictures and other media. This evolution , as shown in the above diagram , makes the 3rd Generation online capitals more attractive , increases participants’ loyalty via their variety of choices with which they can interact and gives them even more freedom to do whatever they want with less and less moderation. Communication becomes even more “real – time” , and it can take a lot of “forms” , like sending a message with a picture , a music video , an animation , an electronic postcard , all that synchronously or asyncronoysly. While our research is based on Facebook , let us focus on it to see the characteristics of communication through it : Facebook provides the means for a real conversation ,[object Object]

The conversation is both verbal and non-verbal, through dedications(songs),gestures(pokes),and emotions(gifts, feelings)

It can be either instantaneous (with chat applications and presence indicators)or asynchronous(with wall posts, messages)

The conversation takes place between real personas (few hidden identities with avatars or nicknames) and without outside intervention (no moderation or censorship) Hence, in the Internet world nowadays, the traditional AIDA (Awareness, Interest, Desire, and Action) model is not applied. That is because new concepts like “Discovery”, “Comparison” and “Conversation” dominate. 5.2 CyberGens This time, a research conducted by InSites Consulting, in collaboration with the IAB Europe, was enough in order to reveal the preferences and the habits of Europeans users. Each day, each and every hour that passes, more users become “addicted” in the Internet. They are those that consider it an integral piece of their life and they have trouble separating themselves from it . They surf with fury, they blog , they exchange e-mail, they download and upload all kinds of files, they are, in a nutshell, active citizens of a world online community. They practice participation so massively, that the day when Michael Jackson died, they wrote this around the 8 million bloggers. So much big, that if somebody wished to watch all the available videos in YouTube, it would need nearly 412 years! The report, called ‘MTV Generation V.2', concludes that the behavior, attitudes and aspirations of 16- to 25-year-olds have transformed since the launch of Facebook in 2004 and YouTube in 2005. It portrays contemporary youth as a cohort of self-creating mini-celebrities who are obsessed with their online image and in constant search of an identity. The study also lays out lessons for brands looking to help youths achieve their goals. While the children of the 70s were called Generation X and those who followed them a decade later earned the sobriquet Generation Y, MTV has dubbed today's hyper-connected youth as the Cyborg Generation. The ‘CyberGens' make unprecedented demands on brands. Where companies once pushed their products at Generations X and Y, that process has now gone into reverse. 5.3 Generation Reveal It is not fortuitous that a lot of researchers call today’s youth as “Generation Reveal”. It is about the trend of today’s new generation to publish almost everything on the Internet, even stuff from their personal lives. It seems that this behavior has even divided the Internet experts. One side suggests that the young people do not realize the limits between “private” and “public», therefore, they expose themselves into dangers. On the other hand, there are those who suggest that these behaviors are an expression of their spontaneity. Brands have grappled with Generation X and Y but the rise of Web 2.0 has brought fresh challenges that brands must navigate to connect with the elusive Cyber Generation. Keeping up with the generation of tweeting, texting, social networking-obsessed youth requires marketers to become totally immersed in their wired world. Brands that learn the right way to approach this interconnected environment can become part of the wallpaper of modern life, while those that get it wrong will be dropped into the trash bin in an instant. Today's youth will not accept brands interrupting their media consumption without good reason. Complete honesty and transparency must be a starting point, not a far-off aspiration. The CyberGens expect brands to work hard and give them something extra for free. 5.4 Connecting with the CyberGens - key trends ,[object Object]

Loyalty is harder to come by: Υouths are becoming more willing to flip between brands. However, they will return if the reward is right.

Open-source society: CyberGens feel they control their media. They no longer passively accept what is given, demanding open structures from organizations.

Rewired: Generation Now : Cyber technology has created a culture of convenience that means you can find what you want without having to look too hard. ‘A quick search online' means we live life through shortcuts without seeing the entirety. This creates disappointment when the young realize the hard work involved in achieving goals.

Low commitment is key: Young people are not conditioned to commit. Brands need to allow the youth market to interact with them, but without demanding commitment. If they think there is too much work involved in initial brand interaction, this will be a barrier.

Celebrity Me: With everyone watching, it is easy to become known. People want to know what we are doing, where we have been and with whom. Social networks are the toolkit and their users make sure they are seen as they wish to be seen. It is all about image.5.5 Implications for brands ,[object Object]

