Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Wir verwenden Ihre LinkedIn Profilangaben und Informationen zu Ihren Aktivitäten, um Anzeigen zu personalisieren und Ihnen relevantere Inhalte anzuzeigen. Sie können Ihre Anzeigeneinstellungen jederzeit ändern.
Audience management in social media: Affordances,            cultural differences, and implications for privacy           ...
Nächste SlideShare
Wird geladen in …5

Audience management in social media: Affordances, cultural differences, and implications for privacy

1.473 Aufrufe

Veröffentlicht am

Poster by Sonja Utz & Jan-Hinrik Schmidt, European Communications Conference 2012, 25. October 2012, Istanbul

Veröffentlicht in: Bildung
  • Als Erste(r) kommentieren

  • Gehören Sie zu den Ersten, denen das gefällt!

Audience management in social media: Affordances, cultural differences, and implications for privacy

  1. 1. Audience management in social media: Affordances, cultural differences, and implications for privacy Sonja Utz (s.utz@vu.nl) & Jan-Hinrik Schmidt (j.schmidt@hans-bredow-institut.de) 1. Introduction 2. Conceptual background: Different audiences (cf. Schmidt, 2011)  Social media are blurring boundaries between Intended audience: Empirical audience: the private and the public those people the user (often those people who take notice of implicitly) regards as “proper content (vs. those who are inactive,  Users routinely have to deal with “unseen recipients” of self-disclosure or to whom content is filtered out) audiences” (Scheidt, 2006) or “imagined audiences” (Marwick/boyd, 2010) Addressed audience: Potential audience: those individuals or sub-groups a those people who might eventually  Technical characteristics of digital networked user is directly “targeting”, e.g. by take notice, e.g. due to specific communication – persistence, replicability, @-replying or posting a link “for all privacy settings scalability, and searchability (cf. boyd, 2008) – of you interested in music” complicate audience management  Intended/addressed audience will not necessarily be congruent with empirical/potential audience  RQ 1: How are audiences in social media composed?  RQ 1a: Are there differences between different services?  RQ 1b: Are there differences between cultures? 3. Context and content of survey 4. Potential audience on SNS vs. Microblog 5. Potential vs. intended audience on SNS  part of international and interdisciplinary 0,0 20,0 40,0 60,0 80,0 100,0 0 20 40 60 80 100 research network on “Privacy and Web 2.0” (cf. Trepte & Reinecke 2011) Friends  Online survey among n=1.934 social media other family members users from USA, UK, Netherlands, Germany, other family members China, Hongkong parents  Field time: 15 Nov to 14 Dec 2011 colleagues expartner  SNS users: 92.0 % (Facebook: 83.5 %, partner renren.com: 5.1 %) partner  avg. contacts: 388,12 (std.dev. 884,4) colleagues ex-partner  Microblogging actively: 24.1 % (Twitter: 67.9 %, Sina Weibo: 24.8 %) boss/teacher People Im interested in  avg. followers: 174,5 (std.dev. 478,5) friends parents  Looped questions, personalized for services used  Potential audience: “Are the following people "online only" "Online only" among your [contacts] / [followers]?”  Intended audience: “If you think of a typical people Im interested in boss/teacher [SNS status update] – who do you intend to address or reach with it?” celebrities celebrities  Empirical audience: “And who is usually strangers strangers reacting to your [SNS status update] , either online or offline?” SNS twitter potential audience intended audience 6. Critical cases and cultural differences Intended, but not empirical audience (% occurring / country) Empirical, but not intended audience (% occurring / country) American British German Dutch Chinese American British German Dutch Chinese Intended audience 100100 yes no 9090 80 80 “too much Empirical Audience yes 7070 attention” 6060 5050 40 “not enough 40 attention” 3030 no 2020 1010 0 0 boss/teacher parents romantic expartner strangers "Online only" boss/teacher parents other family romantic expartner strangers people Im celebrities partner members partner interested in 6. Conclusion 6. Literature  differences potential audiences on SNS vs. microblogging services:  boyd, d. (2008): Taken out of context. American teen sociality in networked publics. Ph.D. Dissertation, Berkeley. Online: SNS: mostly friends & family  microblog: more distant & more diverse ties http://www.danah.org/papers/TakenOutOfContext.pdf [12/10/2012]  SNS: intended audience are primarily the friends, mismatch potential audience!  Hofstede, G.H. (1980). Culture Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values. London: Sage.  Problematic cases of audience management  Marwick, A., & boyd, d. (2010). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined  intended, but not empirical (not enough attention): people I’m interested, partner and expartner audience. New Media & Society, 13 (1), 114-133.  Scheidt, L. A. (2006). Adolescent diary weblogs and the unseen  Chinese - celebrities & people I’m interested in => more strategic SNS use, less focus on close ties audience. In D. Buckingham & R. Willett (Eds.), Digital Generations: Children, Young People, and New Media (pp. 193–  British don’t get enough attention from parents/family members 210). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.  Schmidt, J.-H. (2011). (Micro)Blogs: Practices of Privacy  empirical, but not intended (too much attention): parents, people I know but never met personally, Management. In S. Trepte & L. Reinecke (Eds.), Privacy Online expartners & strangers (pp. 159-173), Heidelberg: Springer.  Trepte, S., & Reinecke , L. (eds.), Privacy Online. Heidelberg:  Dutch & Germans: more problematic cases in the interpersonal domain (parents, partner, ex), less so when it Springer. comes to strangers  Americans & British: most often reactions of boss/teacher This research has been supported by the “Young Scholar’s Network on Privacy & Web 2.0” (DFG TR 498/11-1)  Chinese: strangers & people I know but never met problematic!