Understanding everyday internet experiences: Applications to … · 2010. 6. 9. · Accordingly,...

Understanding everyday internet experiences: Applications to social marketing theory and

practice

A thesis presented to the School of Advertising, Marketing & Public Relations, Faculty of Business,

Queensland University of Technology in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

By

Josephine Previte, BCom (Hons)

March 2005

Keywords social marketing

internet marketing

internet technology

interpretivism

Q methodology

i

Abstract

Recently Alan Andreasen (2003) argued that social marketing is in the ‘growth

phase’ of development following four decades of research and practice. During this

same time period, marketing has also witnessed new theoretical ideas and practices

that have evolved from the influence of new interactive technologies such as the

internet. Only limited scholarly work however has been undertaken to draw these

marketing sub-disciplinary areas together. The research undertaken in this thesis

bridges this gap and explores the role of the internet as means to further extend social

marketing theory and practice. Three research questions informed the study. The first

of these questions focused on how internet users describe their experiences of the

internet as an everyday technology. The second question investigated the different

profiles of internet users’ opinions, attitudes and actions, and the third question

examined how social marketing can be more responsive to internet user behaviour.

To address these research questions the research design used both qualitative

methods of focus groups and in-depth interviews together with Q methodology to

quantitatively represent the structure and form of individual users’ subjective

disposition towards the internet. Although Q methodology is relatively absent from

marketing literature, it was a useful method for identifying types of people with

similar experiences and views of the advantages and disadvantages of internet

interactions and relationships. The research process in the study was operationalised

using a three-study design. The first study drew on sixteen interviews and two focus

groups with internet users, the second study involved Q sorting with thirty-two

internet users, and the third study engaged interviews with twenty social change

agents.

This study of internet users is embedded in a particular theoretical and

epistemological position. Three issues are relevant. First, a social constructionist

epistemology is engaged. This emphasises that technology is a social process,

patterned by the condition of its creation and use, and informed by human choices

and actions. Second, the research is situated across disciplinary boundaries.

Marketing practitioners initially adopted a commercial, albeit simplistic, lens when

considering the value of social aspects, such as virtual communities and the social

ii

networks of connection that link internet users into longer term relationships and

exchanges of knowledge, emotion and shared confidences online. However, the

intangible non-material resources shared between customers, organisations and other

users online are of import to understanding the value of the internet for social

marketing strategy. This required looking beyond the social marketing theory and

research, to the literature on the sociology of technology. The third way in which this

research is different epistemologically and theoretically is in its interpretive focus.

Accordingly, the thesis contributes to the shift in academic focus towards critical

marketing, which Hastings and Saren (2003) argue provides a more detailed critique

and understanding of social marketing processes and outcomes.

The main contribution of this thesis is the development of a strategy map for online

social marketing. The map is derived from findings from the three studies. Study 1

explained that the internet is a social and personal technology which has been

incorporated into users’ everyday lives and activities. Study 2 identified different

profiles of internet user opinions, attitudes and actions and interpreted these as

internet user segments described as: the Internet Communitarian, the Information

Networker and the Individualised Networker. Study 3 delineated the findings from

the downstream users’ perspective and presented a strategy map derived from the

experiences of upstream internet users. Three principles inform this strategy map.

First, social marketers need to adopt customer-centric marketing. Secondly, they

should apply an exchange continuum that embraces a relational perspective. Thirdly,

social marketers using the internet should plan online strategies that focus on the

internet as a recombinant technology that can be “remade” by individual users’ needs

and desires.

Several identified limitations of the study should be considered when reviewing this

study. Firstly, the study’s interpretive methodological focus precludes quantification

and generalisablity to larger populations. Secondly, sample bias in terms of age and

gender demographics was evident. Thirdly, a further limitation of the study is the

nature of the technology under investigation in this thesis: the recency, and hence the

salience of the findings, are mitigated by the fact that the internet is a dynamic

technology. Finally, the generalised rather than particularised perspective on social

iii

issues and problems adopted in this study as a means of discussing social marketing,

may also be seen as a limitation.

This research is of significance to both an academic and practitioner audience. In

terms of scholarly significance, the study is important theoretically and

methodologically. Social marketing theory has a well established view of the

customer as an operand resource. This thesis is significant as it demonstrates the

need to conceptualise customers as more than simply ‘targets’ of social marketing

campaigns. It illustrates how social change customers become operant resources who

produce effects, based on their sharing behaviours, and make online contributions to

behaviour-change processes that give target audiences (operand resources) a sense

that they can enact the behaviour. As well, the evolving customer roles — user,

social actor, co-creator, resource — theorised from the study findings inform a

shifting exchange continuum involving ‘transactions’ to ‘relationships’. Finally, this

research is of theoretical significance in elucidating the conceptualisation of the

continuous-process perspective which reveals that exchanges are not just the discrete,

‘transactional’ variety, but rather are long in duration and reflect an ongoing

relationship-development process.

Methodologically, the study has also demonstrated the potential value of Q

methodology as a means of revealing subjective experiences and perspectives, which

are the foundation of social products regularly dealt with by social marketers. For

social marketing practitioners the study also demonstrates the need for engaging a

more holistic view of the internet and its customers to facilitate social change

campaigns. This, however, does not negate the fact that there may be potential

challenges and unintended consequences facing social marketers in engaging the

internet.

iv

Table of Contents

Keywords ................................................................................................................. i

Abstract ................................................................................................................... ii

List of Figures ......................................................................................................... x

List of Tables ......................................................................................................... xi

List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................ xii

Statement of original authorship .......................................................................... xiii

Acknowledgements .............................................................................................. xiv

Chapter One: Introduction....................................................................................... 1

1.0 Introduction............................................................................................. 1

1.1 Situating the research questions within the literature ............................. 1

1.2 Research design....................................................................................... 7

1.3 Significance of the research .................................................................... 9

1.4 Structure of the thesis............................................................................ 10

1.5 Summary ............................................................................................... 12

Chapter Two: Literature Review Contextualising the Internet ............................. 13

2.0 Introduction........................................................................................... 13

2.1 Defining the internet ............................................................................. 13

2.1.1 Interactivity ................................................................................... 16

2.1.2 Anonymity .................................................................................... 18

2.1.3 Hyperpersonal communication ..................................................... 19

2.2 Conceptualisation and consequences of access..................................... 20

2.3 Internet users, consumers and coproducers........................................... 23

2.4 Internet as market metaphor.................................................................. 26

2.4.1 Relational technologies ................................................................. 29

2.4.2 Virtual communities of consumption............................................ 31

2.5 Social aspects of the internet................................................................. 34

2.5.1 Social networks defined ................................................................ 35

2.5.2 Virtual community ........................................................................ 38

2.6 The social shaping of technology.......................................................... 42

2.7 Summary ............................................................................................... 45

v

Chapter Three: Social Marketing Framework....................................................... 47

3.0 Introduction........................................................................................... 47

3.1 Defining social marketing ..................................................................... 47

3.1.1 Behavioural theory in social marketing ........................................ 53

3.1.2 Exchange theory............................................................................ 56

3.1.3 Relational paradigms in social marketing..................................... 58

3.1.4 Mobilising community and benefits to third parties ..................... 61

3.2 Social constructionism and marketing theory ....................................... 65

3.2.1 Social constructionism defined ..................................................... 67

3.2.2 Limitations in sender and receiver models.................................... 69

3.3 Social marketing on the internet ........................................................... 71

3.3.1 Pro-social online information and communication ....................... 72

3.3.2 Online relational thinking ............................................................. 74

3.3.3 Online behaviour interventions..................................................... 76

3.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................ 77

Chapter 4: Methodology of Data Collection and Analysis ................................... 81

4.0 Introduction........................................................................................... 81

4.1 Interpretivism and marketing research.................................................. 81

4.2 Research design..................................................................................... 83

4.3 Sampling strategy.................................................................................. 87

4.4 Qualitative methodological approach ................................................... 90

4.4.1 Rationale and in-depth interview design....................................... 90

4.4.2 Rationale and focus group design ................................................. 92

4.5 Q methodological approach .................................................................. 93

4.5.1 “Q” versus “R” techniques............................................................ 93

4.5.2 Rationale for Q methodology........................................................ 98

4.6 Data analysis ......................................................................................... 99

4.6.1 Qualitative data analysis ............................................................... 99

4.6.2 Q method data analysis ............................................................... 102

4.7 Establishing trustworthiness, reliability and validity .......................... 103

4.7.1 Establishing trustworthiness in qualitative findings ................... 103

4.7.2 Understanding reliability and validity in Q methodology .......... 106

4.8 Limitations in methodology ................................................................ 107

4.9 Ethical considerations ......................................................................... 110

4.10 Summary ............................................................................................. 111

vi

Chapter Five: Exploratory Study of Internet Users’ Experiences....................... 113

5.0 Introduction......................................................................................... 113

5.1 Background to internet user studies .................................................... 113

5.2 Opinion and experience sampling of internet users ............................ 115

5.3 Internet in everyday life ...................................................................... 120

5.3.1 Role of information in daily life.................................................. 122

5.3.2 The role of the internet as a personal and social technology ...... 129

5.3.3 Summary of Study 1 ................................................................... 139

5.4 Concourse of internet opinions, experiences and actions ................... 140

5.4.1 Concourse theory ........................................................................ 141

5.5 Summary ............................................................................................. 156

Chapter 6: Segmentation of Downstream Internet Users.................................... 159

6.0 Introduction......................................................................................... 159

6.1 Implementation of Q ........................................................................... 159

6.2 Q method design ................................................................................. 161

6.2.1 Q statement sample ..................................................................... 161

6.2.2 Q sorting...................................................................................... 162

6.2.3 P set: Q respondent sample ......................................................... 165

6.3 Factor analysis and interpretation ....................................................... 169

6.3.1 Three factor solution ................................................................... 170

6.3.2 Reliability of factors.................................................................... 174

6.4 Segmentation of internet users ............................................................ 175

6.4.1 Internet user segment I: Internet communitarians....................... 176

6.4.2 Internet user segment II: Information networkers....................... 183

6.4.3 Internet user segment III: Individualised networkers.................. 188

6.5 Cross-factor comparisons: Areas of consensus................................... 194

6.6 Discussion and implications for online social marketing ................... 196

6.7 Summary ............................................................................................. 202

Chapter 7: Upstream Stakeholders’ Internet Experiences .................................. 205

7.0 Introduction......................................................................................... 205

7.1 Social change marketplace.................................................................. 206

7.1.1 Sample of social change decision makers................................... 207

7.1.2 Adoption of a social marketing program view............................ 209

vii

7.2 Stages of behaviour change in social marketing programs................. 215

7.2.1 ‘Precontemplation’ in internet behavioural planning.................. 219

7.2.2 ‘Contemplation’ in internet behavioural planning ...................... 223

7.2.3 ‘Action’ in internet behavioural planning................................... 228

7.2.4 ‘Maintenance’ in internet behavioural planning ......................... 234

7.3 Strategic use of the internet in social change ...................................... 239

7.3.1 Functional aspects ....................................................................... 243

7.3.2 Relational aspects........................................................................ 247

7.4 Summary ............................................................................................. 251

Chapter Eight: Online Social Marketing............................................................. 253

8.0 Introduction......................................................................................... 253

8.1 Experiencing the internet .................................................................... 254

8.2 HOW DO INTERNET USERS DESCRIBE THEIR EXPERIENCES OF THE INTERNET AS AN EVERYDAY TECHNOLOGY? ........................................................ 256

8.2.1 Functional information technology............................................. 258

8.2.2 Social and personal technology................................................... 259

8.2.3 Summary of users’ everyday experiences of the internet ........... 259

8.3 WHAT PROFILES OF INTERNET USERS’ OPINIONS, ATTITUDES AND ACTIONS CAN BE IDENTIFIED? ............................................................................ 260

8.3.1 Internet communitarian segment................................................. 263

8.3.2 Information networker segment .................................................. 264

8.3.3 Individualised networker segment .............................................. 266

8.4 HOW CAN SOCIAL MARKETING BE MORE RESPONSIVE TO INTERNET USER BEHAVIOUR?........................................................................................ 267

8.4.1 Adopt a customer-centric marketing view .................................. 269

8.4.2 Leverage an exchange continuum............................................... 272

8.4.3 Position the internet as a recombinant technology...................... 274

8.4.4 Develop a social marketing strategy map ................................... 275

8.5 Summary ............................................................................................. 281

Chapter Nine: Conclusions ................................................................................. 283

9.0 Introduction......................................................................................... 283

9.1 Key findings ........................................................................................ 283

viii

9.2 Study significance ............................................................................... 286

9.2.1 Significance for theory................................................................ 286

9.2.2 Significance for practice ............................................................. 289

9.3 Limitations .......................................................................................... 291

9.4 Future research.................................................................................... 295

9.5 Summary ............................................................................................. 297

Appendices.......................................................................................................... 299

Appendix 1: Study 1 Sample description ............................................................ 300



Appendix 4: Sample interviewing guide............................................................. 305

Appendix 5: Qualitative coding examples .......................................................... 307

Appendix 6: Q data collection table.................................................................... 310

Appendix 7: Reporting z-scores and equivalent factor scores ............................ 311

Appendix 8: Normalised factor scores................................................................ 312

Appendix 9: Summary of distinguishing statements in three-factor solution..... 318

Appendix 10: Q sort follow-up interview guide ................................................. 320

Appendix 11: Rotated factor matrix for three-factor solution ............................ 322

References ........................................................................................................... 325

ix

List of Figures

Figure 1.1: Relevant literatures ............................................................................... 3

Figure 2.1: Extended marketing classification framework ................................... 30

Figure 4.1: Interpretative research design............................................................. 86

Figure 6.1: Q sort distribution............................................................................. 163

Figure 6.2: Summary characteristics................................................................... 198

Figure 7.1: Social marketing product.................................................................. 229

Figure 8.1: Interactive strategy map for social marketing .................................. 280

x

List of Tables

Table 4.1: Research links between questions and methods .................................. 84

Table 5.1: Structure of the Q sample .................................................................. 143

Table 6.1: Structure of Q sample ........................................................................ 162

Table 6.2: P-Set structure of internet user attitudes and opinions ...................... 167

Table 6.3: Rotated factor loadings ...................................................................... 172

Table 6.4: Factor A: High salience statements.................................................... 177

Table 6.5: Factor A: Lower salience statements ................................................. 181

Table 6.6: Factor B: High salience statements.................................................... 185

Table 6.7: Factor B: Low salience statements .................................................... 187

Table 6.8: Factor C: High salience statements.................................................... 189

Table 6.9: Factor C: Low salience statements .................................................... 193

Table 6.10: Consensus items............................................................................... 195

Table 7.1: Stages in behaviour change................................................................ 217

Table7.2: Social change internet strategies and tactics....................................... 238

Table 7.3: Stakeholders’ shaping of internet technology.................................... 241

xi

List of Abbreviations

ANT Actor Network Theory

B2B Business to Business exchange

B2C Business to Consumer exchange

C2C Consumer to Consumer exchange

CMC Computer Mediated Communication

eCRM Electronic Customer Relationship Management

ICTs Interactive Communication Technologies

SOC Stages of Change Model

SCOT Social construction of technology

SST Social shaping of technology

TM Transtheoretical Model

xii

Statement of original authorship

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted for a degree or

diploma at any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and

belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another

person except where due reference is made.

Signature:

Date:

xiii

Acknowledgements

There are numerous people I need to acknowledge in relation to the successful

completion of my doctoral studies.

I am fortunate to have had the highest quality supervision throughout this research.

Professor Greg Hearn provided encouragement and guidance that sustained my

motivation and interest in the research topic. More importantly, he challenged me to

think about alternative ways to investigate social research problems, and as a result I

have learnt more and developed new analytical skills. I owe him many thanks for his

patience and clear guidance at those times when I was confused and mentally

discouraged. I am grateful to Associate Professor Susan Dann for supporting my

doctoral aspirations, and her practical insights about social marketing theory which

provided me with the freedom to pursue my research interests and the timely advice

to confine my activities. Susan sparked my initial interest in social marketing as an

undergraduate student, and since that time has encouraged and challenged me to

further my understanding of its development and place in the broader marketing

discipline.

I am also indebted to all those who participated in the research. Particularly I am

grateful to the social change professionals, who cannot be named because of

confidentiality issues, that gave generously of their time, experience and knowledge.

I am also grateful to my friends and colleagues, who were continually available to

discuss my research and add their critiques. I am particularly indebted to two women,

Dr Barbara Pini and Dr Judy Drennan. Barbara provided valuable advice on writing

and presenting my research, as well as meticulously correcting my work through

various stages of development. Judy generously provided a willing ear to listen to my

ideas and gave advice that helped me clarify both practical and theoretical matters.

Finally, I wish to acknowledge the support my parents, Ellen and Phillip, provided at

those times when I was mentally exhausted and wanted to give up. At all times they

were supportive and had unfailing confidence that I would finish this thesis.

xiv

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

Chapter One: Introduction

Territorial considerations (in marketing) are basically irrelevant. As Popper (1963) says, “All this classification and distinction is a comparatively unimportant and superficial affair. We are not students of some subject matter but students of problems. And problems may cut right across the borders of any subject matter or discipline”. That is, no one has exclusive right to a problem.

(Levy, 2002, p. 300)

1.0 Introduction

Over the last two decades the academic marketing literature has conceptualised and

researched how marketing can serve customers through the internet. Most of this

work has concentrated on the potential of the internet for commercial exploitation.

At the same time as marketers were focusing attention on ‘the technology-induced

transformations that are revolutionising the marketplace’ (Parasuraman & Zinkhan,

2002, p. 286), sociologists were reporting that the internet was being adopted as a

social technology and that its network was being used by people to connect with

communities of interest (Sproull, 1997). Internet sociologists were also claiming that

virtual communities can resemble real-life communities because they give internet

users’ access to a range of non-material social resources such as emotional support,

companionship, information and a sense of belonging (Wellman & Gulia, 1999). In

this period, social scientists were also claiming that online activism and the

mobilisation of citizens to participate in social action are supported by the internet’s

technological and social structure (Gurak, 1997). Cumulatively, these two significant

research developments: that marketing exchanges can be successfully achieved using

the internet, and that people engage the internet not just for commercial transactions,

but also for social and personal reasons, raise the question which is at the centre of

this thesis. That is, what is the role of the internet in social marketing?

1.1 Situating the research questions within the literature

The claim that the internet is a revolutionary social and commercial technology that

will change the marketplace, society, and our lives, has been a dominant theme in

popular and academic discourse about the internet over the past two decades. The

perception has been that the internet heralds the entrance of an information age,

1


where a new mode of electronic information will predominate and give rise to an ‘e-

society’ imbued with a diversity of information sources and content, embedded in a

‘global information economy.’ This discourse is predicated on the belief that the

development and uptake of the internet will revolutionise the world of

communication like nothing before, thus changing the way we conduct our business,

personal and social activities. The acceptance of this belief has made it

commonplace for social scientists to refer to today’s society as the ‘information

society’ (Castells, 1989; Webster, 2002), a ‘cybersociety’ (Jones 1995, 1998), a

‘network society’ (Castells, 1996), the ‘global village’ (Rheingold, 1993), and the

‘age of access’ (Rifkin, 2000). This nomenclature demonstrates the hegemony of the

view that the contemporary world has, and will continue to be, transformed by

technology. This is a view typified in the following statement from Steve Jones,

(1999, p. 2) one of the most preeminent technology sociologists:

The internet is not only a technology but an engine of social change, one that has modified work habits, education, social relations generally, and maybe most important, our hopes and dreams.

Studying the internet is not a straight forward exercise, because it is a technology

that can be experienced in different ways. In addition, because research about the

internet is difficult to confine to specific disciplines, the literature which informs this

thesis is drawn from the areas of sociology, psychology, marketing and information

technology. More specifically, the research questions are drawn from three key

disciplinary areas. These are: (see Figure 1.1)

1. Internet marketing, which is derived from broader marketing theory and

practice and explains the application of marketing’s managerial paradigms to

the internet;

2. Sociology of technology, which is influenced by sociological thinking and

research about the study of society, culture and technological change; and,

3. Social marketing, which is an established sub-discipline that continues to be

influenced by developments in general marketing theory and practice.

2


Figure 1.1: Relevant literatures

Sociology of Technology

(Internet)

Internet

Marketing

Social Marketing

ONLINE SOCIAL

MARKETING

One of the key areas of investigation for internet sociologists has been determining

the implications of social access to the internet. This research has identified a range

of outcomes of the use of the internet including: an increase in social involvement

(Fishers, 1992); the facilitation of the formation of new relationships (Parks &

Roberts, 1998); the development of new identities and commitments amongst

otherwise isolated persons (McKenna & Bargh, 1998), the emergence of new online

communities supporting sociability (Preece, 2000) and the participation in groups

and organisations by distant or marginalised populations (Sproull & Kiesler, 1991).

The attention that has been afforded to the subject of the impact of social access to

the internet has not lead to any consensus on the issue, and consequently this field of

research remains a contested domain.

One of the key areas of investigation for internet sociologists has been determining

the implications of social access to the internet. This research has identified a range

of outcomes of the use of the internet including: an increase in social involvement

(Fishers, 1992); the facilitation of the formation of new relationships (Parks &

Roberts, 1998); the development of new identities and commitments amongst

otherwise isolated persons (McKenna & Bargh, 1998), the emergence of new online

communities supporting sociability (Preece, 2000) and the participation in groups

and organisations by distant or marginalised populations (Sproull & Kiesler, 1991).

The attention that has been afforded to the subject of the impact of social access to

the internet has not lead to any consensus on the issue, and consequently this field of

research remains a contested domain.

At the same time, other internet sociologists have shifted the terms of the debate.

That is, they have argued, that the internet is today an ‘everyday technology’ akin to

the telephone. As Herring (2004, p. 33) has posited, the internet has ‘become more a

practical necessity than an object of fascination and fetish’. This is because

information technology like the internet, is at the same time a network of social and

commercial relationships and information exchanges, and connections structured by

At the same time, other internet sociologists have shifted the terms of the debate.

That is, they have argued, that the internet is today an ‘everyday technology’ akin to

the telephone. As Herring (2004, p. 33) has posited, the internet has ‘become more a

practical necessity than an object of fascination and fetish’. This is because

information technology like the internet, is at the same time a network of social and

commercial relationships and information exchanges, and connections structured by

3


local, national and international connections. These network connections and the

internet’s hard-technology interface continue to evolve rapidly based on users’

constructions and selection of functions and services available online. This has been

illustrated through the changes that have occurred as computers with internet

connections have migrated from research labs, onto desktops into people’s

workplaces and home environments, and into hand-held portable devices that are

taken everywhere. In short, the internet is now part of everyday life in western

societies (Wellman & Haythornthwaite, 2002).

Lievrouw (2002) contends that the things users do with technologies continuously

remake them, because whilst some technologies certainly constrain action, people

can always make choices about using them. Too often, however, users and

technologies are viewed as separate objects. In contrast, Oudshoorn and Pinch

(2003) argue that users and technology should be viewed as two sides to the same

problem — as co-constructed. Internet users, accordingly, play an integral part in the

construction of the internet, and hence are the focus of this thesis. The first of the

research questions posed in this study, thus asks ‘How do internet users describe

their experiences of the internet as an everyday technology?’ This research question

is embedded in sociological thinking and an understanding of technology and

technology users as co-constructed. Also informing the development of this research

question is the aim to establish a middle ground between two strongly polarised

perspectives on the internet. That is, between those utopians who argue that there are

real and potential benefits in the internet and dystopians who are skeptical of the

changes that the internet might unleash (Katz & Rice, 2000). Seeking such a middle

ground is critical because, as Wellman (1997) has argued, many of the criticisms and

enthusiasms concerning the internet leave little room for the moderate, mixed

situations that may be the reality.

The focus of this thesis is people’s personal and social experiences of the internet.

As stated, this is a focus that has been, in part, derived from the findings in the

sociological literature. However, also guiding this focus is the marketing literature,

and, in particular, the well established record of marketing’s supply-side advantages

for using the internet to initiate commercial transactions, or to create and maintain

relationships with internet users. Less established in the marketing literature is the

4


‘customer perspective’ (Sharma & Sheth, 2004). Marketing practitioners initially

adopted a commercial, albeit simplistic, lens when considering the value of the social

aspects of the technology such as virtual communities. This was exemplified in

Rayport and Sviokla’s (1995) early discussion on the marketing value of virtual

communities, which argued that the ‘successful [online] marketspace will invite

consumers into a communal experience … [making] shopping a transaction

involving not just goods and services, but also [a positive] experience’. Werry (1999,

p. 4) summarises this early marketing approach to virtual communities as being ‘a

polite way of talking about audience, consumer demographics and market

segmentation, while seeming sensitive to internet users, their culture and

community’. These early approaches to the internet, and specifically virtual

communities, privilege the potential commercial aspects of technology, and, for the

most part, ignore the social interactions and processes from which virtual

communities typically derive their popularity and influence (Bagozzi & Dholakia,

2002). In light of this omission, the second research question posed in this thesis is:

‘What profiles of internet users’ opinion, attitudes and actions can be identified?’

The aim of this question is to explore users’ subjective dispositions towards the

internet and illustrate how people look differently at the advantages and

disadvantages of the internet, when they adopt technical functions and social aspects

of the technology.

The context of social marketing is the personal and social lives of people and the

achievement of socially desirable goals (Kotler & Zaltman, 1971) that ‘improves

their personal welfare and that of their society’ (Andreasen, 1995, p. 7). The

province of social marketing’s early success is exemplified in case studies of the

adoption of contraception and oral rehydration programs in third world countries.

Andreasen (2003) believes however, that social marketing’s early association with

relatively simple straightforward products, like condoms for example, held back the

diversification of social marketing into other areas. Later case studies have also

highlighted social marketing’s value in changing behaviour in uneducated and low-

income populations. These traditional target markets for social marketing programs

continue to be of importance in the twenty-first century. Whilst some social

marketers would argue that social marketing is a social change technology that is

most usefully applied to underprivileged or developing country populations, more

5


recently social marketing has been used to change behaviour in educated, middle

income populations who deal with social problems such as drug abuse, gambling,

obesity, lack of physical activity and other manifested ills of wealthy western

nations.

Social marketing’s early success in changing the behaviour of disadvantaged

consumers explains why some social marketing practitioners and scholars have

hesitated in incorporating the internet in social change programs. Just as other

disciplinary areas have been influenced by the hype that surrounds the internet, so

too have social marketers been influenced by the common misconceptions that the

internet is a purely technological event, with associated high costs of infrastructure,

equipment, skills and time. Such perceptions influence the view that the internet is

only of interest and accessible to elite populations of educated, technically savvy

people. However, as research has demonstrated, the internet is not an elite

technology for the wealthy few in society. Today, it is, in contrast, an everyday

technology which embraces ‘ordinary’ to ‘extraordinary’ experiences, because

internet users and actors can shape the internet as a functional, social and cognitive

space (Riva, 2001). Consequently, social marketing needs to reassess the internet,

and to further engage internet users, not simply as information consumers, but also

as active, empowered consumers (Stewart & Pavlou, 2002) in social marketing

programs. The challenge for social marketing is to move from thinking of the

internet simply in instrumental terms. Social marketers need to conceptualise the

internet as simultaneously competitive and collaborative (Day, 1994) in order to

exploit the internet’s network relationships (Vargo & Lusch, 2004). Hence the final

research question asks: ‘How can social marketing be more responsive to internet

user behaviour?’

Whilst an extensive literature exists on the subject of the internet and commercial

marketing, only selected articles have addressed social marketing and the internet.

However, social marketing deals with personal and social issues which are very

different marketing products from the products of commercial marketing. Social

marketing products include the marketing of ideas (beliefs, attitudes and values),

practices (acts and behaviours) and some tangible objects (Kotler & Roberto, 1989).

The third of the research questions investigated in this thesis recognises that while

6


further research is needed to understand social marketing exchanges online, this

work cannot simply replicate commercial marketing practice. Indeed, if anything, the

extant literature from sociology would indicate that social marketing online could

potentially be more successful, given internet users’ engagement of technology for

personal, social and relational interactions.

The particular significance is in these research questions is that they are asked in

relation to each other as part of an integrated investigation. This is because, as

Goldberg (1995) has stated, successful social marketing takes into account both

‘upstream’ and ‘downstream’ perspectives, because strategies involving

representatives from both stakeholder groups are likely to be complementary and

interactive in achieving social change objectives (Winett, 1995). The ‘upstream’ and

‘downstream’ metaphor distinguishes between social change strategies that focus on

targeting legislators, industry representatives and marketing decision makers,

compared to a downstream approach targeting individuals (Donovan & Henley,

2003). Thus, the intent of this thesis is to focus on examining influences of upstream

and downstream stakeholder involvement in social change strategies using the

internet.

1.2 Research design

This research is grounded in interpretivist thinking. In this sense it follows the

research tradition in marketing of studying “why things are happening”, in order to

appreciate the different constructions and meanings that twenty-first century

consumers place upon their experiences and involvement in internet exchanges

(Carson et al., 2001). However, rather than following a traditional social marketing

approach grounded in more positivist methods, this study contributes to an area of

social marketing theory that is relatively under-developed. This is the area of critical

marketing (Hastings & Saren, 2003b). As an interpretive study, this research views

consumption not just as a self defining activity, but as embedded in culture, and as

involving ‘not the single consumer as such, but relations between consumers’

(Østergaard & Jantzen, 2000, p. 12). This interpretation of consumption experiences

is engaged to understand and explain why internet users have different experiences

in the context of social causes online.

7


The overall goal of the research reported in this thesis was to propose a strategy map

for using interactive technologies in social marketing. In order to achieve this goal,

the research design encapsulated three studies. The process commenced with, and is

grounded in, experiences of the internet as a personal and social technology. Focus

groups and individual, in-depth interviews were used in Study 1 for the purpose of

identifying contemporary thinking and ideas in relation to interactive communication

technologies. The outcome from Study 1 was a proposed communication concourse

that illustrates the diversity of users’ opinions about personal and social factors that

influence online behaviours, contextualised by the users’ personal experience.

Study 2 used Q methodology to quantitatively represent the structure and form of

individual internet users’ subjective dispositions towards using the internet.

Although Q methodology is little used in marketing, it is a method appropriate for

identifying types of people with similar views, experiences, or motivations. Q

methodology enabled the study of the subjective interpretation internet users bring to

their participation and involvement in online exchanges and relationships.

Study 3 aimed to explore the contextual and multilayered interpretation of internet

technologies by social change practitioners when they target audiences’ progress

toward adoption of desired behaviours. Twenty individual in-depth interviews were

undertaken with upstream stakeholders to provide data for this final study.

The strength of the research design, documented in Chapter Four, rests on the

triangulation of data from several sources. Furthermore, interview participants were

sought to provide variety and range in terms of personal background, internet

experience and organisational role. The purposeful selection of upstream and

downstream participants in the study ensured that the subsequent analysis could

address the multilayered adoption and application of internet technologies in social

change campaigns. Overall, the use of different methods of data collection and

analysis supported and strengthened the research findings, because these were able to

engage users’ own stories and explanations as a means of conveying the variety of

meanings and experiences surrounding users’ internet behaviour (Lindlof & Taylor,

2002).

8


1.3 Significance of the research

Research has found that more people use the internet to participate in virtual

communities than to make online purchases (Horrigan, 2001). It is consequently an

anomaly that marketers, and especially social marketers, have given only cursory

attention to the social aspects of internet technology, as well as demonstrated little

interest in examining the role of the internet and virtual communities in marketing

theory and practice. An exception in the study of social marketing and

cybercommunities is the conceptual work commenced by Dann and Dann (1998).

They have argued that ‘it will not be until a deeper understanding of the motivations

and expectations of cybercommunity members is reached that detailed advice can be

given as the optimal means of reaching these potential adopters’ (Dann & Dann,

1998, p. 384). This research is of significance in that it addresses this gap in the

social marketing literature by presenting the first empirical findings about internet

users’ experiences and behaviour in cybercommunities, and by exploring how

internet users’ leverage networks of connection to resolve social problems.

Whilst the dot.com “bust” changed marketers’ perceptions of the value of the

internet for commerce, it is indisputable fact that the internet has “boomed” as a

social technology (see studies conducted by Pew Internet and American Life Project,

1998-2005). This has critical implications for marketing, as has been argued by

writers such as Tapp and Hughes (2004). They have suggested that technology is

changing the emphasis of marketing, enabling more interaction with and between

customers than ever before. Despite this, the social marketers have yet to commence

research that explores the social and relational exchanges in social change strategies,

which are facilitated through internet interactions and exchanges. It appears that

most social marketers continue to construe the internet as a simple and affordable

tool for disseminating information to elite populations with access to the technology.

This thesis is significant in that it draws on empirical findings to argue for a broader

and more holistic conceptualisation of the internet in social change programs.

A further reason why this research is of significance relates to the claim made by

numerous marketing researchers that interactive media changes marketing

communications from a one-way process to a two-way process, with the interaction

of the marketer and consumer at the core. Duncan and Moriarty (1998), for example,

9


have argued that communication (rather than persuasion) is the foundation of

consumer-marketer relationships in an increasingly interactive context. Consumers

are no longer simply passive recipients of persuasive communication, but actively

involved in seeking out information and connection. It is thus timely and appropriate

for social marketers to investigate and explore the value of the internet in social

change programs. This is particularly the case given that the internet is no longer

considered by the broader population to be an “extra-ordinary” technology, but

rather routine and everyday. It is this, Haythornthwaite and Wellman (2002, p. 7)

suggest, which ‘make(s) the internet important because this means that it is being

pervasively incorporated into people’s lives.’

A final factor which marks this research as significant is its use of Q methodology.

To date, only one other study has ever used Q methodology to inform social

marketing (see Sylverster, 1998). Adopting a Q methodological approach in this

thesis ensured that internet users ‘talked’ about the connections, time and activities

spent communicating, sharing information and browsing online. In Q methodology

such talking can be made evidential. That is, a Q sample of statements about

‘internet behaviour’ can be the basis for a Q study of internet users, that determines

the operant factor structure at issue for that person, and by simple extension, for

others in the same culture. This analytical process replaces talk with functional-

information, which is inductively framed by subjective science (Brown, 1980, p. xi).

This research is significant as it demonstrates that Q methodology can be effectively

engaged in social marketing to provide understanding in terms of quite small

numbers of individuals (Brown, 1980). This is substantially different from

mainstream marketing research which has relied upon the application of

questionnaires to large populations in order to obtain knowledge about consumer

behaviour.

1.4 Structure of the thesis

This thesis comprises nine chapters. Following this introductory chapter, attention is

focused on contextualising the internet within the sociological and commercial

marketing literatures. The social aspects of internet technology that been overlooked

in commercial marketing are highlighted. Chapter Two also introduces an holistic

view of consumers, drawing attention to marketing’s description of internet users as

10


empowered ‘prosumers’ who play an influential role in the cocreation of intangible

products.

The third chapter achieves two purposes in the thesis. First, the social marketing

literature is reviewed in light of current debates about the future growth of social

marketing theory in order to provide a rational for the adoption of Dann’s (1997)

social marketing definition. Second, the critical elements of interpretivist research

are identified and discussed in terms of their relevance in critical marketing thinking

and an analysis of current social marketing on the internet is undertaken.

The fourth chapter of the thesis describes the research design. A rationale for choice

of data collection methods is provided in conjunction with a discussion of

methodological limitations of selected techniques and an outlines of the strategies

engaged for establishing and enhancing trustworthiness. Before presenting the data

in the following three chapters, this chapter also describes the processes for data

analysis.

Chapters Five, Six and Seven present the qualitative and Q data obtained throughout

the research. Chapter Five focuses on downstream internet users and identifies

experiences and behaviours that constitute the internet as an everyday technology.

Also presented is the communication concourse used for Q sorting and analysis. This

is based on categories built into the Q statement design that detailed positive and

negative opinions and experiences of internet information and content, network

relationships and communication, virtual communities, internet traits, online social

activities, and general opinions of the societal impacts of the internet. These

statements were drawn from the interviews and focus groups conducted with internet

users during Study 1.

Chapter Six continues the Q analysis and reports findings of a three-factor solution

which profiles downstream internet users’ opinions, experiences and actions. The

chapter also includes detailed information on the procedural steps involved in

applying Q methodology. In addition, qualitative findings from exemplar interviews

present implications for online social marketing.

Chapter Seven details descriptions from the social change marketplace that

demonstrate how the unique traits of internet — interactivity, anonymity and

11


hyperpersonal communication — can be recombined to respond to the needs of

internet users as they progress through stages of change in adopting pro-social

behaviours. Data from the interviews revealed the range of internet strategies and

tactics upstream stakeholders have used to engage internet users participation and

involvement in social issues and campaigns online.

Chapter Eight draws these preceding chapters together in a cross analysis of data

obtained through the three studies. It applies a social marketing interpretation to

highlight relevant theory and practice for online social marketing. Three key

principles are suggested for social marketers when they integrate the internet into

future social marketing programs and campaigns. The three principles suggested are:

adopt customer-centric marketing, apply an exchange continuum that embraces a

relational perspective and plan strategies that embrace the internet as recombinant

technology.

The final chapter, Chapter Nine, summarises the key findings of the thesis and draws

out the implications for both theory and practice in marketing’s sub-disciplinary

areas of social marketing and internet marketing. Limitations of the research and

areas for further investigation are documented.

1.5 Summary

This chapter has presented an overview of the thesis. Of particular salience has been

the identification of the research questions as well as an outline of the research

design engaged to address these questions. The research aims to examine internet

users’ experiences of interactive communication technology, and to understand their

perspective on the internet through their own stories, accounts, and explanations.

This focus is based on the assumption that user accounts are critical to successful

online social marketing. As Andreason (1995, p. 8) has argued, ‘[t]he best social

marketers realise instinctively that the customer holds the key to success’ because ‘it

is the customer who must ultimately undertake the action the marketer is promoting’.

Chapter Two now turns to a detailed discussion and synthesis of the internet

sociology literature to contextualise the research undertaken.

12

CHAPTER TWO CONTEXTUALISING THE INTERNET

Chapter Two: Literature Review Contextualising the

Internet

… it is time to abandon the notion of an “Internet” and think about “internet.” The “uppercase I” version refers to an enormous process, begun during the 1960s with U.S. government funding, of connecting computers and standardizing communication among them. The “lowercase i” version refers to the networking of computers that may or (more importantly) may not rely on that process. … Use of the uppercase “I” also signifies the internet’s novelty, which has faded quickly. Internet works have become part of the background of everyday life.

(Jones, 2004, p. 326)

2.0 Introduction

This chapter provides a review of the literature on the question of the role of the

internet in social marketing. A range of disciplines outside of social marketing, such

as the sociology of technology, computer science research, and communication

studies, are drawn upon to define the internet and describe the social and relational

context to online exchanges. The literature review draws attention to the dominance

of a supply-side perspective within the published internet marketing literature, and

examines the emergence of marketspace communities. It also outlines the relevance

of a constructionist perspective, and explains the significance of a social shaping of

technology approach in focusing on the study research questions. The chapter

concludes by identifying the gaps in the internet marketing literature and the ways in

which this thesis addresses these gaps.

2.1 Defining the internet

The question of how to define the internet is critical to this thesis. This is because

social scientists have found that how end users define the internet is a major

determining factor in how they value and conceptualise it and the social relations

that produce it. For example, the widely used definition of the internet as a ‘network

of networks’ implies a structural definition of the technology that conceptualizes the

internet as a tool with specific outcomes, that is, connecting a global network of

commercial, social and political actions. By comparison, definitions that focus on the

internet as a ‘communication medium’ reveal it as a social and relational technology

13


for connecting and sustaining relationships with neighbours, friends, family and

strangers.

In popular terms the internet is typically portrayed as a single medium that became

accessible to broad, but selected populations over a decade ago. This description has

evolved ‘because the internet is shorthand for a bundle of different media and

modalities — e-mail, websites newsgroups, e-commerce, bloggs — that make it

perhaps the most complex and plural of the electronic media yet invented’ (Lievrouw

& Livingstone, 2002, p. 6). Definitions of the internet within the academic literature

are also problematic. To date, most definitions have focused on the internet’s

technological features. This has produced very narrow and short-sighted

understandings of the internet (Jones, 1995, 1999). Offering a more comprehensive

definition of the internet, Scott et al. (1999, p 555) argue against singular

descriptions. Instead, they posit that the internet can be conceptualized in five

different ways. First, the internet may be thought of by marketers, politicians and

employers as a tool to distribute new products, and to assist in advertising and

publicity. Second, the internet may be characterised as a publisher by reporters,

writers and artists. A third construction of the internet may be as a toy for playing

games, while for a fourth audience of teachers and academics the internet may be

seen as a library for information retrieval and dissemination. Finally, there is a group

who perceive the internet as a social centre, as a global village for meeting and

sustaining relationships. Thus, the internet supports different constructions based on

individual characteristics.

Whilst as Scott et al. (1999) argue, a single definition can hardly capture the variety

of ways the internet is used today, it is possible to propose a framework for thinking

about the internet which goes beyond simple classification of systems and features.

Lievrouw and Livingstone (2002, p. 7) outline three inextricable and mutually

determining elements that define the internet. These elements are:

• the artifacts or devices that enable and extend our abilities to communicate;

• the communication activities or practices we engage in to develop and use these

devices; and

14


• the social arrangements or organisations that form around the devices and

practices.

Lievrouw and Livingstone (2002) argue that any definition should embrace the

complexity of the internet. They characterise the internet firstly by the way that it is

both the instrument and the product of social shaping, and secondly by its particular

social consequences. From this perspective, Lievrouw and Livingstone (2002, p. 7)

refine an understanding of ‘what is the internet’ in determining that it is

‘infrastructural’ — it combines elements of technology, practice and social

organisation. Older technologies such as the telephone are also infrastructural;

however, what distinguishes the internet is its novel traits, such as virtuality,

anonymity, and interactivity (Katz & Rice, 2002). As a result, Lievrouw and

Livingstone (2002) define the internet’s technologies and system infrastructure as

recombinant; they suggest that the internet’s network system is a product of the

continuous hybridization of both existing technologies and innovations in

interconnected technical, institutional and personal networks. Thus, social scientists

need to address what may be the unintended consequences of the existing

technological context as well as reflect on the result of human actions and decisions.

In terms of the internet, Lievrouw and Livingstone (ibid, p. 8) argue that it cannot be

defined by ‘an independent, inevitable causality or evolutionary process unique to

technology itself; rather, designers, users, regulators and [marketers] can take

advantage of the current state of technical knowledge, and recombine technologies

and new knowledge to achieve their particular goals or purposes’.

Acceptance of this characterisation of the internet may encourage social marketers to

introduce prosocial behaviour strategies that initiate and motivate internet users to

engage in exchange relationships where they share ideas and information, become

involved in playful and interesting social activities embedded in websites, or

participate in sharing long narratives about their personal experiences. Such

activities will be dependent upon planning and designing interactions that facilitate

human, computer and social network interactions. As a result, social marketers will

need to plan and manage interactive marketing exchanges and relationships that

leverage both the unique traits of the internet and the targeted individual’s technical

skills and prosocial knowledge. Importantly, social marketers will be able to exploit

the unique traits of the internet by combining technical elements, with users’ prior

15


experiences and knowledge and organisational content, to achieve prosocial

objectives planned for in a social marketing program.

A recombinant definition of the internet informs this thesis. However, it remains

important to highlight the unique traits of the internet which differentiate it from

other infrastructural technologies. Whilst there is no absolute agreement on what

makes the internet ‘different’, there is some common agreement that there are three

traits typically used to describe characteristics of internet interactions and exchanges.

These are: interactivity; the potential of anonymous exchanges; and hyperpersonal

communication. The remainder of this section describes these traits.