Peer-to-peer is key: The young often have access to more than 200 people on their social network. They are capable of spreading a message faster than brands, so the latter need to facilitate peer-to-peer communication where possible. Content-one-upmanship leads to messages being taken and pushed further as young people vie to be ahead of the pack.Greek Users of Online Social Media Sites The overwhelming majority of Greek Facebook users are young people. Out of the 1.943.000 users, 1.282.000 users are between 15-30 years old. A percentage of 76% declares that it surfs a minimum of 6 days per week and moreover a 46% of the Greek users admits that it surfs at least 3 hours daily. Thus, Greek users tend to become more active, more addicted and more loyal to the Internet and social networking. Some other habits that the Greek online users have are to upload videos (YouTube)-and as the researchers have found , more often than other Europeans - , to download music , to seek information and , of course , to update their profiles in the social networking site that they participate. 6.1 «Wanna Facebook? » Not surprisingly, 66% of the Greek online users are part of a social networking site. Out of them, 70% participate on Facebook, while other social sites have a very small percentage (MySpace for example – 17%).Something that is very interesting is that Greeks update their profile daily in a percentage of 33% (European mean 15%), as that a 37% watches over other peoples’ (friends) profile updates. In other words, the Greek users that hang out in Social Media are numerous. 6.2 They always have an opinion and they express it. A precious discovery concerning the habits of Greeks is that they record their opinion on the internet and they share their impressions with other users. They consider the Internet as a modern public ball, a world village that encourages the exchange of opinions, hence the 93% considers physiologic to express their opinion for various brands. How does this serve the marketers? But of course it serves because in social networking sites and in blogs, they can draw their useful information for brands. Another element that does not pass unnoticed is the evident tendency of Greek users to send video for brands with personal comments, as well as to upload in sites such as YouTube. As a consequence of this habit, it is likely that the satisfied customers could function as brand ambassadors. It is not excluded, however, that the dissatisfied consumers to discredit a brand. Online reputation management is, therefore, essential. Advertising in Social Networking Social networking Web sites, such as YouTube, Hi5 and MySpace, are equivalent in many ways to the giant U.S. television networks of the 1950s and 1960s in that they draw mass audiences. Users spend 2.6 billion minutes daily on Facebook. Until recently, the behavior tactic was used on Facebook : getting the right message to the right person at the right place at the right time.”(Phil Leggiere, 2007). Depending on the data that the companies have for each user( e.g. Single , Studied Arts etc.) they provide the right message to the right user at the right time . This has been done by little banners that show in every individual’s profile , but considering that this way became oversaturated , other ways where developed as well . Let us see all of them : The online social graph offers four distinct advertising methods: 1. “Targeted ads” – These ads offer content directed to specific audiences. With “hyper-targeting” or “micro-targeting,” you can place your ads in front of the consumers you want, as identified by such filters as “location, gender, age, education, workplace, Relationship status, relationship interests and interest keywords.” People post these traits on their individual profile pages on social network Web sites. 2. “Appvertising” – Fresh kinds of advertising “platform applications,” such as “games, slideshows and polls,” to increase users’ engagement with your messages. 3. “Social actions” – Placement of the ad on sites where people discuss related social activities, for instance, advertising an eatery on pages where diners post restaurant critiques. 4. “Engagement ads” – Facebook uses this word for ads that give companies “opportunities to integrate into other aspects” of the site without being “disruptive.” 5. Word of Mouth- Word of mouth, one of the definitive characteristics of the online social graph (think Twitter), is the most effective form of promotion. Companies like Bonobos effectively use social advertising to generate positive word of mouth about their products. When adroitly handled, such advertising can quickly go “viral.” Indeed, this is how Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign for the U.S. presidency delivered its advertising message, generated donations and enlisted volunteer workers. It created strong buzz online, particularly among younger voters, via social networking Web sites. All these techniques are becoming more and more saturated, so word of mouth and viral advertising gains ground every day. This will be the center of our hypothesis and our research, how can e-WOM and viral advertising can become the new advertising techniques in 3rd Generation online capitals. Word of mouth on the Web Verbal consumer – to – consumer communication, often referred to as simply “word of mouth” (WOM), has long been recognized as an important factor in consumer behavior (e.g. Whyte, 1954). The development of the Internet has led to the appearance of new forms of word of mouth communication (Granitz & Ward, 1996). Using the Internet, consumers can now easily publish their opinions, providing their thoughts, feelings, and viewpoints on products and services to the public at large. Several sites allow consumers to post their reviews of products and services in a number of different categories. The large number of users gives Internet WOM significant power for marketers. Studies of consumer information search have consistently found WOM to be particularly powerful in affecting the consumer. Katz and Lazarsfeld(1955) , found WOM to be far more important than advertising or personal selling. Alreck and Settle (1995) found that for a service product, advice from other consumers had a great influence on consumers than the effects of all market – generated sources of information combined. WOM has been shown to be important in the diffusion of new products (Rogers, 1983) and to influence consumer decision in a wide range of product categories. Granitz and Ward note that the Internet WOM differs from traditional WOM in that the participant’s identity is not “constrained by circumstances of their background, appearance, status, neighborhood, and workplace.” In other words, the Internet provides consumers with a large and diverse set of opinions about products and services from individuals with whom they have little (or no) prior relationship. Thus a key difference between traditional WOM and online WOM is the strength of the ties between the consumers who are exchanging information. Granovetter (1973) suggest that the strength of a tie between two individuals is a function of the amount of time spent together, the emotional intensity and degree of intimacy in the relationship, and the extent to which reciprocal services are provided by the dyad members. He further suggests that weak ties are particularly important in serving as bridges across cliques of strong ties and thus are central to diffusion process. In the context of online WOM, weak ties provide three possible benefits to consumers. First, the presence of weak ties allows for more potential input to a decision (Friedkin , 1982) . Second, consumer information distributed via the Internet should be more diverse than that which would be obtained via strong ties (Constant, Sproull , and Kiesler , 1997). Finally, using online WOM can enable consumers to obtain higher quality input into a decision – that is, it can provide access to people with greater expertise on a topic (Constant et al., 1997). Along with these benefits of potentially providing more and better information to consumers, relying on weak ties may present difficulties. In particular, weak –tie sources may make it harder for consumers to assess the quality of the WOM information they are receiving (Constant et al., 1997). Consumers do not know the motives of the informant for providing information, and it may be difficult to assess this person’s background and expertise on the topic. Of course, the relative strength of these ties varies between and within the different forms of Internet WOM. For example, one might expect to find both strong ties (e.g. old friends) and weak ties (e.g. email acquaintances) among email WOM exchanges. One dimension on which these forms of Internet WOM differ is the degree to which their information can be easily accessed by a large number of people. This will be termed as the referability of the WOM information. Posted reviews are often maintained on Web sites for a year or more. Thus, the WOM information in posted reviews would be considered for a relatively long period of time. Similarly, consumer opinions in mailbags and discussion forums are usually publicly available for a considerable period of time. Because they are published on the Internet, these three types of Internet WOM – posted reviews, mailbags, and discussion forums- are accessible to a large number of people for a relatively long time. This makes them high referable forms of WOM. By contrast , other forms of Internet WOM are not published on the Internet and thus are less referable – some are real time , like Facebook , Twitter , MySpace etc ( we shall examine social networking later) - . The WOM messages communicated by electronic mailing lists and personal emails are accessible to only a relatively small number of people and only for a limited