2.1.1 Interactivity

Social scientists have employed the term ‘interactivity’ to refer to everything from

face-to-face exchanges to computer-mediated communication. As a result, a number

of researchers have highlighted the confusion embedded in describing interactivity

(e.g., Heeter, 1989; Steuer, 1992; Hoffman & Novak, 1996a; McMillian, 2000;

Downes & McMillian, 2000). Rafaeli and Sudweeks’s (1997, online) definition is a

helpful starting point in understanding the concept:

Interactivity is not a characteristic of the medium. It is a process-related construct about communication. It is the extent to which messages in a sequence relate to each other, and especially the extent to which later messages recount the relatedness of earlier messages.

Chen (1984) explains that passivity and interactivity are qualities of individuals

making use of media, not qualities of the media per se. McMillian (2003) adds to this

idea by explaining that interactivity is more a result of users’ perceptions — what

people think about the internet — than it is a characteristic of the internet. For

example, people might perceive that a particular website gives them opportunities to

interact, even if it does not have some of the features that seem to be associated with

interactivity (e.g., chat rooms, newsgroups, email links). Hence, McMillian (2003)

believes that user interest in the subject of the website is one of the best predictors of

how interactive they will believe the website to be.

What has interested social scientists is how the internet conveys interactivity:

enabling switching that affords users more selectivity in their choices of information

16


sources and interactions with other people (Downes & McMillan, 2000). Within the

literature, four main features are used to explain how individuals perceive

interactivity in the context of computer-mediated communication (CMC) using the

internet. Firstly, Heeter (1989) suggests users exert more effort when they use

interactive media, compared to traditional media forms. For example, the internet

gives users the means to generate, seek, and share content selectively, and to interact

with other individuals and groups on a scale that is impractical with traditional mass

media. The second feature of interactivity is that traditional lines of communication

are blurred. That is, as Rice (1984, p. 35) has commented, ‘fully interactive media

imply that the sender and receiver roles are interchangeable’. A third defining feature

of interactivity is identified by Steur (1992) who notes that interactive interactions

occur in real-time and have the potential for immediate, two-way exchange.

Significantly, not all scholars agree on the importance of real-time. Some (e.g.,

Rheingold, 2000; Baym, 1998) suggest that the asynchronous nature of tools such as

email and discussion lists are key benefits of interactive technologies, because users

perceive the internet as being independent of time and space. This allows people to

form relationships across geographic boundaries while not being confined to real-

time interactions. The final feature defining users’ perceptions of interactivity is

changes in users’ patterns of control of communication and information. An

illustration of this phenomenon is the way in which the internet creates a continuum

linking formerly discrete categories of interpersonal and mass-mediated

communication, as well as facilitating interactions amongst users or between users

and information (Rice & Williams, 1984, p. 57). This contrasts with the one-way,

one-to-many message flows of traditional mass media, such as the radio and

television.

A further trait of interactivity is offered by McMillian (2003) who delineates two

types of computer mediated interactivity. The first is that which occurs between

individuals, while the second is that which occurs between the individual and the

computer. User-to-user interactivity occurs between individuals who are

communicating with each other. This is best described as mutual discourse between

those in the almost indistinguishable roles of sender and receiver. User-to-system

interactivity occurs when individuals interact with the computer itself. This sense of

interactivity stems from how transparent the computer interface is to the user, and

17


whether control over interaction is centred in the computer or in the human

participant in online exchanges (McMillian, 2003).

2.1.2 Anonymity

Anonymity is the characteristic of being unknown or unacknowledged. There is a

saying online that ‘no one knows that you are a dog on the internet’, because textual

communication using the internet removes the standard visual and oral cues of social

identity — including those of gender, race, age and socio-economic status (Holmes,

1997). Among internet users, anonymity is perceived as a right, even a necessity for

the preservation of free speech and identity (Featherly, 2003).

Scholars are divided on the positive and negative outcomes of how users exploit

anonymity online. One line of thought is that anonymity is important for

marginalized populations who are otherwise isolated from cultural interactions

outside of their groups (McKenna & Bargh 1998). In a related argument, Tyler

(2002) states that anonymous and impersonal elements of internet communication

enable users to express some taboo perspective of their identity — not so much to

hide from association with taboo aspects, but to test identities before embracing and

disclosing them to real-life friends. Alternatively, Featherly (2003) suggests that

internet users want to remain unrecognizable, not as a protection because of limited

social contact, but rather as a means to keep their identities undisclosed even as they

seek to make their feelings, thoughts, schemes and outrages public. This is reflective

of what Dyson (1998) labels the dark and destructive side of anonymity. Her

research has revealed that internet communities are more likely to thrive where

members are recognisable and held accountable for their words and deeds.

Furthermore, she argues that those communities that hide inhabitants’ identities are

ultimately undermined, because inhabitants have no of fear identification and can say

whatever they like without having to encounter the repercussions of community

exclusion.

Anonymity and privacy are sometimes confused; though intertwined, they represent

different concepts (Featherly, 2003). Privacy is a type of agreement between parties.

For example, online shoppers disclose their credit-card and other personal

information to acquire services, with the condition that the retailers will not on-sell

18


the information without the person’s permission. Similarly, patients subscribing to

online health services want assurances that their details and online search behaviour

will not be sold to pharmaceutical companies. Katz and Rice (2002, p. 273) argue

that virtual anonymity presents an illusion of privacy, by inducing people to cross

critical public and private boundaries. As a consequence, social scientists studying

anonymity today are less concerned with the notion of liberation through anonymity

from gender and other forms of discrimination, and more focused on loss of personal

privacy due to the ready availability of information about individuals online

(Herring, 2004, p. 32).

2.1.3 Hyperpersonal communication

Early studies of CMC emphasised that a lack of online interpersonal cues (e.g., facial

expression, language intonation) and identities resulted in an impoverished and

anarchic sociality, which then reflected in poor social order and group efforts

(Dubrovsky, Kiesler & Sethna, 1991). Research by Joseph Walther (1996) opposed

the view of CMC as being impersonal or reducing interpersonal communication. He

established the idea that the internet facilitates ‘hyperpersonal’ communication. This

is the interlinking between receivers, senders, channels and feedback elements of

CMC that actually enhances impressions and interpersonal relations. A sense of

hyperpersonal communication is evident in the research that has investigated health

support research online. Turner, Grube and Meyers (2001) found that respondents

who perceived low support from face-to-face relations were more likely to

participate in an online community and cancer-related discussion lists. They

concluded that this was primarily because ‘participants within online communities

provide receptivity, interest and disclosure, despite that they are strangers otherwise,

because they can share a critical commonality’ (ibid, p. 234).

Katz and Rice (2000) believe that the focus of early research on the detachment from

offline context is precisely what initiated ideas and research about online sociality as

both a vehicle for liberating social order and facilitating group effort. Baym’s (2002,

1998, 1995) research is evidence of this fact. Whilst studying online social and

personal communication, she found that although CMC was not invented with

interpersonal interaction in mind, users have actually shaped the technology as

fundamentally social (Parks & Roberts, 1998; Sproull & Faraj, 1997). For example,

19


email used primarily for person-to-person contact is the best predictor of whether

new users will stay online (Kraut et al., 2003). Furthermore, the wide acceptance of

social aspects of the internet are evidenced by the integration of social opportunities

(e.g., chat facilities and direct email opportunities) into commercial websites, online

magazines and information services that originally did not offer social exchanges.

2.2 Conceptualisation and consequences of access

A dominant interest of internet researchers is “who has access” and “who does not”.

The rationale behind this is the argument that access has the potential to affect

activities in all areas of people’s lives. Access is also argued to have social

consequences — either increasing or decreasing the gap between rich and poor,

powerful and powerless, haves and have nots. Concern with unequal access,

combined with the rapid diffusion of internet technology in the last decade, has made

access to the internet, a strongly debated and much researched topic. Access,

however, is a multifaceted concept. Van Dijk (2000) and others have identified four

distinguishing categories of access:

• Material access: relates to the physical infrastructure, including access to

computers and network connections (Van Dijk & Hacker, 2003; Star & Bowker,

2002; Milio, 1996);

• Skills access: speaks about the digital skills required to use the technology (e.g.,

Milio, 1996) and basic literacy to engage the technology (Warschauer, 2003;

Milio, 1996);

• Mental access: involves users’ anxiety, lack of interest and experience of the

technology which influences users’ perceptions of the internet as either an

unappealing or a useful new technology (Chen, Boase & Wellman, 2002; Eastin

& LaRose, 2000);

• Usage access: speaks to users’ opportunities to operate internet technology and

the problems encountered in users’ everyday lives that reduce desired usage (Van

Dijk, 2000).

Inequality in access to the internet has popularly been termed the ‘digital divide’. As

well as being a major pubic-policy issue, this is also of interest to future social

marketing programs. Early research about the digital divide focused on unequal

20


access to the internet resulting from age, gender, race, ethnicity, education, income,

geographical location, English-language ability, or physical and cognitive disability

(Hoffman & Novak, 2000; Hoffman, Kalsbeek & Novak, 1996). Chen, Boase &

Wellman (2002) point out that the major limitation in these studies has been that

home access is associated with regular use of the internet by whites with higher

education and incomes. Van Dijk (2000) argues that, in reality, there is no two-tiered

digital divide between ‘haves and have nots’. Rather, there is a continuum of

differentiated positions across the population with the ‘information elite’ at one end,

and a group of ‘excluded people at the other’ (ibid, p. 167).

The research that has examined the social impact of material access to hard

technology has also considered the social consequences of not having access to e-

commerce, online banking, online communities and especially government

institutions as they migrate more information and resources online. The early

research on the social impact of the internet on these domains was characterised by

polarisation between narrow suspicion and uncritical enthusiasm (see Kitchin, 1998;

Gauntlett, 2000; Silver, 2000). Over time, the debate developed into two strongly

polarised perspectives between utopians who argued there were real and potential

benefits in the internet, and dystopians who were skeptical of the changes that the

internet might unleash (Katz & Rice, 2000).

According to the dystopian view, a lack of access to the internet, including access to

the hard technology and the ability to acquire the requisite skill and understanding of

how to use the internet for personal, political and commercial purposes, will

exacerbate social inequalities through the creation of information ‘haves’ and ‘have-

nots’ (Wyatt, Thomas & Terranova, 2002, p. 23). There are many physical,

socioeconomic and psychological barriers to equal access, with well documented

evidence of unequal access due to economic capital, ethnicity, gender and age (Chen

et al., 2002; Hoffman, Novak, & Schlosser, 2000; Hoffman, Kalsbeek & Novak,

1996). Commentators argue that inequalities in access, usage, and skills, could

potentially become lasting, and harmfully determine a lack of full participation in

future decision-making.

In contrast, the utopian perspective embraces the transformative influence of the

internet on society and believes that the diffusion of the internet heralds the ‘death of

21


distance’ (Cairncross, 1998). The implication is that economic and government

transactions, social and psychological interactions, and political relations can

proceed, unimpeded by the need for physical proximity. Enthusiasts argue that the

internet will improve access to information and knowledge institutions, enable

greater variety in entertainment, and the opportunity to negotiate and select better

prices and products, as well as lead to greater social justice. The most salient aspect

of the utopian position is the implied notion that there are technological solutions to

current social problems. Underlying this position is the belief that the internet is

paramount in determining social effects (Lievrouw & Livingstone, 2002). That is,

access to the internet has democratic potential because the network design has

ubiquitous connectivity, which provides interaction in participative democracy and

facilitation of a sense of community (Norris, 2001). The fundamental argument of

the utopian perspective is that access to the internet will make it easier for people to

improve communication in all areas — politically, socially and commercially — as

simply as pointing and clicking a mouse (Katz & Rice, 2002).

An important development in the literature on the digital divide has been to argue

against the value of any polarised debate (Katz & Rice, 2001). Compaine (2001) has

engaged with this notion in raising two social policy implications of the concept of a

digital divide. Firstly, he states that the digital divide is not new. From simple

farming to machinery to telephones and now the internet, most innovations have

differentiating adoption rates across time, which relate to the various characteristics

of innovation (Rogers, 1995). Secondly, Compaine (2001, p. xii) states that

differences in technology gaps tend to be ‘relatively transient’, and that challenges

faced by early adopters are not experienced by later adopters because they tend not

to need the same level of expertise, or pay the higher costs of early adopters.

The digital divide remains an important public policy issue in countries that see the

internet as a universal service, and as having a significant influence on political and

economic equity (Rice, McCreadie & Chang, 2001). Governments have

subsequently initiated internet access programs amongst neighbourhoods,

communities and schools, and designed policies to improve internet access to

government services and information, especially in the area of health (Rice & Katz,

2001).

22


2.3 Internet users, consumers and coproducers

Discussion about internet access and use is based on assumptions about the people

who use the internet — who they are, what they do and what motivates them. Slater

(2002) argues that researchers studying internet users structure profiles which relate

to their own research agendas. Marketers tend to study the internet within existing

social relations, practices and management strategies, rather than as a new social

space incorporating relations, practices and strategies of its own. A literature review

completed by Ngai (2003) and published in the European Journal of Marketing

outlined that the burgeoning marketing literature was focused in areas of

‘management, planning, and strategy’, consumer behaviour’ and ‘channels of

distribution’. Unsurprisingly, marketing has focused more the ‘suppliers perspective’

and studied more how the internet can be employed to gather information about

consumers and, in turn, to apply marketing management’s traditional 4Ps effectively

and efficiently. However, this has meant that a comprehensive picture of the

everyday life of an internet user has not been examined by marketing theory and

practice.

Early marketing research about internet users predominately described an evolving

demographic and purchasing profile (gender, age, income, education, ethnicity and

what they’re buying). This is not surprising given that the majority of internet user

profiling over the last decade has been undertaken to measure potential market share,

profitability and other commercial outcomes. The types of question that dominated

early marketing studies of internet users included, “who’s out there?”, “what are they

doing?” (see Gupta, 1995; Hoffman, Novak, & Chatterjee, 1995; Hoffman & Novak,

1996b; Kraut, Scherlis, Mukhopadhyay, Manning & Kiesler, 1996; Mehta, Grewal &

Sivadas, 1996), “how much do they spend?”, “which sites do they visit regularly?”

and “what types of websites do they like?” (see Alba, Lynch, Weitz, Janiszewski,

Lutz, et al, 1997; Dhokakia & Rego, 1998; Peterson, Balasubramanian &

Bronneneberg, 1997; Raman & Leckenby, 1998; Van den Poel & Leunis, 1999).

These early studies have been valuable in demonstrating differences in online actions

and have influenced researchers thinking about technology and marketing practice.

At the same time, Sheehan (2002) has identified that early studies overlooked

indicators which identified differences between people’s motivations for using

specific internet applications. This idea has emerged from the ‘uses and gratification’

23


research tradition. Some marketers have started to segment users’ motivations and

gratifications into two modes: goal-directed and experiential (Hoffman & Novak,

1996). Sheehan’s (2002) research outlines useful categories for examining internet

activities which initiate users’ online behaviours. Motivations have been categorised

into four main areas:

• ‘research’ (getting information — finding news and facts, learning about new

things, getting product information on potential purchases);

• ‘communication’ (communicating with others — socializing, connecting with

friends, chatting with people with similar interests);

• ‘shopping’ (purchasing a product — shopping for something desired; ‘just’

shopping); and

• ‘surfing’ (exploring new sites — browsing for fun, finding interesting web pages,

seeing what’s out there).

Sheehan’s (2002) research is evidence of the shifting perspective in marketing’s

internet user research which has moved from a strong focus on buyer behaviour,

towards a more holistic view of internet consumer research. Much of the early

interactive marketing research focused on explaining internet buyer behaviour and

investigating how buying takes place. Sheehan’s (2002) work, along with a range of

other studies (Bagozzi & Dholakia, 2002; Wind & Mahajan, 2002; Berthon,

Holbrook & Hulbert, 2000) demonstrates a shift towards broader consumer research

interests. This is a transition from studying the behaviour before and after purchase,

to general studies of how consumers are living their everyday life and consuming all

types of products or services online (Østergaard & Jantzen, 2000).

A holistic view of internet users and their everyday lives has been adopted in the

internet sociology literature since the mid-1990s (Haddon, 2004). Research in this

discipline reveals users not simply as the passive recipients of technology, but as

actors who are important in shaping and negotiating its meanings (Wyatt, Thomas &

Terranova, 2002). Internet sociologists have also described internet users as both

producers of information online (e.g., Sproull & Faraj, 1997) and empowered

technology users. Empowerment online has been seen to be derived from being able

to choose what information is absorbed and when, with reduced barriers and costs.

24


Furthermore, sociologists have documented empowerment that also describes how

internet users control and manage participation in relationships using internet tools

for online discussion, debating and voting (Baym 1995, 1998).

In more recent marketing literature, scholars have engaged sociological thinking

about technology to inform their judgment about online consumers (e.g., Bagozzi &

Dholakia, 2002; Stewart & Pavlou, 2002). Illustrative of this research is the work of

Stewart and Pavlou (2002) who describe interactive contexts in which active

consumers influence the process of selecting, using and responding to information.

They conclude that active consumers have more influence on marketing

communication and practice, and are critical of previous scholarship which has

overlooked the reciprocal influence that active consumers have in online

interactions. Stewart and Pavlou’s (2002) research reveals that some marketers are

now thinking about active consumers as coproducers of information and services

online. This has generated the strategic notion that marketers can incorporate

customer experiences into their interactive business models (Prahalad &

Ramaswamy, 2000). Embracing this style of strategic thinking illustrates the notion

of the internet as socially produced between users and organisations. This

understanding of the internet was noted earlier in the chapter (see pp. 4 & 10).

The empowered role of consumers is not a new idea; Toffler (1981) introduced the

idea of consumers as coproducers when he coined the term ‘prosumer’ to identify

consumer involvement in product design and manufacturing. Additionally, the

services marketing literature has extensively documented the influential role of

consumers in the cocreation of intangible products during the service experience

(Grönroos, 2000a; Zeithaml & Bitner, 2000). It is therefore interesting to note that

(with the exception of Walters, Halliday & Glaser, 2002; Bardakci & Whitelock,

2003; Kűpers, 1998) consumer researchers studying internet marketing have

overlooked these developments, and marketing has remained dominated by an

emphasis on more traditional transactional and relational approaches, and the

application of marketing management’s 4Ps. As noted earlier however, a shift is

beginning in internet marketing research. The following section will briefly

summarise the major influences that have led to a supply-side construction of the

internet, and its network infrastructure as a marketspace, and will outline the

25


emergent research that has documented an integrated marketing approach that is

consequently more consumer/user focused.

2.4 Internet as market metaphor

It was nearly a decade ago that the use of the internet as a strategic marketing tool

was introduced as interactive marketing in the marketing literature (e.g., Deighton,

1996; Iacobucci, 1998). At that time, Day (1998, p. 47) described interactive

marketing as ‘the use of information from the customer rather than about the

customer’. Since this time a number of technology infused terms have emerged in

discussions of consumer marketing — ‘real time marketing’ (Oliver, Rust & Varki,

1998; McKenna, 1997), ‘one-to-one marketing’ (Peppers & Rogers, 1997, 1995)

‘digital marketing’ (Parsons, Zeisser, & Waitman, 1998) and ‘micro-marketing’

(Sivada, Grewal & Kellaris, 1998). It has only been in the last few years, however,

that there has been evidence of some acceptance of the social aspects of the internet

in commercial marketing; irrespective of the fact that the integration of social

opportunities (e.g., email feedback, chat facilitates and opinion discussion boards)

into commercial websites, online magazines and other information services have

been offered for some time. Consequently, email links, discussion boards, and other

interactive communication tools, appear to have been added as technical features to

sophisticated websites, rather than as relational or social tools that reflect strategic

and tactical thinking. As a result, a majority of marketers have focused more on

refining existing techniques using the internet, rather than on introducing new ones,

and applied a technology infused 4Ps management framework to marketing thinking

and practice. Jones (1999, p. 4) points out that this more traditional view of the

‘internet-as-market metaphor derives its power from the notion that the market is not

only theoretically based but quite practically functional, at the level of the individual,

thanks to new technologies’. Hence, a view of the internet as an online marketspace

shapes the technology as a ‘medium of choice’ that has enabled individual users to

trade personal information for personal services. Jones (1999) argues, however, that

this ‘is little more than a technical version of what has long sustained barter

economies, and even government, for centuries’ (ibid, p. 4).

The early internet marketing literature created a false impression that there are

essentially two types of marketing: ‘traditional’ and ‘new’ interactive marketing.

26


This research was as guilty as other disciplines (see Section 2.5) in its uncritical

enthusiastic proclamations about the internet. However, as research on the subject

progressed, differing views about the influence and future of the internet in

marketing emerged. Coviello, Milley and Marcolin (2001) have synthesised these

views and outlined four distinct schools of thought which usefully describe how

marketers are shaping the internet. These schools are briefly outlined below as a

means to contextualise contemporary marketing thinking.

The first school, named the “new” paradigm perspective, typifies early thinking

about the internet. Hoffman and Novak (1996, 1997) encapsulated this perspective in

their argument that a completely new model or paradigm for marketing practice was

required, because the Web promised to transform marketing functions. Proponents of

this view suggested that there were completely new marketing opportunities as a

result of the internet. The argument was that marketers needed to reconsider

traditional strategy, because the internet would ‘functionally displace traditional

mass media and change the way marketers advertise their products’ (Rust & Varki,

1996, p. 176).

The second perspective was a counterargument to earlier thinking, suggesting a more

measured response to the technology’s interactive trait. This perspective considered

the internet to be more an element of the marketing mix. For example, Deighton

(1996, p. 151) argued that the promise of the internet was ‘its ability to put a more

human face on marketplace exchanges without losing the scale economies of mass

marketing’. Such thinking renders the internet as a tool to manage relationships

(Coviello et al., 2001). As Deighton (1996, p. 151) explained, the internet allows

‘good marketing to become good conversation’. According to Peterson,

Balasubramanian and Bronnenberg (1997), these tools would have the most impact

on marketing communication.

The third school of thought shapes the internet as a new channel to the market. These

marketers suggest the internet provides more direct, efficient access to customers,

and bypasses or complements existing channel members (Ritchie & Brindley, 2000;

Elofson & Robinson, 1998; Peterson et al., 1997). This perspective primarily focuses

on marketing’s transactional functions, and refers to making contact with buyers and

using the internet to communicate and make users aware of products. Additionally,

27


this school of thought considers the internet as a ‘new’ marketing channel, because it

enables improved matching between products and buyers’ needs, increased price

negotiation and time saving transaction processing (Strauss, El-Ansary & Frost,

2003).

The fourth perspective argues the case for convergence between ‘old’ and ‘new’

technologies, online and offline spaces, and traditional and revolutionary marketing

thinking (Wind & Mahajan, 2002; Berthon, Holbrook & Hulbert, 2000). These

marketers argue that convergence is needed to balance between the management of

‘bricks and clicks’, and believe that marketing requires a ‘pluralistic and integrated

variety of marketing approaches, some of which reflect … interactivity, while others

do not’ (Coviello et al., 2001, p. 22).

The early marketing and internet literature can also be characterised by its focus on

the internet as primarily an information tool to be used during marketing

transactions. This focus is reinforced by the widely accepted information-processing

paradigm in marketing, as well as a managerial preoccupation with information

accessibility and information processing. Berthon, Holbrook and Hulbert (2000)

argue that an increased role for information fits comfortably with those marketers for

who the ‘role of information has become more important than that of the product or

brand itself’ (p. 64). This perspective also constructs consumers and the internet in

specific ways. First, it takes an information-centered view of the consumer who is

constituted as an individual information processor, looking for and manipulating

information. Second, the internet is viewed as a technological object for providing

access to information, and hence is an information tool (Sproull & Faraj, 1997, p.

36). This is consistent with the dominant information processing model in marketing

theory and practice, which focuses on consumers as rational decision-makers who

require information during buying decisions (Simon, 1955). Rassuli and Harrell

(1990) point out that there is an implicit assumption in consumer marketing of a

rational problem-solving process, as exemplified by multiattribute information

processing and brand choice models. However several prominent scholars have

expressed the need for additional models that integrate a consumer’s subjective

perception of products and services, which also investigate how consumer create

‘meaning’ during, and after, information processing (Bettman, Roedder & Scott,

28


1984; Hoch & Deighton, 1989; Park, Feick & Mothersbaugh, 1991; Wagner, 2003).

Sproull and Faraj (1997) are aligned with this later group of marketing thinkers when

they argue that whilst the early pervading view of internet users as information

seekers and processors is sensible and productive, it is also incomplete and

misleading in important ways. They posit that an alternative view of the internet as a

social technology, suggests different technical, strategic, managerial and policy

issues.

2.4.1 Relational technologies

Coinciding with the development in interactive marketing has been the substantiation

of the relationship perspective in marketing. Proponents of the relational view of

marketing argue that the existence of a relationship between two parties creates

additional value for the customer and also for the supplier or service provider

(Grönroos, 2000b; Ravald & Grönroos, 1996). During the 1980s there was

contention about the acceptance of a relational view in marketing, as opposed to

traditional transactional marketing grounded in the ‘marketing mix’ to create

exchange and satisfy both individual and organisational objectives. Today the

relational approach is an accepted marketing philosophy (see Brodie, Coviello,

Brookes & Little, 1997; Grönroos, 2004, 1997).

More importantly however, a relational perspective in marketing is relevant to the

current discussion because the idea of internet-enabled relationships has inspired a

spectrum of promised opportunities and challenges for marketing. This is reflected in

marketers’ interests in ‘one-to-one’ marketing as popularised by Peppers and Rogers

(1993, 1997), and other opportunities such as technology-enabled mass-

customisation (McKenna, 1991), electronic customer relationship marketing

(eCRM), permission based marketing (Dann & Dann, 2003), and customer-centric

marketing (Sharma & Sheth, 2004). All of these strategies are grounded in a

relationship marketing philosophy as a means to personalize products and services

for internet users. Sharma and Sheth (2004) most recently argued that in the internet

marketing era, the trend will be towards more personalisation because the internet

makes customisation of products easier and more transparent to the user. Combined

with a relational strategy, this will offer the customer security, a feeling of control,

29


and a sense of trust, which Grönroos (2004, p. 99) argues will minimise purchasing

risk and in the final analysis reduce the costs of being a customer.

Coviello, Brodie and Munro (1997) provide a much needed framework for

integrating technology and relational thinking. They outline a useful classification

scheme to distinguish between traditional, transactional and relational marketing

practices: Transaction, Database, Interaction, and Network Marketing — descriptive

of a continuum of business-to-consumer (B2C) and business-to-business (B2B)

exchanges. ‘Transaction Marketing’ describes ‘arms-length’ transactions between

firms and buyers, managed by the elements of the marketing mix. These marketing

exchanges aim to manage communication to buyers in a mass market. Coviello et al.

(1997) define ‘Database Marketing’ as using database technology to mediate

relationships between a firm and its customers, with the intent of retaining identified

customers. They emphasise that the relationships in these exchanges are still at ‘arms

length’, are neither close nor personal, and that marketing is still to the customer.

‘Interaction Marketing’ is defined as face-to-face interactions with individuals,

which results in marketing that is truly with the customer, ‘as both parties in the dyad

invest resources to develop a mutually beneficial and interpersonal relationship’

(Coviello et al., 1997, p. 859). Finally, ‘Network Marketing’ describes the planning

of marketing across organisations and the development of the firm’s network

relationship with other organisations, based on a business-to-business exchange

(B2B). Recently Coviello, Milley and Marcholin (2001) extended the relational

framework to include ‘eMarketing’, reflecting the developments in technology and

online marketing strategy. They define eMarketing as ‘using the internet and other

interactive technologies to create and mediate dialogue between the firm and

identified customers’ (Coviello et al. 2001, p. 26). Figure 2.1 below summaries

Coviello et al.’s (2001) extended marketing’s classification framework.

Transactional Relational

Transaction Marketing

Database Marketing

e-Marketing Interaction Marketing

Network Marketing

Source: Adapted from Coviello et al., 2001, p. 28

Figure 2.1: Extended marketing classification framework

30


Coviello et al.’s (2001) classification scheme is a useful starting point for

understanding relational exchange and the role of interactive technologies in

exchange. However, it is limited because of the implied information processing,

linear model that shapes the relationship between the marketer and the buyer as a

‘sender-receiver’ model. Critically, the relational thinking outlined in their model

overlooks the consumer research that has identified the evolving role of empowered

internet users who select and refine online relationship. Furthermore, the

consideration only of B2C and B2B exchanges ignores customer-to-customer (C2C)

dialogue and cybercommunity (Dann & Dann, 1999, 2003). There are new

marketing opportunities in C2C exchanges, which other consumer researchers have

described as information forums that influence consumer behaviour because they

provide information that has greater credibility, relevance and empathy (Bickart &

Schindler, 2001). Kozinets (1999) emphasises that whilst the operational extension

of information technology to database marketing and e-marketing is useful, in many

contexts this perspective proves unnecessarily limiting. One such context is the

social environs characteristics of virtual communities of consumption.

Cybercommunity developments, which operate in marketing on a continuum from

transactional to relational, are outlined in the following section.

2.4.2 Virtual communities of consumption

More than a decade of research has established a strong dichotomy between the

social, relational aspects of internet use, and the economic, commercial and

functional aspects of usage. Whilst virtual community originated from a

noncommercial, social event (Rheingold, 1993), today commercial organisations

offer virtual communities. Most marketers have narrowly conceived of virtual

communities as commercially sponsored bulletin-boards or chat rooms on company

websites (Catterall & Maclaran, 2002). Kozinets and Handelman (1998, p. 254)

explain that ‘virtual communities of consumption are explicitly centered on

consumption-related interests’. As a result, marketing practitioners initially adopted

a simplistic commercial approach when considering the value of virtual communities

from a tactical standpoint. This is exemplified by Rayport & Sviolka (1995, 1994)

who in an early discussion on the marketing value of virtual communities

emphasized economic value created and extracted from online exchanges. These are

effectively transactional communities, grounded in individual B2C exchanges about

31


product and service information relevant to the sponsored organisation’s goals and

requirements. This perspective on virtual community is consistent with the

underlying philosophy of individualism that subconsciously permeates marketing

practice, as a result of marketing having developed within the context of capitalism

(Doyle, 2002).

Some marketers, however, have started to reconsider the range of social activities

undertaken in virtual communities. They have subsequently recommended these

activities be added to existing relationship marketing. In turn, this move has lead to

additional considerations for strategizing and decision-making using virtual

communities. Similar relational strategies have been proposed by brand community

researchers (e.g., McAlexander, Schouten & Koening, 2002; Muniz & O’Guinn,

2001), who envision a customer-to-customer triad and customer-centric networks

(valued relationships between the branded product, marketing agents, institutions

and brand managers). Similarly, innovative internet marketers (e.g., Dann & Dann,

1999, 2003; Baggozzi & Dholakia, 2002; Hagel, 1999) have highlighted

organisations that are orchestrating virtual spaces where consumers are able to come

together in an online environment with the purpose of interacting with others who

share their interests and passions (Kozinets, 1999; Armstrong & Hagel, 1996). These

largely social experiences are characterised by friendship, familiarity, personal

recognition, and support (Berry, 1995). Mathwick (2002) points out that the

customer benefits significantly from the types of online relationship derived from

both customer-to-customer (C2C) and customer-to-business (C2B) exchanges,

because the interactions are bonuses that supplement the core value in the C2B

relationships. Furthermore, Bagozzi & Dholakia (2002) add that the critical

difference between virtual and traditional community in marketing settings is that

‘[f]or the individual member, membership, involvement, and communication in

virtual communities is driven by volitional choice — unlike traditional ‘bounded’

communities where membership may be imposed involuntarily by change of birth,

proximity of residence, or the happenstance of geographic relocation’ (p. 6). Clearly,

there are marketing opportunities in designing websites, for example that focus on

both transactional elements and relational elements; because enabling ‘consumers to

interact with each other via a firm’s webpages can help develop and foster important

32


relationships that will actually lead to increased sales’ (Bickart & Schindler, 2001, p.

37).

The above literature reveals a change in some marketers’ thinking and interest in

consumer action and interaction. These marketers are describing Stewart & Pavlou’s

(2002) active consumer, recognising the empowerment of consumers to select and

engage in online relationships. Whilst applying this thinking to the shaping of

consumers on the internet is new, the ‘emerging power of the buyer’ has always been

at the heart of marketing (Drucker, 1954; Kotler, 1991; Levitt, 1960). This focus has

been criticised in the past as marketing’s slavish submission to consumer sovereignty

(Berthon, Hubert & Pitt, 1999b, p. 54). Internet marketing thought, however, has not

fully engaged notion, nor has research been undertaken to examine in detail these

empowered consumers. The consumer has typically been looked at in isolation (i.e.

buyer role) rather than being viewed holistically within their everyday life.

In addition, many marketers have thought of the internet as “just another media

channel”. Cyber enthusiast Steve Jones is critical of researchers who simply viewed

the internet as media. Jones (1999, p. xiii) argues that the:

bulk of the research into the internet has been essentially administrative, driven largely by the concerns of commercial interests seeking to get a grip on the demographics of online audiences in much the same way research is done on other media.

Measures such as web page ‘hits’, or domain name growth, give a broad brush sense

of the internet’s diffusion, but Jones is not convinced such measures tell us much

about internet use. Rather, he believes that internet studies should not just examine

the internet as an entity unto itself, but should situate such investigations in the

context and projection of the twenty-first century. That is, to consider ‘[w]hat the

internet has connected is not only computer networks but ideologies and ways of life

that have, thus far, seemed disconnected, perhaps even beyond connection’ (Jones,

1999, p. 23).

These relational and social, aspects referred to by Jones (1999) — which are of

interest to those studying consumer behaviour and online consumption — are the

subject of the following section. Whilst human behaviour in varying online contexts

has been studied by sociologists, it has not been addressed extensively in the

33


marketing literature. Hence, the following section summarises important findings

from the internet and society literature, which are valuable for informing online

social marketing.

2.5 Social aspects of the internet

A concern with the social consequences of the internet was a key theme in the early

literature on this new communication technology. Howard Rheingold (2000), the

originator of the virtual community story, argued that this work was framed by the

common wisdom of the time. That is, that the majority of internet users were socially

crippled adolescents communicating with other lonely and outcast individuals

willing to waste their time in unreal relationships online. Fears were held that ease of

communication and information gathering online would encourage internet users to

withdraw from their local services and communities, and abandon neighbourhood

contact for more convenient online interaction. Real-time relationships, family and

communities would all be compromised.

These concerns were encapsulated in the findings of one of the first empirical,

longitudinal studies of the psychological effects of the internet (Kraut, Lundmar,

Patterson, Kiesler, Mukopadhyay & Scherlis, 1998). It reported that greater use of

the internet was associated with a decline in participants’ communication with

family members, a reduction in the size of participants’ social circles and an increase

in depression and loneliness. The study received considerable criticism in terms of

sample bias (e.g., LaRose, Eastin & Gregg, 2001; Papacharissi & Rubin, 2000),

because the sample was made up of new technology adopters. Despite this, the

reearch was still influential in shaping dystopian attitudes towards the internet. As

well as mobilising around fears of social isolation arising from the internet,

dystopians also raised concerns about misinformation, deception and exploitation

through the internet (Gandy, 2002). Misrepresentation of information, as well as

identities online, were believed to create an atmosphere dominated by trickery,

lechery, and emotional swindles (Katz & Rice, 2002). Embedded in these concerns

was the reach of the internet into people’s homes which was seen to give deviants

the opportunity to stalk and victimize at-risk groups, as well as expose users to

violence, pornography and hate messages.

34


While negative social aspects of the internet continue to be raised in the literature,

there has also been a noticeable shift in that a large body of work now counters this

pessimism. Illustrative of this shift is follow-up research by Kraut et al. (2002) which

challenged the findings from their earlier study, and found that negative effects, such

as loneliness and depressions symptoms, dissipated over time. This implies that their

earlier results were valid, but that these negative impacts disappeared as users

became more experienced (Katz & Rice, 2001). Kraut et al. (2002) believe that there

is good reason to expect that the internet will have positive social impacts on

individuals and their communities because the internet permits social contact across

time, distance and personal circumstances. This perspective is shared by those who

maintain that the internet’s revolutionary nature frees people and groups to achieve

an egalitarian, multi-media information society, as well as boosting efficiency and

productivity by reducing the need for unnecessary transportation, as tasks are

undertaken online. The cyber-utopian argument is that individuals using the internet

are less stressed and have more time and new online contacts, which collectively

builds social capital for society at large (DiMaggio et al., 2001).

An even stronger cyber utopian perspective is that cyberspace involvement can

create alternative communities that are as valuable and useful as our familiar,

physically located communities. Such ‘virtual’ communities, discussed in Section

2.5.2, rely on the development of social networks. The following section provides a

brief review of the literature which explains the theory of network structures.

2.5.1 Social networks defined

Networks have taken on a new life by becoming information networks, powered by

the internet. A number of definitions and methodologies inform research into

technological networks and online relationships. At the technical level the internet is

described as a point-to-point ‘network’ and a set of interconnected nodes (Castells,

2001). Numerous researchers have focused on the extraordinary advantages of the

internet’s network structure, highlighting its inherent flexibility and adaptability.

Other research extends the network metaphor to the patterns of social relations and

the organisations and institutional formations associated with maintaining these

relationships. Lievrouw and Livingstone (2002) explain that today the ‘network’

term expresses broad, multiplex interconnection in which many points or ‘nodes’

35


(persons, groups, machines, collections of information, organisations) are embedded.

They write that ‘[l]inks among nodes may be created or abandoned on an as-needed

basis at any location in the system, and any point can be either a sender or a receiver

of messages — or both (ibid, 2002, p. 8).

Within the internet and society literature there are four key approaches that

researchers have adopted to help understand the commitment and involvement in

online networks. These are:

• actor-network theory (e.g., Callon, 1991; Latour, 1993);

• the social network analysis paradigm (e.g., Wellman, 1992);

• social capital formulation based on the accumulated value of networks (e.g.,

Norris, 2004; Putnam, 2000); and,

• an ethnographic methodology (e.g., Hine, 2000; Kozinets, 1999) to present case

studies of communities and special interests groups.

Actor network theory (ANT) is employed by researchers who conduct analyses of

technology and who argue that technological development is a social process

endogenous to the wider development of society (Scott et al., 1999). The central

tenet of the ANT approach is about the ‘process of ordering that generates effects’

(Law, 1994, p. 18). Whilst this theory is interesting in understanding online

exchanges, it is not readily embraced by marketers and social marketers, because it

privileges machines as equal actors with human beings. Within ANT, ‘actors’ are

defined as both human and non-human agents. Therefore, actor-networks are seen as

the heterogeneous engineering of human and non-human, material and non-material

resources, in the belief that ‘left to their own devices human actions and words do

not spread very far at all’ (Law, 1994, p. 24; emphasis in the original).

Fitting more comfortably with marketing’s focus on consumer exchanges of

information, emotion, and word-of-mouth communication, is the social network

analysis paradigm. This paradigm provides a useful framework for discussing the

impact of online socializing. It is a based on Granovetter’s (1973) theory of the

‘Strength of Weak Ties’ which examines the ‘strength’ of interpersonal ties based on

‘the amount of time, the emotional intensity, the intimacy, and the reciprocal

36


services which characterize a tie’ (ibid, p. 1361). Thus Granovetter’s (1973) theory is

used to examine the linking and sharing of resources between people, and analyses

how individual network ‘ties’ influence diffusion and information sharing, social

mobility, political and community organisation. This approach counters the critique

of virtual communities as alienating, dehumanizing substitutes for more direct, less

mediated human contact (Dubrovsky, Kiesler & Sethna, 1991).

The third approach that has been engaged to understand online relationships is the

notion of social capital. This notion is connected to an understanding of social

networks. This is because the social network rationale is that mixture of strong ties

(familial ties, lifelong friend ties, marital ties, and business partner ties) that are

important for people to obtain the fundamentals of identity, affection, emotion and

material support. However, without a network of more superficial (weak tie)

relationships, life would be harder and narrowly defined, making it more difficult to

effect change in thinking and behaviour. The focus of these weak-tie relationships is

often information exchange, as occurs in many special interest groups for example

(Preece, 2001, p. 348). Putnam’s (2000) formulation of social capital is based on the

value of strong and weak ties in networks and on how these ties link to individual

civic involvement and participation in community. Two key components of

Putnam’s (2000) social capital are concerned with how groups, such as various

online community groups, can ‘bridge’ and ‘bond’ people from different

backgrounds (Norris, 2004; Witte, 2004). As Putnam’s (2002, p. 22) explains:

Bridging social capital refers to social networks that bring together people of different sorts, and bonding social capital brings together people of a similar sort. This is an important distinction because the externalities of groups that are bridging are likely to be positive, while networks that are bonding (limited within particular social niches) are at greater risk of producing externalities that are negative.

Norris’ (2004) American research about involvement in religious groups online is

illustrative of the social capital approach in that it found that membership in online

communities both widened and deepened social relationships. As expected, the study

also reported that different kinds of groups have different bridging and bonding

roles, and that such roles can be socially constructive or dysfunctional.

Finally, ethnographic methodology and online community studies have contributed

to our understanding of online behaviour, and users’ commitment to, and

37


participation in, online relationships. Researchers have studied differences between

the level and type of influence friends, family and strangers have on internet users.

For example, studies have reported instances that members of one’s network who are

not close, such as acquaintances, are useful for providing access to new resources

and ideas (Tracey cited in Haddon, 2004); that there is not a significant difference in

‘family conversation time’ because of internet use (Robinson, Kestnbaum, Neustadtl

& Alvarez, 2002); and that the distinctive characteristics of the internet provids a

unique opportunity for friendship groups to develop trust and build ‘friendships on

words’ (Henderson & Gilding, 2004, p. 497).

2.5.2 Virtual community

Sociologist Barry Wellman (1992) views computer networks as social networks

(Garton et al., 1999; Wellman, 1997a, 1999; Wellman &Berkowitz, 1988, 1997). In

discussions of what he calls the ‘community question’, Wellman (1999) explains that

the value of a network approach is that it avoids individual-level research

perspectives, focusing instead on the strong and weak ties that form into social

networks and impact on connections and positions in the networks that influence

individual and/or collective action. These networks form the foundation of

communities online and offline.

While ‘unbounded sociability was the promise’ of online social networks (Castells,

2001 p. 119), the evidence is mixed (Watson, 1997; Jones, 1998; Du Val Smith,

1999; Ward, 2000). In particular, the early enthusiasm has given way to a realisation

that discussions about virtual communities often confuse ideas about what

‘community’ entails (Smith & Kollock, 1999). Indeed, long before the possibility of

a virtual community emerged, there was extensive sociological debate as to the

definition and meaning of the term ‘community’ (Bell & Newby, 1971; Wellman et

al., 1998; Wellman & Gulia, 1999).

One way that internet scholars have attempted to approach the problem of defining

‘community’ is to differentiate between the different types of communities that

operate online. In general, three main categorizations of ‘community’ are used in the

literature to describe the range of relationships and interactions that are maintained

online. The first of these is a ‘community of practice’. This describes a community

38


of like-minded people (often professionals) whose purpose is to support each other

as well as to learn and to promote their understanding via electronic collaboration in

a group (Wenger, 1998; Sproull & Faraj, 1997). This form of community provides

the overall conditions and basis for interpreting and making sense of events and

activities (Jankowski, 2002, p. 40). The second type of community online identified

in the literature is a ‘discourse community’. This type of community is concerned

with the ‘use of discourse for purposeful social action in a public arena’ (Gurak,

1997, p. 11). Thus, members share rules for speaking and interpreting

communicative performance and use language to delineate the boundaries of

community, to unify its members and to exclude others (Jankowski, 2002, p. 40).

The final categorisation of community offered in the literature is a ‘community of

interest’. This refers to relations maintained by persons across time who are involved

in a collective set of interests (Preece, 2001). For example, a number of health

communities have emerged based on patients sharing information and more personal

non-material resources such as emotional support, companionship and a sense of

belonging.

Overall, despite the definitional difficulty associated with the term ‘community’, the

nomenclature of ‘virtual community’ and ‘online community’ are widely accepted in

studies of internet and society. They are frequently engaged as the framework for

studying the ranging relationships and involvement experienced by internet users in

online forums.

2.5.2.1 Networks of commitment and support?

Virtual communities may resemble real-life communities in the sense that support is

available, often in specialized relationships, but internet members are distinctive in

providing information, support, companionship, and a sense of belonging to persons

they hardly know offline or who are total strangers (Wellman & Gulia 1999, p. 175).

For example, online communities of patients with various illnesses can supply both

the anonymity and objectivity that patients cannot, or may not, receive from families

and friends. Those in the physical rather than virtual community may try to protect

the patient by not providing complete feedback, or may not feel comfortable or

experienced enough to provide insights about the patient’s condition.

39


One of the most common forms of social support on the internet is the sharing of

information (Wellman, 1997a). The process of sharing information online without

immediate benefit is a defining feature of internet communication (Kollock, 1999).

However, such sharing can sustain a large community, because each act is seen by

the entire group and helps to perpetuate an online sense of generalised reciprocity

and mutual aid (Wellman 1997b, p. 447). The value of information emanating from

online communities is that the ‘weak ties’ of these communities may provide better

and different kinds of resources than strong, familial ties. This is to suggest that the

kind of people you know is more important for obtaining information than the

number of people you know. This was exemplified in a study which found members

of a large organisation were better able to solve problems when receiving

suggestions online from people with a wide range of social characteristics rather than

from a larger number of socially similar people (Constant et al., 1996 cited in

Wellman & Gulia, 1999, p. 176).

The above observations counter arguments that internet users are disconnected from

groups and community. Instead they highlight that participation in online

communities can ‘transcend these constraints, shifting from door-to-door relations to

person-to-person and role-to-role interactions’ (Katz & Rice, 2002, p. 122). At the

same time, internet scholars have noted that one of the most problematic features of

virtual communities is that online ties are likely to be more ephemeral, less

sustainable, and easily exit-able, compared to physical community relations. Others

question the value of information shared online, arguing that online services may

function as repositories for erroneous information and bad advice (Foderaro, 1995).

A related argument is that there will be so much information on the internet it will be

difficult to determine what is valid and this may lead to faulty decision-making (Van

Dijk, 1999).

Rheingold (2000, p. 351) addresses such criticisms by stating that when discussing

the social impact of virtual communities we should focus on the following three

points: ‘virtual communities affect the minds of individuals, the interpersonal

relationships between people, and the social institutions that emerge from human

relationships’. Case studies of online communities have revealed that the internet has

enabled people with minority interests or lifestyles to find companionship and

40


counsel unavailable in their communities of residence, as well as providing

opportunities for participation and relationships for the homebound aged or infirm

(Etzioni & Etzioni, 1997). Compared to real-life social networks, online

communities are more often based on participants’ shared interests, rather than

shared demographic characteristics or mere propinquity (Wellman & Gulia, 1999).

Thus, the level of concern about participation in virtual communities is grounded, to

some extent, in a false debate which assumes that supporting online participation

excludes participation in a physical community. As Wellman (1997, p. 446) argues,

an extreme, binary debate about online community treats life online as an isolated

social phenomenon, without taking into account how interactions on it mesh with

other aspects of people’s lives. In developing this perspective, DiMaggio et al.

(2001) state that the majority of research on virtual communities to date suggests that

the internet sustains the bonds of community by complementing, not replacing, other

channels of interaction.

2.5.2.2 Networks of social action and civic participation?

The introduction of earlier communication technologies such as newspapers and

television dramatically altered public opinion and the degree of local community

involvement in civic affairs (Carey, 1989). Social scientists have subsequently been

interested in the extent to which the internet may do the same. Currently, the

capacity of the internet to impact on politics is strongly contested. Occupying the

middle ground is research suggesting that the effect thus far has been mixed and

modest (DiMaggio et al., 2001). For example, it is argued that while the internet may

have mobilised some people politically, these are primarily those already engaged,

not the disaffected or uninterested (Stromer-Galley, 2000). Beyond this middle

ground are two opposing points of view.

The argument for the internet improving political and civil participation is grounded

in the belief that the internet is creating a better informed and engaged public, thus

enhancing deliberative democracy through improved quality of political discussion

and diversity in the public space (DiMaggio et al., 2001). Access barriers to

meaningful public participation are also seen to be reduced by the internet, and

collectivising and social action are seen to be supported by network technology and

its capacity for horizontal interpersonal communication (Kahn & Kellner, 2004;

41


Slevin, 2000). The internet in this context is positioned as an agent of progressive

social change as interest groups and activists practice ‘cyberactivism’. McCaughey

and Ayers (2003) document a number of successful cases of cyberactivism,

including developing public awareness web sites connected to traditional political

organisations, managing petitions online, and creating online sites to support and

propel real-life protest. These activities demonstrate Gurak’s (1997) observation that

the internet is a highly specialised virtual space that offers a new forum for social

action in that it bypasses ‘standard procedures’, and links protestors by common

values when they may be distanced by geography or time.

A factor that may render the internet a problematic force for political change is

Sunstein’s (2001) claim that users’ ability to personalise content and interaction will

mean that internet users will only communicate with interest groups that share their

own beliefs and attitudes. Contradictory views will be filtered so individuals will

remain ignorant of opposing perspectives. Gurak’s (1997, p. 42; Gurak & Logie,

2003) research adds strength to this view in revealing how ‘self-referential and

insular communities on the internet’ can be, because they can easily suppress

minority opinions and propagate inaccurate, incomplete or exaggerated information.

In the social marketing environment this behaviour should inform planning of

segmentation and media strategy. Whilst social marketers will be able to plan media

strategies that reach populations with internet access, they will also need to be

cognisant of the fact that internet users may also be ‘hard-to-impact’. Egger,

Donovan and Spark (1993) describe ‘hard-to-impact’ audiences as potential network

members who are impervious to the campaign message. Gurak’s (1997) research

reveals to social marketers that some online communities will be unresponsive to

countervailing ideas that challenge the majority view. Furthermore, this research

highlights potential online challenges that may confront social marketers who invest

in ‘upstream’ strategies aimed at mobalising online community participation in a

prosocial campaign, if the social ideas proposed contest the prevailing view held by

that online community.

2.6 The social shaping of technology

The literature reviewed throughout this chapter has revealed the lack of agreement

between researchers concerning the transformative influence of the internet on the

42


personal, social, political and commercial lives of users. Nevertheless, amidst the

divergent opinions scholars acknowledge that there is something special about the

internet as the impetus for social and commercial change. As Woolgar (2002, p. 3)

points out, the ‘implication is that some new set of activities and arrangements

contrasts with “ordinary” or “real” (non-virtual) society and, perhaps more

controversially, improves upon it’. Woolgar’s (2002) view, and that of other social

scientists involved in the study of technology (see MacKenzie & Wajcman, 1999;

Regan Shade, 2002), is that technology is intertwined in our lives — for better or

worse.

Implicit in this view of technology is a perspective on the relationship between

internet technology and society which has been the basis of substantial debate. This

debate can be characterised by two views of technology: ‘technological determinism’

and the ‘social construction of technology’ (SCOT). Whilst simplification obscures

the variety of positions evident in the published literature, this characterisation is an

important starting point for understanding how social scientists have viewed

interactive technologies and explained users’ internet behaviours.

Whilst ‘hard’ technological determinism has been rejected, scholars such as Smith

and Marx (1994) argue that this does not rule out ‘soft’ technological determinism.

This view advocates that technology’s social, economic, political and cultural effects

are complex and contingent, but not that it has no effect (MacKenzie & Wajcman,

1999). Those advocating ‘hard’ technological determinism therefore argue that there

is a partial explanation of technology’s influence in society. This leads them to

endorse implicitly a more qualified and contextualised ‘hard’ determinism position

— as a partial explanation of society (Livingstone, 2002a, p. 20).

Earlier research by Wellman and colleagues (e.g., Wellman, 1979, 1992, 1999)

typifies ‘hard’ determinism, in that they pursued a social network analysis of the

social processes of the internet’s network design and use, and in turn, discussed the

shaping of communication in specific realms (politics, community, etc.). The

literature reviewed earlier in the chapter, specifically about social networks, presents

ranging perspectives from what is termed a ‘cultural determinism’ to a qualified or

‘soft’ technological determinism (Livingstone, 2002a, p. 17). The cultural

determinism perspective is that discussion of the social contexts and consequences of

43


the internet is contentious because ‘people are discussing not technology but society

— how is society changing, what are the key drivers of change, and which changes

are for the better or the worse?’ (Livingstone, 2002a, p. 18). Livingstone (2002a)

argues that it is the influence of the cultural perspective that has led some social

scientists to regard interactive communication technologies (ICTs) as a panacea for

the ills of modern society (loss of political participation, of community belonging, of

childhood innocence).

Williams and Edge (1996, p. 866) argue that employing a SCOT approach forces

researchers to go beyond simplistic forms of social or cultural determinism. This is

because, like technological determinism, these related perspectives see technology as

reflecting a single rationality. This may be, for example, as an economic imperative

or as the political imperative of a ruling elite. Constructionist sensibilities

characteristically arise as a critique and movement away from technological

determinism because social constructionists believe technologies are, and have

always been, social. Jackson, Poole and Kuhn (2002) state that a constructionist

perspective has typically been employed for two purposes. The first of these

purposes is to provide a framework for understanding ICTs in society —

organisational and domestic spaces. The second purpose of constructionism has been

to guide design and implementation of ICTs in various settings.

A specific perspective within the constructionist view of technology, which is central

to the research questions posed in this thesis, is the concept of the social shaping of

technology (SST). The SST perspective is generally concerned with the everyday

uses of technologies, ‘with a particular focus on the ways that people modify, avoid,

reinvent or otherwise adapt technologies to their particular purposes and

circumstances’ (Lievrouw, 2002b, p. 132). Importantly, SST studies have shown that

technology does not develop according to some inner technical logic. Rather, this

research has revealed that technology is a social process, patterned by the conditions

of its creation and use, and informed by human choices and actions (Lievrouw,

2002b; MacKenzie & Wajcman, 1999; Williams & Edge, 1996). Consequently, to

talk about the ‘impacts’ of technology on society, as though technology is the

hammer and society the nail, is to accept implicitly the basic premise of

technological determinism (Williams & Edge, 1996).

44


The research in this thesis is broadly committed to a ‘social shaping’ position. That

is, it aims to understand and critique how various stakeholders involved in social

marketing are shaping as well as being shaped by the internet’s technological

development. The SST research approach has guided the understanding that

technologies are social products which embed human relations in their very

constitution, and that the relationship between technology and society is never

unidirectional (MacKenzie & Wajcman, 1999). Therefore, at the center of the

following discussion about how technology is shaped, is a belief that ‘technology’,

and thus the internet, includes not only the built devices themselves, but also the

practices and knowledge related to them, along with the social relationships that

form around those devices, practices and knowledges (Mackenzie & Wacjman,

1999). Thought of this way, technology is dynamic, even fluid (Lievrouw, 2002b, p.

183). Whilst not a prevalent perspective within marketing, SST’s acceptance is

backgrounded by the interpretive turn in marketing research. This interpretive turn

and the constructionist perspective in marketing theory and research are addressed in

the following chapters.

2.7 Summary

This chapter has reviewed literature that describes the internet as a personal and

social technology. Whilst it is clear that this is not a well established perspective of

the internet in the marketing literature, this is not the case in other disciplinary areas

such as the sociology of technology and communication studies. Thus, these other

disciplinary areas have been engaged in order to provide valuable insights about the

role of the internet in daily life. Important to understanding the relevance of the

social and personal shaping of the internet was situating the technological artifacts of

the internet within the internet marketing literature. This revealed that internet

marketing is dominated by a supply-side view of internet technology. Given the

limitations of this approach, a constructionist view of technology was described.

This conceptualisation of technology as socially shaped will provide a guiding

perspective for this thesis in understanding the role of the internet in marketing

theory and practice. In the following chapter the constructionist argument is

developed further and its connection to the theory and practice of social marketing

and the role of the internet, further elaborated.

45

CHAPTER THREE SOCIAL MARKETING FRAMEWORK

Chapter Three: Social Marketing Framework

The behavioural science/consumer behaviour tradition has its parentage in social psychology, sociology, and, more recently, anthropology. Rather than retreating from such cross-disciplinary borrowing, marketers must invite more of it. If anything, marketers must cast their nets wider to consider more disciplines as sources of rich constructs, models, and technologies.

(Deshpandé, 1999, p. 164)

3.0 Introduction

Marketing scholars have suggested that marketing theory has borrowed much of its

ontology from economics and finance, and its epistemology from sociology and

psychology (Hirschman, 1987; Anderson, 1982). This is reflected in Deshpandé’s

(1999) words concerning the future growth of marketing and, by association, social

marketing as a distinct sub-discipline within marketing. Despite Deshpande’s (1999)

positive view of theory borrowing and its acceptance in broader marketing theory,

the same practice has renewed tensions and stimulated debates in social marketing.

Hence, this chapter begins by briefly outlining the definitional debates that have

occurred in relation to social marketing since Wiebe (1951-52) first suggested that

marketers consider selling ‘brotherhood’ like soap, and proposed that generic

marketing principles could be used to deal with health and welfare problems.

Following this discussion, the chapter takes a critical marketing position (Hastings &

Saren, 2003b), and discusses the contribution social constructionist thinking can

offer social marketing. It is suggested that a social constructionist perspective is

appropriate to study the inherent subjectivity of individual behaviour and to interpret

social issues and contexts (Hackley, 2001; Holt, 1995; Wagner, 2003). The final

section of the chapter outlines the limited research literature that has considered the

role of the internet in social marketing.

3.1 Defining social marketing

This section does not attempt to define social marketing by taking an historical view

of the literature or by summarising the major debates which surrounded the field’s

establishment and eventual acceptance in marketing theory and practice. These tasks

have been recently completed in special issue journal publications on social

marketing (see: Marketing Theory (2003) edited by Gerard Hastings and Michael

47


Saren at the University of Strathclyde, UK; the Australasian Marketing Journal

(2003a) edited by Janet Hoek, Massey University, New Zealand; the Journal of

Public Policy & Marketing (2002) edited by Cornelia Pechmann at the University of

California, Irvine).1 Instead, this section briefly revisits selected issues in the

development and application of social marketing to pro-social concerns. The aim is

to highlight the relevance and academic tensions between the dominant logic of

social marketing’s intangible resources, the seminal role of exchange theory, and the

continued application of the mainstream managerial marketing paradigm (Peattie &

Peattie, 2003). These factors have recently reignited debates about an acceptable

definition and focus for twenty-first century social marketing strategy.

Whilst there has been debate and confusion surrounding the definition of social

marketing, much of the contestation with socially responsible marketing, health

communication and promotion, cause-related marketing, mass communication and

education has been resolved (MacFadyen, Stead & Hastings, 1999; Albrecht, 1997).

Andreasen (2003, p. 300) has noted that, after an extended ‘identity crisis’, social

marketing has recognised its true nature, which is not changing ideas but rather

influencing behaviour. Elsewhere Andreasen (2002a, p. 3) has also argued that there

remains some ‘problems of perception’ about social marketing, which results in ‘an

absence of clear understanding of what the field is and what its role should be in

relation to other approaches in social change’. It appears that these problems of

perception are grounded in a re-invigorated debate about social marketing’s process

for promoting voluntary behaviour change. That is, at what intervention level does

social marketing strategy work to affect social change?

This is a debate which was originally sparked by Goldberg (1995), who was critical

of social marketing’s micro-experimental focus on individual health-related

behaviours, and argued instead for an ‘upstream’ and ‘downstream’ focus. The

metaphorical terms upstream and downstream (Wallack, Dorfman, Jernigan &

Themba, 1993) refer to the intended audience of a social change strategy. Those

social change strategies that are targeted upstream include those directed at

legislators, industry representatives and marketing decision makers, while those that

are targeted downstream are directed at individuals (Donovan & Henley, 2003). 1 More recently, Bennett and Sargeant (2005) published a special issue in the closely related

area of nonprofit marketing in the Journal of Business Research.

48


Goldberg (1995) argued that successful social marketing takes into account both

upstream and downstream perspectives, because strategies involving representatives

from both stakeholder groups are likely to be complementary and interactive in

achieving social change objectives (Winett, 1995). The more recent literature

however, suggests a division between intervention level strategies that focus on

individual change, which Andreasen (2002a, p. 5) argues is ‘social marketing’s

primary niche’. This perspective is contrasted by ‘structuralists’ thinking (e.g.

Hastings and colleagues; Glenane-Antoniadis, Whitewell, Bell & Menguc, 2003)

who suggest that an individual and a community’s ability to change are materially

constrained by social structures of laws, institutions, available technologies and

public policies (Andreasen, 2000).

Some social marketers believe that continued confusion surrounding the definition

and domain of social marketing will ultimately lead to the demise of the sub-

discipline both theoretically and practically (Andreasen, 2002a; Maibach, 2002).

Others, such as Hastings and Donovan (2002), posit that to ensure its future social

marketing needs to broaden its perspective. This argument calls for adopting less

traditional marketing techniques ― such as media advocacy, lobbying, activism and

relationship marketing (Donovan & Henley, 2003; Hastings, 2003b; Slater, Kelly &

Edwards, 2000) ― into social marketing. These scholars have taken up Goldberg’s

(1995) earlier concerns, arguing that social marketing should not just focus on

individual behaviour change, but on changing the behaviour of groups and

organisations by targeting broader environmental influences (Donovan, 2000;

Hastings, MacFadyen & Anderson, 2000; Goldberg, 1995) and addressing structural

change (Donovan, 2000).

Dann and Dann (1998) state that Andreasen’s (1995, p. 7) definition of social

marketing is most widely accepted because it focuses on the key elements of

voluntary behaviour change, and embraces marketing’s philosophy of consumer

orientation. Andreasen’s (1995) definition converts this philosophy into practice by

including market research, segmentation, the adaptation of the marketing mix, and

the use of implementation and control strategies (Dann & Dann, 1998). Andreasen’s

(1994, p. 110) definition of social marketing encapsulates these points:

49


social marketing is the application of commercial marketing technologies to the analysis, planning, execution and evaluation of programs designed to influence the voluntary behaviour of target audiences in order to improve their personal welfare and that of society of which they are a part.

This definition is important because it introduces the critical attribute that

distinguishes social marketing from commercial marketing; that is, the primary

beneficiaries of social marketing programs are members of the target audience and

wider society. This contrasts with commercial marketing strategy which is directed

at benefiting the person or organisation that initiated the program (Maibach, 2002).

This is not to say, however, that there is not some exchange of value for the social

marketer initiating the program. Dann and Dann (1998) state that whilst the benefit

of the exchange may not directly flow to the organisation, the exchange will

ultimately benefit the marketer as a member of society. This view is consistent with

Bagozzi’s (1975a) general exchange theory which is discussed later in this section.

An alternative perspective on Andreasen’s (1995) definition is offered by Donovan

and Henley (2003) who argue that social marketing has been constrained by the

definitional adherence to traditional marketing techniques. These techniques tend to

exclude areas such as media advocacy, lobbying, legislative and policy action, and

structural change. Whilst social marketing was established based on successes in

changing individual behaviour, in more recent times selected social marketers have

questioned Andreasen’s (1995) emphasis on individual, voluntary behaviour change.

As Hastings et al. argue (2000, p. 46), ‘people’s behaviour is not just determined by

their own choices, but also by their social context’. Maibach and Cotton (1995) agree

with this thinking, and argue that behaviour is socially as well as individually

determined. Other social marketers have also pointed out that the domain of

commercial marketing has continued to grow and has not been restricted to the

traditional marketing toolkit to achieve sales and profit goals (Peattie & Peattie,

2003). Yet this new commercial thinking has not transferred to social marketing. To

argue their case, Donovan and Henley (2003, p. 11) apply lobbying to social

marketing, asking: ‘Is lobbying for social good social marketing?’ They explain that

in the situation where anti-tobacco campaigners have lobbied government to ban

tobacco advertising, to increase tax on tobacco, and to restrict smoking in public

places, the interaction is a social marketing exchange, because:

50


if the lobbyist considers the interaction an exchange and is concerned with the needs of the lobbied (that is, the politician or legislator), it is social marketing … Such lobbying is, of course, consistent with commercial marketing anyway … [as noted above] … since actions such as lobbying are included in the promotional element of the marketing mix in terms of influencing the environment in which exchanges takes place.

(Donovan & Henley, 2003, p. 11)

In summary, there is a difference of strategic focus between social marketers as to

whether the discipline should seek to narrow or broaden its focus by drawing on

additional social change strategies. Andreasen (2003) and Rothschild (1999)

recommend separation between ‘competing’ communication and behaviour models

— such as education, communications, advocacy and lobbying, the law, community

mobilisation. In contrast, other scholars such as Hastings et al. (2000), Hastings and

Saren (2003a), Donovan and Henley (2003) and Smith (2000) argue that social

marketing is not a singular model, but an integrating system for many models and

theories. Hastings and Saren (2003b, p. 315) take this further, suggesting that while

Andreasen’s (1995) definition emphasises the core of social marketing, which is the

behaviour change agenda, the further development of social marketing is dependent

upon the sub-discipline embracing a critical analysis of marketing, in order to bridge

marketing’s division between the social and the commercial. To accomplish this

task, Hastings and Saren (2003b) recommend drawing away from Andreasen’s

(1995) accepted definition and advocate instead adopting societal marketers’ Lazer

and Kelly’s (1973, p. 4) definition of the discipline, which states:

Social marketing is concerned with the uses of marketing knowledge, concepts and techniques to enhance social ends as well as with the social consequences of marketing policies, decisions, and actions. The purview of social marketing is, therefore, broader than that of managerial marketing. It refers to the study of markets and marketing activities within a total social system.

Donovan and Henley’s (2003, p. 5) definition of social marketing is also attuned to

upstream, structural change thinking. Consequently they argue that Andreasen’s

(1994) original definition should be amended because it is too constrictive in

focusing only on voluntary behaviours. To argue this case, they provide an

illustration in which voluntary behaviour change is made by a food company

executive deciding to substitute fats in their polyunsaturated products. However, as

Donovan and Henley (2003) explain, at the same time the end-consumers’ change in

51


saturated fats intake is involuntary. As a result, they have refined Andreasen’s (1995)

original definition, stating:

Social marketing is the application of commercial marketing technologies to the analysis, planning, execution, and evaluation of programs designed to influence the voluntary or involuntary behaviour of target audiences in order to improve the welfare of individuals and society.

(Donovan & Henley, 2003, p. 6)

It is arguable that these scholars have taken too narrow a view of Andreasen’s (1995)

social marketing perspective. This is because whilst Andreasen (1995, p. 289) has

explained the critical role of ‘client centred marketing’ in social change, he has also

argued that to achieve success, social marketing programs must create strategic

partnerships with other publics (e.g., media, commercial sector distributors, health

clinics, volunteers, funding organisations). Consequently, whilst this researcher

agrees with the critical marketing stance taken by Hastings and Saren (2003b) and

Donovan and Henley (2003), and their identification of the limitations of

Andreasen’s (1995) definition, it is contended that there are other important

marketing philosophy arguments overlooked in their own proposed definitions.

Consequently these authors’ definitions are not applied in this study, because they

undermine marketing’s commitment to consumer sovereignty. Furthermore,

Donovan and Henley’s (2003) definition also implies a disempowering effect on the

consumer, because decision-making power is being diminished. Such strategies are

at risk of applying a partnerlistic approach, which is a criticism that has been levled

at social marketing in the past (Donovan & Henley, 2003).

Given that there are both strengths and limitations in the different definitions of

social marketing discussed, the definition offered by Dann (1997) is useful in that it

is situated in the “middle-ground” between the divided view points. She writes social

marketing is:

the simultaneous adoption of marketing philosophy and adaptation of marketing techniques to further causes leading to changes in individual behaviour which ultimately, in the view of the campaign’s originator, will result in socially beneficial outcomes.

(Dann cited in Albrecht, 1997, p. 22)

The adoption of this social marketing definition is important to the following

research for three reasons: Firstly, the definition applies the rubric of commercial

52


marketing, which is not restrained to marketing management’s 4Ps. It is therefore

open to interpretation that “new” marketing techniques — relationship marketing

and internet marketing — can be incorporated into social marketing thinking.

Secondly, and more importantly, the definition emphasises marketing philosophy.

As Bagozzi (1975b, p. 37) has argued, social marketing is more than the use or

application of marketing techniques, because ‘a science or discipline is something

more than its technologies’. Furthermore, marketing’s philosophy is based on

consumer sovereignty (Dann cited in Albrecht, 1997). In commercial marketing this

means consumers make voluntary purchases. For example, corporations like

MacDonalds and Microsoft cannot use marketing to force consumers to purchase

their products; marketing is not about coercion. Social marketing becomes coercive

when an elite group in society forces their moral views and values on the remainder

of society through legislative changes gained through influence by virtue of factors

such as one’s education, class or gender. Forcing involuntary behaviour change on

people for their “own good” is contrary to the principles of liberal democracy, and

the capitalist philosophy of free choice and free markets, which has always

influenced commercial marketing practice.

An alternative perspective to Dann’s (1997) privileging of liberal democratic

principles and consumer sovereignty are the behaviour change strategies proposed by

advocates of the upstream social marketing approach, which focus marketing

strategy on changing fundamental social structural conditions (see Donovan &

Henley, 2003; Goldberg, 1995; Hastings, MacFadyen & Anderson, 2000). These

social marketers argue that the ‘domain of social marketing is not just the targeting

of individual voluntary behaviour change and changes to the environment that

facilitate such changes, but the targeting of changes in social structure that will

facilitate individuals reaching their potential’ (Donovan & Henley, 2003, p. 6).

Social Marketers who embrace an upstream approach argue that confining strategy

to a focus on individual, voluntary behaviour change is overly restrictive.

Consequently, they advocate the inclusion of strategies that involve involuntary

behaviour change as important in social marketing planning. As highlighted earlier

in this section, these strategies involve social marketers participating in activities

such as lobbying government decision-makers to make changes to policy and social

structures that also impact on an individual’s ability to change social behaviours.

53


The third reason why Dann’s (1996) definition is appropriate to this thesis is that

adhering to the campaign originator’s view to measure resulting benefits to wider

community will ensure that social marketing strategy is not set as a panacea for

societal problems. Rather, the campaign is set realistically to achieve beneficial

individual and societal outcomes achievable through plannned marketing activities

and practices.

3.1.1 Behavioural theory in social marketing

Whilst consumer behaviour change is the bottom line success metric in social

marketing programs, Andreasen (2002b) points out that behaviour change is

ultimately in the hands of the target audience. As Dann and Dann (1998, p. 381)

have commented, ‘Social marketing is unique because it is client needs driven rather

than expert driven’. Hence, Andreasen (2002b) argues that laws can be passed,

environments altered, and communication campaigns established, but if individuals

choose not to act, social change will not happen. To support this thinking he adds

that commercial marketers have been aware of this most basic factor in marketing

because their success has always been measured in sales and revenues. Social

marketers, however, have more challenging behaviours to measure.

Malafarina and Loken (1993, p. 397) note that using attitudinal and behavioural data

to identify target segments is assumed to be less accurate when the issue pertains to

social marketing. This is because social problems make it difficult to identify ‘users’

and ‘nonusers’, and it is therefore difficult to differentiate one from the other. Social

marketing typically relies on self-reported behaviours. For example, data on breast

self-examination or contraceptive use could result in misleading measures of

consumers’ attitudes and behaviours, because they can only be self-reported. In this

situation, it may also be the case that other behavioural measures, such as

observation are not possible.

Over time, social marketers have used a range of models or frameworks to manage

and understand consumer behaviour in terms of pro-social and health matters (see for

example Maibach & Cotton, 1995; Kotler & Roberto, 1989; Rogers, 1995).

However, Geller (2002) is critical of social marketing’s behavioural approach, which

he argues is more likely to be founded on theories of attitude formation and change,

54


than on principles from behavioural science. In his words ‘social marketers are more

likely to address human attitudes or perceptions first in an attempt to “think people

into acting differently”, than they are to focus on behaviour change to “act people

into thinking differently”’ (Geller, 2002, p. 16).

The Transtheoretical Model (TM), also known as the ‘Stages of Change’ (SOC)

model developed by Prochaska and DiClemente (1986, 1992) is a promising and

popular model of behaviour change that integrates both cognitive, attitudinal

thinking and active behaviours. This model has been widely used in health education

and social marketing across a range of populations and problems from illicit drug

use, to HIV/AIDS prevention, managed sun exposure, sedentary lifestyles and

mammography screening (Prochaska, Redding & Evers, 1997). Andreasen (1995)

argues that the SOC model has proven successful in applying social marketing

because it integrates processes and principles of change across major theories of

intervention, and uses these to inform a staged process that relates well to social

marketing’s high-involvement behaviours. This is important because, typically,

consumers dealing with high-involvement decision making do not adopt the planned

behaviour instantaneously. Rather, changes in these types of behaviours are both

difficult and time consuming (Andreasen, 1995) and behaviour change unfolds

through a series of stages (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983).

It is important to emphasise that social marketing is not a theory of behaviour

change. It is the ‘application of marketing principles and techniques in order to

influence behaviour change’ (Lefebvre, 1997, p. 55). Hence, the key role of social

marketing is seen now, by academics and practitioners alike, as influencing

behaviour (Andreasen, 1994). This is in contrast to promoting ideas as the means to

effect social change for the benefit of wider society.

At the same time as social marketing has emerged as a distinct sub-discipline within

the general field of academic marketing (Andreasen, 1997), confusion has arisen in

terms of the academic application of social marketing, as well as debate on the

division between practice and theory in social marketing (Sutton, 1996). Lefebvre

and Rochlin (1997, p. 385) emphasise that ‘the practice of social marketing lies in

developing and implementing integrated elements that have the shared purpose of

leading to a specific change in behaviour’. They point out that the shared purpose

55


refers to the program objective. Furthermore, they highlight that whilst a number of

elements will facilitate behaviour change, it is the strategic combination and

integration of these tactics that constitutes a social marketing program.

In order to develop this line of thinking, new approaches have been applied by social

marketers to broaden the conceptual and applied boundaries in social marketing.

These suggested theories include social capital (Glenane-Antoniadis, Whitewell, Bell

& Menguc, 2003), community-based social marketing (McKenzie-Mohr, 2000),

socialization (Moore et al., 2002), and social influence (Glider, Midyett, Mills-

Novoa, Johannessen & Collins, 2001). The common element in all such approaches

is explicitly or implicitly the mechanism of exchange. Whilst there is debate about

the relevance of various behaviour theories, be they individually focused or more

broadly focused on community change, exchange theory is often advocated as the

differentiating factor between social marketing and other social change approaches

(Andreasen, 2002a; Hastings, 2003).

3.1.2 Exchange theory

Social marketing’s acceptance within the broader marketing discipline has been

primarily attributed to the acknowledgement of non-economic transactions as

variables within marketing exchange. Andreasen (2000) attributes Richard Bagozzi’s

(1975a, 1975b, 1977) pioneering work on exchange theory as critical in this respect

as his scholarship enabled marketing to venture beyond the traditional confines of

economic transactions, and made it possible to apply marketing to social issues.

Bagozzi’s (1975a) contribution to the idea of exchange is three-fold. Firstly, he

included and clarified the place of social relationships under the domain of

marketing exchanges, because in reality, ‘marketing exchanges often are indirect,

they may involve intangible and symbolic aspects, and more than two parties may

participate’ (ibid, p. 32). Secondly, he delineated three types of marketing

exchanges: ‘restricted’, ‘generalised’ and ‘complex’. Restricted exchange implicitly

dominates commercial marketing thinking, because it simply represents two-party

reciprocal relationships (that is, buyers and sellers). Generalised exchanges are

univocal and involve a system of reciprocal relationships between three or more

actors. Complex exchanges refer to a system that involves mutual relationships

between at least three actors, involving reciprocity and an extended timeframe,

56


unlike generalised exchanges. Bagozzi (1975a) views exchange, within a social

marketing context, as a generalised or complex exchange. The final reason that

Bagozzi’s (1975a) work is seminal in terms of the idea of exchange is that he

explains the content of exchange as being: utilitarian (economic and relatively

tangible), symbolic (psychological, social and intangible), or mixed (a combination

of both utilitarian and symbolic). Hence, there ‘is most definitely (mutually

beneficial) exchange in social marketing relationships, but the exchange is not the

simple quid pro quo notion characteristic of most economic exchanges’ (Hastings &

Saren, 2003b, p. 309).

Many social marketing programs have been accepted as successes because they have

met Bagozzi’s (1975a) generalised exchange criteria. Yet it appears that some of the

current division between social marketers who support a focus on individual

behaviour change, and those who are labelled ‘structuralists’, arises because

Bagozzi’s (1975a) theory of marketing exchange has only been partially applied.

These scholars are questioning which actors (upstream or downstream) participate in

the reciprocal and mutual relationships involved in generalised and/or complex

exchanges in social marketing. However, as Bagozzi (1975a, p. 38) explained,

‘social marketing attempts to determine the dynamics and nature of the exchange

behaviour in these relationships’. These social relationships involve both tangible

and intangible entities, and they invoke various media to influence such exchanges

(Bagozzi, 1975a). Media is defined by Bagozzi (1975a) as any type of vehicle used

in communication, such as money, products, services, persuasion, punishment,

power (authority), inducement, and activation of normative or ethical commitments;

these elements represent influences from the broader social environment.

Nevertheless, there is a growing acceptance that social marketing deals primarily

with individual behaviour (e.g. Andreasen, 2002a). As a consequence social

marketing is criticised for minimising or ignoring the social context of human

behaviour (Peattie & Peattie, 2003, Glenane-Antoniadis et al. 2003).

An alternate perspective on the debate is offered by Smith (2000, p. 6) who argues

that this ‘notion of individual versus social context is a threat to serious thinking and

effective social marketing’. He suggests that those who view individual behaviour

change and social context as opposing logic models are misguided, and that social

57


marketers are particularly obsessed with social context as a factor influencing

individual behaviour. Smith (2000, p. 8) emphasises that this opposing logic has

serious implications for what we measure and how we think about interventions,

stating:

I do not believe that social marketing underestimates the social context or the powerful effect of culture, economics, or injustice on individual behaviour. Imagine if we turned away from individual behaviour. What do we do with our key measure of success, the reduction of the number of individual people infected with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)? We can decide, of course, that individual infection rates are irrelevant and turn our attention to social context. We can measure social capital, for example, instead of individual infection rates. This, I argue, would be a disaster if it were our only measure. We need a simple logic model flexible enough to accommodate a wide variety of influences on individual behaviour, not a framework that says there is individual and social behaviour.

3.1.3 Relational paradigms in social marketing

Andreasen (2002a) contends that social marketing has shifted from its earlier focus

on the marketing of products involved in social change such as condoms, pills, and

oral rehydration solutions. He suggests, there is a broader emphasis within social

marketing on behavioural challenge programs. These include programs seeking

change in the behaviour of male perpetrators of violence (Donovan, Paterson &

Francas, 1999) and programs designed to induce college students to stop binge

drinking (Glider et al., 2001). Andreasen (2002a) clearly differentiates social

marketing from other competitor social change approaches. He suggests these latter

approaches are being confused with social marketing’s brand of social change that is

situated in a niche market of individual behaviour change. Whilst Andreasen (2001,

2002a) argues for clear boundaries between social change approaches, Smith (2000)

believes that social marketing’s framework is more supple, in that it allows for new

ideas and approaches to be used in order to influence individual behaviour. He

emphasises, however, that social context is one of the primary influences on

individual behaviour, and believes that in a democratic society, where voluntary

choice must be influenced to achieve results, the use of force has severe limits. Smith

(2000) argues that social marketing is perhaps the most pervasive, unifying theory of

social change.

Peattie and Peattie (2003, p. 367) believe that current social marketing debates are

not an argument for the more rigorous application of conventional marketing

principles. Rather, they suggest that social marketing needs more thoughtful and

58


selective application that emphasises the differences between commercial and social

marketing. They point out that conventional commercial marketing thinking is

increasingly under attack from critics who posit that it is ill-suited to the demands of

contemporary world (see, for example, Brownlie & Saren, 1992; Janic & Zabkar,

2002). As a result they believe new schools of thought, such as relationship

marketing, may represent better sources of appropriate theory and practice for the

future development of social marketing (Peattie et al., 2003, p. 367).

Hastings (2003a, 2003b) agrees, and recommends focusing on the key role of

relational exchange and relationship marketing theory, because of the fact that

behaviour change in social marketing programs is a long term adventure, not a short

term transaction. Kotler and Zaltman (1971) originally proposed the idea that social

marketing was a strategy involving a long-term focus, which was necessary given

the mammoth task of effecting social change. The process of behaviour change for

example, which involves re-educating people in their beliefs and overcoming

negative demand, tends to be very slow. Therefore effective social marketing

programs can take many years to achieve their objectives (Gleane-Antoniadis et al.,

2003, p. 329). Based on these facts, and others as outlined below, Hastings (2003a,

p. 6) posits that relational thinking has much to offer social marketing, because in a

social marketing context the behaviours being targeted are often highly involving,

multifaceted and trust is particularly important.

Andreasen (2003, p. 299) states that social marketers treat behaviour as a monolithic

concept, yet social marketing programs clearly deal with ranging behaviours. He

suggests, for example, that starting something is different from stopping something.

Starting something alone (physical activity, getting a tetanus injection) is one thing;

starting something involving others (recycling, family planning, AIDS protection) is

different. Additionally, Andreasen (2003) posits that social marketing has a ‘starting

change’ bias, because social marketing needs to ‘keep score’ in behaviour change.

Furthermore, ‘in a great many important social domains, it is repeat behaviour — or

the maintenance of behaviour that is ultimately critical to success’ (Andreasen, 2003

p. 300). Relational thinking can benefit a social marketing strategy that focuses on

repeat and maintenance behaviours. Given that social change problems dealt with in

social marketing programs such as stopping abuse or undertaking physical activity

59


implies long term planning, relationship marketing is a strategic paradigm that may

be more fruitful to guide strategy in achieving these goals (Hastings, 2003a).

Hastings (2003a, p. 9) suggests that there are two reasons for social marketing’s lack

of interest in relationship marketing. Firstly, he argues that financial drivers in the

field, which is dominated by publicly funded short-term contracts, privilege short-

term program objectives. These short-term objectives emphasise a quid pro quo of

behaviour change for tax dollars, with subsequent funding often tied to this bottom-

line success. Secondly, social marketing gives primacy to the customer and not the

funding agency financing the program. As a result, the perceived value of making

additional or long-term effort could be diluted. Despite these obstacles, however,

Hastings (2003a) proposes that relationship marketing has much to offer social

marketing because:

• Behaviour change is based on a series of steps from pre-contemplation through to

maintenance. Whilst a linear progression model is implied, consumers do not act

sequentially. In contrast, the process is dynamic and unstable because individuals

regress or can change their behaviour. Also, ‘social marketing is founded on

trust’ (Hastings, 2003a, p. 9), because of the type of social products involved. As

commercial marketers have learnt, the presence of commitment and trust are

central to successful relationship marketing (Grönroos, 2000b).

• Relationship strategy can be extended beyond B2C type exchanges, as implied in

Bagozzi’s (1975a) complicated exchange model. Furthermore, as Andreasen

(1995) has noted, success in social marketing is also dependent on strategic

relationships with other publics such as the media, government and corporations.

This thinking iterates that behaviour is socially as well as individually

determined (Maibach & Cotton, 1995). In addition, social marketing efforts are

typically publicly sponsored and supported, by either charitable organisations or

government. Consequently, they rely on public commitments of resources, as

well as on public tolerance and a willingness to accept the personal and

community “costs” of conflict, if the topic is controversial (Slater et al., 2000).

Therefore, building strategic coalitions and establishing and managing

community support are always useful and often essential, especially if social

marketers are aiming for sustainable outcomes beyond the time frame of external

60


sponsors (Bracht, 1990). As Hastings (2003a, p. 9) has written, ‘Moving from

transactions to relationships adds the vital dimension of time to the social

marketing exchange, which turns trust into commitment and enables long-term,

strategic planning.’

• An equal commitment to service quality and a focus on behaviour will lead to

client cooperation. Quoting Andreasen (1994), Hastings (2003a, p. 9) explains

that relationships can be seen as a continued set of behaviours. These may

include a client returning to a stop-smoking clinic or a legislator continuing to

lobby for change. Both are positive relationships that have positive outcomes for

the wider society.

Hastings (2003a) argues that a move to relationship marketing is not a rejection of

social marketing’s behaviour change goals. Instead, he suggests that such a shift is

recognition that behaviour change can be embraced in an ‘inclusive and strategic

vision that relational thinking demands’ (ibid, p. 12).

This section has summarised the tensions and debates surrounding the application of

traditional commercial marketing thinking to social marketing. It has highlighted that

because of the social nature of social marketing topics, consumer and marketing

researchers have raised important questions about whether the marketing of social

ideas and behaviours is compatible with the general marketing concept (Malafarina

& Loken, 1993, p. 397). Slater et al. (2000, p. 130) state that ‘social marketing, after

all, is social. It focuses on behaviours of social concern, which has implications for

the social systems within communities’. This issue is developed further in the

following section which explores community mobilisation and media advocacy as

two approaches which have an “action” focus, and which are consequently consistent

with social marketing’s community change motivation. In addressing these two

approaches to social change, however, the point is to demonstrate that they are a part

of the integrating system of social marketing’s approach to social change.

3.1.4 Mobilising community and benefits to third parties

Glenane-Antoiadis et al. (2003, p. 330) state that whilst much of social marketing

success focuses on individual behavioural change, what sets social marketing apart

from commercial marketing is the varied notion of the consumer. In commercial

61


marketing the consumer tends to be one individual or organisation. However, a

social marketer’s focus also includes the general public and wider society. Thus,

social marketers do not focus solely on meeting individual needs, they also consider

maximisation of social welfare. Embracing this view, Smith (2000, p. 9)

recommends that social marketers should be cautious of false ‘either/ors’ between

‘competing models’ of behaviour change, because when comparing risk

communication with health education, or social marketing with social capital, or

advocacy with health promotion, the decision making does not have to come down

to an exclusive adoption of one model.

Bye (2000, p. 58) believes, however, that social marketing lacks techniques for the

mobilisation of multiple stakeholders for collaborative action. This is despite the fact

that the problems social marketers typically deal with cannot be solved without the

joint efforts of multiple sectors, interests, and institutions. As emphasised earlier,

social marketing has been criticised for its overly individualistic emphasis

(Buchanan, Reddy & Hossain, 1994; Vanden Heede & Pelican, 1995). Yet

Rothschild (2002) has countered that social change is the accumulation of individual

change, which benefits society in the long-term. It is for this reason that he has

confidence in social marketing’s individual change focus, because he believes most

people act on self-interested free choice.

McKee (1992) has also noted social marketing’s typical emphasis on the individual,

stating that the discipline is ‘geared to the individual adopter’ who makes a decision

to ‘buy into’ the program or not. In contrast, strategies such as social mobilisation

aim to involve all levels of society in a program. The major aim of a community

strategy is to mobilise the whole community around a particular program or

innovation (McKee, 1992). Andreasen (2003, p. 299) points out that ‘community

mobilisation’ is not social marketing. Instead, because of its action focus,

community mobilisation is part of the social marketing domain. In explaining this

classification, he states that community mobilisation requires that people take action,

that resources be accumulated, that community leaders voice approval, and so forth.

All of these involve behaviour, and it is here where Andreasen (2003) believes social

marketers ought to be ‘players’ in bringing about the changes that will make a

broader approach work.