time. WOM messages exchanges in chat rooms are publicly available but only for the time they are being transmitted; chat rooms conversations, are only rarely archived. The referability dimension is important because it affects the degree to which consumer product communication over the Internet increases the possibility of weak – tie WOM. Less referable forms of Internet WOM , being available to only a limited number of people and/or for a limited time , offer few opportunities for a consumer to make contact with unfamiliar others who might have particular powerful or useful information. More referable forms – those forms of WOM communication that are published on the Internet – offer many opportunities for consumers to gain beneficial information from weak - tie sources. Perhaps the most basic motive for a consumer’s attention to WOM messages is the expectation of receiving information that may decrease decision time and effort and/or contribute to the achievement of a more satisfying decision outcome (Schiffman & Kanuk 2000, p 398). Information motives may be particularly important for the use of WOM published on the Internet because weak- tie sources seem avored by consumers who are interested in specific product information as opposed to affective product evaluations (Duhan, Johnson, Wilcox, & Harrell, 1997). A second motive for using WOM concerns the consumer’s desire to decrease dissonant cognitions and increase cognitive consistency (Cummings and Venkatesan, 1976; Festinger, 1957). It has been found that the consumers’ receptivity to WOM depends on the fit of this information with their prior beliefs (Wilson & Peterson, 1989). This suggests that consumers may use WOM to reinforce their decision or to increase their confidence in the views that they already have. Consumers may evaluate a published WOM message on the basis of the content itself. For example, the presence of negative information along with positive information has been found to increase message credibility (Crowley & Hoyer, 1994; Pechmann, 1992). The presence of negative comments in the content of an Internet WOM message could give it an enhanced believability. Also, it has been observed that WOM information is likely to be based on memories of salient product experiences (Dicther, 1966). It is possible that published Internet WOM content that is perceived by readers as being based on first-person consumer experience might further contribute to the believability of the message. According to the study of Shindler and Bickart , three motives for seeking Internet WOM are identified. First , consumers seek out Internet WOM as an informational input to specific purchase decision. Online WOM seems particularly useful for decisions that are risky, important or infrequent and is a good surrogate when stronger- tie sources of WOM are not available, such as travel and gift decision. Consumers with information motives often rely on posted customer reviews. Such reviews are typically more specific in focus than other types of Internet WOM. When information is the motives, there seems to be particular interest in negative comments. Negative information is given more weight by consumers( Mizerski, 1982; Weinberg & Dilon , 1980) Further , given the relative anonymity of communication on the Internet , ( Fischer et al. ,1996; Granitz and Ward, 1996) , people may tend to act in a freer , less constrained manner in this environment. This anonymity might have the effect of increasing the amount of negative WOM information that could be found published on the Internet and may thus make Internet WOM particularly able to satisfy consumer informational motives. A desire for support and community is another motive for seeking out online WOM. For example, informants tend to look for positive information to help reduce dissonant thoughts related to a specific purchase decision (Cummings & Venaktesan, 1976; Festinger, 1957). In addition, informants seek out solutions to specific product problems and guidance on how to consume products or services. Consumers with support and community motives often appear to rely on discussion forums and particularly seem to value dialog. Participants in these forms exchange stories about their product experiences, helping others deal with common problems and building a community among product owners, users, or enthusiasts (Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001). Seeking out this kind of support and community also appears to be related to facing a new, unfamiliar situation with many associated decisions. Finally, some consumers read online WOM purely for its entertainment value. Consumers with entertainment motives seem to enjoy seeing the views of enthusiasts and comparing their own opinions and experiences with those of others. This is consistent with Holt’s (1995) notion of consuming as play. Because consumers with entertainment motives are often interested in dialogue, discussion forums and chats are common types of Internet WOM used in a situation. Entertainment- seeking consumers appear to particularly value content presenting extreme viewpoints and humorous exchanges. In addition, consumers with entertainment motives may be more interested in special features of Internet WOM sites, such as photographs. In addition, these consumers tend to be opinion leaders (Bloch, Sherell, & Ridgway, & Sherell, 1989). Thus, marketers may want to develop Internet WOM sites that are attractive to these entertainment –seeking consumers. Shlosser and Kanfer (2002) show that for consumers with hedonic browsing motives, Internet WOM sites that incorporate web features such as product interactivity may be more effective in influencing attitudes and purchase behaviors. Decision Process ComponentWhat InternetWOM Contributes 16192566675Problem RecognitionProblem Recognition2457450133350 Potential benefits of purchase 819150185420 1704975327660 Ideas for attractive new alternatives 20955062230Consideration SetConsideration Set Flash points on current alternatives 1200150208280476250208280 I 1333500106045Alternative EvaluationAlternative Evaluation246697519177010477539370DecisionTerminationDecisionTermination Criteria Ratings 1585595130810 904875183515 Post Decision Process Post Decision Process Reasons that it is good / 2505075139065 Guidance on how to consume Shindler and Bickart indicate in their study that the influence of Internet WOM information may be broadly spread throughout the decision process (See Figure above). A consumer’s mention of a product or a potential product benefit could stimulate problem recognition. Other customers can provide ideas that will lead an alternative to be included in a consumer’s consideration set or information that could lead to an alternative being removed from the consideration set. If after consideration of the WOM information there are no viable alternatives remaining, then the information will have contributed to decision termination. If more than one viable alternatives remains, then online WOM suggesting important attributes can influence the criteria by which these alternatives are compared. Information from other consumers concerning how the alternatives rate on important attributes can also affect alternative evaluation. After a purchase has been made, online WOM could increase the consumer’s satisfaction with the choice by providing reassuring positive information and by helping to resolve consumption – related problems. Finally, while this figure focuses on medium – and high- involvement decision – making situations, this study proved that Internet WOM also affects low – involvement decision – making. Particularly, consumers are passively exposed to Internet WOM when browsing or searching for information with an entertainment motive. This information is likely to affect low – involvement decisions. Viral Advertising Push marketing and the old model of interruption is challenged. New ways of engaging consumers, whether with viral marketing or branded entertainment, should be considered key by any forward-thinking marketer. Viral marketing is consumer-driven marketing as opposed to traditional interruption marketing that is controlled and driven by the marketer. It is a planned initiative where you, as an advertiser or creative agency, develop and spread online marketing messages (viral agents) that have qualities that motivate the receiver to become a sender. It’s the marketing discipline of today’s consumer centric networked marketing landscape. Viral marketing combines know-how, creativity and technical skills. A viral campaign builds on really excellent creative material that involves and engages users. However, equally important is the seeding and tracking of the campaign. With growing media clutter – also in digital channels – the seeding of your viral campaign material will be key to attracting attention. With good creative material and proper seeding, a viral campaign can generate millions of clicks and active viewers. “People were sharing stories and painting on walls long before they invented the wheel. Spreading ideas and gossip is human nature. Viral is hard wired into our DNA.” Paul Kemp-Robertson Editorial Director, Contagious Magazine. The viral spread of stories is an urge as old as humanity itself. It is by spreading stories that we have built and passed on cultures, traditions, religions and knowledge from generation to generation. It is not a new phenomenon, but, on the contrary, a very old need imbedded in human psychology to retell good stories. The core of viral marketing is to know the mechanisms that get human beings to spread messages and stories and utilize this commercially. It is to start conversations. When done properly, the power of viral spread can be enormous, and if cultivated the right way in a commercial context, it can really set your campaign on fire. Viral spread happens every day, but