62


Along with community mobilisation, another strategy that has been used

successfully applied to influence wider stakeholder involvement in public health is

the use of media advocacy. Wallack (1993, p. 2) states that media advocacy ‘can be a

significant force for influencing public debate and putting pressure on policy makers

by increasing the volume of the public voice and, in turn, by increasing the visibility

of values, people, and issues behind the voice’. This type of strategy has been well

developed in commercial marketing under the PR function. However, it requires

refinement in social marketing, given the sensitivities of issues and political

pressures. It has been suggested that the advantage of the media advocacy approach

is that it seeks to address flaws, not in the ‘the loose threads of the individual’ but in

the ‘fabric of society’ (Wallack, 1989, p. 4). This perspective is challenged by those

authors who believe that social marketing and media advocacy are opposing

approaches to social change (e.g., Andreasen, 2002a; Rothschild, 1999). This,

however, is a false dichotomy (Smith, 2000). As Slater et al. (2000, p. 135) have

argued, ‘the integration of media advocacy and social marketing efforts is logical

and is not only a tool to support community participation around prevention, but may

become a principal foci for initiating individuals to participate in community-based

interventions’.

In contrast to those who suggest that structural and individual-level approaches are

fundamentally opposed, Slater et al. (2000) contend that there are considerable cross-

over influences between the two approaches. That is, community-level interventions

such as media can reinforce individual behaviour change, and individual-level

interventions can draw public attention to the issue and affect policy and other

community-wide issues. Kelly, Edwards, Comello, Plested, Thurman and Slater

(2003, p. 419) provide a rich example of this, noting that public discussion of youth

drug use (carried out through public meetings, parent support groups, letters to the

editor, editorials) may increase the likelihood that youth will attend more closely to

school-based drug prevention programs, and may change individual-level

perceptions of community values and norms that mediate individual behaviour

maintenance of change. They conclude their illustration by arguing that a

community-mobilisation approach can increase the potential of cross-over effects,

since an actively engaged community offers more opportunities for social marketing

63


programs to be accepted, which increases the likelihood that individuals will attend

to media advocacy materials.

Additionally, media advocacy is not outside the social marketing domain. As

Rothschild has highlighted, cooperation between parties may be necessary for the

social marketing manager’s goals to be met. Citing Ouchi (1980, p. 130) Rothschild

(1999, p. 24) identifies that ‘cooperative action necessarily involves interdependence

between individuals’, that aims for exchanges in which each individual gives

something of value and receives something of value in return. He argues that

cooperation is even hindered by the competing self-interested views of targeted

groups, whose members may be comfortable with their current behaviours.

Rothschild (1999) also suggests that it is in this exchange relationship that individual

change models can work successfully with cooperative strategies to achieve the best

social marketing outcomes.

This section has provided an overview of the debates surrounding the intervention-

level of competition in the social marketing environment. Andreasen (2002a) has

labelled these levels as individualists, community mobilisers, and structuralists

(those focusing on media advocacy, policy change, etc.). He makes the critical point

that these approaches are competing models in the social change marketplace, and

that organisations must choose between them and social marketing. However, as was

noted in the discussion on defining social marketing (see Section 3.1.2), social

marketing strategy involves a number of voluntary exchanges, and this does not

exclude exchange relationships between the social marketer and community groups,

or the proactive marketing to governments using lobbying tactics, media advocacy

and community participation aimed at influencing the adoption of a social product.

Implicit in the above debate and the conflict between structuralists and individualists,

is an assumed division between the individual and society. This is representative of a

divide between scholars who take a positivist methodological position and give

emphasis to individual consumer behaviour, and scholars who are categorised as

critical marketers (Hastings & Saren, 2003b; Burton, 2001). The following section

outlines the theoretical perspective of one group within critical marketing, that is,

social constructionism.

64


3.2 Social constructionism and marketing theory

Chris Hackley (2001) states that social constructionist viewpoints are not strongly

evident in marketing. However, he points out that the approach can assist in ‘a

deconstruction of marketing through which, while avowedly critical in tone and

substance, amounts to a useful and constructive contribution to the academy’s efforts

to promote marketing research and professional pedagogy’ (p. 3). Hackley (2001, p

29) believes that social constructionism has much to offer the discipline, as

marketing theory ‘casts a self-referential logic that alludes unproblematically to a

realm of marketing practice that lies someplace beyond the text’. His main point is

that ‘mainstream’ marketing (as described by Day and Montgomery, 1999, p. 6, in a

special issue of the Journal of Marketing) ― that is, the way we talk about

marketing ― dictates how and what we think about it, and that this ‘mainstreamism’

creates a binary of inclusion/exclusion in marketing theory and practice. This binary

has fueled an active philosophical debate throughout the history of marketing. It is a

debate which Shelby Hunt (2001, p. 119) sees as being increasingly unproductive

because discussions of ideas have degenerated into ad hominem debates and

epistemology has morphed into ‘epistobabble’.

In spite of Hunt’s (2001) concern, these debates have been influential in establishing

support for broadening epistemological approaches in marketing and have

encouraged some acceptance of paradigmatic pluralism in marketing thought (Arndt,

1985). Though not exhaustive, the following list illustrates the breadth of the

epistemological and methodological diversity within marketing: naturalism (Belk,

1991; Hirschman, 1986); critical relativism (Anderson, 1986); radical behavioursim

(Foxall, 1995); postmodernism (Brown, 1994, 1995; Firat & Venkatesh, 1995; Firat

et al., 1995); contemporary empiricism (Hunt, 2002); qualitativism (Carson,

Gilmore, Perry & Gronhaug, 2001; Hunt, 1994; Hackley, 2003); social

constructionism (Buttle, 1998; Hackley, 1998a, 1998b, 1999a, 1999b; Marsden &

Littler, 1996; Palmer & Ponsonby, 2002); humanism (Hirschman, 1986); and

interpretavism (Holbrook & O’Shaughnessy, 1988; Sherry, 1991; Stern, 1998; Page

& Sharp, 1994). This is not to suggest that there is unequivocal support for

alternative theory in marketing. Hackley (2001; 1998b), for example, has found fault

with some supporters of meta-theory, such as Day and Montgomery (1999), writing

that though their stance is based on an argument that ‘marketing needs more …’,

65


they conclude their research with a nomothetic empiricist view of what marketing

theory can be.

Today, there is still currency in epistemic debates across marketing theory and

practice. However, this section does not set out to reiterate the marketing science

philosophical debates, nor attempt to argue against the positivist, objectivities stance

in marketing theory. Most recently, these debates have been comprehensively

outlined in Shelby Hunt’s (2002, 2003) marketing theory volumes. In light of this,

the following section has two aims. The first of these aims is to situate the view of

social constructionism for this thesis within social marketing theory, as well as

provide a background for the selection of methodology and methods discussed in

detail in the following chapter. The second of the aims of this section is to define the

version of social constructionism that operates as an organising theme throughout

this thesis, informing the framing of the research questions and the interpretation of

the research results.

Within this study, social constructionism is used as a broad organising principle to

understand the relationships between social marketers, and upstream and

downstream stakeholders involved in social change strategies and campaigns, and

the interactions between them and their surrounding social worlds. It is evident that

social constructionist themes can be broadly identified in the foreground of research

in marketing which shows how as consumers we work within the commercial world

of marketed brands to construct a sense of social identity which pleases ourselves

and others (Hackley, 2001, p. 29). Similarly, in social marketing programs and

campaigns, decisions are made by marketers based on constructing meaning about

social ideas. These decisions are developed on interpreting the culture and

interactions between targeted individuals, their wider society and the non-profit

organisations. For example, social marketing in the 1970s and 1980s was dominated

by contraceptive social marketing programs where transactions involved both

intangible and tangible products and small monetary payments for contraceptive

devices (Andreasen, 2003). The success (or failure) of many of these programs was

founded on understanding the cultural interaction between the organisation’s social

change ideas, the influence of individual and community culture, and an

66


understanding of how this engagement influenced human beings’ interpretation and

interaction with/of the social product(s) that influenced behaviour.

More recently in social marketing, Donovan and Henley (2003, p. 179) have drawn

attention to the importance of defining, monitoring and countering competition in

social marketing. This suggested analysis focuses on interpreting the environment

that surrounds a social product’s “bundle of benefits” in the marketplace. In social

constructionist terms, the interpretation of “competition” is grounded in an explicit

culture, which is constitutive of different social actors who shape and govern the

interaction and the perceptions of these actors (Deighton & Grayson, 1995, p. 661).

Culture is an important principle in social constructionism as it operates as ‘a set of

control mechanisms — plans, rules, instructions — for governing of behaviour’

(Geertz, 1973, p. 44). The social constructionist epistemology argues that culture ‘is

best seen as the source rather than the result of human thought and behaviour’

(Crotty, 1998, p. 53). The history of social marketing identifies its programs, issues

and practices as a societal activity (Kotler & Levy, 1969, p. 10), and as a technology

that deals with transactions applied to social issues (Kotler & Zaltman, 1971).

Research in social marketing (such as that typified by Hastings et al., 2002)

demonstrates activities, practices and applications which are consistent with a social

constructionist standpoint. For example, the NE Choices programme in the UK,

which aimed to reduce the prevalence of drug use by young people, embraced an

interpretive action research approach and examined the broad social context of the

consumers by involving multiple stakeholder groups. These stakeholders were

positioned in the marketing campaign as active agents involved in constructing

meaning and influence in young people’s social worlds.

3.2.1 Social constructionism defined

Drawing on the work of Schwandt, Crotty (1998, p. 58) defines social

constructionism as:

a focus that includes ‘the collective generation [and transmission] of meaning … which emphasises the hold our culture has on us: it shapes the way in which we see things (even the way in which we feel things!) and gives us a quite definite view of the world’.

67


This study, informed by a social constructions approach to social marketing, adopts

the following notions:

• that knowledge of the world and beliefs about the nature of reality are

constructed by human beings bound by the experience and language of their

social worlds (Buttle, 1998);

• that contemporary marketing is not merely economically scientific but is

culturally and societally discursive (Hackley, 2001).

Additionally, a social constructionist epistemology potentially makes the following

contribution to social marketing theory and practice (and to this study specifically),

in that social constructionism:

• drives marketing knowledge from a bottom-up direction;

• frames research from the point of view of those who experience marketing rather

than from the a priori precepts of consultants, and hence offers a bridge between

managerial practice and marketing research and theory (Hackley, 2001, p. 53);

• preserves the quality of the research subjects’ experience, which entails private

cognitive process and ineluctably social constructions which involve active

selection, suppression, and purposiveness (Hackley, 1998b, p. 125).

There are theoretical differences within the social constructionist perspectives (for

example, post-structuralism, postmodernism). However, as Hackley (1998b) states,

for all these differences, there is one distinctive assumption which collectively, and

decisively, distinguishes social constructionism from the cognitive approach to

social research. This view resides in the mutualist theory of meaning (e.g., Still &

Good, 1992) which ‘holds that meaning is a social construction as opposed to a

purely private cognitive construction’ (ibid, p. 125). Thus, social constructionist

research in marketing implies a model of managerial intervention, which is not

always emphasises in marketing. Marsden and Littler (1996, p. 648) outline a

number of important examples in:

• marketing research, researchers ‘get close to the consumer’ — marketers are

participant observers collaborating with consumers in the research process and

consumers are active participants studied in their own environment.

68


• market segmentation — ‘seeing the market through the consumer’s eyes’ —

consumers segment in terms of their subjective views of the market.

• consumer behaviour theories — ‘understanding decision-making theories of

consumers’ — consumers and marketers are both viewed as active meaning-

makers.

• product development — ‘involve consumers in developing products’ —

consumers, with marketers, co-create and invent alterative realties, meanings and

ultimately products.

• marketing communication — ‘learning the language of consumers’ — adopts a

meaning-based model of decision-making and communication process.

In the following sections of the chapter a social constructionist critique is

demonstrated as the limitations of current marketing theory and practice are

highlighted. These limitations have influenced how marketers and social marketers

view and construct media technologies, which has resulted in a restricted view and

development of strategy in both commercial and social marketing thinking.

Critically, constructing the internet’s communication system as an implied ‘sender

and receiver’ (e.g. Shannon & Weaver, 1949) model has diluted strategic thinking.

This is discussed in the following section.

3.2.2 Limitations in sender and receiver models

The communicative aspects of marketing phenomena are the central features of

marketed consumption (e.g., brand identity, a product’s “bundle of benefits”), and

are reduced to a communicative act. Whilst social constructionism has been

embraced in communication theory, it has not been so widely engaged within

marketing communication. Within mainstream marketing communication the linear

notion of communication, while allowing that consumers have choices and that

communication is ‘not one way’, nevertheless reproduces variations of a ‘sender and

receiver’ model (see for example, Laswell, 1948, 1960; Shannon & Weaver, 1949;

Schramm, 1971; Berlo, 1960). Buttle (1998) argues that this has evolved because

marketing communications theory is rooted in physical-systems based

communications theories, developed during the 1940s and 1950s. Early models were

developed representing the encoding and transmission of messages by a sender, to be

69


received and decoded by an audience. These models, however, persist in today’s

mainstream marketing texts and inform managerial thinking. Problematically, they

also imply short-term cognitative, affective behaviour change, which is only one area

of marketing thinking today. There are, however, more socially constructed models

of communication which are acknowledged in marketing theory and practice, but

these remain marginal to mainstream marketing discourse (Peattie & Peattie, 2003).

Communications theory and sociology represent important additional sources of

ideas and practices that can be accessed by social marketers (see Hackley, 2001;

Maibach & Parrott, 1995). Communication theory has progressed far beyond the

machine-metaphor of marketing communication, and increasingly emphasises

communication as a social process that focuses on interaction, involvement and

shared understanding. These key elements are studied individually in the broader

marketing domain in consumer research, however linking these elements as a social

process would appear to be of particular importance within social marketing

campaigns. Furthermore, thinking of communication as a social process is also

opportunistic when considering the recombinant system infrastructure of the internet,

where social marketers shape various traits of the technology to meet the specific

needs of individual and group audiences.

The business of human communication entails an element of indeterminacy (Cook,

1992). This implies that human communication in the construction of social life is

richer and more open than is indicated by the machine-metaphor model of

information processing paradigms and the cognitive model of words as signifiers of

private mental entities (Hackley, 1998b, 2001). Buttle (1995) is critical of the

acceptance of the mechanistic-models in marketing communication, especially

because of the notion of the active audience and the potential for multiple meanings

in any given message. This is primarily because people may contextualise a message

in many ways, and render it with multiply meanings. People are social beings

‘enmeshed in multiple systems’, each with its own logic of meaning and action

(Pearce & Cronen, 1980). Thus, ‘if theories are abstract constructions which attempt

to describe, explain and interpret some phenomenological parts of human experience

so that we may better understand, predict or control both the phenomena themselves

70


and our relationship to those phenomena, then mechanistic-models of marketing

communication are lamentable failures’ (Buttle, 1995, p. 309).

Social marketing’s adherence to 4Ps managerialism has also influenced the strategic

use of the internet in social marketing programs and online campaigns. Typically,

social marketers focus on marketing’s mechanistic, communication models. This

means they overlook the sociological and communication literature that documents

the persuasive potential of interactive communication. In this literature, numerous

case studies have documented how users and organisations have leveraged the

recombinant nature of internet technology — recombining technologies and new

knowledge to achieve their particular goals or purposes (Lievrouw & Livingstone,

2002). The following section draws on literature that describes internet practices

employed to achieve organisational goals, involving pro-social behaviours in areas

such as health, the environment, politics and public policy.

3.3 Social marketing on the internet

Social marketers most typically use the internet as a mass media intervention, one

that provides a direct channel of communication and influence between individual

users and social change organisations. In this sense, social marketers have shaped the

internet as a “media source”, particularly as a mass media tool which is weighted

against other passive communication tools such as television, radio and newspapers.

However, as outlined in the previous chapter, the internet has potential to operate at

both communication and behaviour levels because of its interactive traits which

combine the discrete categories of interpersonal and mass-mediated communication

(Rice & Williams, 1984) with anonymity and hyperpersonal communication. There

is little evidence in the published literature, however, that demonstrates social

marketers are thinking of the internet as a strategic marketing tool. Rather, the

current role of the internet in social marketing remains limited to merely

disseminating information. The potential of the internet to add value to the

transactional and relational exchanges provided to internet users is ignored. Hence,

the following section looks beyond the limited research documenting social

marketing practice using the internet, and turns to the literature which has

documented cases where the internet has played a role in achieving and maintaining

desirable social change.

71


3.3.1 Pro-social online information and communication

The internet is acknowledged as a prime source of information (McCreadie & Rice,

1999a, 1999b) that has both benefits and shortcomings. The benefits of online

information for social marketing include the ability to access diverse sources of

information, and the opportunity to provide content on taboo subjects in an

anonymous environment (Wrobel, 2002). Social marketers also need to consider the

shortcomings of online information. There is, for example, an unevenness in the

quality of online information, as well as the potential of the internet to be used to

disseminate information that is racist, violent, or psychologically unhealthy

(Donovan & Henley, 2003; Benigeri & Pluye, 2003). In spite of these challenges, it

was expected that information and communication would dominate online social

marketing strategy, because compared to commercial marketing, social marketing

involves more communication of information than product promotions (Donovan &

Henley, 2003). The predominance of communication in social marketing occurs

because of the prevalence of cognitive models. These models are used to influence

processes of conditioning, social learning and reasoned action aimed at changing

attitudes and intentions towards pro-social behaviours (Carroll & Donovan, 2002).

Such models typically commence with information used to create awareness and

interest aimed at changing values. As Geller (2002, p. 16) points out, social

marketing’s prevailing strategy is focused on ‘thinking people into action’.

Consequently, when considering the role of the internet, social marketers

characteristically construct it as an information channel. Websites are created to

provide efficient and inexpensive channels for the dissemination of pro-social

messages and program information to multiple upstream and downstream segments.

In effect, many organisations that use social marketing are simply creating websites

that describe and mirror their internal structure (Hertz & Beauchemin, 2000).

However, as argued in Chapter Two, the internet is also recognised as a

communication tool used for commercial, personal and social exchanges.

Accordingly, some social marketers have been interested in the internet as a ‘hybrid

communication channel’, in that it incorporates the persuasive capabilities of

interpersonal communication and the reach of mass media (Hertz& Beauchemin,

2000, p.86). In this sense, the internet is described as merging the ‘two-step flow of

communication’ (Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1955) into one-step, combining the rapid

72


dissemination of mass media with the persuasiveness of personal communications

(Wellman & Guilia, 1999). This is not to imply that internet communication

resembles a model of a ‘hypodermic syringe’ that directly ‘injects’ persuasive

change into a passive internet community changing attitudes and behaviours (Tones,

1996). Rather, scholars have argued that the interactive potential of the internet

overcomes certain deficiencies in traditional mass media, particularly the ability to

provide feedback, and to customise and tailor communication precisely to the needs

of the targeted population (Hart, 2002; Peltier, Schibrowsky & Schultz, 2002; Olsen,

Keevers, Paul & Covington, 2001; Hertz & Beauchemin, 2000). For example,

agencies involved in pro-social behaviour campaigns are able to modify their

communication in response to changing reactions of a customer, and thus can

develop information-intensive communication strategies tailored to meet the needs

of individual customers (Peltier et al., 2002).

Hertz and Beauchemin (2000) explain that two of the most critical concepts involved

in social marketing are tailoring messages for the target audience, and creating an

infrastructure of community support that facilitates behaviour change at many levels.

Drawing on an interpersonal perspective from communication theory, they argue that

the internet is a powerful communication tool because social marketers can

personally interact with audiences and community opinion leaders. This is important

because people are generally more persuaded by messages tailored to them. Hertz

and Beauchemin (2000) also argue that the immediacy of the interactive exchange

creates opportunities to take information about a specific person’s motivations,

attitudes, and behaviours, and provide immediate, tailored messages based on that

information.

Focusing on health education, Peattie (2002) describes two additional key

communication characteristics of the internet: empowerment and inter-connectivity.

She explains that unlike conventional advertising strategy, the internet user controls

and manages the content and the timing of communication processes. Furthermore,

individuals can choose to become inter-connected, not just with a single organisation

involved in the issue of interest, but also to link into partner organisations, or to other

users involved in the same problem or social issue. As highlighted in Chapter Two,

the internet facilitates interactivity amongst and between users who exchange and

73


share information, communication and emotion. This contrasts with the one-to-

many, one-way message flows of traditional mass media used in social marketing.

The following section outlines how communication that connects people to each

other thus has power to connect them in a dynamic way to cybercommunities, and to

partnerships between social and nonprofit organisations via relationship strategy

(Olsen et al., 2001).

3.3.2 Online relational thinking

Whilst relationship marketing strategy is predominantly grounded in exchanges

between a business and their customers, innovative interactive marketing has led the

way in marketing thinking to engage ideas about networks of relationships between

business, partners and customers, and C2C relational exchanges. Using the internet

presents an ideal set of conditions for developing relationships as part of social

marketing strategy, especially in C2C exchanges, or what Dann and Dann (1998)

define as cybercommunities. In contrast with the simple exchange of information

online between internet users, cybercommunities arise where computer mediated

interaction between individuals develops into social support networks. These C2C

relationships can also include information sharing, but are differentiated because of

the ‘tacit understanding of shared experience, care and community present’ (Dann &

Dann, 1998, p. 380). In addition, Lieberman (2001) argues that online activities that

stimulate discussion of a campaign can help people see how issues affect others, and

could also influence personal decisions and behaviour. As Rogers (1987, p.289) has

commented, ‘interpersonal discussion has long been recognised as a key factor in the

diffusion of ideas and behaviour change’.

With the exception of Leah King’s (2004) work (which is discussed later in the

chapter) and Dann and Dann’s (1998) academic work, there is little evidence in the

social marketing literature of internet community strategies. Examples of health-

based communities, which have supported patients sharing information and personal

experiences, demonstrate the success of social support communities online and C2C

exchanges that could be incorporated into broader social marketing strategy (Peattie,

2002).

74


It appears, however, that there is more acceptance in the literature for the projected

value of cybercommunities for social change organisations creating B2C type

exchanges. Campaigns using internet communication offer a unique blend of

personalised mass communication with the option, at the request of the user, of one-

to-one interaction. This is advantageous in social marketing because social products

are highly complex, and benefits are more difficult to portray in conventional mass

media channels. For example, using advertising to create awareness and persuasion

about social ideas is limited because of time and space restrictions in traditional print

and visual media. This may lead to misunderstanding on the part of the potential

adopter. Online, these barriers are reduced (Peattie, 2002). The internet can reach

mass audiences, as well as incorporate additional hypertext links to elaborate

information to facilitate understanding; mass customisation is at the user’s

discretion, and information is selected as needed through hypertext links and

connection to online communities.

An illustration of the successful use of the internet in this regard is provided by

Buller, Woodall, Hall, Borland et al. (2001) who describe the development of a web-

based program for children, directed at smoking cessation. Their online program

provided discussion areas for teens to debate issues raised as well as to ask

questions. The site contained embedded information links for those who required

additional information. While the asynchronous nature of the web made programs

and resources available when users wanted them, these features also required the

children be motivated to use them. This led the authors to conclude that ‘motivation

can be both a barrier and a facilitator of effective communication and behaviour

change via the web’ (Buller et al., 2001, p. 369).

Other relational strategies can be leveraged through the internet, such as B2B type

exchange in social marketing programs. Whilst social marketing is dominated by a

micro, individual behaviour change model, Andreasen (1995) reminds social

marketers that creating strategic partnerships and marketing to other publics are also

important to program success. Gruca & Wakefield (2004) highlight the advantages

of linkages to existing partners (e.g., physicians) for US hospital websites, because

care is provided at the request of physicians. They argue that there is an incentive for

hospitals to link web site visitors with physicians who have an existing relationship

75


with the hospital. A different organisational example, Amnesty International,

highlights the significance of partnerships between social activists who leverage the

flexibility of the internet to influence government and non-government actors.

Amnesty’s Urgent Action Network (UAN), a seventy-five member active letter

writing network, has particularly benefited from the immediacy and inter-

connectivity of partners though the internet. UAN members recognize the

importance of speed to action and use the internet to facilitate ‘calls to action’ within

hours of reports of human rights violations. Lebert (2003) adds that speed of action

also lends itself to accuracy, and as soon as an ‘urgent action’ is called, facts of the

case (such as a person’s place of detention or state of health) are subject to change.

When facts change and members are not informed in time, authorities can dismiss

activists’ letters as inaccurate and their concern as unfounded. Amnesty has

leveraged the internet to provide facts faster, and campaigns are more likely to report

facts accurately. As Lebert (2003, p. 215) notes, ‘as an added benefit, accurate

information used in a timely fashion contributes directly to Amnesty International’s

reputation as a reliable source and effective strategist’.

3.3.3 Online behaviour interventions

Behaviour change is social marketing’s bottom-line, yet minimal effort has been

directed at trialling the use of the internet as a means to move people through various

stages of change when dealing with social problems and issues. In the health area,

however, a number of studies have documented the role of the internet as an

intervention strategy aimed at creating action and maintaining change. For example,

using Prochaska and Di Clemente’s (1983) SOC model, Hager, Hardy, Aldana &

George (2002) document the success of action-based message strategies to motivate

and sustain an exercise intervention in a physical activity program. MacStravic

(2000) takes this further, proposing opportunities to empower people in the ‘action’

stage of behaviour. Those converted to positive behaviour complete online tracking

of the differences made to their health and quality of life, thus reminding them of the

benefits of change. Donovan and Henley (2003) also point to a range of health

organisations that have developed interactive websites where visitors can, for

example, answer a questionnaire with respect to their dietary habits and receive an

immediate ‘diagnosis’ and ‘prognosis’ regarding dietary changes. This type of online

behaviour reveals empowered, co-producers of health information, who through the

76


growth in internet websites can maintain personal health and medical histories. Such

strategies involve interactive transactional and relational exchanges between users,

trusted organisations, and internet information customised by individual differences.

As stated, few social marketing strategies appear to integrate both transaction and

relational tactics using the internet. King’s (2004) anti-drug campaign, based on

social marketing practice and using the internet, is an exception. The study is

important in demonstrating how the internet can be used to recombine organisational

information, C2C exchanges and media information to influence attitudes and

behaviours towards illicit drug taking by teenagers. King (2004) explains the role of

the different internet tools in behaviour change, including websites that provide

science-based drug prevention fact sheets, and content that features real-world

problems caused by teen drug use (e.g., drunk driving, teen pregnancy). This section

of the website is also linked to media reports from major newspapers to illustrate the

consequences of drug use. Users accessing the website are encouraged to create

content, and given opportunities to educate other teens by sharing their stories about

drugs on a site message board, or by downloading information to send to friends who

may be drug dependent. Awareness strategies are complemented with other tactics,

such as e-mail cards, quizzes inside banners, and paid content placement on partner

websites. These strategies aim to capture attention and create interest to take users to

the main website. King (2004, p. 75) argues that these types of ‘promotions engage

teens in a simple process that brings them to Freevibe.com, where they can learn

about drugs, contemplate a behaviour change, and move toward trying, sharing, or

sustaining a behaviour change’. Implicit in these online tactics are an understanding

of both the transactional functions of the internet (i.e. downloading information) as

well as the social aspects of the technology (sharing stories, e-mailing content to

friends). These are recombined for the specific needs of individual internet users,

who are at different stages of change in a given behaviour.

3.4 Conclusion

In the spirit of Deshpandé’s (1999) vision for the future of marketing, this chapter

has argued for a stronger engagement with social constructionism as a means to

understand how the internet contextualises exchange relationships between

individuals, communities, governments and non-profit organisations and online

77


environments. The literature reviewed has covered the current debates in social

marketing theory and practice, and engaged in a discussion of behavioural, exchange

and relational theory. These theories are important to understand the social

construction of exchange that evolves from engagement with internet technologies in

social marketing strategy. Also canvassed in this chapter are the questions scholars

have raised in relation to the relevance of the traditional managerial approaches in

social marketing and the issues surrounding the value of a relationship marketing

paradigm. This chapter has highlighted the growing debate surrounding social

marketing’s domain and proposed a framework for the further study of customers in

social marketing. It has given particular emphasis to the role of the internet in social

marketing and the marketing opportunities present in leveraging the unique

characteristics of the internet to mobilising participation in long-term behaviour

change.

One of the key themes explored in this chapter is the question of what constitutes

social marketing. Taking up this question in relation to marketing more generally,

Day and Montgomery (1999) have claimed that the very real fundamental issue of

what distinguishes marketing from other related fields and contributing disciplines is

customer-centricity. Of lesser importance, they assert, is whether marketers are

dealing with for-profit or not-for-profit organisations, examining marketing science

or consumer behaviour issues, or concerned with companies or competitors. They

stress that, in the final analysis, marketers are engaged in a conversation about the

centrality of the customer. Webster (1997) concurs, writing that the customer is the

bedrock of marketing’s most taken-for-granted ideology. Echoing this view,

Deshpandé (1999, p. 167) writes that ‘customer-centricity is what make the field so

intellectually vibrant with potential for further inquiry, brings in collaborators from

other disciplines and sciences, and demarcates the discipline’.

In keeping with the above perspectives, this thesis has adopted a methodology which

places the customer at the centre of its inquiry. That is, Q methodology. The

following chapter introduces this methodology and explains how it provides the

opportunity to explore the subjectivities of consumers’ constructions and

interpretations of the internet as a means of engaging social issues, participating in

78


social change strategies and forging online relational exchanges which ultimately

affect societal changes.

79

CHAPTER FOUR METHODOLOGY OF DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Chapter 4: Methodology of Data Collection and Analysis

Counting and classifying can only take one so far. Meaning and interpretation are required to attach significance to counts and classifications and these are fundamentally qualitative matters. The two approaches are then bound together, neither capturing truth alone nor trumping the other.

(Van Maanen, 2000, p. x)

4.0 Introduction

This chapter explains the methodology used to answer the overarching research

question: What is the role of the internet in social marketing? To answer this

question the inquiry process was operationalised into a three-study design that

examined the influences of upstream and downstream stakeholder involvement in

social change strategies using the internet. Study 1 and Study 2 focused on

downstream, individual internet users. A qualitative methodology guided the

commencement of the research process and informed the choice of methods: focus

groups and in-depth interviews. Additionally, Q methodology was used to study the

subjective interpretation internet users bring to their online behaviours. Study 3

employed qualitative interviewing and the interpretation focused on upstream

internet users. Following data collection, interpretive analysis was facilitated through

using two software programs: NVivo 2.0 (Qualitative Solutions & Research, 2002),

and PCQ software — specialists Q sort software (Stricklin & Almeida, 2002).

Limitations of the research and ethical issues pertinent to this research are also

canvassed.

4.1 Interpretivism and marketing research

Throughout its history marketing research has been demonstrated by strongly

contested ontological, epistemological and methodological debates (see: Hunt, 1983,

2002; Stern, 1998; Brownlie, Saren, Whittington & Wensley, 1994; Wallendorf &

Brucks, 1993; Cunningham & Sheth, 1983; Bartels, 1970). A characteristic features

of these debates has been the polarised position between objective, positivist thought

and research on the one hand, and subjective, interpretivism on the other. Carson,

Gilmore, Perry and Gronhaug (2001), believe that today there is a more general

81


agreement that polarised positions are unwarranted and contribute little to the wealth

of marketing knowledge and theory. Therefore, what has evolved in marketing

research over time is support for a more multidisciplinary approach, incorporating a

range of perspectives (Wallendorf & Brucks 1993; Hunt, 1991). Furthermore, as

Barker, Nancarrow and Spackman (2001) stress, the typical presentation of extreme

positions in marketing research is not useful. They argue for the need to move away

from binaries, and instead view approaches to marketing research as consisting on a

continuum. The choice of which research method should depend they posit, on the

nature of the research problem.

In light of these arguments, the following chapter does not contextualise the

discussion of methodology within the ‘old’ polarised debates in marketing research.

Nor does the discussion engage the historical contention between the interpretivist

approach and use of qualitative research methods, versus the positivist approach that

seeks a consistently rational, verbal and logical approach to objective research using

quantitative methods. Instead, the chapter outlines the design of the research

methodology in relation to the ontological and epistemological position that reality is

socially constructed rather than objectively determined. In this sense, the following

research is situated within marketing’s tradition of studying “why things are

happening”, in order to appreciate the different constructions and meanings that

twenty-first century consumers place upon their experiences and involvement in

internet and online exchanges (Carson et al., 2001). This is compatible with

marketing research’s aim to understand and explain why internet users have different

experiences in the context of social causes, rather than to search for external

influences and fundamental laws to explain twenty-first century consumers’ social

and health behaviours online.

Whilst social marketing research remains strongly influenced by positivist methods

and evaluation frameworks, contemporary commercial marketing has moved beyond

its earlier strong commitment to a supply-side paradigm based on economic and

resource-allocation views and the privileging of positivistic, scientific methods. This

is because marketing researchers (e.g., Foxall, 1993; Belk, Wallendorf & Sherry,

1989; Holbrook & O’Shaughnessy, 1988; Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982; Levy,

1981) have recognised the importance of situational contexts, the subjectivity of

82


perception, and the constructed nature of human reality (Hirschman, 1986). This

recognition has led to an increased use of interpretative methodologies which seek to

understand and foreground the lived experience of individuals. Carson et al. (2001,

p. 5) state that this includes ‘consideration of multiple realities, different actors’

perspectives, researcher involvement, taking account of the contexts of the

phenomena under study, and the contextual understanding and interpretation of

data.’ This research therefore assumes a constructionist epistemology that is

grounded in an interpretivist theoretical perspective. Hence, it aims to understand

and explain why internet users (actors) have different experiences, rather than setting

out to search for external causes, and laws or regulations to explain individuals’

online behaviours. The following section outlines how the interpretivist theoretical

perspective informed the research design and the selection of methods to study

internet users’ experiences and behaviours.

4.2 Research design

The research undertaken in this thesis commences with, and is grounded in,

experiences of the internet as a personal and social technology. Based on internet

users’ experiences, the researcher sought to develop a strategy map for using

interactive technologies in social marketing. To achieve this, qualitative data

gathered during focus groups and interviews were triangulated with Q sort data,

which provided a flexible framework to undertake the research activity. There were

three studies in the overall enquiry. Table 4.1 illustrates the link between the study

research questions and the method.

83


Table 4.1: Research links between questions and methods

STUDY 1: Research Question Data Source & Methods Justification

How do internet users describe their experiences of the internet as an everyday technology?

Gathered experiential knowledge from internet users (n=29): Inexperienced and experienced internet users interviewed during focus groups and individual interviews.

• Interviews provided accounts of how consumers think about the internet, based on their own experiences (positive or negative).

• Focus groups with specialists groups (i.e. activists) revealed explanations and justifications for participation and social conduct online.


What profiles of internet users’ opinions, attitudes and actions can be identified?

Internet users interviewed to complete Q sorts (n=32). Post Q sort, in-depth interviews (n=3) with profile ‘exemplars’ — individuals with highest factor loadings.

• Q sorting process enabled individuals with varying opinions and experiences to model their view of the internet.

• Q Results indicated three groups of individuals with common experiences and views about the nature of the internet in social change.

• Post Q sort interviews provided an opportunity to discuss and flesh out representative profiles with individuals and to relate their internet behaviour to social marketing practice.


How can social marketing be more responsive to internet user behaviour?

Informant interviews (n=20) with social marketers, gatekeepers, government and nonprofit representatives.

• In-depth interviews revealed the successes and failures of a range of organisations from the social change marketplace.

• The experience and accounts of professionals yielded data that described their personal beliefs and attitudes towards the nature and role of the internet in social changes strategies. (Adapted from Mason, 2002)

84


The research activity was delineated into three studies following an interpretative

research design (see Figure 4.1). Focus groups and individual, in-depth interviews

were used in Study 1 for the purpose of identifying contemporary thinking and ideas

in relation to interactive communication technologies (see Appendix 1: Study 1

sample description). This inductive study was important because internet users are a

diverse heterogeneous group of individuals with differing motives, experiences and

online behaviours. The outcome from Study 1 was a proposed communication

concourse — to be used in Study 2 — that illustrated the diversity of users’ opinions

about personal and social factors that influenced online behaviour, contextualised by

the users’ personal experience (see Chapter Five). Study 2 used Q methodology to

represent quantitatively the structure and form of individual internet users’ subjective

disposition towards using the internet. Study 2 aimed to explore users’ attitudes and

opinions towards the internet and to illustrate how people looked differently at the

advantages and disadvantages of the internet and adopted technical functions and

social aspects to differing degrees. Additionally, the study investigated whether users’

socio-demographic data and experiential use of the internet related to the types of

internet users they were (see Appendix 2: Study 2 sample description). Study 3

involved individual in-depth interviews with upstream stakeholders (see Appendix 3:

Study 3 sample description). It explored the contextual and multilayered interpretation

of internet technologies by social change practitioners and stakeholders when they

target audiences’ progress toward adoption of desired behaviours. Furthermore,

during the study the researcher purposefully set out to ask questions designed to find

exceptions, in order to establish a basis for negative case analysis, thus enhancing the

credibility and dependability of the qualitative findings (Carson et al., 2001).

85


Downstream focus — individual’s internet behaviour & intended adoption of pro-

social behaviours

Upstream focus — Organisational internet behaviour & online social change

strategies targeting pro-social behaviours

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Focus Groups

In-depth

Interviews

Face-to-face

Q Sorts

In-depth interviews with ‘exemplar’ users

In-depth

Interviews

Inductive Deductive Inductive

Figure 4.1: Interpretative research design

The research design presented opportunities to conduct both inductive and deductive

thinking and analysis. In marketing, inductive and deductive reasoning are strongly

associated with specific approaches and research designs (Hackley, 2003; Carson et

al., 2001). Typically, inductive research designs are used in exploratory research,

where the aim is to look at many cases in order to induce general patterns or

relationships. In contrast, deductive, or the hypothetico-deductive approach, is

characteristic of a positivist research design. Hackley (2003) points out, however, that

the concepts of deductive and inductive are not just restricted to research design, but

also can be applied to reasoning and thinking styles — ‘deductive’ and ‘inductive’ are

not mutually exclusive in this sense. The current research was designed to facilitate

both inductive and deductive reasoning and analysis. In this sense the study uses an

‘abductive research strategy’ which is associated with the interpretive tradition

(Mason, 2002; Blaikie, 2000). Using this strategy, the research process was designed

to move back and forth between the data, the research experience, and the broad

marketing, social marketing and internet sociology concepts. This was important to

the researcher’s epistemological position, which was to ground the research in the

86


social world of the social actors being investigated. Therefore, data collection and

analysis focused on individual internet users’ construction of reality, their experiences

and knowledge concerning social action, and their way of conceptualising and giving

meaning to their online social world. In the final analysis in Study 2 however, these

individual motives and actions have been abstracted into typical motives, for typical

actions, in typical social marketing situations (Blaikie, 2000).

4.3 Sampling strategy

Purposeful sampling was used in the research. This is a sampling method widely used

in interpretive research, where, rather than selecting respondents at random in order to

meet the laws of generalisability, the intent is to seek understanding, not prediction

(Page & Sharp, 1994). Participants were thus selected so that they varied according to

their experiences, opinions and attitudes towards the role of the internet in everyday

life and pro-social behaviours. Focus group and interview participants for example,

were purposefully recruited to account for differences in users’ level of involvement

in social, personal and group online interactions. Levels of internet involvement

where then categorised by the researcher as ‘basic’, ‘moderate’ and ‘high’ levels to

facilitate ‘confirmatory’ and ‘disconfirmatory’ cases in qualitative analysis (Miles &

Huberman, 1994). For example, a ‘basic’ level of involvement described functional

online behaviours involving email and web usage to gather information. Alternatively,

other users demonstrated a high level of involvement, outlining experiential accounts

of the internet’s network infrastructure as a facilitator in establishing new

relationships and maintain family and friendship bonds. The operationalisation of

sample characteristics for each study is further explained in relation to the research

question set for each study undertaken during the research activity (see Section 5.2,

6.2.3 and 7.1.1).

Using a purposeful sampling method facilitated the study’s goal to include the breadth

in experience and opinion of individual internet users. This approach to purposeful

sampling is known as maximum variation sampling. Lindlof and Taylor (2002, p.

123) describe this approach to sampling as common in qualitative research, because it

can be used to tap ‘into a wide range of qualities, attributes, situations, or incidents

within the boundaries of the research problem’. It is a sampling strategy that has been

87


used in a range of disciplinary fields interested in qualitative research. For example

maximum variation sampling has been used recently in:

• communication research that aimed to explore digital divide issue (Clark,

Demont-Heinrich & Webber, 2004) and to examine the cultural artifacts

evident in online newsrooms (Bockzkowski, 2004);

• health and medical studies to reveal how the internet affects patient’s

experiences of cancer (Ziebland, Chapple, Dumelow, et al., 2004), and how

parents make informed decisions about choosing immunization (Sporton &

Francis, 2001); and

• educational research to explain reasons behind teacher shortages (Rice, 2005).

Patton (1990, p. 172) defines maximum variation as a sampling strategy focused on

‘capturing and describing the central themes or principal outcomes that cut across a

great deal of participant or program variation’. Therefore, whilst heterogeneity in

small samples can be problematic, maximum variation sampling turns this weakness

into strength by seeking out common patterns from great variety. Lindlof and Taylor

(2002) explain that researchers using maximum variation sampling seek to find

exemplars of a wide range of characteristics, so as to build conceptual understanding

of the phenomenon. Therefore it is not a useful sampling approach for explaining the

prevalence of a phenomenon. Describing the prevalence of various attitudes towards

the internet was not of interest in the current study; rather maximum variation

sampling was used because it enabled the researcher to capture core internet

experiences, in spite of the differences in individual users’ construction of internet

technology as either functional or relational, or in organisation’s online campaign

successes or failures.

The use of small samples in maximum variation is not a limitation, because as Patton

(1990) argues, the strengths of small samples enable data collection and analysis to

generate: (1) high-quality, detailed descriptions of individual and organisational

experiences, which are useful for documenting uniqueness, and (2) important shared

patterns that cut across individuals and organisations to derive significance from

having emerged out of heterogeneity. Therefore, maximum variation sampling used in

the current study facilitated the collection of information that would elucidate

88


differences in how users adopted the internet at different stages in behaviour change,

and made possible the discovery of how organisations implemented online campaigns

to initiate individual contemplation, initial action, or sustained positive behaviour

across pro-social behaviours. Furthermore the sampling method did not exclude the

establishment of common patterns within the apparent variations (Patton, 1990)

between upstream government, non-government and nonprofit organisational

behaviours, and the downstream individual behaviours. The specific detail and

justification for recruitment of research participants involved in each study are

discussed at the beginning of individual studies (see Chapters Five, Six and Seven);

addressed here is simply the overarching sampling strategy that was used to guide

participant selection.

As discussed in Chapter Three, the upstream and downstream metaphor distinguishes

between social change strategies which focus on targeting legislators, industry

representatives and marketing decision makers (examples of upstream

representatives) and the downstream approach targeting individuals (Donovan &

Henley, 2003). Goldberg (1995) emphasises that successful social marketing takes

into account both upstream and downstream perspectives, because strategies

involving representatives from both stakeholder groups are likely to be

complementary and interactive in achieving social change objectives (Winett, 1995).

Therefore, applying the upstream and downstream approach to inquiry, to the

purposeful selection of participant recruitment, was important. This ensured that the

subsequent analysis could address the multilayered adoption and application of

internet technologies in social marketing.

In summary, the sampling method in the study was purposive rather than randomized.

Additionally, sampling decisions were driven by three guiding principles (Hackley,

2003). Firstly, sampling focused on the quality of insights generated. Participants

selected represented upstream and downstream experiences of online campaigns,

rather than simply representing involvement in the social change marketplace. A

second guiding principle was representativeness: participants were selected according

to whether they had individual online experiences or had been involved in

organisational decision-making concerning the selection and integration of internet

technologies in social change campaigns. Finally, pragmatic consideration of

89


convenience informed selection in that participants needed to be contactable for

interviewing by telephone, or in a face-to-face setting, which was important to the

physical collection of the data.

4.4 Qualitative methodological approach

The qualitative research methods used in this research were in-depth interviews and

focus groups. Carson et al. (2001, p. 64) stress that ‘interpretive qualitative research

methods are valuable for in-depth understanding of phenomena in the marketing

domain, in managerial and consumer contexts’. Hall and Rist (1999) identified three

basic categories of interview: the individual interview, the small-group or focus-group

interview, and the large-group interview. This study used the first and second of the

three types, because these are the most widely used in consumer research (Hall &

Rist, 1990). These methods were also considered more functional because individual

and small group interviews gave the researcher an opportunity to contextualise the

‘talk’ used by internet users to address particular situations and individuals (Cohen &

Manion, 1989).

The following section outlines the rationale for the selection of qualitative methods

and explains how each study was designed. The discussion highlights that these

approaches are credible research methods and consistent with a constructionists

epistemology. Moreover, the methods selected provide contextual information and

rich insight into internet users’ behaviour (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p. 106).

4.4.1 Rationale and in-depth interview design

Qualitative interviewing, which is predicated on the idea that interview talk is the

rhetorical construction of a social actor’s experience, was considered the most

appropriate method for collecting data in order to understand the social actor’s

(internet user’s) experiences and perspective through their own stories, accounts, and

explanations (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002). Lindlof and Taylor (2002) describe three

forms of discourse that give insight into experiential knowledge: stories, accounts,

and explanations. The interviews were therefore structured to elicit ranging discourses

by asking research participants to:

• provide stories about their experiences of the internet;

90


• discuss accounts of their online behaviour which offered excuses for or

justifications of their social conduct online; and

• offered explanations of their behaviour in how they applied the internet to their

lives, how they negotiated certain relationships online to share information, and

how relationships were integrated into their everyday decision-making.

A semi-structured interview design was used in all three studies (Study 1: n=16; Study

2: n=3; Study 3: n=20) in order ‘to obtain descriptions of the life world of the

interviewee with respect to interpreting the meaning of the described phenomena’

(Kvale cited in Warren, 2003, p. 521). This purpose linked critically to the

researcher’s ontological position that ‘people’s knowledge, views, understandings,

interpretations, experiences, and interactions are meaningful properties of the social

reality,’ which the research questions of the thesis were designed to explore (Mason,

2002, p. 63). The interviewing process was facilitated by the use of an interview guide

(see Appendix 4: Interview guide), which was forwarded to all participants prior to

the interview. The interview guide strengthened the process in that it facilitated

systematic data collection across interviewees and increased comprehensiveness in

data collected, thus enabling the identification of gaps in the data that could be

addressed in subsequent interviews. Using the interview guide did not limit the

researcher’s opportunity to gather internet users’ experiences; rather the guide was

designed to be flexible in order to maintain a conversational and a situational

interviewing style (Patton, 1990).

The major limitation of the semi-structured interviews is the risk that important and

salient topics may be inadvertently omitted (Patton, 1990). To address this limitation,

the guide was developed not to be prescriptive and during the interviewing process

participants were invited to raise new topics, as well as to answer only those questions

that were relevant and applicable to their experiences. This was commensurate with

the ethical goals of the researcher to generate a fairer and fuller representation of the

interviewee’s perspective (Mason, 2002).

Interviews were also audio-taped and verbatim transcription completed to serve the

purpose of ‘taking speech, which is fleeting, aural, performative, and heavily

contextualised within its situational and social context of use, and freezing it into a

static, permanent, and manipulable form’ (Lapadat, 2000, p. 204). However, in

91


agreement with Mishler (1991, p. 271), the researcher accepted that transcripts are not

transparent, but rather interpretive in their very essence. In this sense, then, transcripts

are ‘forms of representation’ and ‘constructs’ that have a ‘rhetorical function’.

Edwards (1991) describes this as being ‘situated talk’. People in the study did not talk

in a vacuum; rather they talked with particular internet users in particular places and

particular circumstances. Whilst the transcripts were functional in enabling detailed

analysis using QSR NVivo 2.0 (1999-2002), it is also acknowledged that the

transcripts were not simply neutral representations of ‘reality’ but were also

theoretical constructions about internet users made by the researcher (Lapadat, 2000).

4.4.2 Rationale and focus group design

‘A focus group is a research interviewing process specifically designed to uncover

insights from a small group of subjects’ (Krueger, 2003, p. 391). Focus groups are

widely used in consumer marketing research because they are useful for exploring

topics and generating ideas (Hackley, 2003). The distinguishing feature of focus

groups is the explicit use of group interaction ‘to produce data and insights that might

be less accessible without the interaction found in a group’ (Morgan, 1988, p. 12;

Smithson, 2000). Two focus groups (n=13) were conducted during the research

process, at the beginning and end of Study 1, seeking two kinds of group effects:

complementary interactions and argumentative interactions (see Appendix 1: Study 1

sample description). Kitzinger (1994) describes complementary focus group

interactions where members broadly agree on an expressed view and add their own

observations and subtle shades of interpretation to the view. Alternatively,

argumentative interactions, based on combinations of group members with disparate

opinions and dissimilar worldviews, enabled insights into ‘how people theorise their

own point of view … in relation to other perspectives and how they put their own

ideas to work’ (Kitzinger, 1994, p. 113). Such interactions were important to

achieving the aim of Study 1, which was to discover the general nature of the internet

and users’ experiences of pro-social behaviour online. Therefore, the two focus

groups conducted in Study 1 were used inductively to identify contemporary thinking

and ideas in relation to interactive communication technologies, online social change

strategies and tactics, and the relational aspects involved in the online exchange of

formal and informal information.

92


4.5 Q methodological approach

First introduced by British physicist-psychologist William Stephenson in the 1930s, Q

methodology has an established history in the political sciences, public administration

and psychology. Its use in the business literature has primarily been limited to

management issues such as environmental policy (Addams & Proops, 2000), selected

women’s issues and feminist studies (De Courville & Hafer, 2001; Rosenthal, 2001;

Gallivan, 1994), advertising (Brouwer, 1999; Mauldin, 1990) and public policy

(Eeten, 2001; Durning, 1999). The publication of Q-based research in The Journal of

Consumer Behaviour (Kleine, Kleine & Allen, 1995) and The Journal of Services

Marketing (Rosenbaum, Ostrom & Kruntze, in press), in a book published on health

campaigns and social marketing using Q methodology (Sylvester, 2000; 1998) and in

reporting other research in service industries (Bussell, 1998) are positive indications

that the usefulness of Q methodology for marketing related research has begun to be

recognised (Wolfe, 2000).

Despite this progress, it remains the case that Q methodology is still not widely used

in marketing and is misunderstood in some instances (e.g., Stewart, 1981).

Subsequently, before explaining the rationale for the use of Q methodology in this

research, the following section briefly discusses the key features of Q methodology by

comparing it with ‘R’ techniques and explaining Q’s approach to the study of

subjectivity.

4.5.1 “Q” versus “R” techniques

Q methodology is the body of theory and principles that guides the application of

technique, method, and explanation. McKeown and Thomas (1988) stress that it is

important not to confuse Q methodology with ‘Q sorts’ or ‘Q factor analysis’. Whilst

these are both important techniques used in Q methodology, Stewart (1989)

emphasises that Q methodology is not just a method, but is more accurately defined as

an approach to inquiry for the scientific study of subjectivity (Stephenson, 1953;

Brown 1980; McKeown & Thomas, 1988). Some social science researchers

erroneously define Q methodology as a transposed ‘R matrix — as the correlation and

factorisation by rows of the same matrix of data that in R is factored by columns’

(Brown, 1980, p. 13). Yet in moving from R to Q important analytical change takes

93


place, beyond just a transposed correlation matrix. The basic difference is that in R

studies, researchers are dealing with objective, scaleable traits which derive meaning

from individual differences between persons. For example, ‘that individual A has

more of trait a than individual b; in Q, one is dealing fundamentally with the

individual’s subjectivity which takes meaning in terms of the proposition that person

A values trait a more than b’ (Brouwer, 1999, p. 36). Brown (1980, p. 9) emphasises

that ‘over the history of Q this basic understanding has been misunderstood’.

The ‘Q’ and ‘R’ discussions held between researchers are based on an understanding

that ‘R’ technique is a generalised reference to the application of Pearson’s product-

moment correlation, r, to the study of trait behaviour, and the letter Q stands for

personal correlations in order to distinguish these from the more conventional trait

correlations expressed by Pearson’s r (Brown, 1980, p. 9). However, Stephenson’s

(1953) methodology focused on more than just an inverted factor analysis. He devised

a research method that ‘allows a respondent to assemble a model of her/his own

subjectivity, preserving those self-referent factors during statistical analysis’ (Robbins

& Krueguer, 2000, p. 637). Therefore it is right to conceive of the Q technique as a

“radical alternative” to typical survey-based research methods used in the social

sciences. However, as Dryzek and Berejikian (1993) further explain, Q methodology

is a controlled approach to inquiry for eliciting the experience of the researched, and,

unlike more common R methods, it is less concerned with patterns between people

across subjective variables than with patterns between these variables across whole

individual people.

An important sequential difference between R and Q methods is that instead of

measuring responses from selected individuals against a replicated scale or binary

predetermined concept, Q begins with the opinions and behaviours of the types of

individuals being studied (Addams, 2000). These are gathered most typically through

interviews (discussed and analysed in Chapter Five). Clearly, Q methodology enables

researchers to benefit from both qualitative and quantitative research approaches

(Karim, 2001, p. 8). Accordingly, Stephenson has described the subjective

considerations drawn from Q analysis as not beginning from the standpoint of

individual differences, but as empirical discoveries of a qualitative kind (Stephenson

cited in Brown & Brenner, 1972, p. 71).

94


Therefore, whilst it is encouraging that marketers and other social scientists are using

Q methodology, Stewart (1989, p. 249) points out that its application is not always or

even frequently consistent with the original philosophical underpinnings as outlined

above. Most of the actual uses of Q have been in terms of so-called ‘inverted factor

analysis’ (see for example Rosenbaum et al., in press) rather than in terms of the

broader methodological issues advanced originally. Therefore, whilst Stephenson

invented Q methodology and elaborated its major tenets, and he is usually cited in

studies using Q factor analysis, Brown (1980) contends that most of these researchers’

efforts are virtually the reverse of what Stephenson had in mind because they follow

the old ideas of Q factor analysis and conformity to R based statistical rules (see

Thompson, 2000; Stewart, 1981).

4.6.1.1 Subjectivity versus objectivity

In the study of behaviour marketers have generally adopted a strategy of

conceptualizing attitudes, feelings, and other relevant human experiences as internal

states or individual traits with certain properties that can be measured indirectly

through devices, such as attitudes scales (Brown, 1980). These ideas and the rule of

positivist science are the foundation of some controversy in marketing, highlighted by

the debates surrounding the place of subjectivity in the evolution of marketing as an

inquiry system. Elizabeth Hirschman is a strong advocate in the study of subjectivity

and explains that marketing’s early association with economic criteria such as

profitability, cost minimisation and marginal returns, together with an emphasis on

physical distribution logistics and efficiency, led to a harmonious union with positivist

theories. Consequently, a focus on subjectivity often invokes a negative connotation,

because it is thought to contradict the ‘objectivity’ of science (Gallivan, 1994, p. 29).

Stephenson, however, simply defined subjectivity as an individual’s personal point of

view. Brouwer (1999, p. 35) encourages marketers to not assume that the use of

subjectivity in Q methodology is simple partiality, because it encompasses much

more. He argues that the relevance of studying the subjective, individual human

subject is important, because marketers may find many personal characteristics which

are quite objective, but that the study of the subjective nature of consumer preferences

is also necessary. For example, objective personal characteristics in marketing such as

age, buying behaviour, or churchgoing habits are variables easily invented objectively

by either asking the subjects about them or by looking at objective registrations.

95


However, marketers deal with other characteristics that are quite subjective, like one’s

preference for certain types of beverage, or how one constructs meaning from

different types of online exchanges; these are not quite the same if simply measured

by frequency of consumption or interaction. Preferences are typically an element

within a broader set of choices with which an individual is familiar (Brouwer, 1999,

p. 35). Clearly, Q methodology is an alternative way of viewing research problems

that are focused on understanding the meanings consumers assign to marketing

stimuli (Stewart, 1989).

Understanding an individual’s subjective preferences is at the heart of a Q

methodology study. Therefore, the view of subjectivity subscribed to in Q

methodology acknowledges the value and importance of studying the viewpoints

individuals have of their worlds. The role of the researcher is to discover the

subjective views, preferences and interactions of people without imposing or insisting

on the inherent superiority of the researcher’s own view (Addam & Proops, 2000;

Brown, 1980). At its simplest then, the scientific study of subjectivity in Q

methodology ‘means nothing more than a person’s communication of his or her point

of view. As such, subjectivity is always anchored in self-reference, that is, the

person’s ‘internal’ frame of reference (McKeown & Thomas, 1988, p. 12).

Stephenson’s work studying subjectivity was not based in a romantic notion about the

individual, it was merely ‘what one can converse about, to others, or to oneself’

(Stephenson, 1968, p. 501). Methodologically, it thus complements the interpretive

turn in marketing (Sherry, 1991) and other social science research, which has moved

beyond the unproblematic assumptions of objectivity in the design and execution of

research. Marketing researchers have opened the door to a range of novel

methodologies, especially qualitative ones, which relieve most objectivists’ concerns

because they provide rigor and reflexivity, and create new areas for research into

phenomena that are difficult to measure (Robbins & Krueger, 2000). The limitations

of Q methodology are outlined in detail in Section 4.8. The following Table 4.2

summarises and focuses attention on the basic differences between Q and R

methodologies.

96


Table 4.2: Comparing Q & R methods

Q Method R Method

What does the research design seek to accomplish?

To enable a respondent to articulate a specific realm of his or her own subjectivity. To compare the subject positions of whole individuals. Therefore design focuses on selecting participants based on the largest possible diversity of views to complete Q sorts.

To query a homogeneous representative sample of potential respondents as to their views on certain objective issues determined a priori by the researcher.

Q methodology seeks to understand how individuals think (i.e. the structure of their thoughts) about the research topic of interest — results identify how an individual, or individuals with common views, understand an issue.

R methodology identifies the structure of opinion and attitudes in the population — results identify characteristics of a population that are associated statistically with opinions, attitudes, or behaviour being investigated.

What questions are enabled? How are X and Y related in the opinions and subjectivity of an individual, where X and Y are claims drawn from the language and ideas of the individual?

What proportion of a population believes X, what proportion believes Y, where X and Y are predefined claims or concepts?

To query the categories respondents use to understand their world. To compare them in a controlled fashion.

To query the state of opinion in and between populations.

What is the purpose of collecting data?

Q methodology is the study subjectivity and is essentially interpretive in its philosophy of social science.

R methods are intended for the objective analysis of research issues and are tools of positivist inquiry.

Validation through iterative interpretation of the results with subjects. The results more accurately reflect the richness and complexity of the individual’s views.

Validation by correlating other objective information to the findings (e.g., triangulation). Different statistical analyses used to construct dependent variables, which represent different sample population views.

How will the validity be determined?

As an intensive method, Q methodology requires small numbers of well selected subjects to complete the Q sort.

R methods are extensive methodologies designed to extract understandings of populations through representative samples of them — thus requiring data from a certain percentage of the population.

What might the research discover?

Surprise in Q comes from evidence of the association of ideas in individuals in ways that the researcher had not previously theorized or imagined.

Surprise in R comes from evidence of proportions or populations of agreement or disagreement that the researcher had not previously theorized or imagined.

(Adapted from Robbins & Krueger, 2000, p. 640; Brown, Durning & Selden, 1999)

97


4.5.2 Rationale for Q methodology

Q methodology was suitable to this study as it allowed a focus on the subjective

points-of-view of consumers. As an ideographic approach (Rogers, 1997/1998), Q

methodology is unlike traditional statistical methods used in marketing, because

consumer differences are identified through ‘self-constructed profiles rather than

differences between persons on single, researcher-defined variables or traits’ (Balch,

1982, p. 162). For that reason, Q methodology represented an interesting means to

investigate ‘old issues’ in consumer behaviour. As the historical debates in marketing

have highlighted, much of the previous work studying consumer behaviour has

stressed the external standpoint of the investigator (Hirschman, 1986). That is,

research enquiries have typically begun with the researcher’s vision of the world

according to which all else has been measured (Hirschman, 1986). In contrast, there

have been far fewer attempts, especially in the internet marketing and social

marketing literature, to examine the world from the internal standpoint of the

individual being studied, that have not relied heavily on ‘rating scales which carry

their own meaning’ (Brown, 1980, p. 1).

Q methodology is an approach to inquiry that fits well with the interpretativist interest

of the researcher, because it engages in the dialogue that internet users themselves

apply to describe opinions and experiences of the internet. The application of Q

methodology in this study focused on internet users’ internal standpoint, which

emphasised the individual’s self-reference points connected to their online behaviour.

The analysis thus provided additional information beyond the traditional demographic

variables used in marketing, and provided insights into the psychographic nature of

individual internet users and their perceptions of social action and interpersonal

exchanges online (Martin & Reynolds, 1976). Ultimately this more ideographic,

statistical approach has enhanced understanding of online exchanges and established

profiles that illustrate the complexity of online interactions. The consumer profiles are

discussed in detail in Chapter Six.

The advantage of using Q methodology to address marketing problems is that it

provides a flexible, but controlled research inquiry into the examination of

subjectivity within an operant framework — grounded in concrete behaviour. Q is

said to be ‘operant’ because, unlike scales or experiments, it is not dependent on

98


contrived effects (Robbins & Krueguer, 2000). Addams (2000) states that the

consequence of these effects in R methodology is that positive responses to researcher

defined scales confirm the existence and strength of the trait under examination. This

is not the case in Q. Both Brown (1980) and Dryzek and Berejikian (1993) therefore

argue that Q is a ‘reconstructive’ technique, because it allows subjects to ‘speak for

themselves’, and incorporates their subjectivity into the analysis.

Using Q methodology in marketing studies combines the openness of qualitative

methods, such as interviewing to document a person’s communication of their point

of view, with statistical thoroughness of factor analysis using quantitative research

analysis (Addams & Proops, 2000; Brown, 1996). Accordingly, Stephenson has

described the subjective considerations drawn from Q analysis as not beginning from

the standpoint of individual differences, but as empirical discoveries of a qualitative

kind (Stephenson cited in Brown & Brenner, 1972, p. 71). The following section will

outline how the data collected was managed and analysed using appropriate statistical

software.

4.6 Data analysis

Data analysis required that both the qualitative and quantitative data gathered from

assorted sites, using different research methods, be drawn together to inform the

research findings. These results then guided the development of the social marketing

strategy map discussed in Chapter Eight. The process for analysing both sets of data is

outlined below.

4.6.1 Qualitative data analysis

Data collection for Study 1 and Study 3 was effectively managed during iterative

processes through the use of qualitative data analysis software — NVivo 2.0

(Qualitative Solutions and Research, 1999-2002). Whilst analytical styles in

qualitative analysis have evolved considerably in the last twenty years, benefiting

from developments in qualitative computing, analysis remains reliant on the

researcher’s analytical approaches (Gibbs, 2002). In the current research, qualitative

analysis using NVivo 2.0 (1999-2002) involved transcription, coding, memoing,

categorising, and the integration of data to link interpretation with relevant internet

and social marketing theory.

99


The qualitative analysis process commenced with verbatim transcription of the in-

depth interviews and focus groups. All transcripts were ‘introduced’ into NVivo

software in preparation for coding and analysis. In the early stages of data analysis,

coding was guided by the structure of the interview guide (see Appendix 4:

Interviewing guide). Using the interview guide to structure initial coding is not meant

to suggest that there was only one interview guide used throughout the study. Rather,

the interview guide was revised during data collection in response to the knowledge

gained from understanding different interviewee’s experiences. The revision process

involved either refining questions to gather additional information about users’

experiences, or adding new questions in order to elaborate users’ everyday social

experiences of the internet. For example, earlier interview questions focused on users’

information exchanges. However, learning from interviewee’s information

experiences indicated a need for additional questions in order to understand the

network of relationships and emotional exchanges that develop alongside the sharing

of information. The revision process and adaptation of interview questions is

illustrative of the interplay between analysis, sampling and interview questions, which

demonstrates the strength of interpretive research work. That is, focusing on

understanding individual user’s experiences and to develop an internally consistent

understanding of the differences in users’ lived experiences of online interactions and

social causes involving the internet. Discussion of sampling progression throughout

the overall study is presented in detail in each respective data chapter (Chapters Five,

Six and Seven).

The coding process involved three broad phases: ‘open coding’, ‘axial coding’ and

‘selective coding’ phases (Morse & Richards, 2002; Carson et al, 2001). Morse and

Richards (2002) describe coding as linking that takes the researcher “up” from the

data to more abstract ideas and categories and back “down” from ideas that link the

categories, to the whole document and the verbatim transcription of a person’s

experiences. Coding in Nvivo therefore facilitated abstracting from the data to

transform the data from individual instances to general categories. Coding thus

followed three broad phases:

• Phase 1—open coding focused on linking the qualitative data to the research

issues of interested identified during the literature review process —social

100


marketing practice and internet relevant words and explanations (Morse &

Richards, 2002) (see Appendix 5: Qualitative coding examples). Initial coding

therefore commenced with gathering interview data together to reflect the

different ways people discussed their use of the internet in everyday life. This

open coding approach focused on finding patterns in participants’ responses,

which were relatable to the issues of interest discovered from the internet and

social marketing literatures. For example, interviewees discussed how they used

internet information in their daily lives. Initial open coding focused on identifying

the range and functions associated with internet-based information (i.e. medical,

shopping/commodity, social, political, etc.). Most of these initial codes, however,

were known before the data was coded because they were based on the general

topics and associated probe questions outlined in the interview guide. These initial

codes were informed by the literature, as outlined in Chapter Two, and

conceptualised in the research problems and aims of study discussed earlier in this

chapter (Carson et al. 2001). Thus codes “emerged” from the data, because the

researcher was seeking broad categories to describe internet users’ experiences.

• Phase 2—axial coding, involved refining the open codes. Firstly this coding stage

focused on the identification of core categories and their properties relative to

social marketing’s interests (Morse & Richards, 2002). The next stage of axial

coding then turned to focus on comparisons and contrasts between the coded

material, which enabled identification of patterns in different internet users’

responses. For example, it was during this phase that the dimensions of experience

were identified (e.g., functional and social behaviours). For example,

conceptualisation of users’ experiences emerged through linking internet functions

(e.g. use of email, participation in discussion groups) with opposing dystopian and

utopian perspectives. Whilst remaining focused on the codes identified during

open coding that were related to the literature, a new understanding of users’

experiences emerged which revealed that users’ experiences were more than a

simply function of time connected to the internet, or the types of functions they

performed online (i.e. participation in discussion lists). Rather, users’ experiences

were more defined by their information interactions and the relationships they

became involved in during which they shared information or personal confidences

with other users online.

101


• Phase 3—selective coding, focused on returning to the coded data, to seek out

experiential descriptions of users’ online activities, which described contexts of

interest to social marketing (e.g. participation in online prosocial issues). This

final coding step involved drawing together major themes and informed the

structure of the Q sample used in Study 2. Additionally, this step in the coding

also guided analyse of negative case examples, which modified ideas about users’

online behaviours and inform the design of the strategy map presented in Chapter

Eight.

The coding process through all phases was facilitated by using NVivo 2.0 (1999-

2002) ‘memoing’, which assisted in maintaining links to useful theoretical definitions

and ideas. Memoing also acted as a reminder device between data collection stages

and helped in maintaining theoretical links between the data collected from different

sites and interviewees. The final step in the qualitative analytical process, the

integration of data, enhanced validity in the interpretive study conducted by

comparing and linking the new findings with established literature in social marketing

and internet sociology (see Chapter Six and Seven).

4.6.2 Q method data analysis

Q analysis using PCQ Analysis Software (Stricklin & Almedia, 2000) was used to

complete the sequential application of three statistical procedures (Addams, 2000, p.

23). These were:

• calculations of a correlation matrix;

• extraction and rotation of significant factors to an acceptable solution; and

• the computation of a set of factor scores for each factor.

Q method thus combines statistical applications of correlational and factor-analytical

techniques to systematically and rigorously examine human subjectivity (McKeown

& Thomas, 1988). Factor analysis is fundamental to Q methodology and is the

statistical means by which individuals group themselves — through the process of Q

sorting (McKeown & Thomas, 1988). As a result, the approach to scientific

measurement in Q is fundamentally different from traditional scientific measurement,

both in terms of what is being measured, and in what or whose terms or meanings.

102


That is, as Brown (1996) emphasises, in Q it is effectively the individuals who are

‘doing the measuring rather than being measured’ (Addams & Proops, 2000, p. 18).

Furthermore, Q methodology does not set out to measure anything objectively, rather

analysis rests on the assumption of intra-individual differences in significance, so that

if a says she prefers A to B, ‘we can be relatively more certain that A > B because of

the common frame of reference’ — the Q statement set used (Brown, 1980, p. 19).

Addams (2000, p. 19) emphasises that what is important is the relative position of

statements to each other: ‘This basic difference is a consequence of the

external/internal distinction; the internal perspective of Q means that external

measures or standards do not enter the analysis, and therefore large numbers are not

needed.’

4.7 Establishing trustworthiness, reliability and validity

In terms of qualitative data, Carson et al. (2001) outline a list of strategies that

researchers can use to guide interpretive, qualitative research in marketing to ensure

that the research findings reflect the respondents’ reality. Thus, the aim of qualitative

research is trustworthiness. In the following section trustworthiness is discussed using

the dimensions of credibility, transferability, dependability and conformability to

ensure validity (Carson et al., 2001; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The Q method data

analysis is addressed in a separate section, because the measurement approach used in

Q is dissimilar to the analytical moves used in qualitative research.

4.7.1 Establishing trustworthiness in qualitative findings

Whilst concepts of validity and reliability are clearly defined and standardized in

positivist research, a singular or fixed definition in qualitative methodology is more

illusive (Smith, 2003). The lack of agreement, primarily because of ontological and

epistemological differences, has led some researchers to have little concern for

validity tests of rigour in qualitative studies. For example, Carson et al. (2001, p. 67)

argue that what is more important in social science research is the ability ‘to

demonstrate meaningful transparency in the research process and as long as this can

be achieved the insights and understanding gained are meaningful’. This does not

mean abandoning attempts to be rigorous; Williams (2003) views these

103


methodological issues as productive tensions, a compromise between good practice

and constraint.

In light of challenges in substantiating reliability and validity in qualitative analysis,

Lincoln and Guba (1985) recommended qualitative researchers substitute

trustworthiness for these concepts. The terms of reliability and validity are meaningful

to positivists because they communicate, based on statistical reasoning, that a study

can be replicated — and is therefore reliable and valid — because the researcher has

accurately reflected the phenomenon studied. Therefore qualitative terminology of

truth value, which is the credibility of the inquiry; applicability, which is the

transferability of the results; and consistency, which is the dependability of the results

are important guiding principles that improve quality in interpretive studies (Morse &

Richards, 2002, p. 168). To achieve these ends the following techniques guided the

qualitative studies:

• Focusing on generalisation within limits, because some qualitative researchers

(e.g., Denzin, 1989) believe that one cannot generalize from interpretive findings

as there is too much variability of meaning and action in the research

phenomenon. However, virtually all research, especially in marketing contexts, is

intended as a statement about a certain type of consumer, influenced by differing

micro- and marco-environmental influences. Thus a moderatum generalisation

marks what is possible in interpretive research (Williams, 2000). For example,

Study 1 was an open study focused on gaining an understanding of internet users.

These qualitative findings were then linked to a quantitative Q methodology,

which profiled internet users. These profiles, in turn, informed the strategy map

suggested in Chapter Eight.

• Using purposive sampling rather than statistically random sampling, so that

interviewees were chosen because they had relevant experiences, rather than being

representative.

• Comparing results across different contexts, such as different user types (e.g.,

government, nonprofit, commercial sectors) to ensure that the findings were not

confined to a specific context.

104


• Triangulating data through different data collection methods, using both

qualitative and quantitative methods.

• Accounting for negative cases to enhance reliability and credibility (Seale, 1999).

Purposeful sampling of interviewees focused on recruiting internet users with

utopian and dystopian views, and internet users that had had contrary experiences.

Negative case analysis involved asking questions designed to find exceptions to

what has been documented in the published literature on social marketing and

internet sociology (Carson et al., 2001).

• Striving for internal validity using reflexive practice. Williams (2003) argues that

interpretive researchers, guided by reflexivity, can come to appreciate how their

own identities will have an effect on research subjects, leading to particular ethical

and methodological consequences. In this instance, the researcher shared aspects

of the same social world as the researched, in that she is an internet user who has

regularly participated in online communities of interest. From this perspective

there was a shared rationality between the researcher and the researched about

online relationships and information exchanges.

Reflexive practice in the research is best described at one level as descriptive

understanding (actuelles Verstehen) where the researcher understands what is

happening (for example, feelings about SPAMMING a discussion list) and

explanatory understanding (erklärendes Verstehen) where the researcher comes to

know why (some nonprofit organisation has decided against supporting virtual

communities). Williams (2003) outlines that the level at which the researcher

moves from actuelles (Study 1) to erklärendes Verstehen (Study 3) depends on the

researcher’s understanding — ‘reflexivity, understanding and interpretation are

interwoven’ (Williams, 2003, p. 55).

• Debriefing with colleagues and supervisors helped the researcher interpret

findings. This process also assisted in guarding against bias and produced new

understandings and theoretical links to the published literature.

Finally, the techniques listed above, whilst improving the quality of findings

presented in Study 1 and Study 3, also encouraged greater transparency in the

interpretation of findings. Carson et al. (2003, p. 69) contend that ‘transparency is

needed most in the interpretation of findings, with clear descriptions and explanations

105


of why a given interpretations is made’. Trustworthiness in this transparency was

strengthened in the current study by linking interpretations made across each study

with prior theory, as well as linking conceptual theory building across the research

process.

4.7.2 Understanding reliability and validity in Q methodology

The understanding of reliability and validity alter slightly when bringing a Q

methodology interpretation to internet user behaviour. The foundation of Q analysis is

to interpret how the statements in a Q set interact to discover patterns of responses

among the respondents. These patterns then form a basis for induction and abduction.

In Study 2, interpretation began with observed effects about internet user behaviour —

drawn from the literature and qualitative interviews — then Q analysis searched for

potential influences when expected relationships were found to be absent (Thomas &

Watson, 2002; Brown, 1980). The conceptual view of analysis in Q thus combines the

strengths of both qualitative and quantitative research traditions. As a result,

justifiable Q analysis is not based on epistemic criteria of positivism’s reliability and

validity; these standards are at odds with Q’s methodology. Rather, well grounded and

logical Q analysis adheres to central concepts such as: the practicability of correlation

and factor analysis; the use of theoretical rotation and adherence to the point of view

of “self-significance”; and a focus on using Q from an operant subjectivity standpoint

(McKeown & Thomas, 1988).

Whilst factor rotation initially involved seeking significance using numbers (i.e.

eigenvalues > 1.00) to determine factors and to simplify the interpretive task, detailed

analysis and justifications relied upon theoretical significance of factors. Brown

(1980, p. 42) argues that the ‘importance of a factor cannot be determined by

statistical criteria alone, but must take into account the social and political setting to

which the factor is organically connected’. Theoretical structuring of the Q set aimed

to provide participants with the opportunity to model their own viewpoint. Unlike

scales or tests, the Q set was not dependent on constructed effects, instead the process

was operant and item distributions represented individual internet users’ operations

with the stimuli (statements) in the Q sample (see Chapter Five). The iterative

research process between data collection, analysis and literature ensured that the Q

sample design, which used actual internet users’ experiences and language, was also

106


grounded in the theory and literature of internet sociology. The consequence of this

ordering is that ‘new concepts can emerge at the interpretive stage and that the study

is not constrained by an initial choice of concept(s) which, however wisely chosen,

may or may not adequately explain all of the issues at hand’ (Addams, 2000, pp. 17-

18).

4.8 Limitations in methodology

Both interpretive research and Q methodology have limitations. Furthermore, some of

these limitations are shared by the data collection techniques of interviews, focus

groups and Q sorting. At a functional level, the methods used in the study are

described as time consuming and expensive social research methods (Gummesson,

2000). Interviews, transcription costs, and time-consuming logistical issues (focused

on ensuring informants recruited offered important, but diverse insights) are probably

more expensive than other social research methods such as surveys. Funding from the

QUT, Faculty of Business supported these research activities, meaning that these

costs did not impact on the research overall. However, the limitations of interpretive

research reported in the literature — such as the quality of data, the concern with bias

and the extent to which findings can be generalised — require further discussion.

Some marketers raise concerns about the quality of data and research findings of

interpretive research because typically such research does not require random

sampling procedures, or large sample sizes. Such concerns are strongly related to

issues of generalisability, and the dominance in marketing theory and practice of the

positivist epistemic criteria of reliability and validity. Issues of reliability and validity

have been addressed in the previous section and discussed in relation to the

trustworthiness of the research findings presented. Commensurate with

trustworthiness were considerations concerning the sampling method and

transferability of results. These issues, however, were grounded in the goal of

interpretivist research, which is to gain insights based on the interpretation of

qualitative data, supported by reasoning, evidence and theory. Hence, the study did

not seek ‘generalisations of the reduced kind that can be easily measured’ (Hackley,

2003, p. 73). More important to the research was the opportunity to gather idiographic

insights. Qualitative methods were most appropriate to collect this information

because they enabled the participants to describe their social reality and explain how

107


that reality is constructed through interactions with others on the internet. As Hackley

(2003) has commented, reality lies in the language and meanings of the research

participants.

A major difficulty in talking about sampling in interpretive research is that it is easy

to create the impression that there is a set of relatively fixed procedures that mirror

those used in survey research. The ‘strength (and difficulty) of interpretive research is

that it is procedurally less prescriptive and more reflexive at every stage’ (Williams,

2003, p. 83). Changes during the research process were effectively managed using

NVivo 2.0, which enabled data management and theoretical links between participant

interviews to be maintained. Decisions about “who to interview” and “what to ask”

were revised as the research progressed and consequently there was a direct feedback

mechanism between methods and findings. The process was flexible, but was also

systematic in seeking maximum variation in internet users’ opinions and experiences.

The research was not designed to try and set the findings beyond dispute or to

generalise findings across time and social context (Hackley, 2003). Rather, findings

were focused on gathering insights, which would be offered as evidence that was

reasoned through theoretical application and linking to published literature. As a

result, findings could then be transferable to ideas about social networks and

persuasion in online social marketing contexts.

Another limitation of the interpretivist rational is concerns of bias and subjectivity

which, in turn, affects trustworthiness in data collected and analysed. Hackley (2003)

argues that ‘bias’ is not an issue in interpretive research, because the notion of bias

implies that there is one truth. However, in the current study the researcher was

seeking the interviewee’s and Q sorter’s truth, in that their personal views were of

value in the research process. This, however, does not negate the need to ensure

rigour in the research process. To address these concerns, a number of overarching

strategies were used to guide the research process, including reflexive practice,

seeking input from colleagues, and using multiple research sites and data methods.

These strategies were detailed in the earlier sections.

Bias is also raised as a concern in studies of Q methodology. Lance and Vandenberg

(2001) raised two important concerns about the appropriateness of Q factor analysis

because of the researcher’s influence over the results, particularly when factor

108


analysis is traditionally used to confirm or disconfirm hypotheses about data

interrelations. In Q studies, exploratory applications of factor analysis might be

influenced by the analyst’s subjectivity, confounding deduction (Lance &

Vandenberg, 2001). Such concerns would be appropriate if the Q sorting had been

used as a scaling procedure, because this would bring matters of objective, validity

and reliability into play. However, Q sorting in the current study pursued theoretical

interest, not the achievement of representation for generalisation purposes. Q studies

that follow Stephenson’s methodology do not purport to achieve this end. Therefore,

Study 2 used judgmental techniques to facilitate a theoretically driven search for

patterns of responses leading to induction and abduction (Thomas & Watson, 2002).

The study thus combined statistical applications of correlational and factor-analytical

techniques to systematically examine internet users’ human subjectivity (McKeown &

Thomas, 1988). The resulting factors generated (and discussed in Chapter Six)

represent each participant’s internal frame of reference for internet functions, features

and attitudes towards the social aspects of internet technology (Stewart, 1989). Brown

et al. (1999) emphasise, however, that ‘statements in a Q sample are not assumed to

carry meaning a priori, as in an attitude scale; rather, the Q sorter projects meaning

onto the statement, a posteriori (Brown et al., 1999, p. 626). Therefore, the

hypothetical meaning used to inform the structure of the Q set is superseded by the

actual meanings attributed by the person performing the Q sort (Brown et al., 1999).

The unstructured sampling approach used to inform the Q sample design is also

identified as problematic by some critics, in that ‘some issue components will be

under- or over-sampled and, consequently, that a bias of some kind will be

incorporated inadvertently into the final Q sample’ (McKeown & Thomas, 1998, p.

28). This limitation, however, was weighted against the advantage of inductively

discovering possible sub-issues and against internet users’ natural accounts of their

online behaviour (see Chapter Five).

In conclusion, it is evident that this study does not conform to marketing’s sample

size requirements and traditions grounded in “law-like” quantitative rules of

generalisability. Consequently, findings cannot be used to estimate the number of

people using the internet who would become involved in online social change

strategies. However, an interpretive methodology, and Q methodology specifically,

excels at uncovering the nuances of peoples’ attitudes, opinions and experiences

109


around an issue and highlights patterns of shared thinking that can usefully inform the

development of future social marketing strategies.

4.9 Ethical considerations

Earlier questions about reliability, accuracy, validity, and trustworthiness are not only

intellectual issues, but also cast moral and ethical questions (Christians, 2003; Mason,

2002). Thus, ethical practice was a central consideration of the researcher to ensure

that a fairer and fuller representation of the interviewee’s perspective was generated

throughout the research process (Mason, 2002). Ethical considerations were also

inherent in the research epistemology and theoretical perspective of representing

peoples’ lives. This necessitated establishing and maintaining ethical behaviour to

protect participating organisations and individuals from adverse consequences arising

from the research (Carson et al., 2001).

Ethical clearance was sought and received from the Queensland University of

Technology’s Ethics Committee at the commencement of the research process. Four

guidelines evolved from this process, including: informed consent, opposition to

deception, assurance of privacy and confidentiality, and accuracy. Very briefly,

informed consent required that all participants recruited to the study agreed

voluntarily to participate and that their agreement was based on full and open

information about the purpose and outcomes of the research. Related to the issue of

informed consent, is deceptive practice. The researcher was at all times clear about

the research purpose, and received verbal and written consent from participants to be

tape recorded, and for each interview to be transcribed for analytical purposes.

Furthermore, privacy and confidentiality were key ethical concerns for the researcher

because the disclosure of private knowledge during in-depth interviews could

potentially cause harm or embarrassment. Therefore, assurances of confidentiality

acted as a primary safeguard against unwanted exposure and repercussions from

negative statements made during interviews. Finally, ensuring the data are accurate

‘is a cardinal principle in social science’ research (Christians, 2003). The researcher

was committed to a holistic, realistic and accurate representation of internet users’

behaviour and therefore provided both negative and positive accounts from the

research subjects.

110


4.10 Summary

This chapter has provided an overview of the research design. It has demonstrated that

in seeking an understanding of internet users’ experiences and pro-social behaviours,

qualitative research methods based on the ethos of an interpretive theoretical

perspective serve online social marketing research well. Also critical to investigating

the research questions was the approach of Q methodology, in that it allowed a focus

on the subjective interpretation and experiences of internet users. The process of data

analysis, involving both the qualitative and Q methodology findings, has been

outlined. A related discussion on the limitations inherent in the different methods, and

the processes for establishing trustworthiness, has provided a strong case for validity

of the forthcoming chapters which report on the data. The chapter concluded by

highlighting ethical considerations in the research.

111

CHAPTER FIVE EXPLORATORY STUDY OF INTERNET USERS’ EXPERIENCES

Chapter Five: Exploratory Study of Internet Users’

Experiences

5.0 Introduction

This chapter summarises the findings from an exploratory study of internet users’

experiences. It begins by situating the research within other internet user studies, and

by providing a description of the sampling rationale and justification. Qualitative

findings from focus groups and interviews are then presented. The aim of Study 1 was

to discover the general nature of the internet and users’ experiences of online pro-

social behaviours. Internet users’ stories about their experiences online, accounts of

their online behaviour, and explanations of how online activities are part of their

everyday life are discussed. Following this, is an examination of users’ perceptions of

the benefits and potential problems related to their use of online information, their

involvement in social networks, their participation in virtual communities and their

engagement with social movements online. The data reveals the complexity and

challenges of individual use of the internet in daily life. The assumption guiding Study

1 was that understanding these issues was of social marketing relevance because,

drawn together, they influence the subsequent knowledge, opinions and behaviours of

people who use the internet. The chapter concludes with the presentation of a

communication concourse about the internet, which was drawn from focus group and

interview analysis. The internet users’ concourse was applied during Q sorting in

Study 2.

5.1 Background to internet user studies

The most current statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistic (ABS) reports that

over half (58%) of the Australians aged 18 years and older use the internet (ABS,

2002; Lloyd & Bill, 2004). Globally it is estimated that there are six hundred million

regular users, and search engines like Google can reach more than 3.4 trillion unique

web pages (Wellman & Hogan, 2004). The increasing presence of the internet in

people’s lives has motivated researchers to examine the consequences of internet

access for resources, social interactions, and commitment to groups, organisations and

communities. Woolgar (2002) states that the earliest published research about the

113


internet tended to treat cyberphenomena in rather general terms and, most notably,

with little reference to the actual circumstances and experiences of users. Wellman

and Hogan (2004, p.5) categorise much of this early work published in the 1990s as

the ‘first age’ in internet studies, primarily focused on the technology as a ‘dazzling

wonder’.

Much of the hype surrounding internet research had declined by the year 2000, and

the ‘second age’ of internet studies reported the ‘embedding of the internet in

everyday life’ because the internet had ‘become the utility of the masses rather than

the plaything of computer scientists’ (Wellman, 2004, p. 125). Researchers,

government policy makers and commercial interests required systematic studies of

users’ behaviours. The Pew Internet and American Life Project (2001) has been a

leader in conducting systematic studies of online behaviour and has undertaken

ranging surveys about internet users, reporting that there are ‘more [people] online,

doing more’ (Madden & Rainie, 2003, p. i). For example, they have published US

statistics about the different purposes for which people use the internet, such as

connecting with other people through email (e.g., Raine & Kohut, 2000; Allen &

Raine, 2002); gathering news and information, following current affairs and major

events (e.g., Rainie, 2001; Rainie, Spooner, Kalsnes & Nof, 2001); obtaining and

sharing health information (Horrigan, Rainie & Fox, 2001; Fox & Rainie, 2002);

shopping online (Fox, Rainie, Horrigan, Lenhart, Spooner & Carter, 2000); and

engaging in other online activities and pursuits (e.g., Madden & Rainie, 2003;

Hoover, Clark & Rainie, 2004). These Pew Center studies typify the ‘second age’ of

internet studies, where the research focus is on documenting the proliferation of

internet users and uses. Wellman (2004, p. 125) asserts that these ‘second age’ studies

treated the internet as ‘an important thing but was not a special thing’; the ‘second

age’ focused on description, with analysts using standard social scientific methods

and some concepts to document the nature of the internet. He believes that internet

research now needs to move beyond this stage and begin analysis, looking in detail at

the relationships that the internet does (and does not) encourage.

Study 1 is firmly located in Wellman’s ‘third-age’ of internet studies, because the

outcomes were not focused on generalisations that described “typical” internet user

behaviour. Rather, the focal point was exploring the social shaping of the internet by

114


users in context — based on their experiences and the relationships that evolve from

online interactions in informal relationships with other users and formal relationships

with organisations. A social shaping of technology perspective guided analysis, and

therefore the study examined both human and non-human agents in the technological

system. This perspective revealed the various combinations of material forms: online

information is shaped by different organisational and individual needs. For example,

online information can be an e-book, a government policy document, or an email

message (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002). Exploring the internet in context from this

perspective involved considering not simply the social situation of the user (for

example, a woman connecting to the internet from home to find health information),

but also an additional two-levels as described by Riva (2001) — ‘the situation’ and

‘the interaction’ (p. 8). Riva (2001) described the former as the ordinary situation of

everyday life in which the internet interaction occurs, while the latter involves the

local exchanges with other actors using the internet. Collectively, the context,

situation, and interaction are important elements in interconnected research about the

internet. As a result, the following discussion highlights how the internet is “remade”

by some of the exchanges between actors, the technology and the issues that influence

people’s everyday lives.