often not on a large scale when it comes to commercial messages. Hardly any stories or campaigns spread overnight to the whole world. It is simply too difficult to create a commercial message that relevant or entertaining. So, spreading a campaign throughout the entire pyramid is possible, but very seldom a reality. That’s why you need seeding. The optimal way to activate high-quality campaign material on the Internet is through seeding the campaign material as content on connection points. Booking banner-ad space is nothing more than applying the old-world push-marketing paradigm to a different medium – one defined by interaction and pull. Through a content analysis of 360 viral advertisements, the study attempts to highlight the viral component in the ads by identifying the main advertising appeals employed by advertisers. Research question asked what advertising appeals were most frequently used in viral advertisements. Table 1 indicates that humor was by far the most commonly utilized advertising appeal in the viral ads as it was incorporated in 91% of the ads. Table 1 Appeals used in viral Advertisements (n = 360) Advertising Appeal Frequency Percentage Humor 328 91% Sexuality 101 28.1% Violence 52 14.4% Children 46 12.8% Animals 64 17.8% Sexuality was the second most common advertising appeal as it was used in more than 28% of viral ads. These advertising appeals were followed by the use of animals in ads (17.8%), violence (14.4%) and the use of children (12.8%) of all viral ads in the current analysis. Research about viral as an outcome/viral as an influencer Our initial hypothesis is that viral advertising is both an outcome as well as an influencer. Our research is based on the social capitals that exist today as third generation online capitals, through the attitudes that online users have in these capitals as CyberGens , what characterizes the Greek online users and what specific data can be collected that can help us make a safe assumption in our initial hypothesis . The research is then based on Facebook, which is the most famous amongst these social capitals. Our hypothesis is that viral advertising is both an outcome as it is an influencer , meaning that if done correctly , a viral video for example can be spread from one person to another reaching thousands of users , and not only that , but it can stimulate their awareness as well. Our data was collected through a well formed, explanatory and easy to fill in questionnaire that allowed the participants to un-stressfully give the answers that represented them (see Appendix). The participants were from several campuses of BCA college, meaning that the ages vary from 18-25, which was our initial goal, because Facebook participants are mostly college students in these ages. The data were then passed in the SPSS Statistics 17 to be analyzed. The first techniques that are used for the analysis are the ones of descriptive statistics, cross-tabulation, and factor analysis. Descriptive statistics are used to describe the main features of a collection of data in quantitative terms. Descriptive statistics are distinguished from inferential statistics (or inductive statistics), in that descriptive statistics aim to quantitatively summarize a data set, rather than being used to support inferential statements about the population that the data are thought to represent. A cross tabulation (often abbreviated as cross tab) displays the joint distribution of two or more variables. They are usually presented as a contingency table in a matrix format. Whereas a frequency distribution provides the distribution of one variable, a contingency table describes the distribution of two or more variables simultaneously. Factor analysis is a statistical method used to describe variability among observed variables in terms of fewer unobserved variables called factors. The observed variables are modeled as linear combinations of the factors, plus quot;
errorquot;
terms. The information gained about the interdependencies can be used later to reduce the set of variables in a dataset. 10.1 Statistical Findings First of all we need to examine about how reliable our findings and our data are. By running a Cronbach's Alpha test, we have 0.859, which is a very good number, proving that our data are quite reliable. Case Processing SummaryN%CasesValid9071,4Excludeda3628,6Total126100,0a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure. Reliability StatisticsCronbach's AlphaN of Items,85956 Next, we shall see some frequencies on the answers that we have received. 126 were the participants, and all 126 were Internet users. Internet UserFrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValidYes126100,0100,0100,0 Out of the 126 Internet users, a 29, 4% uses the Internet between 5-10 hours daily, and a 46, 8% uses between 5-10 hours daily. This means that a percentage of 76, 2% can be considered as heavy Internet users. Internet usage frequencyFrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValidUp to 1 Hour1814,314,314,3Between 5-10 hours daily3729,429,443,7Between 3-5 hours daily5946,846,890,5I am online most of the day129,59,5100,0Total126100,0100,0 90, 5 % of the participants selected that they use the Internet to find information, 20, 6% selected the choice “to buy products”, 47, 6% play online games and 86,5% to communicate and 69% to participate in social networking. Internet usage purposes : Find informationFrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValidNo Selection129,59,59,5Find information11490,590,5100,0Total126100,0100,0Internet usage purposes : buy productsFrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValidNo Selection10079,479,479,4Buy products2620,620,6100,0Total126100,0100,0Internet usage purposes : play online gamesFrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValidNo Selection6652,452,452,4Online Games6047,647,6100,0Total126100,0100,0Internet usage purposes : CommunicateFrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValidNo Selection1713,513,513,5Communicate10986,586,5100,0Total126100,0100,0Internet usage purposes : Social NetworkingFrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValid1263931,031,031,0Social Networking8769,069,0100,0Total126100,0100,0 50.8% of our participants were females while 49,2% where males. As the age is concerned, 90.4 % are between the ages of 20-23 years old. Demographics: Male or FemaleFrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValidFemale6450,850,850,8Male6249,249,2100,0Total126100,0100,0 Demographics: AgeFrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValid1964,84,84,8202419,019,023,8213326,226,250,0222519,819,869,8233225,425,495,22443,23,298,4251,8,899,2261,8,8100,0Total126100,0100,0 Out of the 126 participants, 80.2% selected TV as another medium, 50.8% prefer Radio, 16.7% selected newspaper and 34% prefer magazines Demographics: Prefer TVFrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValidNo Selection2519,819,819,8Prefer TV10180,280,2100,0Total126100,0100,0Demographics: Prefer RadioFrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValidNo Selection6148,449,249,2Radio6350,050,8100,0Total12498,4100,0MissingSystem21,6Total126100,0 Demographics: Prefer NewspaperFrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValidNo Selection10583,383,383,3Prefer Newspaper2116,716,7100,0Total126100,0100,0Demographic: Prefer MagazinesFrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValidNo Selection8265,165,165,1Prefer Magazines4434,934,9100,0Total126100,0100,0 Cross-tabulating if our participants have ever used any of the Social Networking applications 14/126 answered NO. Furthermore, 8/126 has participated but they do not participate any more, thus we have 8 quitters! The new number that we examine is the one that uses social networking, and it is 104/126. Have you ever used any of the social networks applications? * Are you still a present user of social network applications? CrosstabulationCountAre you still a present user of social network applications?TotalNoNoHave you ever used any of the social networks applications?No14014Yes8104112Total22104126 This can be seen by the following table as well, but it does not show us the quitters. It does, on the other hand, show us the percentage of the Internet users that use Facebook (82, 5%), which is a very high percentage and excellent for our research Network Applications participating : FacebookFrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValidFacebook10482,5100,0100,0MissingSystem2217,5Total126100,0 Out of 104 Facebook participants, 58 are males (55, 7%) and 46 are females (45,3%). Network Applications participating : Facebook * Demographics: Male or Female CrosstabulationCountDemographics: Male or FemaleTotalFemaleMaleNetwork Applications participating : FacebookFacebook4658104Total4658104 Out of the 104 Facebook participants, 93.2% are between the ages of 20-23 , as the table below shows. Network Applications participating : Facebook * Demographics: Age CrosstabulationCountDemographics: AgeTotal192021222325Network Applications participating : FacebookFacebook6243112301104Total6243112301104 As for these users and the period that they use Facebook, 6.7% uses it since 2004, 15.4% uses it since 2005, 7.7% uses it since 2006, 22.1% uses it since 2007 , 35.6% since 2008 , and a 12.5% since 2009. We see, therefore, that 2006 was a year that Greek users became aware of Facebook and then it gained more and more Greek participants. I am a Facebook participant since :FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValid200475,66,76,720051612,715,422,1200686,37,729,820072318,322,151,920083729,435,687,520091310,312,5100,0Total10482,5100,0MissingSystem2217,5Total126100,0 Examining some averages for the next questions of the research, we can see some tendencies as far as the preferences of the participants: ,[object Object]

They agree that they like the participation

Belongingness does not play such an important role to Greek users

Posting feelings , opinions etc. , is something that some people do and some others do not, depending on the character

Again, depending on the character, some people like to exchange ideas with celebrities; some others don’t, with a stronger tendency in a negative answer.

By far the most popular tendency is that Greek users participate because they can meet friends and especially old friends

Greek users do belong in the “Generation Reveal”, because they like to post a lot of things from their personal life in their profiles.Descriptive StatisticsNMinimumMaximumMeanStd. DeviationI enjoy being on Facebook because : I feel connected with a lot of people104253,63,698I enjoy being on Facebook because : I can participate (groups,fan pages)104253,62,658I enjoy being on facebook because : I belong to groups an communities104253,14,703I enjoy being on Facebook because : I like posting things(opinions , feelings , comments)104153,31,860I enjoy being on Facebook because : I have the opportunity to exchange ideas with celebrities104142,38,987I enjoy being on Facebook because: I can meet old friends104354,49,591I post a lot of things on my Facebook profile , including photos, videos and lots of stuff from my personal life104153,46,682Valid N (listwise)104 Let’s see the posting preferences of Greek users. 83.7% chose that they post stuff in their personal profiles (Generation reveal).60,6% chose the they post videos from YouTube ( music , funny etc) , which is a good ground as viral advertising is concerned. 68,3% like to post their personal opinions , which agrees with the findings of previous researches. I usually post : Stuff in my personal profileFrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValidNo Selection1713,516,316,3Stuff in my personal profile8769,083,7100,0Total10482,5100,0MissingSystem2217,5Total126100,0 I usually post : Videos ( Music or funny)FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValidNo Selection4132,539,439,4Videos ( Music or funny)6350,060,6100,0Total10482,5100,0MissingSystem2217,5Total126100,0I usually post : OpinionsFrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValidNo Selection3326,231,731,7Opinions7156,368,3100,0Total10482,5100,0MissingSystem2217,5Total126100,0I usually post : Personal videosFrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValidNo Selection7458,771,271,2Personal Videos3023,828,8100,0Total10482,5100,0MissingSystem2217,5Total126100,0I usually post : Favorite PicturesFrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValidNo Selection5946,856,756,7Favourite pictures4535,743,3100,0Total10482,5100,0-19051191770MissingSystem2217,5Total126100,0 Another good ground for viral advertising is that more than half of the users (55.8%) like to post links to sites. usually post : LinksFrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValidNo Selection4636,544,244,2Links5846,055,8100,0Total10482,5100,0MissingSystem2217,5Total126100,0 From the following table with averages we have the following tendencies: ,[object Object]

Some groups of people post their best photos to receive the best comments (celebrity-me behavior), and some do not bother.

Some people use Facebook as a medium for making public relationships, being careful in what groups they participate, what comments they will make for the others, what stuff and comments they will maintain in their profiles, while others do not bother and they just have fun. That discovery is very interesting!

Feelings play an important role as well. People want to receive responses when they are sad for example, or congratulations when they achieve something, which again follows the “celebrity-me” behavior”.

Last but not least, there is a strong tendency to express opinions, ideas and comment to everything (again celebrity/expertise me behavior).Descriptive StatisticsNMinimumMaximumMeanStd. DeviationWhen I express my thoughts , my feelings or my opinions, I do it to share them with people and get their responses(likes, comments)104143,22,638Posting a lot of things makes me feel that I participate more and better104153,40,865I try to keep my online identity as best as I can.That's why : I upload only my best photos to receive the best comments104243,21,900I try to keep my online identity as best as I can.That's why : I think very carefully to what groups I participate or not104253,10,795I try to keep my online identity as best as I can.That's why : I am careful in making comments104253,65,963I try to keep my online identity as best as I can.That's why : I am careful in receiving and maintaining comments104253,59,691I try to keep my online identity as best as I can.That's why : I only post unique materials104153,371,072I try to keep my online identity as best as I can.That's why : I am careful in accepting friends104253,78,668I try to keep my online identity as best as I can.That's why : I am careful ion my friends' request104153,261,005I do posting because I want to : Share Ideas and opinions104243,58,678I do posting because I want to : Inform my friends104354,01,451I do posting because I want to : Express my expertise on something104152,891,060I do posting because I want to : Express feelings104153,24,757I do posting because I want to : Point out the importance of something104253,51,800Valid N (listwise)104 As far as what stimulates the awareness of the users, when posted by others we can see that: ,[object Object]

52.9% chose that they pay attention to people they respect posts

Surprisingly , people does not care what celebrities post ( only 35.6% chose it)