As discussed in Chapter Three, social marketers have primarily used the internet as an

affordable information and promotional channel, or alternative distribution channel

for health information services. This raises the question of whether social marketers

could incorporate the internet more in social change strategies. Accordingly,

exploratory research was undertaken to understand how actual internet users feel

about using the more social aspects of the technology, to listen to their accounts and

explanations of online relationships, and to gain a sense of how online, intentional

behaviour spills-over into everyday life. Given these research aims, a sample of

current internet users was required to share their ideas, opinions and experiences of

internet. The following sections outline and justify the sample selection and the

relevance of sample characteristics to the research problem.

5.2 Opinion and experience sampling of internet users

Purposeful, maximum variation sampling guided the selection of participants (n=29)

for group and individual interviewing. Primarily, this selection was based on users’

115


ideas and opinions (positive or negative) about the internet and their personal

experiences. Individual opinions about the technology ranged from the cynical or

pessimistic to the overtly positive and optimistic. Maximum variation in opinions was

important to ensure a diversity of statements would be generated for the deductive

stage of the research using Q sorting. Nevertheless, the researcher did not set out to

purposefully recruit large numbers of deviant or unusual experiences — like those

individuals that assume multi-identities (as explained by researcher Sherry Turkle,

1996). Rather, the point was to sample internet users who view the internet, not as

“special” medium, but as a medium that is incorporated in activities and experiences

associated with their offline existence. The expectation was that in their discussions

participants would draw upon their offline knowledge — political opinions,

experiences and education — their “real” characteristics (i.e. gender, age and

occupation) to perform and interpret internet interactions (Lindlof &Taylor, 2002).

Furthermore, sampling these characteristics supports the researcher’s rejection of a

hard distinction between online and offline activities, and signifies the belief that a

user’s persona is relatively consistent across offline and online situations (Katz &

Rice, 2002; Wellman & Haythornthwaite, 2002).

In the literature review presented in Chapter Two, opposing dystopian and utopian

perspectives about the internet were discussed. This discourse was a useful and

interesting starting point for situating the interview questions, because people are not

uniform in their backgrounds, personalities, needs, and levels of satisfaction with new

technologies, and therefore, perceive the benefits and drawbacks of the internet

differently. These differences in opinion were used as the basis for creating group

effects during the focus group discussion. Hence, the goal of the first focus group was

to create complementary focus group interactions so that participants could share their

stories, accounts and explanations of online behaviours. This was achieved through

the selection of participants (n=6) with positive opinions about the role and influence

of the internet in their everyday lives. In this sense the participants were relatively

homogenous. However, participants were also purposefully recruited to represent

different levels of experience and were asked to self-identify as either a “beginner”,

116


“moderate”, “advanced”, or “geek”2, internet user. Their demographic homogeneity

was therefore less important (see Appendix 1: Study 1 sample description). The

rationale was to ensure that different stories would be discussed, presenting the

opportunity for the researcher to use probing questions to garner explanations, which

in turn revealed how different users negotiate and explain their internet behaviour.

The varied levels of experience within the group provided rich opportunities for

discussion based around different users’ accounts of the internet and how they

justified, or excused, their online behaviours. The following excerpt from the first

focus group conducted during Study 1 illustrates different users’ opinions about using

anonymity and feelings about the internet as a ‘social laboratory’ in which people

might test identities (Tyler, 2002, p. 197):

Tony: [It’s] how people can … live a fantasy that you wish … [and] express your alter-ego, to show other persona’s that you’re not. … [On] the Net you can express yourself [and] somebody who is afraid to be recognised, like an ABBA fan, can go into an ABBA chat and be completely themselves …

Lisa: I don’t see it like that. … I suppose I see words as relevant to who I am. [I’ve found the internet] can be really artificial, but at the same time its like writing a letter you know, and that’s very personal. I find that quite personal, the idea of maybe going to the Star Trek site, being a fan. That’s me, it’s not a line about that, or it’s not alter-ego …

Harry: I’ve found that whenever talking to say a girl [online], she’d be really quiet in person and um, then when she’s on the chat line she’s like “hey babe, how are you” and she’s really outgoing; which is really weird. But I suppose [she’s taking] on that persona, because they would like to be outgoing but they don’t have the confidence ...

Tony: Yep. It’s the whole point of being anonymous. Being able to say something you wouldn’t say in real life and be rejected …

Harry: Yeah.

Judy: See I think that’s really scary, you know. I mean, I can see the good and the bad as well, but I mean … what’s that doing … realistically what’s that doing?

2 Because of the internet, today the term geek refers to ‘a person who is inordinately dedicated

to and involved with technology. As computer technology becomes less frightening to larger numbers of people, society seems to be developing a more tolerant, even benevolent view of the geek. In some circles, it is considered a compliment to be called a geek because the term implies a high level of competence’ (Whatis.com, 2000-2005).

117


Tony: It’s helping the personality and the character building of the person. …

The second focus group, conducted at the end of Study 1, recruited participants (n=7)

with the goal of creating argumentative interactions. Therefore, whilst all participants

were activists and had similar worldviews, they expressed very different opinions

about the value and influence of the internet (see Appendix 1: Study 1 sample

description). Primarily, the group was divided on beliefs and opinions about the

internet as either a positive or negative influence in mobilising and creating

commitment to social issues. As a result, the interaction in the second focus group

provided extensive descriptive data that detailed counterarguments concerning the

value of the internet in social change strategies. Additionally, the interactions

highlighted how different activists perceived the internet and how this influenced their

behaviour. The following discussion from the second focus group illustrates this type

of interaction:

Interviewer: I’m interested in the fact that people are using the internet to lobby governments and to mobilise around social issues. Has anyone had experiences of this online?

Michelle: Well, I think there’s been a really interesting phenomenon with S11 … where people were able organise protests very effectively because of the internet. The whole business of social protest has now got a new dimension, where it’s enabled organising protests to be extremely effective and to mobilise a crowd.

Stephen: Yeah, the S11 protests might be one example where people were able to legitimately drive a protest. But, I think people could also legitimately drive something that they’re not even interested in, you know, from a totally anonymously point of view. Because if people are taking on false identities, then it could be the case that someone could put up information and drive a cause without any real commitment.

Anna: Isn’t the proof in the pudding? … I think it’s like those really wizzy fax machines where you can just fax like fifty people by pressing one button, because it’s all programmed in. You can use email in that way, to let people know that the events going on.

But what I was saying about ‘the proof in the pudding’, isn’t it actually about getting people to go to the rally, to actually front up. It’s all very well sitting at your desk, and going ‘I support this’, but what’s more important is that you’re actually there …

118


In addition to the focus groups, in-depth interviews were conducted to discover more

stories and accounts of the internet and to gather further explanations of the users’

experiences identified in the focus groups. Interviewees (n=16) were recruited to

Study 1 based on their level of experience and differences in their opinions of internet

technologies. Participants’ levels of experience ranged from internet users with only

limited knowledge and involvement in online exchanges, to those users who identified

as behaving on the internet as an addictive “geek” (see Appendix 1: Study 1 sample

description). The sampling measure “internet experience” was initially assumed to be

simply a function of the time internet users had been connected to the internet (for

example, one-to-two years versus six-to-ten years) and their technical experience

using different aspects of the hard technology (for example, setting-up newsgroup

access; “downloading” information). However, during the data collection an

understanding of users’ experiences changed to focus sampling on internet users’

intentional behaviours (for example, direct information seeking versus browsing for

information, active information sharing or joining a community of interest). Focusing

on internet users’ behaviours presented an opportunity to discover something new,

from what might be taken for granted about the internet. For example, all participants

accounted for the internet as an information source, however, new discoveries were

made as users discussed information seeking constrained by the contextual discourse

of marketing, government documents and peer evaluations. Thus, sampling ‘internet

experience’ was not just a function of technical ability, nor of time connected to the

internet. It also included the various interactions users undertook and levels of

involvement in the more social aspects of the internet.

Consequently, the sample description of Study 1 lists users’ self-reported levels of

experience (beginner, moderate, advanced, geek), together with the time in years that

they had been connected to the internet. This information was collected at the

beginning of each interview. However, sample descriptions presented in the following

analysis also reveal internet users’ social shaping of the technology, which draws

upon Holbrook and Hirschman’s (1982, p.139) metaphor of ‘consuming-as-

experience’. In this research, the adoption of this thinking meant exploring internet

users’ subjective, emotional and personal reactions during ‘consumption’ of various

social issues, problems and practices online.

119


The way in which Holbrook and Hirschman’s (1982, p. 132) notion of “consuming-

as-experience” informed this research is illustrated when comparing two interviewees:

Michael, a video producer, and Jake, an administrator. Both self-reported as advanced

users, with high level technical skills which enabled them to manipulate the hard

technology. However, comparison of their online behaviour distinguishes Michael’s

consumption experience of the internet as highly social and interactive (i.e.

experiencing the soft-technology — the social networks connecting people and

resources), and Jake’s experience as primarily instrumental and functional —

downloading information, performing service tasks (i.e. banking and paying bills).

These differences between the hard and soft technology experiences online are

discussed in the following section of the chapter.

Other research (see Katz & Rice, 2002; Pew Internet and American Life Project 2000-

2005) has demonstrated that demographic variables, such as age and gender, are

influential in understanding users’ attitudes towards the internet. However, these were

not a primary concern in addressing the research question about the relationship

between the internet and social marketing. This is because demographic variables and

other social and cultural trends are more typically dealt with when designing and

targeting the social marketing program or message. Gender and age are considered

relevant during decision making, for example, to target older men with education and

persuasive messages about regular testing for prostate cancer. What was considered

more relevant for answering Study 1’s research question was to understand more fully

adult users’ personal and social interactions when using the internet and to learn from

their existing behaviour online. The rationale was that these behaviours could be

leveraged in future social marketing programs and campaigns.

5.3 Internet in everyday life

Scholarly work examining ‘information technology in everyday life’ has only

emerged since the 1990s (Wellman & Haythornthwaite, 2001). Haddon (2004, p. 1)

clarifies that ‘everyday life’ tends not to mean the whole of life, rather studies of

everyday life deal with those parts of life outside of the formal worlds of work and

education. This firmly situates the following discussion of internet technologies

within personal and social issues — which are important influences in the social

120


marketing environment. However, in talking about internet technology with users,

discussions about work life were unavoidable for three reasons.

Firstly, the majority of people interviewed had developed computer skills, or been

introduced to the technology because of work influences. Knowledge about the

functional capabilities of technology for organising tasks, creating efficiency and

increasing capacity were accumulated over time at work. This was clearly apparent in

the case of one participant who could compare her own experience of using

technology on a daily basis in the workplace with the experience of her partner who

worked from home and had lacked a formal workplace introduction to computers.

Liz: Well it’s been [a] really interesting thing to notice — my husband is a house-husband and he’s been at home for the last twelve years and he keeps going on about different things about the internet and it’s because he’s not familiar with this whole shift that has happened in the world of work, he doesn’t see it as part of the furniture. … he’s completely missed out on it … .

(In-depth interview, March 2001)

A second reason why the public world of work is necessary in a discussion of internet

use in everyday life is that for some participants, negative experiences of using

technology in the workplace influenced their opinion of the value of internet resources

and interactions for personal or social needs. A final rationale for including a focus on

users’ experiences of the technology as employees is that for a number of participants,

perceptions of time spent using computers and the internet at work influenced their

personal use of the technology. For example, some users anticipated an ‘opportunity

cost’ and argue that they could be using their personal time outside of work

differently (Haddon, 2004, p.92). Amanda explained that she did not spend more

personal time online because ‘between work, study and children … I’d prefer to spend

my time bonding as a family around something other than a computer … we’re more

interesting than that!’. Furthermore, anticipation of time costs also influenced

decisions to use the internet. Jake explained:

I mean I know there’s a whole heap of stuff out there but I haven’t got time to go through it all with working and my other extra curricular activities! I don’t find that I can spend a lot of time going from page to page and reading the political stuff or other information.


121


Yet, because the technology made target behaviour easier, time perception for other

users was more positive. Julie, a social worker, found going directly to organisational

websites such as the World Bank and the United Nations ‘fantastic’, because it was

easy and saved time.

In light of the above, focus groups and interviews commenced with a discussion of

the work and organisational experiences of computer use and internet behaviour. In

these discussions it became evident that participants’ experiences developed from the

motivation to find information from online sources. Therefore, access to information

and users’ opinions of information resources and information created and spread

through interactive communication processes are discussed first. The analysis that

follows includes a focus on social interactions and exchanges, which highlight the

ranging social consequences — both positive and negative — of the internet’s

influence. The qualitative differences between internet users’ attitudes towards the

impact of the internet on wider society are highlighted and critiqued. Generally, users

interviewed were more optimistic (n=19) than pessimistic (n=5) about the social

influence of the internet. However, a small minority generally thought the internet did

not make a significant difference to society (n=5). For this latter group, ‘all the talk’

about the internet had inflated people’s expectations.

5.3.1 Role of information in daily life

Before outlining how internet users discussed online information, it is important to

note that ‘information’ is contextual, and therefore, internet users provided a range of

accounts and explanations about access to information online. Users’ explanations

revealed different characteristics of online information. For some, emphasis was given

to the internet as a resource. This definition of the technology is evident in

participants’ descriptions of the internet as a ‘big sort of weird library’ and ‘a big

encyclopedia with everything that you can ever have thought of in there’ (Focus group

2, September 2001). A contrasting construction of the internet positioned it as a

commodity. This view of the internet was illustrated in Jake’s description of actively

seeking details and demonstrations of software online: ‘I look for what I’m interested

in … information about software, … I compare it and trial some of it … because I like

creating web pages …’ (In-depth interview, March 2001). Alternatively, to Stephen,

online information represented knowledge that can be used to confirm or refute

122


information he has accessed from other sources: ‘Whenever the doctor prescribes me

medication I immediately get on the Net to find out if there’s any side effects that the

doctor didn’t tell me about’ (Focus group 2, September 2001).

A further representation of the internet evident in the data was as an element within

the communication process. Julie’s experience illustrates this dimension of online

information:

When you’ve got several organisations participating and agreement is needed to pull all the information together for a lobby paper, the internet’s great … it might involve Amnesty International, maybe Brisbane City Council and different … services in different states … . Email drafts are sent back and forward, … we integrate the comments and the bonus is it’s done … and we don’t have to travel now… it’s much more efficient.

(In-depth interview, January 2001)

Overall then, participants described different constructions of the internet — as a

resource, a commodity, a representation of knowledge and as part of a communication

exchange of ideas or documents. These disparate constructions influenced and shaped

their perceptions of the role and value of the internet in daily life as they “hunted and

collected” different information and resources online.

When users explained their online behaviours, or justified how they negotiated using

information from different sources, many qualified their behaviour by making

comparisons with “traditional media”. Typically these justifications related to issues

of trust in the content source and of the veracity of information gathered from the

internet. Of particular importance were instances when users needed to exchange their

personal information to gain access to websites or news services. The following

discussion during a focus group illustrates how users resolved such issues by drawing

comparisons with traditional print media:

Emma: … somebody has access to your name, address, phone number, the things you like, your movements, where you go, what you do.

Interviewer: So, monitoring worries you a little?

Angela: These risks exist anyway … we don’t have privacy anyway … use your credit card anywhere they know where you’ve been. Police use credit card records all the time to find where people are.

123


Stephen: But my name and address is in the phone book anyway.

Angela: Yeah, that’s right.

Stephen: If anyone wants to find it they can look it up basically. The big issues of privacy …

Amy: Yeah, but they need to know your name.

Stephen: They need to know your name true enough. Privacy is a real biggy. Privacy for me is like a social concept, is that, I kind of know what’s private to me, but what other people do with information about me, is a bit mysterious. I’m still kind of going through a bit of whether … thinking about … privacy is important to me or not. And so I’m starting to think about whether it’s important to me if people find out lots of information about me, or whether I really just don’t care.

Do I really care if I give up privacy? Maybe there’s lots of stuff I’ve done that I’m not ashamed of, or that I am ashamed of but it doesn’t really matter, whatever. Um for me, my notion of privacy is something that I’m really starting to think about … and whether the electronic representations of me, represent any impingement upon my notion of privacy.

(Focus group 2, September 2001)

Three main beliefs about online information emerged from users’ stories and accounts

about access to information online. These were the value of diverse information and

ideas, the ability to locate current information and the importance of customizing

information for users’ own self-interest, and the ease of sharing information. These

beliefs are discussed in the following sections.

5.3.1.1 Diversity of information

All users pointed out two positive aspects of the internet: that information is more

available online, and that there is greater diversity in ideas from different sources and

network connections. Michael’s statement illustrates the sentiment shared by the

optimistic users of the technology (n=19): ‘I would immediately go to the web

…simply because its got the widest range of information on different things available’

(In-depth interview, February 2001). Another participant, Liz, echoed this view, but

added that also important was access to depth of information online. She explained

how this had assisted her in coping when her sister-in-law was diagnosed with breast

cancer: ‘… for something that is a very painful topic, there was something in there for

124


me — one of the ways that I cope with something like that is getting a lot of

information, even if it’s terribly bad information’ (In-depth interview, March 2001).

Those internet users like Alison, who held less positive attitudes (n=12) towards the

technology, expressed a different view of the value of online information: ‘Accessing

the internet is just another way of getting information, I wouldn’t say it was any

better. … I’m concerned about information on the internet, the information quality

isn’t as good as other available sources’ (In-depth interview, January 2001). Some

participants differentiated between the value of online information according to the

audience to whom it was directed. For example, Amanda, a registered nurse, was not

enthusiastic about the value of online information for personal decision making, but

believed that medical knowledge available online was empowering for patients. She

noted: ‘Yeah, I think it’s great! I’d much prefer for parents to be the ones to query

what doctors are doing than us! So having more information helps them do that’ (In-

depth interview, January 2001).

Nevertheless users’ opinions of online information were moderated by concerns about

the quality of information, because of the presence of inaccurate and misleading

information. Some users felt misinformation created greater risks. For example, as

Oscar explained:

There’s a degree of snobbery and elitism about ‘well I’m a practitioner in this’ and people get information online and they resent that. So I think there’s a whole liberating element to that particular structure and with it goes the fact that people get misdiagnoses and they may be told the wrong thing and they’ll do something that can be harmful to their health, but that’s the eternal question between individual choice and government and institutional controls.

(In-depth interview, August 2001)

Other users expressed the view that the lack of credibility in content sources reduced

confidence in their opinion of online information. This is exemplified in the following

extract: ‘I’m not confident about the Net, you never know when you get stuff off the

Net how true it is … you can just make it up’ (Focus group 2, September 2001). Other,

more experienced users countered this concern, arguing that they had the skills and

experiences to qualify the source credibility. Julie’s behaviour demonstrates this

point:

125


[I look for] … signs … some sources have more authority than others. I think that — yeah — some of them don’t have the source of the information identified and that’s not useful to me. [But] I would rather read it because it gives background information that might lead you somewhere else, so I’d use it for that purpose. … Occasionally if it’s somebody who’s really making a point I’ll use it as a citation address and leave it to a decision maker to make up their own mind about it’s credibility, but very, very rarely would I do that.


Some users who had experienced accessing incomplete or incorrect information from

sources such as discussion groups or newsgroups, considered misinformation

potentially harmful. Jane’s comment about why she would not introduce a support

group on her women’s service website summarises this concern:

… using chat rooms, bulletin board or support groups we … [can’t] ensure the quality of the information. The accuracy of the information, some people can exaggerate their symptoms and things … creating more problems than solutions; … it would be very difficult to supervise or monitor those types of interactions.


Two other salient issues impacted on users’ opinions and internet experiences whilst

gathering information online. The first of these was information overload. Harry’s

experience summaries this problem: ‘I think that it … leads you astray a little bit, and

… it’s just too much, too much information’ (Focus group 1, December 2000). A final

concern raised by participants about information online related to propaganda. Their

argument was that issues are dominated by specific interests or groups who further

their own agendas and do not provide access to alternative perspectives on an issue.

Jake’s account summaries this issue:

… it’s got problems; too much information. It’s just a lot of stuff you don’t really need to know.

Interviewer: What type of content do you mean?

Jake: I think there’s too much propaganda — let’s put it that way. … more from a religious aspect I suppose. … I think a lot of them — they hijack the internet by putting sites with a whole lot of information and they’re clever how they use keywords … you do a search and you’re actually pulling up their site, even though they’ve got nothing to do with what I’m looking for … so then you’ve got to filter through all of that information. Just because they’ve tried to draw you to their site.

126


Interviewer: How does that make you feel?

Jake: Frustrated in a way. … [S]ometimes you can tell by … clicking but sometimes papers take a fair while to download.


5.3.1.2 Currency and customisation of information

Whilst users were frustrated at times about information clutter or overload on the

internet, many found it easy to access and use to locate specific and current

information. Julie’s experience illustrates users’ feelings about ease of access: ‘… all

this access to information that would just have been so hard to get a hold of before

the internet, it’s great!’ (In-depth interview, January 2001). Other users explained that

in an increasingly busy lifestyle, they found the internet useful as a reduction

technology — one that made targeted behaviours easier by reducing a time consuming

or complex activity into simple steps. For example, when it came to completing

research tasks Julie, a social worker, justified her online time, saying:

… because of the long working times researching topical issues relating to human rights and human rights abuse and international law … all those issues. [Internet has helped] … hugely, because it means we don’t have to keep maintaining newspaper resources, we subscribe to news services and it’s all just there for us ... it’s current and you can trace issues back. That was really labour intensive and it was never up to date of course, because no one had time to keep the cutting files updated.


Amanda enjoyed customised services like food shopping, because it was time saving.

She highlighted the theme of the internet as an efficient technology as she related her

experiences of shopping online:

… they had a list of everything that was in the store from the cheap brands to the expensive brands … you can just choose by clicking on a box … it saves me so much time, and I like it because I hate food shopping.


When discussing the opportunity to talk about current issues, some users stated that

they had joined online discussion groups, or posted messages to newsgroups.

However, subscribing to monitored discussion groups, or news services, raised

privacy issues for some users. Two significant points about privacy were raised. The

127


first was the risk that personal information could be abused, while the second was that

users’ online behaviour could be monitored, which could impact on their offline lives.

These anxieties about privacy were emphasised in a focus group discussion about

stolen credit card numbers.

… it’s rather safe, in a way; … but I’m not blatantly putting my credit card details on the web, … they must be official sites. They must be credible sources. … It’s the same thing as giving your credit card to a waiter in a restaurant, … they can get your details and you have no idea when that happens. So, I think that it is almost the same thing, it’s just a matter of having to check … you’re using a secure sites, cross your finger and check the credit card bill when it comes in.

(Focus group 1, December 2000)

The perspective offered by the above participant was challenged by a number of other

users who held quite different views about privacy online. This was evident in one

group discussion where an extended conversation developed around the question of

the monitoring of discussion groups. This revealed that some participants had strongly

held concerns about the potentially negative consequences of sharing opinions online.

Anna: … I don’t think I like the idea that the Queensland Police service could find out that I smoke marijuana … because they’re monitoring a forum that I might send information to about supporting legalising marijuana …

Stephen: Yeah it is kind of interesting where you have to be circumspect … in a forum. … an invisible and unknown list of people are listening … yeah you have to consider what level of trust is appropriate.

Michelle: It’s exactly the same if you go to a party and talk to people too.

Stephen: Sure

Angela: Yeah and a public meeting, or a protest rally.


5.3.1.3 Sharing of online information

Sharing information easily and regularly was beneficial to the more socially oriented

internet users interviewed (n=12). These users did not simply access this information

for their own use, but actively shared what they found online with friends and family

and posted the information to discussion groups in which they regularly participate.

Melanie’s comment below demonstrates this behaviour:

128


… it was cool to just hear from people and you know, pass stuff round and then just finding out stuff. … a friend might send you a link, or you do … you know how; it’s kind of like a totally different type of network structure and the way that you find and forward information.

(In-depth interview, April 2001)

The diversity of the information and unpredictability of interactions in discussion

groups were important to some users because they felt it led to new knowledge.

Michael’s comment summarises this sentiment:

[T]here is a discussion back and forth and you can actually have discussion on a subject, you’re not just being told things, you’re discussing them with someone. So that’s certainly leads to more in-depth and more rounded views than what you get on the six o’clock news at nights.

(In-depth interview, February 2001)

The network capability underlying the internet demonstrates that online information

also has a social dimension and an underlying social process. For some users,

sociability was a driving influence on their continued use and commitment to using

the internet. These social aspects of internet use are discussed in the next section.

5.3.2 The role of the internet as a personal and social technology

The arguments about the impact of the internet can be broadly categorised into two

groups: dystopians who consider the internet will result in decreased personal and

social interactions with ‘real’ friends and family; opposed to utopians who believe the

internet revitalise a sense of community in people, supported by a greater sense of

tolerance. Katz and Rice (2002) stress that the reality is more a middle ground. The

following discussion outlines the everyday experiences of research participants and

describes the “middle”’ ground in the debate about the social consequences of internet

interaction. Interestingly, however, questions about users’ opinions and behaviour

involving relational exchanges revealed the qualitative differences between internet

users (n=29) interviewed. These could be described as either more “functional” or

more “socially” orientated. Functional internet users (n=17) shape the technology

more as “tool” to complete personal tasks and to locate easily information from

credible sources. In contrast, social internet users (n=12) embrace the functional

aspects of the technology, but also value the social aspects (online interactions and

exchange). Consequently, over time some of these users evolve to be social actors

129


who engaged in social relationships online, customising and spreading information to

their friends and actively seeking out other users’ opinions online. The social

experiences of users are discussed in the following section.

5.3.2.1 Social networks

By its very nature, the internet is a network and networks develop, expand and are

maintained because of social interactions (Wellman & Guilia, 1999). Internet users

interviewed discussed experiences that explained a range of social interactions that

are: interpersonal and group-based (between two users or exchanges with group);

social or formal (discussion was about everyday topics or more formal work

networks); or specialised and broad (discussion covered special interest topics, or

embraces the sharing of everyday interests and experiences) (Wellman &

Haythornthwaite, 2002). A salient issue underlying users’ social interaction is

anonymity. Hence, the following discussion reveals how anonymity mediates users’

trust in online exchanges, their willingness to self-disclose, and their readiness to

engage in social exchanges. Ultimately, these factors also influenced users’

commitment to social relationships online.

All users interviewed related to using technology as a means of engaging and

sustaining interpersonal relationships. Sociality of internet connections was evident in

the personal and regular exchanges between family members using the internet. Jake,

who primarily uses the internet for more functional tasks (i.e. online banking) also

turns to email to stay connected with family and friends:

Interviewer: So does using the internet mean you contact family and friends more or less?

Jake: Maybe more [pause], yeah — probably more. A lot of the time you just get jokes and things like that from people and it lets you know they’re thinking about you. So I sort of like that idea, but I don’t know — some maybe just forwarding on [a message] from an email list, so maybe they’re not thinking about you, …

… I have sent e-cards and things like that, but I’m finding it a bit impersonal and hmm — I still prefer an actual physical card, let’s put it that way.

Interviewer: Why are e-cards more impersonal to you?

130


Jake: Because you can virtually automate it and so I don’t think people really think about it as much. They send off the standard message … you’ve not actually thought about the sentiment; you know, thought about the message as you do when handwriting a card.


Social users of the internet also appreciated the convenience of having friends and

relatives connected electronically. For these participants it is, as one commented, ‘a

real frustration … when … [immediate] friends don’t have email contact’ (Focus

group 2, September 2001). Furthermore, social users (n=12) also explained that they

intentionally seek out social interactions and form relationships with users who are

not relatives. For these users, the social experience had been meaningful: participants

gained support from the fact that they were interacting with people who shared their

interests. Michael’s experience of joining a community of interest is illustrative of this

type of positive online interaction described by some participants:

… this new TV show started ... that I personally thought was pretty cool and funky and interesting … and almost nobody watched it, but I thought it was something that was worthy of discussion. So a few other people [online] … got together and thought we should create this separate discussion group. ... But as more and more people joined and we started talking … I realised that you know, these were all [interesting] people … and then the show finished for the year … a four month break before it started up again.

So because we had already decided to spend time reading this board every day and talking about things with these people, it sort of moved more into social discussion. And by the time the series came back you realised that you’d gotten to know all these people reasonably well just by discussing things in a group with them. ... And from there it evolved into getting together to actually meeting these people. … even when the show started again, we would talk as much about getting together and meeting each other and about things that were going on in our social lives than we’d talk about the series.


Some social users interviewed discussed how they actively leveraged the network

potential of the internet to connect into global networks, thereby creating new

communication links to share experiences. Nicholas explained:

The main thing about the internet is communication … about bringing people in contact with people that they normally don’t get in contact with. And basically just sort of like globalising everything so that it’s not, you

131


know, it’s not Australia, America and Russia with a big line down the middle sort of thing, it’s more like you know … no boundaries … it’s about keeping every one of us together.


Of course, networks that connect can be helpful or harmful. Participants emphasised

this view throughout the focus groups and interviews by pointing to examples such as

the assistance that is provided to cancer sufferers through the formation of life-

enhancing support groups, and alternatively, the capacity of the internet to encourage

and support pedophiles. Most internet users have considered the positive and negative

aspects of connecting to the internet, and over time, they have constructed

sophisticated rationales for their behaviour. Rainie (2004) states that internet users

have finessed the question of whether the internet is a good or bad thing and

summaries users’ accounts as ‘I’m okay, they’re not’ (p. xiii). The point is that many

users believe that their own use of the internet benefits them and is socially

enhancing, although they worry that other users may be doing criminal, perverted, or

self-destructive things online. Furthermore, some users are anxious that all the

temptations of the virtual world can lure the impressionable — that is, everyone else

— to the “dark side” (for example, pornography, hate groups, bomb sites). Liz’s

account of her concerns about social networks encapsulates this view:

I have a twelve-year-old son … if he goes looking for a porn site or how to make a bomb or something like that — I think he’s old enough now — to be able to discuss that type of information with us. … [I’m] actually most worried about — not that I’m not concerned about him looking porno — is what’s worse is that he would end up in a chatroom or having a conversation with somebody [and] make it possible for them to track him down — you know?

Interviewer: Why are you more concerned about that online?

Liz: … just because of the numbers — just because of the statistical averages. If Jack’s cruising around The Gap and Indooroopilly, he’s going to meet X amount of people and in his normal day-to-day interactions he’ll meet lots of fellow school mates and some teachers and people — but on the Net he can meet thousands and thousands and thousands of different people from all walks of life, from all places, from all interests — it’s got to increase the likelihood that he’ll come into contact with people who are not really well-intentioned towards him. It’s probably just a normal parental thing — I don’t think it’s going to ultimately stop me from letting him have that access, but I will be keeping an eye on it.

132



For many users, anonymity online is viewed as a “double-edged sword”. Anonymity

could be either liberating or deceptive and harmful, and therefore disempowering, as

it would actually inhibit interactions with unknown users in social networks. The

liberating potential of anonymity on the internet was highlighted by those who saw it

as a means of discussing potentially embarrassing or personal issues. For example,

during a first focus group discussion, Tony stated that he liked being anonymous

because it meant ‘being able to say something you wouldn’t say in real life and being

rejected and you can rationalize it because they don’t know who I am anyway’.

Sharing a similar view, Harry noted that ‘it’s just so stress free, because you’re in

your house and you can ask questions without being embarrassed about it and stuff’

(Focus group 1, December 2000). Yet, other users expressed a greater degree of

skepticism about the benefits of anonymity. Jane’s justification of her distrust of

online interactions is representative of this view:

I think that people actually take on another identity to fool, as opposed to being real about themselves. I think that people might … be sympathetic because someone’s going to talk to you bit more. Or maybe that’s just the demonizing of the media, you know what media does say about the internet “Oh it’s dangerous to children”, and people pretend they’re another eight year-old, or whatever. I’m not the type of person who does get on and pretend to be someone else, so I don’t really know, but that does play in the back of mind …


Concerns about privacy and anonymity influenced users’ behaviour and participation

in online support groups and virtual communities. These areas of interaction are

discussed in the following section.

5.3.2.2 Online support and virtual community

When discussing the value of online interactions and relationships a further theme to

emerge from the data was that participants had differing views about the quality of

online relationships. For some users, offline relationships would always be superior.

Alison, for example, explained that she did not become involved in relationships

online because she didn’t ‘think the internet’s personal at all, [rather she felt] … it’s

highly impersonal’. Other internet users argued that whilst social support online might

133


be a good idea, they felt people should be encouraged to access services in their local

communities. Jake’s comment explains this view:

They could get support online, but I think I’d prefer them to actually go to — like an AA workshop and things like that rather than to just discuss it with some anonymous person. … I think the internet puts up a wall on those sort of personal issues, and that’s not what you need when you’re discussing those sorts of things.


Other users raised concerns about being able to provide a secure, trusting environment

for people seeking support. These views were articulated in a focus group discussion

about service provision for sexual abuse survivors:

Michelle: I think that people will be expressive, if the subjects are sort of legal. If they are kind of approved of by society. I think there are certain issues that are sort of illegal issues … that people don’t want to be expressive about.

Jason: What sort of issue?

Michelle: Sexual abuse.

Interviewer: So, you don’t think people would get online and talk about sensitive issues?

Michelle: Yeah, I think they would if there was some type of safe environment, that would probably work.

Interviewer: So you think the whole idea of online self-help groups for sexual abuse survivors is unrealistic …?

Michelle: What I’m saying it that it requires a safe environment. So, no I don’t think it’s unrealistic, but I think that … we’re talking about people, not talking about information, concepts like trust are critical …

Stephen: See, I think the net gives people … I have this perception that you can create almost a persona for yourself that’s removed from your real identity … [and] I think that might be a liberation that lets people talk about issues that they wouldn’t talk about in other circumstances.


So, whilst the majority of the functional users perceived social support online as

problematic, some felt there was potential for people to form meaningful relationships

online. Anne’s statement below conveys this alternative construction of the internet:

134


… community is about relationships and I think that relationships … could develop via written communication on a computer. … and I would think that sharing ideas and emotions and stuff could develop relationships … [and] I guess it was part of what we hoped would happen [when we launched our virtual community], that women would feel connected in some way.

(In-depth interview, May 2001)

Social users of the technology saw the value of online social support as tied to the

provision of emotional aid, the delivery of important and relevant information and the

opportunity to seek different opinions and views on a subject. Cumulatively, they

believed these translated to positive offline experiences. For example, in her capacity

as a social worker Julie described how participation in a community of interest — a

feminist discussion list — made a difference to her offline world of work. She

explained:

… there’s a couple of other feminist email lists that I’m on which are also really good; one in particular was effective in a particular case I was working on. I had a woman who was suffering ... needed assistance and was desperate [about to be deported] because she’d already exhausted all the avenues and she’d been rejected … I put her story out on an email list to Amnesty and a high profile woman picked it up and she contacted right officers; the result was the decision-makers changed their minds. She [the high profile woman, an ex-politician] was able to use her influence with the department and it worked and essentially saved this woman’s life!

The other good outcome is she’s [the high profile woman] come on board as an ally … I’ve used her as a resource since then and she’s incredibly happy to get involved and help our cases. She wouldn’t have perhaps known about us and the work we do if I hadn’t posted that original message … She’s now sort of a comrade I suppose in a sense …


Over half of the social users (n=8) who discussed their experiences of virtual

communities had retained active membership. Some of the reasons for their continued

participation in these online environments were described by Stephen as he recounted

his own experiences of internet interest groups:

I’ve had really strong identifications with community through email lists and discussion lists for a bunch of different stuff … um cycling related, um dance culture, whatever it is … but a bunch of different email discussion lists that have felt really significant and important and interesting and

135


stimulating … where I’ve made long lasting personal friendships from in the meet world.

Anna: The meet world?

Amy: The meet world, from cyberspace to the meet world.


A further reason for maintaining an online presence in these groups was explained by

another participant who argued that people also form strong social bonds online,

which evolve to important offline friendships:

Michael: Like some of my best friends … in the world [I] met through this discussion list; [one is] going to be the best man at my wedding in fact. I certainly have [other] friends …, but some of my closest friends are definitely the people that I met through the internet.

Interviewer: Can you … define anything different between your virtual community and your physical community?

Michael: Yeah, I [can] ... on the internet it doesn’t matter if you're tall, short, fat, thin, male or female. If you’ve got something interesting to say, people will listen to you. It doesn’t matter if you're a sixteen-year-old high school student, or a forty-five-year old mother-of-four housewife. The group, if you have something worth saying, people will respect it. They won’t judge you by how old you are or, anything else like that. So it’s certainly … it’s different in that way.


For some users, then, the internet is a positive and liberating experience. For others,

however, user anonymity and a lack of trust in online exchanges are barriers to

relational and social exchanges online. These concerns mediate internet users’

assessments of online social protests and their willingness to commit to social causes

online. These issues are overviewed in the following section.

5.3.2.3 Social action and collaboration

Focus groups and interviews canvassed participants’ attitudes towards and

involvement in online social movements such as participating in political groups

online, using the internet to lobby governments for change, and participating in the

diffusion of online petitions. An exciting factor for some internet users had been the

development of ‘wired activists’ and the belief that the internet can be used as an

136


agent for progressive social change (McCaughey & Ayers, 2003). Oscar’s view

summarises users’ positive attitudes towards to the internet as a tool for social action:

I think it does have the ability to — providing it’s got the right resources — to actually galvanise world opinion. Look at the campaign against landmines and political prisoners, and starvation — mind you, all of those factors are still with us, but at least people have a point of expression now and consciousness. You can actually get information now, I think that’s what one of the liberating things … .


Other users also gave accounts of collective action online, in instances where they had

used email and discussion lists for a collective purpose, such as for the advancement

of a particular ideology or idea, or for a political struggle with another group. Stephen

explained his use of internet technologies in his role to change public cycling paths in

the inner city:

Stephen: I run the Bicycle Queensland email list for Queensland cyclists to yack about cycling … and we’ve linked up with the global movement ‘critical mass’. There are about two hundred people on the list and they go off.

Interviewer: How do you use the list?

Stephen: … it’s really big on both lobbying to change cycling facilities in the place, for kind of safety about warning people about stuff, to basic things about problems with magpies that are in Brisbane that attack cyclists, you know whatever.

Interviewer: Have you actually had outcomes from that?

Stephen: Definitely. We’ve had heaps of outcomes where we’ve coordinated strategies through the list. You know, the immediate level its been changing traffic lights in St Lucia or whatever the hell it is … But [the] other cycle discussion lists we’ve linked into is ‘critical mass’. Which is a rat-bag cycling thing that kind of occupies streets in Brisbane and it’s always been organized electronically by the web to get up to 150 cyclists out on the streets, about once a month kind of thing.

… and the reason we started that was because by email discussion lists we found out about this stuff going in San Francisco and then in Sydney and you know we created one here kind of stuff. So there was a spread of a movement that became quite global via electronic discussion lists.


137


Over half of the users interviewed (n=15) had participated in some form of electronic

petitioning to government departments, local community groups or international

political bodies. Issues that had mobilised them online included a “Save the Music”

campaign to support legislation that protected live music venues in Fortitude Valley,

Brisbane, as well as a program to raise awareness about the plight of women in

Afghanistan. Melanie’s experience expresses these users’ positive attitude towards

using the internet to effect change:

It was an amazing cross section of society, it blew me away, like every time I’d go back, more people had added their names and something about themselves … there was a bit of an over emphasis like multi media and IT technologies and slight over emphasis in people defining themselves as musicians and artists, but apart from that the cross section was probably more weighted, like 25 to 35 years of age, but apart from that the cross section of industry and age and that sort of stuff, looked to me pretty much what you’d see from society. And I thought this is so cool that music is just bringing all these people together to stand up.


Despite the fact that some participants had used electronic petitions, they were

unconvinced as to the success of this type of campaign. Julie’s account provides

insight into why there was a level of cynicism and/or negativity about the viability of

engaging online forums for political change:

I’m not convinced that we do have direct access to very important people. I’m sure that they’ve got their lackeys sifting through their emails just like they have through their mail these days. But in my experience backbenchers answer their own email you know, you can get to them and the back bencher … if you can reach the back bencher they can raise it ... so I’ve used that to really good advantage.

Also, when I’ve wanted … something further … I want to launch [something] … I’ll email a backbencher who I’m using as a conduit to the minister, and say ‘What’s the best way for me to lodge this so you’ll get it immediately?’, and he’ll say ‘Oh send it to so-and-so’s office and I’ll get it tonight’. So there’s an immediacy there — you don’t have to wait for that telephone call to be returned — there’s not as much ‘telephone table tennis’.


In contrast to those, like the cyclist Stephen who was a keen advocate of online

protests, some users felt that online petitions or emailing government representatives

138


were a waste of time. One user justified his decision not to participate in signing

petitions or other online political activities in recounting the following anecdote:

A story came out of a couple of days ago about the fact that the average member of Congress in the US gets fifty-five thousand emails a week I think it was, and they throw almost all of them away. They don’t bother to read any email petitions that come to them. Simply because a lot of them don’t understand email, a lot of them don’t believe that they’re real, they probably get so much spam as well that they just delete everything. So at least in the US, I don't know how it is in Australia … But if I was going to protest I’d go in person.


Others explained that they participated in offline petitions, but did not seek

involvement in online or email petitions because they believed that it was easy for

people to falsify details, or to remove personal details for other purposes. Liz’s

account reveals how some users negotiate their behaviour in relation to protesting

online, and how issues of trust mediate that behaviour. Her account also highlights the

importance of ensuring a cause is associated with a credible source.

Liz: I participate in petitions because I suppose the difference is that I don’t actually expect that anyone’s going to get my name off that piece of paper and send me stuff. Whereas with email petitions … [and] because of the power of the technology, I know that the minute my name and address is an electronic record somewhere, it’s so easy for someone to pop that into an email group or a letter or something like that and I’m not comfortable with that. …

If I had an option and someone printed something out and gave it to me in a self-return envelope, I’d do that. Someone asked me over the phone — on a telemarketing thing would I support it — yep! If someone asked a whole lot of details about my name and address I’d say ‘Why?’

Interviewer: What if it was an identified organisation, would you sign the e-petition then?

Liz: Hm, if Amesty International set up a particular site so you could add your name to a list of folk who said let this person out of gaol, I’d be more likely to get involved with that.


5.3.3 Summary of Study 1

Study 1 has described the social and personal influences emergent from activity and

interaction conducted on the internet. Interviews were conducted to listen to how

139


technologies are actually used in practice by different internet users. This was based

on the rationale that, as Oudshoorn and Pinch (2003, p. 14) have explained, ‘users of

technology do not arrive de novo’. The internet, for example, started off as a tool that

facilitated high-end activities practiced by a small expert group of skilled professional

in the military. However, over time the user-technology nexus has been

reconceptualised as marketers, industry, governments and social movements have

strived to recruit users to the technology. Exploratory analysis undertaken in Study 1

has focused on describing internet users’ experiences, as well as examining how

internet technology influences users’ social interactions, behaviour and subsequent

knowledge. This analysis will be extended in the rest of this chapter through the use

of a concourse developed from the analysis of different internet users’ opinions and

experiences of the internet. This communication concourse describes ‘typical’

discourses of the internet as a personal and social technology. The communication

concourse is drawn from qualitative analysis that focused on typical internet users’

discourses about their experiences of the internet as a personal and social technology,

and a technology that is accessed when internet users deal with personal and social

problems. The following section describes the communication concourse and provides

a justification for its use. The key findings associated with its use are detailed in

Chapter Six.