Heavy Facebook users does not seem to affect others

Trust plays an important role here (58.7%).I pay ATTENTION to others' posting only when they are posted : by close friendsFrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValidNo Selection1713,516,316,3Close Friends8769,083,7100,0Total10482,5100,0MissingSystem2217,5Total126100,0I pay ATTENTION to others' posting only when they are posted : by people I respectFrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValidNo Selection4938,947,147,1People I respect5543,752,9100,0Total10482,5100,0MissingSystem2217,5Total126100,0I pay ATTENTION to others' posting only when they are posted : by well-known celebritiesFrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValidNo Selection6753,264,464,4Celebrities3729,435,6100,0Total10482,5100,0MissingSystem2217,5Total126100,0I pay ATTENTION to others' posting only when they are posted : by heavy Facebook usersFrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValidNo Selection8063,576,976,9Heavy Facebook users2419,023,1100,0Total10482,5100,0MissingSystem2217,5Total126100,0I pay ATTENTION to others' posting only when they are posted : by people I trustFrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValidNo Selection4334,141,341,3People I trust6148,458,7100,0Total10482,5100,0MissingSystem2217,5Total126100,0 It is time to see what makes people share something with the others. Out of the 104 participants: ,[object Object]

75% chose that it shares something if it is interesting

70% shares something when it feels it is important to be spreadReasons for sharing something with others: HumorousFrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValidNo Selection3124,629,829,8Humorous7357,970,2100,0Total10482,5100,0MissingSystem2217,5Total126100,0Reasons for sharing something with others: InterestingFrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValidNo Selection2620,625,025,0Interesting7861,975,0100,0Total10482,5100,0MissingSystem2217,5Reasons for sharing something with others: ImportantFrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValidNo Selection2620,625,025,0Important7861,975,0100,0Total10482,5100,0MissingSystem2217,5Total126100,0Reasons for sharing something with others: Social causeFrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValidNo Selection7861,975,075,0Social Cause2620,625,0100,0Total10482,5100,0MissingSystem2217,5Total126100,0Reasons for sharing something with others: My friends understand me betterFrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValidNo Selection8869,884,684,6Understand me better1612,715,4100,0Total10482,5100,0MissingSystem2217,5Total126100,0Reasons for sharing something with others: Share feelingsFrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative PercentValidNo Selection7861,975,075,0Share feelings2620,625,0100,0Total10482,5100,0-9526190500MissingSystem2217,5 As for the groups is concerned, people, not surprisingly, like to participate in groups that represent their interests, feelings, thoughts and interests with the others. Descriptive StatisticsNMinimumMaximumMeanStd. DeviationI like to participate in groups that : Makes me feel I have the same interests with the others104253,93,714I like to participate in groups that : Makes me feel I have the same feelings, thoughts and interest with others104253,63,641Valid N (listwise)104 Next, in order to analyze these tendencies more thoroughly, we shall see some of the factors analysis that our data gave us. Total Variance ExplainedComponentInitial EigenvaluesExtraction Sums of Squared LoadingsTotal% of VarianceCumulative %Total% of VarianceCumulative %13,30841,34841,3483,30841,34841,34821,38217,26958,6171,38217,26958,6173,91611,45470,0704,7959,93680,0065,7409,25189,2576,4195,23994,4967,2232,79097,2878,2172,713100,000Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. With a cumulative percentage of 58,617%, as seen on the table above, we compare two groups of people. The following table gives us two tendencies, a group that enjoys participation, belongingness, posting, sharing feelings and opinions, enjoys sharing opinions and communicating with celebrities and all the other opportunities that Facebook offers. On the other hand, we have the group which participates just to communicate and meet old friends. Component MatrixaComponent12I enjoy being on Facebook because : I feel connected with a lot of people,729,117I enjoy being on Facebook because : I can participate (groups, fan pages),821-,302I enjoy being on Facebook because : I belong to groups an communities,513,403I enjoy being on Facebook because : I like posting things(opinions , feelings , comments),803,420I enjoy being on Facebook because : I have the opportunity to exchange ideas with celebrities,735,083I enjoy being on Facebook because: I can meet old friends,262,572When I express my thoughts , my feelings or my opinions, I do it to share them with people and get their responses(likes, comments),541-,575Posting a lot of things makes me feel that i participate more and better,541-,522Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.a. 2 components extracted. Total Variance ExplainedComponentInitial EigenvaluesExtraction Sums of Squared LoadingsRotation Sums of Squared LoadingsTotal% of VarianceCumulative %Total% of VarianceCumulative %Total% of VarianceCumulative %12,70638,65538,6552,70638,65538,6552,05729,39229,39221,75825,11663,7711,75825,11663,7712,05129,30358,69431,39819,97583,7451,39819,97583,7451,75425,05183,7454,5197,41291,1585,3094,42195,5786,2143,06398,6417,0951,359100,000Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. With a cumulative percentage of 83,745%, we now have three groups. The first and most powerful group is the one that tries to keep its online identiy perfect , by uploading the best photos , and being very careful about its image and its contacts , and the comments it makes. This group of people follow the “Celebrity- me” behavior and the new finding here is that it uses Facebook for Public Relationships. The second group does not bother with the online identity , but tries to post original and unique stuff. The third group , possibly the one which participates on Facebook to meet old friends , does not share any of this characteristics. Component MatrixaComponent123I try to keep my online identity as best as I can.That's why : I upload only my best photos to receive the best comments,770,426,024I try to keep my online identity as best as I can.That's why : I think very carefully to what groups I participate or not,744-,238-,409I try to keep my online identity as best as I can.That's why : I am careful in making comments,923-,015,168I try to keep my online identity as best as I can.That's why : I am careful in receiving and maintaining comments,541,164-,705I try to keep my online identity as best as I can.That's why : I only post unique materials,069,874,338I try to keep my online identity as best as I can.That's why : I am careful in accepting friends,219-,836,186I try to keep my online identity as best as I can.That's why : I am careful ion my friends' request,601-,173,746Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.a. 3 components extracted. Total Variance ExplainedComponentInitial EigenvaluesExtraction Sums of Squared LoadingsRotation Sums of Squared LoadingsTotal% of VarianceCumulative %Total% of VarianceCumulative %Total% of VarianceCumulative %12,73254,64154,6412,73254,64154,6412,34746,94446,94421,04920,97275,6131,04920,97275,6131,10322,06869,0123,76515,30290,915,76515,30290,9151,09521,90390,9154,2895,77296,6875,1663,313100,000Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. With a cumulative percentage of 90.915%, three groups of people again arise. The first is the one that does a lot of posting, to inform friends, to share ideas/opinions, and share something important. The second and the third are the sentimental groups of people that do posting to express their feelings at a particular moment. Component MatrixaComponent123I do posting because I want to : Share Ideas and opinions,809-,507,060I do posting because I want to : Inform my friends,506,575-,635I do posting because I want to : Express my expertise on something,897-,182-,102I do posting because I want to : Express feelings,467,654,581I do posting because I want to : Point out the importance of something,895-,025,104Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.a. 3 components extracted. Total Variance ExplainedComponentInitial EigenvaluesExtraction Sums of Squared LoadingsRotation Sums of Squared LoadingsTotal% of VarianceCumulative %Total% of VarianceCumulative %Total% of VarianceCumulative %11,99839,95839,9581,99839,95839,9581,98839,75639,75621,46429,28069,2381,46429,28069,2381,47429,48269,2383,79315,86185,0994,50610,12695,2255,2394,775100,000Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. With a cumulative percentage of 69.236%, 2 factors are used to analyze the sample, of what postings stimulate the awareness of Greek users. Both groups pay attention to postings made by close friends. The first group pays attention more in posting done by people it respects and people it trust. The second group pays attention to postings by heavy Facebook users. Component MatrixaComponent12I pay ATTENTION to others' posting only when they are posted : by close friends,598,579I pay ATTENTION to others' posting only when they are posted : by people I respect,869-,214I pay ATTENTION to others' posting only when they are posted : by well known celebrities,165-,791I pay ATTENTION to others' posting only when they are posted : by heavy Facebook users,118,665I pay ATTENTION to others' posting only when they are posted : by people I trust,919-,118Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.a. 2 components extracted. Total Variance ExplainedComponentInitial EigenvaluesExtraction Sums of Squared LoadingsRotation Sums of Squared LoadingsTotal% of VarianceCumulative %Total% of VarianceCumulative %Total% of VarianceCumulative %12,65544,24844,2482,65544,24844,2482,46641,09841,09821,44924,15868,4071,44924,15868,4071,63927,30968,4073,73312,22380,6304,5679,44990,0795,3706,17196,2496,2253,751100,000Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Something that is of great importance for our research is what the reason is that Greek Facebook users share or spread something. Two groups exist again, with the second to be the sentimental one, that spreads something that serves a social cause or something that expresses feelings ( like gifts , cards etc.) The first group shares and spreads something when it is humorous, and/or important, and/or interesting. Again, following the “Celebrity-me “behavior, they try to be the firsts to share something. The interesting finding is that they do share the same characteristic with group one , that is , they share and spread feelings , plus they will share something ( like a song , a link , a thought etc) , and through it , they expect that the others will understand them better , as for their preferences, tastes , feelings and personality are concerned. Component MatrixaComponent12Reasons for sharing something with others: Humorous,880-,145Reasons for sharing something with others: Interesting,745-,231Reasons for sharing something with others: Important,815-,167Reasons for sharing something with others: Social cause-,213,847Reasons for sharing something with others: My friends understand me better,524,441Reasons for sharing something with others: Share feelings,585,660Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.a. 2 components extracted. 10.2 Statistical conclusions Our research showed that a big percentage of Greek Internet users are Facebook participants. Both males and females participate equally, and the year that becomes known was 2006. An astonishing majority (93, 2%) is between the ages of 20-23. Connectedness and belongingness plays an important role to the majority of these users, but a negative tendency for having celebrity friends exists as well. Greeks’ posting attitude agrees with the European, i.e. they belong to the Generation Reveal, which they post a lot of things from their personal life in their profile. Furthermore, for Greeks, it is important to express feelings, emotions and opinions either by revealing (Generation Reveal) or by commenting (Expertise/Celebrity me behavior). Greeks post a lot of links to things (videos, newscasts, blogs etc.) that they are humorous, important or interesting, making them viral spreaders. They follow the “celebrity-me” behavior by trying to keep their online identity in a perfect shape. They upload their best photos, and express their thoughts and feelings in such a way to receive good comments and affirmation. One thing not common with the other Europeans is that they use Facebook more like a Public Relationships’ tool rather than something to have fun with. Ties play perhaps the most important role here, with almost every Facebook user to enjoy being on Facebook because he can meet his friends. As far as posting and who stimulates their awareness by his postings, close friends play by far the most important role, and people they trust the second most. 11. Viral advertising in the Greek market Our research showed the tendencies and the psychological and sociological factors that drive Greeks to participate, to post, to spread. Although the sample was not very big, it gives us a good idea and good results. The major and most important facts were gathered previously, but let us summarize them once more. ,[object Object]