5.4 Concourse of internet opinions, experiences and actions

Concourse analysis focuses on drawing a representative sample of statements from

the concourse at hand — in this case internet user opinions and experiences — with

the intention of using these statements in a Q study to model the operant structure

existing about internet users’ social and personal online interactions (Dryzek &

Berejikian, 1993, p. 50). This chapter has thus far outlined the population of

statements from which the Q statement set was drawn, and demonstrates the ordinary

conversation, commentary, and discourse of individual, internet users’ everyday

experiences and personal interactions involving the internet. The published research

literature illustrates that the most frequent application of Q methodology is the

interpersonal comparison of Q sorts of items from a shared concourse (Brouwer,

1999, p. 36). The following section briefly overviews concourse theory and justifies

the sample selected before presenting the Q statement set used in Study 2.

140


5.4.1 Concourse theory

A communication concourse consists of a comprehensive, but diverse range of

statements that might be used in any discourse on (or “way of seeing and talking

about”) an issue. Statement collection can follow either a ‘naturalistic’ or ready-made

approach (McKeown & Thomas, 1988). For the current study, rather than drawing

statements from other sources such as media reports or other published literature

describing the internet, a naturalistic sample was drawn from respondents during

group and individual interviewing. Using a naturalistic approach minimsed the risk of

external meanings being attributed to statements, because they were naturally

rendered from verbatim transcriptions derived from interviews. It is acknowledged

that some statements could appear ambiguous, however Dryzek and Berejikian (1993,

p. 51) argue that ambiguity is resolved by each subject, and reflected in their

placement of a statement in relation to other statements, during Q sorting. Confidence

and trustworthiness in the sample of statements presented is assumed because

interviews were conducted during Study 1 until no new viewpoints were encountered

and the same comments were being repeated (Addams, 2000). This collection process

resulted in a compilation of relevant statements which, according to Stainton Rogers

(1995, p. 185), is ‘typically around three times the size of the aimed-for Q set, say 200

for an aimed-for Q set of 65’. In the current study, 150 statements were selected to

define the concourse and then reduced to a Q set of 50 statements to be used during Q

sorting. These statements are discussed below. In order to be comprehensive — but

still manageable for participants to sort effectively — a typical Q set range is between

30 and 50 statements, (Addams, 2000). In the present study, the statement reduction

process was guided by experience based on the literature reviewed, and by

discussions with supervisors and colleagues to clarify and refine the statement

selection process. Stainton Rogers (1995) advocates these processes to ensure

balance, appropriateness and applicability to the issue, as well as intelligibility,

simplicity and comprehensiveness.

McKeown and Thomas (1988) outline two techniques for choosing items to represent

the communication context of the Q sample: unstructured or structured sampling

approaches. Structured samples are systematically designed and are strongly linked to

a hypothetical-deductive methodology, which applies the design principles of factorial

experimentation and replication logic whereby Q sample statements or items are

141


assigned to experimental conditions designated and defined by the researcher

(McKeown & Thomas, 1988, p. 28). The structured approach was not used in the

current study because it was considered restrictive. Instead, the researcher aimed to

rely on a more inductive approach by drawing statements that emerged from the

patterns observed and noted during the interviewing process. Therefore, an

unstructured sampling approach informed the Q sample design in Study 2. In this

approach, items relevant to the topic (internet experience) were chosen to ensure

coverage of possible sub-issues and to provide a fairly accurate account of positions

taken or likely to be taken on internet issues (McKeown & Thomas, 1988). The major

risk of this approach, however, is that ‘some issue components will be under- or over-

sampled and, consequently a bias of some kind will be incorporated inadvertently into

the final Q sample’ (McKeown & Thomas, 1988, p. 28). Brown (2004, email

discussion list 22 Feb 2004) reminds researchers, however, that what is critical in Q

methodology is not the statement sample itself, but the operant structures that the

sample helps to reveal. Furthermore, the themes or categories identified during the

interview process become evident, or not, during Q analysis as patterns, rather than

frequencies. Hence, patterns become evident themselves in non-arbitrary ways as the

Q factors are revealed during analysis (Brown, email correspondence, 24 June 2003

“How many statements equal a theme?”).

The categories and dimensions built into the Q statement design, which reflected the

themes that emerged during interview conversations, are outlined in a six-cell

typology in Table 5.1 below. Positive and negative statements were drawn from the

interviews, representing the diversity of communication on the topic of the internet as

a personal and social technology. The categories identified are used in the following

section to organize the discussion of internet users’ opinions and experiences. The Q

study is discussed in full in Chapter Six. It is important here, however, to describe the

statement selection process and illustrate the link between the explorative interviews

and the communication concourse of internet users’ feelings, opinions, and

experiences of the internet. Therefore, the remainder of this section presents an

internet story in terms of the concourse derived from users’ experiences, their

accounts of online behaviour and their explanations about negotiating online and

offline relationships. In applying Q methodology, however, it is important to

understand that this was the story that the researcher derived from the focus groups

142


and interviews conducted, and that it was also influenced by published sociology and

marketing literature. In Study 2 the internet story changes because through Q sorting,

each person models their own online behaviour using the statement (stimuli) offered.

Table 5.1: Structure of the Q sample

Statement Category Description Statement Numbers

A Internet information & content

Information quality issues; Types of content experienced — Bulletin Boards, email, chat groups; web browsing

4, 9, 12, 16, 31, 37, 39, 42, 44, 46

B Network relationships & communication

Establishment and maintenance of strong and weak tie relationships online

5, 8, 17, 19, 22, 23, 28, 29, 35, 47

C Virtual communities Participation in online communities of interest and/or practice; Opinions of online community; Interactions involving online community

2, 14, 15, 18, 40, 45, 48

D Internet traits Enhancing interaction; Hyperpersonal communication; Anonymity, Trust

6, 11, 20, 30, 32, 38, 41

E Online social activities Social action (e.g., Petitions, forwarding information); Agenda setting; Participation in online groups/communities

3, 10, 24, 25, 26, 27, 43, 49

F General opinions about the societal impact of the internet

Impacts of Internet on broader society; Optimistic/pessimistic expressions of its impact

1, 7, 13, 21, 33, 34, 36, 50

In selecting the statements, the goal was to describe different intentions, experiences

and behaviours involving the internet, rather than to describe any specific social

marketing problem (i.e. health, political or social issue) because inclusion of these

statements would have increased the Q set to an unmanageable number. Additionally,

the issues are relative to the social marketing problem, and the focus of the

exploration here was to understand the social and personal shaping of the internet,

since these factors influence intentional use of the internet when people are faced with

a social marketing problem.

5.4.1.1 Internet information and content

All interviewees accounted for using the internet as an information source. However,

it became evident that when users’ explained their motivations and use of different

143


information sources, the value of that information was highly contextual (i.e. health

issue, new product information, etc.). Additionally, finding relevant information was

a strong motivator for users to access the internet. Jason’s statement during a focus

group session explained this behaviour:

I use the Net to find out as much as I can about issues that are important to me.

(Statement 4)

Some researchers (Katz & Rice, 2002) have argued that many of the benefits of online

information apply equally well to traditional media, both print and mass media, as

well as to more interpersonal media such as the telephone. They believe the internet’s

particular contribution is the provision of a means for exchanging information. During

a focus group discussion, Tony explained the value of exchanging information and its

usefulness in making decisions:

One good thing about the Net is that because there is so much information, it gives the perception that you might get a second person’s opinion. If everybody says the same thing, then you can assume yes, it’s on the right track.

(Statement 46)

A continuous theme throughout the focus groups and interviews was the comparison

between “old” media such as television, print and radio with “new” media as

embodied in the internet. What distinguishes the internet from other media for most

users is interactivity — a trait which has positive and negative consequences. For

example, during a focus group discussion Stephen accounted for his interactive

behaviour in gathering information, saying:

… [y]ou have to have something to say in order to have a conversation … so I think it’s made people more interactive than they have been for the last while where they purely read the newspaper … it’s back to the days of the telephone where you have to respond.

His account is summarised in the following statement:

The internet’s really changed the way people exist, instead of just being receivers of information; you have to generate information now as well.

(Statement 42)

144


However, in the same focus group Emma raised concerns about some people

exchanging information online, and therefore she was:

… skeptical about some of the people exchanging information online … so I take that information with a grain of salt.

(Statement 37)

Self-publication and content created through exchanges on email lists and discussion

boards raised concerns expressed by other participants. Typically, these concerns

related to issues of quality and reliability of internet content. In explaining why she

did not rely on information from online interactions to make decisions, Jane stated:

Bulletin boards tend to attract people who are very driven by their particular experience and their cause and it’s quite easy to see how sometimes they can get a bit carried away. So the information’s anecdotal and personal, it isn’t substantiated basically.

(Statement 12)

Furthermore, whilst the internet is considered a rich source of information by users,

the quality of internet information and content is considered problematic. A point of

contention for some of the internet users interviewed is summarised in Alison’s

statement:

It takes a lot of time to find information on the internet because a lot of the stuff on the internet is either wrong, irrelevant or not useful anyway.

(Statement 44)

Therefore, whilst some users identified the internet as a “rich source” of information,

their enthusiasm was countered by others who expressed apprehension about false

information online. Jason’s statement epitomizes this anxiety about the quality of

online information:

I’m concerned about false information on the Net. Even governments putting information up on websites use disclaimers that say they’re not responsible for anything on the site. I think it’s easier to trust a book.

(Statement 9)

More recent research has identified source credibility of online information as a factor

used to interpret quality of content. This is especially so in regard to the use health

information that might influence users to adopt inappropriate treatment, which could

145


lead to a health hazard (Benigeri & Pluye, 2003). Source credibility does influence

users’ evaluations of online information, however, for some internet users the issue of

quality was relative to all media. Angela’s statement qualifies this sentiment:

… information quality is a big issue on the internet — but it is in any form of media.

(Statement 16)

Discussion about online information also highlighted the fact that information

gathering was not a one-way process, but that organisations which have invested in

developing online content also wanted information from users. This discussion raised

concerns about users’ privacy and, for some, questions about whether one could trust

online communication. Anne’s statement typifies this feeling:

I would never write anything private in an email, I don’t think that they’re private.

(Statement 39)

For some users, however, online privacy concerns were measured against their offline

experiences in guarding privacy. For example, Angela said:

People have access to your name, address, the things you like, your movements, where you go, what you do. But these risks exist anyway.

(Statement 31)

5.4.1.2 Network relationships and communication

Network relationships and communication are the “social” aspect of internet

technology. Therefore, it was in their discussions about experiences in online

relationships that differentiations could be discerned between those internet users

whose online behaviours are more socially oriented, and those who primarily shape

the internet as a tool to gather information. Jake’s statement, below, differentiates

those users who shape the technology as a network of people from those users who

think of it as purely a source of information:

I don’t think the Internet is people, I think it’s just information.

(Statement 17)

146


There were, however, a range of feelings expressed about the social influences of

connecting to people online. Some users, such as Natalie who is quoted below,

expressed very positive feelings about the communication potential of the internet:

I’m very positive about what the internet can offer on a communication basis for people … it’s creating communication where there was none.

(Statement 47)

Other participants reflected that they valued online interaction, not just for the ability

to communicate more, but also for the opportunity to find more liked–minded people.

Billy’s statement illustrates the attitude of people who leverage network opportunities:

I think I’ve got a greater opportunity to meet more like-minded people online, than in my local community.

(Statement 22)

In a number of instances participants provided evidence to counter the view of some

that online interaction would reduce internet users’ willingness to stay in contact with

family and friends offline (Nie, Hillygus & Erbring, 2002; Nie, 2001). For example,

Sandy’s statement demonstrates that online interaction can foster offline interaction:

By using the internet I keep in touch with people more than I ever would have done before.

(Statement 29)

Amy’s experience was similar; however, she qualified that online interactions were

not about drawing her relationships away from her physical, local community

(Wellman & Haythornthwaite, 2002). Rather she used the technology to maintain

local friendships and found it frustrating when friends were not also connected.

So much of my personal and social interactions with close friends happen electronically. It’s a real frustration for me when I have a friend that’s part of my immediate social group that doesn’t have email contact.

(Statement 19)

Whilst it was evident that the participants interviewed used the technology to stay

connected with family and friends, some felt that the telephone was more personal. As

Trisha noted:

147


Sending email is a good way to maintain bonds with friends, but it’s not as good as talking on the telephone.

(Statement 28)

At the same time that a number of users were excited about the internet’s networking

potential, others were cautious about the restrictive nature of virtual relationships.

These participants raised issues of trust in interpersonal relations online and about the

superficiality of online communication. Lisa’s statement illustrates these users’

attitudes:

You’d only really developed a good sense of trust in an online relationship if you also met the person you regularly emailed face-to-face.

(Statement 35)

Furthermore, Anne’s statement below reveals the attitude of users who believe online

communication is impersonal.

I find online discussions very much like small talk, even when we were talking about stuff that was meaningful for people and interesting.

(Statement 5)

Overall, fears about the technology were not a strong theme in the data. Nevertheless,

some participants discussed anxieties about the combined features of the internet’s

interactivity, and the network potential to reach into homes and personal spaces. The

technology in this context was considered a threat to some vulnerable populations,

such as children. Jane’s account below illustrates this sentiment:

I don’t care about the types of information exchanged online, I want children to have as much information as they can about the world. I’m more concerned about the interactivity, the capacity for kids to get on the Net and then have someone being able to find them, or get their credit card number.

(Statement 23)

Another interesting theme that emerged from the interview data was that users have a

variety of experiences of and opinions about joining online communities. Some were

particularly positive as is exemplified by Billy’s statement:

The value of the internet is the network; it makes us a global community.

148


(Statement 8)

5.4.1.3 Virtual community

A prevailing attitude of the dystopian perspective is that the internet cannot be a

source of real community and further, actually detracts from meaningful real-world

communities (Kiesler, Siegel & McGuire, 1984; Stoll, 1995; Turkle, 1996). However,

those users who thought of the internet as a means of connecting with people, gave

emphasis to building and maintaining a sense of community online. This sentiment

was expressed in Nicholas’s statement:

People participating in a list serve form a community just as surely as any group of people bound by geography or thought.

(Statement 2)

Finding communities of interest online was a significant driver for some internet

users. Billy explained:

The thing I find really exciting about the internet is the number of people I can network and connect with. It means that you can actually find a group of people that you will be able to have something in common with …

(Statement 15)

While other users were not as enthusiastic about online community for themselves,

they maintained a positive opinion of virtual communities for those who were

physically isolated. Anna said:

I’m optimistic about the internet to a certain extent, in that it connects isolated communities and communities that wouldn’t necessarily have an opportunity to connect with others at all.

(Statement 18)

Additionally, some internet users discussed positive stories about virtual communities

that provided virtual support by connecting people suffering the same health problem.

Jason discussed his friend’s experience:

I’ve got a friend whose partner is very sick and he spends a lot of time on the Net getting support from other people in the same circumstances. The internet’s really useful for helping and supporting people.

(Statement 14)

149


However, other internet users had more negative opinions about social support and a

sense of community online. Whilst some of the internet users interviewed thought it

was valuable to participate in communities of interest, they were less convinced about

virtual communities offering any real sense of social support. Amanda’s feeling

typifies this type of sentiment:

Having friends online doesn’t help at the end of the day because these friends you can’t really get help from, or give assistance to.

(Statement 40)

Whist not a strongly expressed opinion amongst the users interviewed, some did feel

that too much time spent online and participating in online communities detracted

from users’ relationships and contributions to their physical communities. This was

also an early criticism of the internet’s adoption in domestic spaces (Katz & Rice,

2002; Rheingold, 2000). Alison’s statement illustrates this opinion:

If people weren’t spending so much time on the internet, they’d be out working in their physical communities, which would be better for everyone.

(Statement 45)

However, current research by Katz and Rice (2002) and the Pew Internet Life Project

(2000, 2002) has found that internet usage does not decrease social interaction. In

fact, in particular groups, such as long-term internet users, internet interaction leads to

greater offline as well as online social interaction. Michael’s experience of online

relationships illustrated this point:

I think the internet increases physical meeting, after meeting on the Net people want to meet face-to-face.

(Statement 48)

5.4.1.4 Internet traits

There are specific traits or features of internet technology, such as interactivity and

anonymity, that set it apart from other media. Interactivity was the most widely

discussed trait of the technology and consequently a number of statements already

discussed are grounded interactions that rely on the interactive nature of the

150


technology. Michael’s statement below reveals the positive attitude that internet users

exhibit because they prefer the “new” technology over “old”:

I think the internet’s good because it’s interactive, there is a discussion back and forth and you can actually have discussion on a subject, you’re not just being told things, you’re discussing them with someone. So that’s certainly leads to more in-depth and more rounded views than what you get on the six o’clock news at nights.

(Statement 20)

The trait of anonymity and its influence on relationships had a number of positive and

negative consequences for internet users. As evidenced in the statement (Statement

14) about virtual community in the preceding section, anonymity does not constrain

users participating in strong relationships online (Rheingold, 2000). Furthermore,

some internet users believe that anonymity provides a barrier which frees individuals

from the constraints of their “real-life” persona (Tyler, 2002; Spears & Lea, 1994).

This perspective is summarised in Melanie’s statement:

I think the internet’s liberating; it lets people talk about issues that they wouldn’t talk about in other circumstances.

(Statement 38)

A few participants discussed their enjoyment of experimenting with freedom from

social constraints. Tony’s statement during a focus group exemplifies this feeling:

I like being anonymous online, I can be anybody.

(Statement 11)

However, as the internet sociology literature has noted (Rainie, 2004; Spears & Lea,

1994), there is a flip-side to anonymity that in some users manifests as increased

concern and distrust in online exchanges. Jane’s statement summarises this attitude:

I think people take on another identity online to fool others, as opposed to revealing more about themselves.

(Statement 32)

Concerns about anonymous personas online also lead some internet users to believe

that anonymity actually limits the sharing of information and decreases self-

disclosure: For example, Emma said:

151


I don’t trust email communication. I don’t think it’s private. So, perhaps our communication will become shallower.

(Statement 41)

Other research has highlighted that anonymity on the internet has meant that some

online exchanges are more suspect than those conducted in face-to-face environments.

However, for some internet users it is a place where they reveal themselves far more

intimately (Rheingold, 2000). Julie’s statement illustrates this feeling:

I think people talking about some deeply, personal, disturbing material is enabled by being able to assume a slightly anonymous persona online.

(Statement 6)

When this opinion was repeated during a different focus group discussion some

people agreed, but another participant, Michelle, provided an opposing view stating:

You need a safe environment to be able to talk about sensitive issues online. I don’t know if that’s possible on the Internet.

(Statement 30)

Implicit in a number of the statements above are users’ concerns about trust in online

relationships and exchanges. Henderson and Gilding (2004) point out that trust

involves a set of beliefs and expectations that involves an active orientation towards

future intentions. Trust is evident in some of the statements already outlined, and is

manifested in a several of the statements in the following section which highlight

different intentions and activities of internet users.

5.5.1.5 Online social activities

Internet users expressed a range of opinions about the role of the internet in pro-social

movements. Some users were excited about the potential of “wired activism” and

believed the internet could be used positively as an agent of progressive social change

because it was providing forums for people to discuss their ideas and share their

opinions on important issues. This view is encapsulated in Nicholas’s statement:

… the internet does politicise people, because they’re taking the time online to talk about issues and the big picture.

(Statement 49)

152


Furthermore, participants had noted that using the internet changed users’ opinions

about what constitutes activism. Some internet users talked about the difference

online awareness campaigns made because they had been able to diffuse e-petitions

and mobilise community support. Melanie’s statement explains this experience:

Participating in online discussion groups can effect change; for instance, I’ve been involved in a list that lobbied for change and we were successful.

(Statement 26)

However, some internet uses did not even consider the internet as an activist tool, as

Alison explained:

I guess I don’t use the Net to be an activist, because I don’t think of it as that sort of tool. It’s more just an information tool.

(Statement 3)

For others the issue was not a lack of awareness of social movements online, but a

lack of trust in the people or organisations behind some of the online campaigns.

Jason, for example, felt that:

Other people are setting your agenda on the internet.

(Statement 24)

Additionally, Rob’s concern about social movements online was that it was ‘too

easy’, and that anonymity reduced the credibility of the cause.

People could legitimately drive a cause online that they were not interested in, you know, from a totally anonymous point of view.

(Statement 10)

A further perspective on the subject of internet political action was that online

petitions did not have any real impact on the social issue under scrutiny and that other

strategies were more effective. Angela’s view encapsulates this perspective:

I don’t tend to sign online petitions because they don’t do a lot of use.

(Statement 25)

153


Furthermore, the issue of credibility was raised by other participants who expressed

the view that hardcopy petitions held more weight than did online petitions. Liz

expressed this opinion:

I’m much more likely to sign a hard paper petition down at the local shopping centre than I would be to sign something through email.

(Statement 43)

This opinion that simply sending emails or reading protest websites were ineffective

as strategies was taken up by other participants. Lisa, for example, argued that if

people wanted real social change they had to do more than send emails or online

petitions:

The proof is in the pudding, isn’t it, actually about getting people to go to the rally, to actually front up. It’s all very well sitting at your desk and supporting action, but isn’t it more important to actually be there?

(Statement 27)

5.4.1.6 General opinions about the societal impact of the internet

In concluding the small group and individual interviews, internet users were asked to

discuss how they thought the internet was impacting on wider society and if they

believed the internet was a positive or negative social influence. This section outlines

a spectrum of opinion which influences users’ overall attitude towards engaging the

internet for social change. Firstly, some users thought that the internet was not

significantly different from other media choices. Michelle’s statement typifies this

attitude:

When I actually got to use the internet it wasn’t as wonderful as I thought it was going to be.

(Statement 36)

Other internet users interviewed felt that the internet had fundamentally changed the

way in which people interacted and completed tasks. Stephen’s comment illustrates

these users’ feelings:

154


I think that there’s a world before the Net and there’s a world after the Net and I think that the change is fundamental and really significant … it represents a fundamental change in the way people do stuff or interact …

(Statement 33)

Additionally, others were generally enthusiastic about the internet’s social influence,

because they believe the internet is a technology that offers numerous choices. As

Lisa explained:

I’m optimistic about the internet because I see a lot of potential out of it, but I see that you’ve got not a lot of choice but to be enthusiastic and just carve off your slice of it.

(Statement 1)

However, whilst people felt the internet was a positive influence on their personal

lives, they were also concerned about those in society who were “left behind”. In this

sense, participants were effectively foregrounding the “digital divide” issues,

prevalent in the internet sociology literature, and broader public policy issues.

Trisha’s statement illustrates these concerns:

I’m actually quite scared of the implications for the world, the numbers of people, the numbers of countries, the numbers of children who will never have access to a computer in their life. And what does that mean … whole populations are left behind.

(Statement 7)

Others users had reservations about the internet’s positive influence on wider society

because they believed only elite or wealthy global populations had access to the

technology. Anna’s statement highlights this view of the internet’s influence on wider

society:

I’m not particularly optimistic about the internet in the sense that like any powerful thing, it’s about whether or not you can actually afford to access it.

(Statement 21)

As noted previously, throughout users’ stories and accounts of the internet it became

evident that some users shape this technology as an information source, whereas

others focus more on the people who network through the technology. Drawing these

two together — the diversity of information online, combined with opportunities to

155


give opinions on ‘big issues’ in online discussion groups — gave users a sense of

empowerment. Tony’s statement summaries this opinion:

The internet’s about empowerment of individuals, but it … depends on how humans use it to their advantage.

(Statement 13)

Participants were also realistic about the empowering influence of the internet and

argued that the technology was shaped by how people controlled and used it. It was

argued that online hate groups, accessing pornography, and access to excessive

gambling were negative influences and demonstrated disempowering social

influences that were easily accessible online. Lisa’s opinion summaries this point:

How good the internet will be depends on how a person uses it and how the person actually uses it to better themselves for the good of society and things like that.

(Statement 34)

As in other conversations, a number of participants approached the discussion of the

internet’s impact on society more broadly by drawing comparisons with traditional

media. In this respect, they argued that compared to “old” technologies the internet

gave people better control of their information. This view is summarised in Melanie’s

statement:

The internet is empowering people to have more control over what they’re seeing, or doing, or thinking about.

(Statement 50)

5.5 Summary

This chapter has outlined individual, private use of the internet in relation to the

influences and consequences of social action and interaction online. Internet users’

stories and explanations have revealed the internet as a positive social environment,

which at the same times is viewed negatively by other users. Analysis has revealed

the internet as a complex technology, because of its traits of anonymity and

interactivity. Drawing on internet users’ opinions and experiences, a communication

concourse was established that describes the internet as a personal and social

technology. Diverse opinions were drawn on to ensure that the concourse used in

156


Study 2 was representative of the broad range of people connected to the internet. The

following chapter details the Q methodology findings and outlines the social

construction of the internet as a personal and social technology by typical internet

users.

157

CHAPTER SIX SEGMENTATION OF DOWNSTREAM INTERNET USERS

Chapter 6: Segmentation of Downstream Internet Users

6.0 Introduction

This chapter continues the Q analyses, reporting on the opinions, attitudes and

experiences of internet users, and exploring the reasons why some users are more

inclined to embrace the relational aspects of internet technologies, rather than the

transactional facilities and functions of these technologies. Central to the Q analysis

are the statements selected from initial in-depth interviews and focus groups

conducted with internet users. These were discussed in the preceding chapter. This

inductive phase in Study 1 was followed by the deductive, Q analysis phase, with an

additional 32 internet users. It is this deductive phase which forms the basis of

Chapter Six. The aim of this phase in the research was to explore the subjective

dispositions of users’ attitudes and opinions towards the internet and to illustrate how

people looked differently at the advantages and disadvantages of the internet and

adopted technical functions and social aspects to differing degrees. Three internet

user profiles have been identified using Q analysis. They are: Internet

Communitarians, Information Networkers and Individualised Networkers. In addition

to the Q analysis, findings from follow-up exemplar interviews (n=3) are reported to

further describe different users’ online behaviours, specifically related to social

marketing strategy and tactics.

6.1 Implementation of Q

Internet researchers now argue (see Wellman & Hogan, 2004; Woolgar, 2002) that

the current need is for ‘theoretical generalisation informed by close scrutiny of the

widely varying actual experiences of the design and use (and misuse) of the

technologies on the ground’ (Woolgar, 2002, p. 4). Whilst in the 1990s the internet

phenomenon was socially contested, over the last decade governments, commercial

institutions, and everyday users have shaped the internet for their own purposes. Yet,

the internet’s impacts and benefits are still contested. The literature reviewed and

outlined in Chapter Two demonstrated that internet research is at a point in its

evolution in the social science field of technology where disaggregation of the

internet phenomenon is required and researchers need to focus much more on

bottom-up experiences (Woolgar, 2002). Q method is appropriate and timely for such

159


research because, through the action of Q sorting, each internet user is provided with

the opportunity to directly measure their subjective attitudes and opinions about

internet interactions and to share their experiences (Addams, 2000); hence, its use in

the present study.

Internet users’ experiences and opinions were elicited by following a seven-step Q

study process. The steps were:

1. Identifying areas of “discourse” or the communication concourse of internet

users’ opinions, attitudes and everyday experiences of the internet.

2. Conducting interviews and focus groups with internet users — purposefully

sampling for users who had positive and negative experiences of internet

technology (see Chapter Five). ‘This approach to statement generation is taken so

that the research is focused on issues which are mostly or wholly raised by the

participants, rather than the research’ (Addams, 2000, pp. 15-16).

3. Identifying statements which were representative of the diversity of

communication on the topic of the internet as a personal and social technology

(see Section 5.5.1).

4. Selecting a diverse group of internet users and asking them to rank the Q

statement set in a forced, normalised distribution on a nine point scale. This

process of relatively ranking statements constitutes Q sorting, which effectively

modelled each internet user’s point of view.

5. Using factor analysis to extract “typical” Q sorts, which represented distinct

collective understandings of the internet and related issues.

6. Interpreting “typical” Q sorts and discussing them in terms of commonly shared

internet experiences, feelings and opinions. These were used to identify three

“ideal types” of internet users.

7. Undertaking follow-up in-depth interviews (n=3) with “exemplar” respondents.

Each interview focused on a defined profile, which aimed to assist interpretation

of user factor arrays. During the interviews, participants were given the

opportunity to discuss their statement ordering and explain their opinions and

attitudes with personal accounts (Stainton Rogers, 1991).

160


The remainder of the chapter elaborates the Q research process as summarised above

and presents findings that explicate three profiles of internet users’ opinions,

experiences and behaviours.

6.2 Q method design

Q methodology is an intensive form of analysis and therefore is more appropriate for

use with small numbers of subjects (Addams, 2000). As a result, the goal of Q

methodologists is never to claim that the research findings are statistically

representative of some larger population, or to identify patterns in a small group of

subjects and then reflect these in a larger population (Brown, 1980). More relevant to

Q methodologists is the discovery of a discourse that the researcher identifies within

a small group of study participants. This will generally prove to be a genuine

representation of that discourse as it exists within a larger population. Brown (1980,

p. 67) explains that this is the kind of generalisation in which Q methodologists are

interested. Thus, he continues, the units of analysis when it comes to generalisation,

is not the individuals but the discourse. The following section briefly revisits the

process for generating a Q statement set, then discusses in more detail the person

sample (P set) justification, which guided recruitment of internet users to Study 2.

6.2.1 Q statement sample

Q methodology involves an ipsitive approach: each item in the Q statement sample is

dependent and interrelated (Karim, 2000). The Q statements are compared with one

another in the process of Q sorting; this distinguishes the nature of Q sample

elements from R — which are typically independent of the other and do not interact

(Brown, 1980; Karim, 2000). A Q sample is not an absolute scale; what is important

in Q is the positions of statements relative to each other, because they indicate the

internal perspective of each participant who completed the Q sort. As outlined in

Chapter Four, validity in Q refers to the extent to which each participant in the study

feels that they can model their point of view using the communication concourse

provided (see Section 5.7) and the Q sort distribution applied (see Section 6.3.2).

Statements in the current study were generated from interview and focus group data.

The resulting 150 statements were divided into six subject groups and then reduced

to a Q sample of 50 representative items — a manageable number for Q sorting (Lee

161


& Anderson, 2001). Reflecting the complexity of the issues represented, some

categories have more statements than others (see Table 6.1).

Table 6.1: Structure of Q sample

Statement Category Statement Numbers A Internet information & content 4, 9, 12, 16, 31, 37, 39, 42,

44, 46 B Network relationships & communication 5, 8, 17, 19, 22, 23, 28, 29,

35, 47 C Virtual communities 2, 14, 15, 18, 40, 45, 48 D Internet traits 6, 11, 20, 30, 32, 38, 41 E Online social activities 3, 10, 24, 25, 26, 27, 43, 49 F General internet opinions –societal impacts 1, 7, 13, 21, 33, 34, 36, 50

6.2.2 Q sorting

Q sorting is the key technical component embedded in Q methodology. Sorting is

interactive, dynamic, and operant, and the factors which emerge are “operational

definitions” of opinions, experiences and preferences of each individual (Brown,

1980). During Q sorting in Study 2, subjects modelled their point of view by rank-

ordering the Q set. They were presented with 50 cards with a separate statement on

each, and were asked to place these along a nine-point opinion continuum extending

from –4 to +4. The “conditions of instruction” given to Q sorters were to sort the

statements, as in Figure 6.1, from ‘what is most like your experience of the internet’

(+4), to ‘what is most unlike your experience of the internet’ (-4). The condition of

instruction was linked to the aim of Study 2, which was to explore people’s personal

and social experiences of the internet so that experiential segments of opinions and

attitudes could be identified. The particular wording of the condition of instruction

was informed by interpretivist thinking and Holt’s (1995, p. 2) “consuming-as-

experience” metaphor which underlies research examining consumers’ subjective,

emotional reactions to consumption objects.

During the Q sorting processing, internet users were requested to place cards at ‘0’ to

indicate statements that were irrelevant to their experience of the internet. The

distribution of the opinion continuum in Figure 6.1 illustrates that fewer statements

(those with higher absolute score) are placed at the extremes, and more are placed in

the middle (those with low absolute score). In Q sorting this is identified as a

‘forced-free’ distribution, because it takes the form of a quasi-normal distribution

162


that is symmetrical about the middle. Both the range and the distribution shape are

arbitrarily designed to accommodate the number of statements chosen for the study

(Addams, 2000, p. 22). The current study used a leptokurtic distribution, which

forced the distribution of statements to be relatively thin at the tails (Howell, 1992).

This maximized the users’ discriminations between statements and ensured more

statements were placed in the “middle”. The point of this exercise is to ensure that Q

sorters discarded statements that were irrelevant and retained those that best

described their opinions and experiences of the technology.

Unlike Like

Value -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

Frequency 3 4 5 6 14 6 5 4 3

Figure 6.1: Q sort distribution

In a typical Q sort distribution, statements toward the middle, relatively speaking,

lack significance. They are effectively weightless (Beebe-Center, 1929 cited in

Brown, 1980) relative to the extremes. Brown (1980, p. 22) explains that participants

completing a Q sort are always more emotive about statements scored -4 than those

scored 0, because the expression of intensity of response to the statement is not least

at -4, but at 0. A -4 statement has roughly the same intensity as +4 statement, but the

affect is negative. Statistically this is identified as the ‘distensive zero’. Stephenson

(1952, pp. 195-196) contended that this was conceptually important in Q technique

as ‘all meaning distends from the middle, all information being contained in the

variability of the distribution. Means are therefore more comparable from person to

person in Q than they are from trait to trait in R. Additionally, Brown (1980) states

that the divisions along the opinion continuum are ordinal and, as such, statements

placed at a +3 position are not cognitively and functionally separate from those put

on the +4 position. Rather, performing the Q sort is a matter of ranking items on the

basis of ‘more or less’, rather than ‘either/or’ (McKeown & Thomas, 1988, p. 35).

163


An individual’s preferences, then, are revealed directly in terms of the statements

placed at +/-4, not a 0.

Analysis of Q sorts in Study 2 revealed how the statements of internet users’ opinions

and experiences are in a transitive relationship in terms of ‘agreeableness from my

point of view’, with positive and negative salience extending from a mean of

‘relative unimportance’ (at ‘0’ value). Hence, Brown (1980, p. 22) explains that the

mean for each Q sort has relatively the same interpretation from subject to subject;

statements receiving a score of ‘0’ tend to be of equivalent insignificance from

individual to individual. Furthermore, unlike the case in R method, means are

relatively equivalent in Q and as a result conditions for the application of

correlational procedures are satisfied (ibid, p. 22).

The use of a ‘forced-free’ distribution, however, is objectionable to some Q

methodologists, because it is believed to violate the principles of operant

subjectivity. The distribution is called ‘forced-free’ because participants are required

to place a requisite number of statements in each prescribed rank; the subject is free,

however, to place an item anywhere within the distribution (McKeown & Thomas,

1988). McKeown and Thomas (1988, p. 34) provide two clear explanations for why

a forced-free distribution does not violate operant subjectivity. Firstly, they explain

that the prescribed distribution is not an index of meaning, which is the case in a

scale. Rather the index is statistical such that if all Q sorts conform, their means and

standard deviations are the same because each participant used the same forced-

distribution (Brown, 1980, p. 204). The mean ‘is equivalent across persons in Q, a

condition that does not often hold when traits, tests, and the like are correlated across

people’ (Brown, 1980, p. 76). Secondly, previous research by Brown (1971, 1985)

has tested the use of ‘forced’ versus ‘free’ distributions. Free distribution simply

means participants can place any number of statements, anywhere in the distribution.

Brown’s (1980) research has demonstrated that the shape of a Q sort distribution was

methodologically and statistically inconsequential (McKeown & Thomas, 1988).

Therefore, whilst there has been some debate over ‘forced’ or ‘free’ distribution in Q

sorting, its use in the current study was merely a device to guide participants to think

systematically about the relationships between the items being sorted. The internet

users completing the sort controlled the specific ranking of statements and the

contextual significance of each item.

164


6.2.3 P set: Q respondent sample

Q methodology is concerned with conducting small-sample behavioural research.

Researchers using Q methodology thus have ‘confidence in its individual

observations — in contrast to large-n statistical studies, which utilize large numbers

precisely because they have little confidence in individual observations’ (Dryzek &

Berejikian 1993, p. 52). Furthermore, because Q explores thought processes and

emphasises subjectivity over statistical generalisability, traditional sampling

techniques are less important and therefore small samples are very appropriate

(McKeown & Thomas, 1988). Brown (1980, p. 260) stresses that breadth and

diversity are more important than proportionality in the persons sampled during Q

studies. As a result, person sampling in Q deliberately focuses on recruiting

participants who reflect the widest range of potential opinions and behaviours. This

ensures that as many perspectives as practical can be identified in relation to the

research problem (Addams, 2000).

In R methodology studies, large numbers of persons are sampled. However, the

recommendation in Q studies is ‘typically no more than 40 persons are sampled, to

assure the comprehensiveness of the factors and the reliability of the factor arrays’

(Brown, 1980, p. 92). It is acknowledged that a small sample size would be

contentious to those marketers who are accustomed to thinking in large-sample

terms. Such researchers may ask: ‘How is it possible to generalize to the population

when employing a sample of only 30 or so?’ As discussed in Chapter Four, in Q

studies the subjects have the status of variables rather than of sample elements,

whereas the term ‘sample’ refers to the set of statement items. Therefore, what

proportion of the internet population belongs in one factor rather than another is a

totally different research problem. As an example, Brown (1980) argues that Q is not

concerned with research problems focused on proportionality or causality, because

the purpose in Q is to study intensively the self-referent perspectives of particular

individuals in order to understand their human behaviour. In short, specific sampling

principles and techniques important in mainstream behavioural research are not

necessarily relevant to person sampling in Q, given the contrasting research

orientations and purposes (McKeown & Thomas, 1988, p. 36).

165


Participant selection in Q studies is managed via either theoretical (persons are

chosen because of their special relevance to the goals of the study) or pragmatic

(anyone will suffice) considerations. Study 2 undertook to sample people of

theoretical interest. The P set, or set of persons who are theoretically relevant to the

problem under consideration, were interviewed in face-to-face settings. Participants

recruited to sort the Q set possessed varying opinions, experiences and internet

behaviours (see Appendix 2: Study 2 sample description). Following the internet

sociology literature (as outlined in Chapter Two), and learning from internet users’

experiences discussed during interviewing, three main effects were identified as

important influences that guided internet users’ behaviours and interactions online.

These factors guided theoretical sampling of Q sorters. They are:

• experiential factors. These influence participant involvement in online

relationships (either social or commercial) and commitment to online

communities of interest and/or practice;

• gender issues. A significant body of research has demonstrated that gender

influences online access and participation. Published research has been

concerned with gender issues relating to access (e.g., Balka, 1996), social

interaction (e.g., Baym, 1995), political mobilisation (e.g., Scott, 2001) and

issues of sexual harassment and online pornography (e.g., MacKinnon, 1995);

• internet motivations. These are the stimulus, desires or life experiences that

influence why people use the internet, and are important motivational factors that

guide internet behaviour. Whilst research into internet motives is only in the early

stages, Rodgers and Sheldon (2002) identify four primary motives for using the

internet: researching, communicating, surfing, and shopping. These four motives

guided purposeful sampling during the selection of participants for Q sorting. A

fifth motive — of connecting to communities of practice or interest online — was

also added. As the literature in Chapter Two has described, commitment and

participation in virtual communities are more than “just” communication. It was

therefore important to consider this fifth motive as a separate driver for seeking

online interactions.

Table 6.2 below outlines the theoretically informed, factorial design used in the P

sample. Using this theoretical framework provided a degree of comprehensiveness

166


that would not have been found in a sample chosen solely on the basis of availability.

Additionally, this approach illustrates theoretical considerations, which informed the

P set design and consequently guided the number of participants selected to complete

Q sorting (McKeown & Thomas, 1988). It is important to emphasise, however, that

the design outlined is not meant to imply that all relevant population variables were

included. Furthermore, as McKeown and Thomas (1988, p. 39) have stated ‘Nor is it

assumed that theoretical possibilities governing respondent selection exhausted all

possibilities or in any sense are “fully specified models” of the theory from which

they were drawn’.

Table 6.2: P-Set structure of internet user attitudes and opinions

P-Set structure of internet user attitudes & opinions Main

Effects* Levels N

Experience — Social involvement

Basic — online information exchanges involving mainly work and professional life; Moderate — including the above plus: relationship building and maintenance with family and friends; High — including all of the above plus: online relationships, i.e. participation in communities of interest/practice; collaborating in and providing support to online communities.

3

Gender Female Male

2

Internet motives

Communicate Research Commercial services

(shopping, banking, etc.) Surf/browsing Community involvement

5

*ABC = (3) (2) (5) = 30 combinations

A sample of 32 professionals was drawn from private and public sector organisations

in metropolitan areas. Persons were chosen based on their experience and

involvement with using the internet regularly in their everyday lives. This is an

important criterion in a P set, since members are typically selected for their special

interest in the subject matter (Brown, personal communication, 11 July 2004). In

addition, other Q research recommends selecting participants who are expected to

define a factor (Brown, 1980). In this study, participants were selected because of

their varying opinions and internet experiences, as well as their high levels of

familiarity with and accessibility to the internet. During the face-to-face Q sorting,

167


three scenarios were provided from which participants selected the scenario which

best described their internet experiences (Appendix 6: Q data collection table). From

these scenarios:

• Nine users self-reported as having a ‘basic’ level of involvement in online

exchanges. This descriptor is to suggest that their online behaviour and

interactions are primarily functional and they consequently use the internet

(email and the Web) for information gathering and exchanges.

• Sixteen users self-reported as having a ‘moderate’ level of involvement in online

activities and relational exchanges. That is, they frequently use organising

features of the internet (e.g., information seeking and exchange), and value the

relational aspects of the technology to maintain relationships with family and

friends.

• Seven users self-reported as having a ‘high’ level of involvement in online

exchanges and relationships. That is, they regularly use the internet for functional

purposes, as well as for maintaining family and friendship networks, and also

regularly participate in communities of interest and/or practice.

The demographic profile of the P set was 17 females and 15 males, all of whom had

tertiary (college) education training or higher, and were aged between 22 and 55

years. The sample of internet users in this study is characteristic of the “typical”

demographic profile of an internet user in Australia: young adults, males, those with

a Bachelor degree or above or those in a metropolitan area (Australian Bureau of

Statistics, 2002). The P set used in the study represented a marginally larger number

of women than men, and was older, than the “typical” internet user profiled by the

Australian Bureau of Statistics. However, for participant selection it was considered

more important to recruit internet users based on maximum variation in their

experiences. Furthermore, participants sampled did not experience the barriers to

access — material, skills or usage access barriers — which influence some lower

socio-economic groups’ experiences of the internet. The P set thus represents skilled

users of the internet, who had not experienced significant access barriers to

participation in social or economic activities online. In addition, these participants

represented diversity in opinions about the internet. As stated earlier, in Q studies

168


diversity is more important when selecting research participants, than is

proportionality in a random-sampling sense (Addams, 2000).

6.3 Factor analysis and interpretation

Factor analysis is widely used within marketing research and analysis. However,

psychometrics of Q call for the correlation and factoring of persons as opposed to

variable tests and traits which are the focus in R factor analysis studies. The use of

factor analysis is fundamental to Q analysis, because it is the statistical means by

which “like minded” participants in Q studies are grouped. Just as factor analysis is

performed to condense information in R studies, a Q procedure data reduction seeks

correlations between variables in the data, where the variables are the participants

completing the Q sort. The resulting factors in this study thus represent each

participant’s internal frame of reference about internet activities, opinions and

experiences of the social aspects of the internet technology (Stewart, 1989).