They belong in the Generation Reveal , seeking confirmation

They belong in the CybeGens , following the trend

They are spreaders of things, as long as it is humorous, interesting or important, seeking affirmation (Celebrity-Me), by being the ones to first spread it.

They enjoy participation and belongingness

Strong ties play important role , as Greeks value friendships, trustworthiness and respectful persons ( this is different than the rest of the Europeans)

They use Facebook as a medium for public relations and not to have fun with old friends or just some people they know( again , different than the rest of Europeans).How will you advertise to people with these characteristics via viral? How can you make them spread your message? Depending on what the message would be, there could be different techniques. For example, an event, via the public relationships’ attitude can be spread by a person who has 1000-2000 friends which in turn can spread it in others. This public-relations based technique is based on the two key attitudes of the Greeks, PR attitude and celebrity-me (spread first). Another case, if a product or a service is to be advertised, a viral video which is humorous can be made, so people will want to share it and spread it , and their close friends will definitely pay attention to it , even if they do not like it. If they do like it, they will spread it themselves. So, our initial hypothesis turns out to be correct for the Greek users, viral can be both an outcome (by spreading) and an influencer (strong ties, public relations attitude & Celebrity-me attitude”. . 12. Conclusion The key was to find the characteristics. Once they are found, they are number of techniques that can be applied. Of course, these are not the only characteristics that are applied. Further and future research can be made to search such matters more deeply, for even more effective findings, both psychological and sociological, to find more attitudes. Our questionnaire only covered topics that already existed, and the research found that Greeks follow the Europeans in most of these attitudes. But, surprisingly, we found two-three more characteristics that specialize the Greeks than the rest of the Europeans, leading us in the conclusion that the Greek online market differs from other countries. Future research can be made in each country individually, in these matters or others that a psychologist, a sociologist or a marketer would want to depth- in 13. References 13.1 Books ,[object Object]

Joe Plummer et al. ,2007, “The Online Advertising Playbook: Proven Strategies and Tested Tactics from the Advertising Research Foundation” , Wiley , ISBN-10: 0470051051

Clara Shin, 2009,” The Facebook Era: Tapping Online Social Networks to Build Better Products, Reach New Audiences”, Prentice Hall PTR, ISBN-10: 0137152221

Thomas J. Reynolds , 2008,”Understanding Consumer Decision Making: The Means–End Approach to Marketing and Advertising Strategy” , LLC Jerry C. Olson,

Connected Marketing, the viral, buzz and Word of mouth revolution, Butterworth-Heinemann Date: September 9, 2005 Subject: Marketing

Author: Justin Kirby and Paul Mardsen (Editors) ISBN: 075066634

Gilbert A Churchill & Dawn Iacobucci , 2005, “Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations” , 9th Edition , Prentice Hall, ) ISBN: 075066678913.2 Papers ,[object Object]

JEFFREY A. BARACH ,1969, Advertising Effectiveness and Risk in the Consumer Decision Process Journal of Marketing Research,

Vol. VI (August 1969),pp. 314-20

JOHN E. HOGAN, KATHERINE N. LEMON, BARAK LIBAI, , September 2004, Quantifying the Ripple: Word-of-mouth and Advertising Effectiveness, Journal of Marketing Research

CATE RIEGNER , Word of Mouth on the Web: The Impact of Web 2.0 on Consumer Purchase Decisions , December 2007

JULIAN VILLANUEVA, SHIJIN YOO, and DOMINIQUE M. HANSSENS The Impact of Marketing-Induced Versus Word-of-Mouth Customer Acquisition on Customer Equity Growth, , © 2008, American Marketing Association , ISSN: 0022-2437 (print), 1547-7193, Journal of Marketing Research , Vol. XLV (February 2008), 48–59

KATE NIEDERHOFFER, ROB MOOTH, DAVID WIESENFELD, December 2007,The Origin and Impact of CPG New-Product Buzz: Emerging Trends and Implications ,

JEFFREY GRAHAM, December 2007,Finding the '^Missing Link": Advertising's Impact on Word of Mouth, Web Searches, and Site Visits, ,[object Object]

Riadh Ladhari, 2008,The Effect of Consumption Emotions on Satisfaction and Word-of-Mouth Communications, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 24(12): 1085–1108 (December 2007), Published online in Wiley InterScience

KINETA H. HUNG , STELLA YIYAN LI, December 2007,The Influence of eWOM on Virtual Consumer Communities: Social Capital, Consumer Learning, and Behavioral Outcomes

Sang-Yeon Kim, David Westerman, & Stephanie Tom Tong ,”The Role of Friends’ Appearance and Behavior on Evaluations of Individuals on Facebook”, Joseph B. Walther, Brandon Van Der Heide, , Human Communication Research ISSN 0360-3989 , 2008 International Communication Association

TED SMITH, JAMES R. COYLE, ELIZABETH LIGHTFOOT, December 2007 “Reconsidering Models of Influence: The Relationship between Consumer Social Networks and Word-of Mouth Effectiveness”,

DEE T. ALLSOP, BRYCE R. BASSETT, December 2007

Word-of-Mouth Research: Principles and Applications

Tom Postmes, Russell Spears, Intergroup Differentiation in Computer-Mediated Communication: Effects of Depersonalization , Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice”, Copyright 2002 by the Educational Publishing Foundation 2002, Vol. 6, No. 1, 3–16 13.3 Internet ,[object Object]

“Facebook : Expansion ala Google in advertising», available on ,www.naftemporiki.gr/news/cstory.asp?id=1729548 , published October 18th , 2009

“ Attitudes and values that are gone forever in the Cyberspace” , available on http://news.kathimerini.gr/4dcgi/_w_articles_world_1_17/10/2009_333817 , published October 17th 2009

“Email – The end of an Era”, available on http://portal.kathimerini.gr/4dcgi/_w_articles_kathbreak_1_14/10/2009_302165 , , published October 10th , 2009

“Inside the mind of the internet users” ,by Epameinondas Tsakalos , available on www.marketingweek.gr/default.asp?pid=9&la=1&arId=26278&pg=2&ss= , published November 17th 2009

“Facebook Case Study: Offline behavior drives online usage” , by Nissan Gabbay , available on www.startup-review.com/blog/facebook-case-study-offline-behavior-drives-online-usage.php , published on November 5th , 2006

“ Facebook: the “social media” revolution: A study and analysis of the phenomenon” , presentation by FaberNovel Consulting , available on www.myplick.com/view/d74FxuKPD0U/facebook-study , published October 26th , 2007Appendix A Questionnaire I am an Internet user YN I use the internet for a) Up to 1 hour dailyb) Between 5 – 10 hours daily c) Between 3- 5 hours dailyd) I am online most of the day I am using internet for the following purposes (check as many as apply) Find informationb) buy productsc) play online games d) Communicatee) social networking f) other _____________ Have you ever used any of the social networks applications YN Are you still a present user YN (if No Please GO to demographics) 6) In which one of the following you are presently participating (check as many as apply) Facebookb) Tweeterc) hi5d)Other ……………………. … If you are NOT a Facebook User PLEASE GO to Demographics 7) I am a Facebook participant since a) 2004b) 2005 c) 2006d) 2007e)2008f) 2009 Please Respond to the following statements regarding Facebook – there are not right and wrong answers, your personal opinion ONLY counts. I enjoy being on Facebook because: Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree Agree 8) I feel connected with a lot of people 12 3 4 5 9) I can participate (groups, fan pages) 12 3 4 5 10) I belong to groups and communities 12 3 4 5 11) I like posting things (opinions, feelings, comments) 12 3 4 5 12) I have the opportunity to exchange ideas with celebrities 12 3 4 5 13) To meet old friends 1 2 3 4 5 14) Other (please specify) …………. 15) I post a lot of things on my Facebook profile, including photos, videos and lots of stuff from my personal life. a) Strongly

Word of mouth on the web

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (17)

Similar to Word of mouth on the web

Similar to Word of mouth on the web (7)

Word of mouth on the web