In Q analysis, participants who are significantly loaded on a factor are assumed to

share a common perspective with one another, whilst those who load negatively on

the same factor hold opposite points of view (Addams, 2000). The factor analysis

simply lends statistical clarity to the behaviour order, implicit in the Pearsonian

correlations matrix produced, by revealing the similarly (or dissimilarly) evidenced

in the Q sorts. In Study 2, factorisation simplified the interpretive task substantially

by drawing attention to the typological nature of different segments. These

categorisations were used to guide discoveries about similarities in opinions, as well

as to provide the opportunity to explore patterns of relationship among individual

responses (Addams, 2000; McKeown & Thomas, 1988).

Q analysis has a unique statistic interpretation and emphasis. Brown et al. (1999, p.

615) points out, for example, that the number and content of factors are ‘emergent

and purely empirical features of the thinking and feeling of the persons who provided

the Q sorts’. Therefore, the statistical results presented in the following analysis are

not dependent upon the kind of external statistical norms which underlie much R

methodology work. That is, no assumptions made required that the internet users

who completed the Q sorts were relative to anyone else (Brown, 1980, p. 19). In Q

studies the item distributions are operant. Each Q sorter represented their opinions

169


and experiences of the internet through operationalising (sorting) the stimuli

(statements) in the Q sample. Hence, each Q sort is subjectively based on an

individual user’s behaviour and perspective of the internet, as they have ranked the

statements from their own subjective viewpoint. A three factor solution was judged

best to represent profiles of the internet users interviewed. Before detailing the

profiles, the Q analytical moves used during interpretation are outlined in the

following section.

6.3.1 Three factor solution

Following the 32 Q sorts, data was entered into the PCQ software package (Stricklin

& Almeida, 2002), which intercorrelates all Q sorts and informs profiles or models

generated. Variance was calculated by the PCQ software at 4.43. Solutions were run

from a seven-factor to two-factor solutions, before the final solution was accepted.

Within the Q community, there is some disagreement over when to stop factoring.

Brown (1980, p. 223) recommends running solutions with more factors than it is

expected will be significant. Following this recommendation, seven centroids —

simple summation method (McKeown & Thomas, 1988) — were initially extracted.

Brown (1980, p. 32) suggests requesting seven, because ‘insignificant factors

frequently contain small amounts of systematic variance that can help in improving

the loadings on a major factor’, and ‘after rotation, insignificant residual factors are

merely discarded’. Furthermore, this process assists interpretation because the

researcher is continually positing possible explanations for the factor arrays until the

best explanation has been developed. In Study 2, relevance of the profiles generated

was guided by relating the discourse and relationships between statements against the

current internet and society literature.

A three factor solution was ultimately selected, based on ease of interpretation, with

21 sorts out of the 32 aligned significantly with the three factor structure. The factor

groupings reflect actual internet user segments as opposed to the logical categories

(age, gender, income, time online) typically applied in internet user studies. Whilst a

variety of statistical criteria has guided the selection of the three factor solution,

Brown (1980, p. 42) suggests that the importance of factor solutions cannot be 3 In Q method, variance is a function of the number of items and the number of piles in the Q-

sort. It is not an arbitrary setting. In Study 2 this was a function of 50 statements and nine statement piles (M. Stricklin personal communication, 15 July, 2004).

170


determined by statistical criteria alone. He recommends that researchers also take

into account the contextual setting to which the factor is organically connected. As a

result, it is just as important to distinguish between the theoretical and the statistical

factors in Q methodology. As a general principle, Q emphasises the former while

foregoing sole reliance on the latter (ibid, 1980). At a practical level, McKeown and

Thomas (1988, pp. 52-53) suggest ‘common sense offers the best counsel when

determining the importance of factors, that is, their contextual significance in light of

the problems, purposes, and the theoretical issues in the research project’.

Using PCQ software (Stricklin & Almeida, 2002), correlation coefficients calculated

a correlation matrix which measured each sort’s relationship, based on Q factor

analysis. This correlates the persons, not traits, to reveal factors that represent

internet users’ points of view. The factor analysis thus represented an internally

coherent scheme of relational claims about the domain of users’ experiences

involving the internet (Addams, 2000). The significant level for factor scores in

Study 2 was calculated by PCQ as ±.36, meaning a sort must have a factor loading of

at least .36 to become associated with a factor4. The approach follows the ‘rule of

thumb’ in factor analysis that some elements should go above 0.30, while none

should exceed 0.90 (see Brown, 1980, pp. 204-7). Importantly, whilst the 0.3 ‘rule of

thumb’ guided initial interpretation, it was progressive factoring, based on theoretical

relevance guiding the addition (or exclusion) of statements to each profile of internet

behaviour, that was of higher importance in finalising the solution. Table 6.3 reports

the factor loadings for all 32 Q sorts.

Using varimax rotation highlighted factor arrays — these are idealised Q sort, which

essentially are composites of Q sorts calculated on factor scores5. The factor arrays

selected are thus more like the array of the participant who has very high loading on

the factor. In some cases:

factors may be exemplified by the sorting of a number of people or, in some cases, by the sort of just one person [or ‘exemplar’] …

4 Factor loadings are deemed significant if they exceed +/-2.58 (1/SQRT(N)), where N is the

number of statements in the Q sample. In the current study N=50, which produced a .36 criterion.

5 A factor score is the score gained by each statement of the Q set as a kind of weighted average of the scores, given that statement by the Q sorts associated with the factor (Brown, 1993, p. 27).

171


Exemplificatory sorts are those which have a high loading (usually somewhere between +0.7 and +0.9) on that factor and only very low loadings (usually we set this point a >0.3 or thereabouts) elsewise.

(Curt, 1994, p. 123)

Table 6.3: Rotated factor loadings

Factor Factor Internet

User A B C h2 Internet

User A B C h2

User01 71* -5 -22 57 User17 18 9 -50* 29

User02 73* 1 6 54 User18 12 -25 -12 9

User03 2 -15 -70* 52 User19 30 -34 -12 22

User04 62* 9 -27 47 User20 71* -18 -10 55

User05 52* -23 -27 40 User21 -18 25 32 20

User06 -24 -49 -9 31 User22 73* 11 -6 55

User07 75* -21 -3 61 User23 59* -29 -4 44

User08 -12 -71* -2 52 User24 19 -54* 25 39

User09 66* 11 -35 57 User25 37* -49* -18 42

User10 44* -47* -8 42 User26 24 -33 -6 17

User11 19 -25 -51* 37 User27 -18 -24 35 21

User12 19 -13 -30 14 User28 -16 6 -46* 24

User13 46* 17 -44* 44 User29 6 -28 -50* 33

User14 19 -19 -51* 34 User30 46* -34 23 39

User15 76* -28 -11 67 User31 4 -71* -13 53

User16 15 -7 -7 3 User32 69* -15 -42* 68

Eigens 6.52 3.23 3.05 12.80

% expl. Var.

20 10 10 40

Denotes: * significant at .36; confounded participants; participants with no significant loading

Exemplar participants in Study 2 were recruited for follow-up interviews after the Q

sorting process. However, when determining the final factor arrays for Study 2,

several Q sorters exemplified each factor presented. In this situation, a “best

172


estimate” of the pattern is obtained using a weighting and averaging procedure.

Addams (2000, p. 29) explains that the weighting procedure takes into account the

relative differences in the magnitude of significant loadings, which indicate the

extent to which a Q sort is associated with the viewpoint of a particular factor.

Therefore, participants with higher factor loadings are more representative of the

factors. When factor arrays are completed a table of factor scores can be derived to

summaries the information (see Appendix 7: Reporting z-scores and equivalent

factor scores).

Table 6.3 also illustrates that, in addition to the eleven participants with significant

pure loadings on Factor A, four had significant loadings on Factor B alone, and six

had pure loadings on Factor C. The table also reveals four participants (10, 13, 25,

32) with significant loadings on more than one factor; that is, these people represent

two or more factor types. The remaining seven participants (12, 16, 18, 19, 21, 26,

27) did not have a significant loading on any of the factors, indicating that the Q sorts

provided by these participants were distinctive and unrelated to the established

profiles. As Schlinger (1969, p. 57) points out:

One advantage of the factor analysis is that it detects those persons who, whether because of error or because of individuality of their attitudes, are idiosyncratic with respect to other respondents in the study and who, therefore, should be considered separately, or not all. Such persons are a source of error and distortion.

The communalities (h2), reported in Table 6.3, indicate the percentage of

commonality of the Q sort responses with the factors defined by other users’ attitudes

and experiences. Therefore, the h2 values for internet users 12, 16, 18, 19, 21, 26, and

27 are low. Specifically, these users had least in common with the other 21 users that

defined the three internet user profiles discussed in the remainder of the chapter. It is

the further analysis of the user profiles, that identify clusters of internet users’

attitudes and experiences, which are of interest to social marketing planning and

segmentation strategy, because the different attitudes and behaviours revealed in

each profile will require differentiated strategies and tactics (Kotler, Adams, Brown

& Armstrong, 2003).

173


6.3.2 Reliability of factors

Brown (1980, p. 245) explains that in Q method the ‘more persons defining a factor,

the higher the reliability … the higher a factor’s reliability, therefore, the lower the

magnitude of error associated with that factor’s scores’. In addition, a rule of thumb

used by Stephenson (1967, p. 24) for determining significance, is that a factor is

accepted if there are two or more Q sorts loaded significantly on it. Guided by these

suggestions, the three factors in the solution presented are significant (<.36). To

facilitate discussion further, normalised factor scores for each factor are also reported

(see Appendix 8: Normalised factor scores). Typically in Q studies, however, it is

sufficient to argue findings in terms of rounded scores (+4 to -4), since as a general

rule differences in scores of 2 or more are considered significant (p <0.01) (Addams,

2000, p. 32). Managing data using rounded scores simplifies reporting of

distinguishing statements6 for each segment identified. Thus, in each of the following

sections, factors are discussed based on interpreting users’ placement of statements

to examine the interrelationships between statement ordering (e.g., +4, +3, -3, -4) for

each factor (Brown, 1980). In addition, profiled segments are differentiated from one

another by indicating the distinguishing statements, which refined understanding of

the difference between each segment (see Appendix 9: Summary of distinguishing

statements in three-factor solution).

As noted earlier, it is important in Q research never to claim that participants in the

study are representative of some larger population, because Q methodology focuses

on an intensive form of analysis which uses small numbers of participants (Dryzek &

Berejikian, 1993). Researchers using Q methodology are not concerned with

population statistics, but with why and how people in the study believe what they do.

Brown (1980, p. 66) has highlighted that representativeness in Q is a matter of the

concourse (outlined in Section 5.5). As a result, any discourse (i.e. factor) that is

identified ‘will generally prove a genuine representation of that discourse as it exists

within a larger population of persons’. Brown (1980, p. 67) states that generalisations

in Q analysis terms:

6 In Q analysis, a distinguishing statement signifies that the score on one factor is at least three

ranked ‘piles’ away from all other factors. In mathematic terms this translates to a difference of a least one standard deviation (Stricklin, M. personal communication, 15 July, 2004).

174


are expected to be valid for other persons of the same type, i.e., for those persons whose views would lead them to load highly on factor A … [so that] five or six persons loaded significantly on a factor are normally sufficient to produce highly reliable factor scores, and it is in terms of the relationships among the factor scores that general statements about an attitude are made.

The following section discusses three internet user segments. Interpretation of

significant factors was guided by statistical significance, yet a stronger emphasis was

placed on interpreting the factors by “typical discourses”. This was accomplished by

seeking out overall patterns and interrelationships of items in the reconstructed

(ideal) Q Sort, which represented distinct internet users’ experiences (Addams, 2000,

p. 32). It was essential at this interpretative stage to examine the interrelationships

between items, and probe any internal inconsistencies — which required explanation,

rather than out-of-hand dismissal (Dryzek & Berejikian, 1993, p. 52). Two further

procedures were undertaken to aid interpretation of the user segments. These

involved the use of:

• Socio-economic data (age, gender and internet experience). This was collected

during the Q sort process to explain characteristics of some of the specific

segments outlined. Addams (2000, p. 33) emphasises, however, that no

individual is a pure example of any of the discourse profiles presented, because

individuals usually have aspects of several discourses in varying degrees.

• Post Q sort interviews (n=3). Interviews were conducted with three ‘exemplars’

in order to ‘negotiate and flesh out summaries with them’ (Stainton Rogers,

1991, pp. 130-1), and to relate their internet experiences to online pro-social

behaviours. An exemplar was identified as the Q sorter with the highest loading

from each factor. Qualitative statements from interviews have been added to the

factor scores from each profile to clarify the users’ perspective in each case.

6.4 Segmentation of internet users

The following discussion presents the interpretation of significant factors and

“typical discourses” which defined three internet users’ segments: Internet

Communitarians, Information Networkers and Individualised Networkers. Each

section focuses on analysis of factors as they were reflected in the Q sorts. Identified

statements (reported using statement numbers), combined with factor scores of +4,

175


+3, -3, and -4, are used to reflect the intense feelings and attitudes of each

respondent, which characterise and differentiate each segment. In addition, factor

scores have been summarised in two separate tables for each segment, highlighting

high salience statements and secondary level attitudes and opinions about the

internet. The following analysis has thus focused primarily on the interpretation of

statements (Brown, 1980, pp. 23-24). Where appropriate, attention is drawn to the

strength of users’ feelings by reporting the positive and negative feeling identified

from normalised scores.

6.4.1 Internet user segment I: Internet communitarians

Internet Communitarians are those who illustrate an optimistic view of the internet’s

contribution to society. They value the potential for social gathering online,

perceiving the internet as a space in which to cooperate, to participate in emotional

exchanges and to be involved in online communities of interest (as shown in Table

6.4). Eight females and three males were aligned with the largest factor, explaining

20% of the variance. The females were aged between 28 and 46 years and males

between 40 and 55 years. Whilst the “typical” internet user profile is a skilled male

user, the dominance of females in this profile confirms earlier research, which has

found that, since 2000, more women have been reshaping the online landscape by

engaging the technology to maintain important relationships and to enlarge their

social worlds (Rainie & Kohut, 2000). This trend is also supported by the dominance

of more highly involved internet users in this category. That is, no self-reported

‘basic’ users, who identified the internet as being a more functional tool for

information exchange, are evident in this segment. Describing the Internet

Communitarian using the P set description of experience (see Table 6.2: P-Set

structure of internet user attitudes & opinions), five users identified their online

behaviour as highly involving, in that they regularly exchanged information online,

maintained family and friendship relationships online, and also supported and

collaborated with “strangers” through participation in online communities of interest.

The remaining six Internet Communitarians described online involvement as seeking

and exchanging information, but also as maintaining family and friendship ties.

Internet Communitarians value the internet because it makes them part of a global

community (Statement 8). As Cassandra explained:

176


… I just love being out there … that sense of being able to share experiences and interests with pretty much anyone, anywhere. And I guess that’s really what it comes down to … the feeling that there are things that are common to both our lives regardless of where that person is … Russia, or Wales, or wherever … we have enough in common …

Table 6.4: Factor A: High salience statements

Statement Factor Score

The internet’s about empowerment of individuals, but it … depends on how humans use it to their advantage. [13]

+4

* I’m very positive about what the internet can offer on a communication basis for people … it’s creating communication where there was none. [47]

+4

The value of the internet is the network; it makes us a global community. [8]

+4

* I’m optimistic about the internet to a certain extent, in that it connects isolated communities and communities that wouldn’t necessarily have an opportunity to connect with others at all. [18]

+3

I’ve got a friend whose partner is very sick and he spends a lot of time on the Net getting support from other people in the same circumstances. The internet’s really useful for helping and supporting people. [14]

+3

… the internet does politicise people, because they’re taking the time online to talk about issues and the big picture. [49]

+3

I think the internet’s good because it’s interactive, there is a discussion back and forth and you can actually have discussion on a subject, you’re not just being told things, you’re discussing them with someone. So that’s certainly leads to more in-depth and more rounded views than what you get on the six o’clock news at nights. [20]

+3

I’m concerned about false information on the Net. Even government’s putting information up on websites use disclaimers that say they’re not responsible for anything on the site. I think it’s easier to trust a book. [9]

-3

When I actually got to use the internet it wasn’t as wonderful as I thought it was going to be.[36]

-3

* I don’t trust email communication. I don’t think it’s private. So, perhaps our communication will become shallower. [41]

-3

* If people weren’t spending so much time on the internet, they’d be out working in their physical communities, which would be better for everyone. [45]

-3

I don’t think the internet is people, I think it’s just information. [17] -4

* Other people are setting your agenda on the internet. [24] -4

* Having friends online doesn’t help at the end of the day because these friends can’t really get help from, or give assistance. [40]

-4

Note: *distinguishing statement

Also evident in this profile is a belief that the internet is more than “just

information”. For these internet users, technology is important for connecting them

177


with people (Statement 17). Cassandra’s comment during an interview demonstrates

this point:

I think the value of the internet is the people, the information’s great, I couldn’t do my job, my study, anything without that, but it’s the fact it can — it’s quick, it’s easy — and it’s also the fact that is leads to other sources … other contacts which probably is its true value, for me at least.

(In-depth interview, October 2004)

The Internet Communitarians’ perspective is contrary to the dystopian view, which

argues that the internet will intensify people’s weakening commitment to community

(see for example, Tönnies, 2001; Putnam, 2000), exacerbate social isolation, and

create ephemeral relationships that are shallow and transient. In fact, Internet

Communitarians are very positive about what the internet can offer on a

communication basis for people, as they believe that the technology facilitates

‘communication where there was none’ (Statement 47). Furthermore, rather than

believing that the internet is an isolating force, these users believe the technology

‘connects isolated communities’ (Statement 18). Reflecting on her experience whilst

participating in a community of interest about rural issues, Cassandra, a woman from

metropolitan Brisbane, explained:

I can recall where there were stories from people sitting there at four o’clock in the morning during the drought and … pouring stuff out onto the page … people were sharing suffering … I personally haven’t experienced that … but I can see that it’s obviously been something really valuable for other people …

… even if you don’t actually send something back, there’s a real sense of empathy and hopefully a kind of development and understanding of how people feel about their lives.


Internet Communitarians are involved in hyperpersonal communication online,

exchanging information and dialogue in online communities of interest which they

find supportive, because online they give and receive resources which can help

people through problems, such as sickness (Statement 14). Having friends online can

also provide help and assistance to these users (Statement 40). Cassandra recounted a

story of her experience of an email exchange with a work associate, which

178


demonstrates the types of emotional exchanges that can become integrated into

everyday life using the internet:

… the other day I had an email from … [Barbara]… and she’s always very optimistic, always very in control [but] she’d had some bad experiences with her employer … it was the most amazing email because she went on and on … and listed off — not of complaints, but what she’s actually experienced — she was very stressed and described it in quite some detail — it was a real outpouring of frustration.

Interviewer: She unloaded on you?

Cassandra: Completely! And it was good to be able to shoot something back and say ‘Well, you know, I can understand how you’re feeling about that’ and it just kind of bounded back and forth and while it we’ve never been close, it was nice that she felt that she could unload that and that I knew enough about the circumstances to be able to be empathetic.


Evident in the above extract is the fact that Cassandra values interactivity, a

characteristic which supports peer-to-peer sharing and increases sharing of

experiences. Haythornthwaite (2000, 1996) and others (for example, Granovetter,

1973) argue that these types of online supporting relationships also increase an

individual’s exposure to ideas, techniques, and approaches to problem solving. This

is further evidenced in the Communitarians’ profile, which holds that ‘the internet’s

good because its interactive, there is a discussion back and forth and you can

actually have a discussion on the subject … which leads to more rounded views …’

(Statement 20). For Internet Communitarians, discussion online enables them to talk

about the ‘big issues’, and they believe online discussion might lead to politicising

people (Statement 49). Cassandra did qualify her enthusiasm about the internet,

revealing that she is also critical of the information gathered online:

You probably need to be just as critical as you’d be of the six o’clock news, you know … [the internet’s] got the potential to lead you all sorts of directions but I still think you need to be critical …


This however is not a reflection of strong concerns about the quality of information.

Profiled in the Internet Communitarian segment is a belief that information gathered

from the internet is no less trustworthy than information published in book

(Statement 9). As Cassandra noted:

179


… [it’s] the same issue about credibility for any source really … maybe it’s easier to trust a book, but I think it’s still — I’m concerned about false information in whatever source — whether it’s the TV … a book … or a newspaper.


Table 6.4 above summaries the factor score drawn from the statements discussed,

demonstrating Internet Communitarians have strong positive attitudes about the

social aspects of internet information and emotional exchanges. Examination of the

normalised scores also reveals consistency in positive attitudes and experiences of

the internet (see Appendix 8: Normalised factor scores).

To a lesser extent, Internet Communitarians believe the internet provides a safe

environment to talk about sensitive issues (Statement 30) (see Table 6.5).

Additionally, their online behaviour is not influenced significantly by fears or

concerns about internet traits (for example, anonymity or interactivity), or perceived

problems. For example, they include private information in emails (Statement 39).

Cassandra qualified this behaviour, saying:

… email is traceable … anything that you put in an email can be printed out, can be forwarded. … There’s always some possibility that it can end up somewhere that you don’t want it to.

I’ve got a hotmail address which doesn’t identify who I am and there’s a number of time I’ve used that.


Furthermore, these users are not concerned about quality of information (Statement

16), because they do not believe that it is any more of a problem online than it is in

offline media; nor do they believe it is difficult to find relevant information online

(Statement 44). This is not to say however that they are not judicious about the

information they collect online. This is revealed by a weak negative attitude towards

using the internet to get a second opinion (Statement 46). Internet Communitarians

do not illustrate strong privacy concerns, probably because they do not see the

internet as technology that controls them. Rather, they believe the technology is all

about how people use it to better themselves and their community (Statement 34),

and that the internet empowers individuals (Statement 13) because it enables people

180


to have more control of what they are seeing and doing and the sources of

information they have to choose from (Statement 50). Cassandra explained:

I have control over this environment … I think that being able to go to [a] source 24 hours a day … being able to contact people or find a piece of information that is part of jigsaw puzzle … to be able to put it together … Or a lead that will send me some other direction; I think that’s an empowering thing that you’ve got access to all that, all the time.


Table 6.5: Factor A: Lower salience statements


The thing I find really exciting about the internet is the number of people I can network and connect with. It means that you can actually find a group of people that you will be able to have something in common with. [15]

+2

I think that there’s a world before the Net and there’s a world after the Net and I think that the change is fundamental and really significant … it represents a fundamental change in the way people do stuff or interact … [33]

+2

Information quality is a big issue on the internet. But it is in any form of media. [16]

+2

The internet is empowering people to have more control over what they’re seeing, or doing, or thinking about. [50]

+2

How good the internet will be depends on how a person uses it and how the person actually uses it to better themselves for the good of society and things like that. [34]

+2

The proof is in the pudding, isn’t it actually about getting people to go to the rally, to actually front up. It’s all very well sitting at your desk and supporting action, but isn’t it more important to actually be there? [27]

-2

One good thing about the Net is that because there is so much information, it gives the perception that you might get a second person’s opinion. If everybody says the same thing, then you can assume yes, it’s on the right track. [46]

-2

You need a safe environment to be able to talk about sensitive issues online. I don’t know if that’s possible on the Internet. [30]

-2

I would never write anything private in an email, I don’t think that they’re private. [39]

-2

It takes a lot of time to find information on the Internet because a lot of the stuff on the Internet is either wrong, irrelevant or not useful anyway. [44]

-2

Internet Communitarians were significantly different from the other two segments in

the sorting of statements 16, 18, 24, 40, 41, 45 and 47 (see Appendix 9: Summary of

distinguishing statements). These factors highlight strong feelings about the

supportive nature of online communities. They also demonstrate belief in users’

181


control over the technology, rather than being controlled by the technology or other

peoples’ agendas online:

I feel very much in control of what I can get out of the internet basically … these are particular needs that I’ve got and I can go to that as a vast encyclopedia and network that I can tap into and sometimes I’ll get what I want, and sometimes I won’t. But it’s a place I go to frequently.


Internet Communitarians strongly believe that other people do not set a user’s

agenda online (Statement 24). This is probably why they do not perceive privacy

concerns in online relationships and exchanges. In fact, Internet Communitarians use

email to share private information and they do not just have shallow conversations

online (Statement 41). Drawing on her teenage son’s online experience, Cassandra

explained how teenagers create ‘different names all the time on “msn” to indicate

whatever’s happening in their lives’. She recounted a story about her son’s

exchanged of emotion online after the death of friend:

… a young girl was killed, she was from [a different school] and a lot of the kids knew her and there was a real outpouring; they used the technology to support each other through that, including the boys. … They were changing their names during the whole outpouring …

Interviewer: … using different names to express how they were feeling?

Cassandra: Yes, including the boys … I think that traditional thing about boys and computers …[that] they play games and girls use it to communicate … I’ve seen boys using it just as much as a social connection …


These users demonstrate strong attitudes and beliefs about the value of online

community. They believe in the supportive nature of online exchanges and

relationships that can help in times of trouble (Statement 40). They also strongly

believe people’s time invested online is not detracting from work and commitment to

their physical communities (Statement 45). In summary, Internet Communitarians

are optimistic about the role of the internet and they do not demonstrate any of the

dystopian concerns about the role of the internet in people’s lives. Rather, they

believe the internet is a persuasive technology which can empower individuals, and

182


that online their communication is hyperpersonal in that it is both supportive and

helpful both to themselves, and to other people in their networks.

6.4.2 Internet user segment II: Information networkers

This internet user segment is moving away from interactions in groups and towards

more personalised networking. Their internet behaviour focuses on personal

information needs. They are not interested in community building opportunities

online, nor in seeking out social support or emotional exchanges from online

interactions. Demographically, the factor was defined by three males and one female,

explaining 10% of variance. These users were aged between 27 and 42. The

Information Networker segment is dominated by users who described their level of

internet involvement during interviews as including functional information

exchanges, as well as maintenance of relationships with family and friends. One

Information Networker self-reported their internet behaviour as primarily

information exchanges, which was categorized as ‘basic’ level participation in the

study. No individuals who identified themselves during interviews as being more

highly involved in internet interactions loaded on this segment.

The Information Networker enjoys the unique traits of the internet. They like being

anonymous online (Statement 11), as well as participating in interactive discussions

where they find more information online (Statement 20), because this gives them the

sense that they are getting a second person’s opinion (Statement 46). Kristie

accounted for her regular participation in an email discussion list stating:

… it’s a nice network which lets you see what’s happening and you sort of monitor it … I’ve sent and responded to a few messages, but you don’t expect too much from it … they’re work related .. [but] there’s always the possibility that something will come up that’s useful. And it has! It certainly has …


Interestingly, whilst these internet users value the internet’s network functionality

(Statement 8), they demonstrate strong, anti-community sentiments. This is

evidenced in the negative loadings associated with the ‘virtual community’

statements (see Table 6.1: Structure of Q sample) from the Q set. Specifically,

Information Networkers strongly feel that people ‘cannot receive help and support

183


from people online’ (Statement 14), and do not believe that the internet is providing

an opportunity for isolated communities to connect with others (Statement 18). These

beliefs are also supported by their view that ‘at the end of the day friends online

can’t really help, or give assistance’ (Statement 40); they also do not believe that

people participating in online lists form a community (Statement 2) (see Table 6.7).

Kristie justified this sentiment saying:

I just can’t imagine me getting support online. It’s just not me. … I think it’s a very impersonal medium for a start, so when it comes to personal issues, I’m not actually interested in what a lot of people have to say, you know. They’re not going to be experts who could offer me anything, so why would I bother? I’m not the kind of person who will sit down and wallow in an issue with people.


These users do not exhibit strong concerns about information quality issues online.

Table 6.6 highlights that they disagree with the statement that ‘information quality is

an issue’ on the internet (Statement 16) and they do not believe ‘it takes a lot of time

to find information, or that it is wrong, irrelevant, or not useful’ (Statement 44).

Furthermore, they are not concerned with false information online and disagree that

‘it’s easier to trust a book’ (Statement 9). However, Kristie qualified her information

seeking behaviour online, saying:

When I have an issue that I feel I don’t know a lot about and I didn’t know where to get information about it, then I’d go to the internet. … [Also] I go to different organisations … get different [information] from multiple organisations … — yeah it gives you a good sense about different opinions. …

But if I was diagnosed with cancer or something, I would expect to get all the information I needed from my doctor.


Kristie’s sentiment is reflected in the Information Networker segment’s strong

disagreement with the statement that they ‘use the Net to find out as much as they

can about important issues’ (Statement 4). Later in the interview, Kristie added more

about her internet behaviour, saying:

I certainly make a division on how I use the internet for work — where I use it heaps, versus how I use it for my personal source of information, which is far less. [Whilst] I might keep in touch with people who I’ve met

184


at conferences or I might be collaborating with on something … that’s important to my job … but with friends, and personal issues I prefer much more to communicate by phone or face-to-face.


Table 6.6: Factor B: High salience statements

Statement Factor Score I think the internet’s good because it’s interactive, there is a discussion back and forth and you can actually have discussion on a subject, you’re not just being told things, you’re discussing them with someone. So that’s certainly leads to more in-depth and more rounded views than what you get on the six o’clock news at nights. [20]

+4


+4

I like being anonymous online, I can be anybody.[11] +4 … the internet does politicise people, because they’re taking the time online to talk about issues and the big picture. [49]

+3


+3


+3

You need a safe environment to be able to talk about sensitive issues online. I don’t know if that’s possible on the internet. [30]

+3


-3

It takes a lot of time to find information on the internet because a lot of the stuff on the internet is either wrong, irrelevant, or not useful anyway. [44]

-3

* By using the internet I keep in touch with people more than I ever would have done before. [29]

-3

I use the Net to find out as much as I can about issues that are important to me. [4]

-3

* I’ve got a friend whose partner is very sick and he spends a lot of time on the Net getting support from other people in the same circumstances. The internet’s really useful for helping and supporting people. [14]

-4

I’m optimistic about the internet to a certain extent, in that it connects isolated communities and communities that wouldn’t necessarily have an opportunity to connect with others at all. [18]

-4


-4


This sentiment, of the internet not replacing other communication modalities such as

phone and face-to-face, is reflected in the user profile’s strong disagreement with the

185


statement — ‘by using the internet I keep in touch with people more than I ever

would have done before’ (Statement 29).

Information Networkers have some interest in using the internet to participate in

discussions on the big issues, rather than personal issues. To a lesser extent (see

Table 6.7), they believe that the ‘internet can empower people’ (Statement 13), and

that individuals ‘have more control online in what they say and do’ (Statement 50),

to the extent that they believe being online ‘can politicise people, because they’re

taking the time … to talk about issues and the big picture’ (Statement 49). Kristie

explained her experience, stating:

I think it is a control thing, because there’s a particular need — I want to know this or I want to make this contact and that’s a tool to do that. … I would never touch the games and all that sort of stuff that the kids all play; it doesn’t interest me at all. It’s totally to do with finding the targeted information to meet whatever need I might have at that moment


This behaviour is also supported by the opportunity to get second opinions, which

gives these users the sense that they are on the right track (Statement 46). In Kristie’s

experience she accounted for this feeling, stating:

I’m thinking with work and mailing groups that I’m on … which simply wouldn’t exist without these technologies … and it’s easy to just stay in touch with things that interest you and to easily hear what other people are thinking and saying about things …


These internet users however, do not feel that the ‘internet is a safe environment to

talk about sensitive issues’ (Statement 30), nor that it is an environment to ‘talk about

deeply, personal information because people can be anonymous’ (Statement 6).

These statements, and the others highlighted earlier in the discussion, further

reinforce this segment’s negative attitude towards the social aspects of online

communication and support. They like the information online and the opportunity for

people not just to be information consumers online, but also “information

generators” (Statement 42). For example, they believe the internet is more than just

information, in that it can also be used as ‘an activists tool’ (Statement 3). Their

political interest however, is balanced by some concerns about ‘others setting

186


agendas using the internet’ (Statement 24), and the feeling that ‘some people could

legitimately drive a cause online without any real commitment to the cause’

(Statement 10). Kristie explained:

… if there’s a particular issue that they’re concerned about … they’re hearing other peoples points of view, they’re perhaps getting enthused — I think it does work a bit that way …

But some of those social cause emails that come around, regardless of how valuable … how much I might agree with them, I usually delete without ever doing anything further about that, because I think they just come through — they’re so many of them and they’re been so many instances where they’re basically just SPAM — I don’t have any faith that those sorts of things actually do any good.


Table 6.7: Factor B: Low salience statements


The internet’s really changed the way people exist, instead of just being receivers of information; you have to generate information now as well. [42]

+2


+2

Having friends online doesn’t help at the end of the day because these friends can’t really get help from, or give assistance. [40]

+2

Other people are setting your agenda on the internet. [24] +2


+2

I’m not particularly optimistic about the internet in the sense that like any powerful thing, it’s about whether or not you can actually afford to access it. [21]

-2

I guess I don’t use the Net to be an activist, because I don’t think of it as that sort of tool. It’s more just an information tool. [3]

-2


-2

People participating in a list serve form a community just as surely as any group of people bound by geography or thought. [2]

-2

I think people talking about some deeply, personal, disturbing material is enabled by being able to assume a slightly anonymous persona online. [6]

-2

Information Networkers are significantly different from the other two segments in the

sorting of statements 14, 17, and 29. Significantly, these internet users feel strongly

that people cannot obtain support during times of crisis online, and that the internet is

187


neither helpful nor useful for supporting people (Statement 14). Whilst they do think

that ‘the internet has fundamentally changed the way people do things and interact’

(Statement 33), analysis of statements indicates that this opinion is related to

information, not to connection with people or the ability to sustain relationships

online. Information Networkers personally do not use the internet to stay in contact

with people more than they would have in the past (Statement 29). Interestingly, this

segment is the only one which viewed the internet as information, rather than as a

network of people connecting the information (Statement 17). Kristie explained her

attitude towards online information, saying:

… information’s available in lots of different places … [and] the thing we know is that multiple sources of information are most important … and that’s because we’re inconsistent in the way we go to places and what we like to use to get our information … and we’re much more likely to hit a message if we come across it in different places and at different times … so the more sources we can use the better, but I certainly don’t think online material can replace anything else …I think it’s an addition..


In summary, Information Networkers are primarily concerned with the big picture —

dealing with political and social issues, rather than dealing with personal issues or

helping people through internet connection. Nevertheless, they benefit from

interactive discussions online, which gives them a “second opinion”. These users do

not participate in online community life, but benefit from information networking

which enables them to discuss and exchange information.

6.4.3 Internet user segment III: Individualised networkers

Individualised Networkers are people who prefer communication with like-minded

people online, and use the technology to stay connected to people they have

established relationships with (see Table 6.8). Six Q sorters, four females and two

males, aged between 22 and 41 years, were aligned with only this factor, explaining

10% of variance. These users predominately self-reported their online involvement

as primarily information exchange (i.e., basic level participation). One female

respondent in the segment identified with being more involved in online behaviour in

that she noted using the internet to also maintain family and friendship relationships.

188


Table 6.8: Factor C: High salience statements


*So much of my personal and social interactions with close friends happen electronically. It’s a real frustration for me when I have a friend that’s part of my immediate social group that doesn’t have email contact. [19]

+4

*I think I’ve got a greater opportunity to meet more like-minded people online, than in my local community. [22]

+4

*I would never write anything private in an email, I don’t think that they’re private. [39]

+4


+3

Other people are setting your agenda on the internet. [24] +3

If people weren’t spending so much time on the internet, they’d be out working in their physical communities, which would be better for everyone. [45]

+3

*I’m concerned about false information on the Net. Even government’s putting information up on websites use disclaimers that say they’re not responsible for anything on the site. I think it’s easier to trust a book. [9]

+3

*It takes a lot of time to find information on the internet because a lot of the stuff on the internet is either wrong, irrelevant, or not useful anyway. [44]

-3


-3

I don’t think the internet is people, I think it’s just information. [17] -3

Information quality is a big issue on the internet — but it is in any form of media. [16]

-3

*The value of the internet is the network; it makes us a global community. [8]

-4


-4


-4

Note:*distinguishing statement

Contrary to the concerns of some scholars that the internet would lure people away

from in-person contact, the Individualised Networker profile describes those people

that use the internet for social and personal interactions. In fact, these users are

189


‘frustrated when family and friends’, or people in their local or close knit networks

cannot be contacted online (Statement 19). As Wellman’s (2001, p. 243) research has

indicated ‘it is clear that most people communicate with their friends, relatives,

neighbours and workmates by any means available and necessary, online and

offline’. Further, though to a lesser extent, the, Individualised Networkers also

believe that using the ‘internet has enabled them to keep in touch with people more

than they ever did before’ (Statement 29), and that it has actually increased physical

meetings with people that they have met online (Statement 48). Erin explained the

attraction of the convenience of technology for staying connected:

In a personal sense … it’s more that kind of touch-base kind of stuff, but for work the networking ability … it easier now to say in contact with clients … and actually now and then I just send email saying ‘Gidday, came across this and thought of you, how’s it going?’ But I wouldn’t use it to initiate a network connection.


This is not say, however, that Individualised Networkers feel the internet is better

than other forms of communication, since these users feel that sending an email is

not as good as talking on the telephone to friends and family (Statement 28) (see

Table 6.9 below):

I find the phone more personal … I just have an inclination that I’d rather catch up in person or via the phone for the big stuff and then the little stuff handle via the internet.


Being more personalised networkers, these internet users believe that they have a

greater ‘opportunity to find more like-minded people online’ (Statement 22), and find

it exciting that there are numbers of ‘people online with whom to connect and

network’ (Statement 15). In this sense they also think of the internet as an activist

tool (Statement 3), but their enthusiasm is weighted by some concerns about ‘others

setting the agenda online’ (Statement 24). These positions are reflective of broader

societal concerns about the internet’s influence. The Individualised Networker is less

optimistic about the internet. They feel that ‘if people were not spending so much

time online they would be doing more in their physical communities’ (Statement 45).

Erin’s comment illustrates this sentiment:

190


I think there is always opportunities to connect with others, the internet might make it easier in some cases, but it might make it false in others. So to me the internet is not a primary source of communication, it’s a really really strong secondary one.


The Individualised Networkers’ enthusiasm about online networking is moderated by

concerns and fears about internet technology. These users have privacy fears and

state that they would ‘never write anything private in an email’ (Statement 39) and

feel that a lack of privacy will lead to ‘shallower communication online’ (Statement

41). Erin clarified that her privacy concerns were influenced by the work

environment:

… that probably comes from my experience of working in organisations where people get sacked basically for abuse of the email system … where they do check emails regularly … because I know, particularly in a work sense, it is monitored.


These users are also concerned about children being stalked or exploited online

(Statement 23) and think that there are increased risks in people accessing names and

personal details online (Statement 31).

Yep, yep! Absolutely … concerns about stalking children … [the] subtext there also is that people are spending too much time on the internet and should be getting out and … probably that people do get hooked on the internet.


Related to this perspective of the internet was strong disagreement with the statement

‘the internet’s about empowerment of individuals, but it … depends on how humans

use it to their advantage’ (Statement 13). During a follow-up interview, Erin

contended:

I think the internet’s about exploiting it as much as you can. I don’t know that it’s about empowering people. Maybe that’s because of how I use it. I just use it to get the information that I need …

I think sometimes it can probably disempower people, the ones that become obsessed by it. [Also] I’m sure we’ve all done it, you sit down to find out one thing and four hours later you’ve gone off on a million tangents and you’ve achieved absolutely nothing and come away feeling

191


like you’re an idiot because you’ve done nothing. That’s not empowerment to me ….


Individualised Networkers also have concerns about false information online and

state that they find it ‘easier to trust information published in books’ (Statement 9).

They also feel that information quality concerns are not comparable to those for other

media sources (Statement 16). This concern, however, is balanced by the belief that

they can ‘find relevant and useful information easily online’ (Statement 44). During

the interview, Erin clarified this attitude by drawing on her work experience of

seeking useful information:

It’s so much quicker … you can get it in a few hours now, just trawling through … and you can get a lot stuff … and if it’s really good stuff you can then make the contact from there.

However, later during the interview she noted:

Both in a work and personal sense … I find there’s a bit of bullshit on the internet about all sorts of stuff and that you’ve got to be really careful.

[For example] … I had some tests and one of the tests came back that I was gluten intolerant and I was waiting for more test results so while I was doing that I jumped on and just did a search on it … and some of sites were … ‘I’m Jo Bloggs, I’ve got celiac disease and here’s all the problems …’ As opposed to the celiac societies. I’m inclined to dismiss any site that I can’t really verify the source of.


Whilst Individualised Networkers think of the internet as ‘more than just

information’ (Statement 17), their statement selection reveals that the network

facilitates connection to people to gather information. As Erin noted during the

interview, ‘information links you to people’; these links do not, however, relate to the

community aspects of the technology. They use the internet to stay connected with

family and friends, and do not value the internet’s network as a means to connect

with community (Statement 8), nor believe that it can ‘connect isolated communities

with others’ (Statement 18). Erin justified why she believed online communities

lacked value, stating:

I believe you’re more inclined to twist the truth when there’s nothing at stake, when you haven’t got to face people at some stage. When you can

192


opt out, when you get into a strong debate with someone that you know that you associate within a work or a personal sense, you’ve got to argue it through to completion, where you might decide ‘Hey I don’t like you’. But I think on the internet it’s much easier just to pull out and drop out ‘I’m not enjoying this any more and move on’ I just think it’s all a bit superficial. I think the whole internet community is a bit superficial.


To a lesser extent, Individualised Networkers enjoy the unique traits of the internet

― such as anonymity, where they can ‘assume another identity’ (Statement 11), ―

but they do not really think the internet has fundamentally changed the way people

‘do stuff or interact’ (Statement 33). Erin explained this view, stating, ‘I’m inclined

to think there’s not much of a world because of the net. … It’s going to just

increasingly become part of our lives’ (In-depth interview, October 2004).

Table 6.9: Factor C: Low salience statements

Statement Factor Score I don’t care about the types of information exchanged online, I want children to have as much information as they can about the world. I’m more concerned about the interactivity, the capacity for kids to get on the Net and then have someone being able to find them, or get their credit card number. [23]

+2

By using the Internet I keep in touch with people more than I ever would have done before. [29]

+2

I like being anonymous online, I can be anybody. [11] +2

I don’t trust email communication. I don’t think it’s private. So, perhaps our communication will become shallower.[41]

+2

I think the internet increases physical meeting, after meeting on the Net people what to meet face-to-face. [48]

+2

I’m optimistic about the Internet because I see a lot of potential out of it, but I see that you’ve got not a lot of choice but to be enthusiastic and just carve off your slice of it. [1]

-2

* I think that there’s a world before the Net and there’s a world after the Net and I think that the change is fundamental and really significant … it represents a fundamental change in the way people do stuff or interact … [33]

-2

People have access to your name, address, the things you like, your movements, where you go, what you do. But these risks exist anyway. [31]

-2

Sending email is a good way to maintain bonds with friends, but it’s not as good as talking on the telephone. [28]

-2

How good the Internet will be depends on how a person uses it and how the person actually uses it to better themselves for the good of society and things like that. [34]

-2


193


The seven statements which distinguished Individualised Networkers from the other

two segments in the sorting were statements 8, 9, 13, 19, 22, 33, and 39. More than

anything, these internet users value the internet for personal contact (Statement 19)

and as providing ‘a great opportunity to meet like minded people’ (Statement 22).

Their individual focus means that they have very little interest in the community

building aspects of the technology, and strongly believe the internet is not ‘making us

a global community’ (Statement 8). Their enthusiasm for online networking is

moderated by privacy concerns, to the extent that they will ‘never write anything

private in an email’ (Statement 39). They are also more concerned about information

quality issues (Statement 9) compared to the other two segments. Finally, whilst the

other two segments discussed believe the internet can empower individual users to

some extent, the Individualised Networker disagrees. Rather, this profile reveals

concerns about disempowerment (Statement 13).

6.5 Cross-factor comparisons: Areas of consensus

Factor analysis has been used during Q analysis to identify ideal types, which

represented distinct patterns of response and discourse about the internet. Also

revealed from the analysis are those statement items that have similar scores across

all factors, and thus point to areas of consensus and agreement amongst the factor

profiles. These consensus items add to the understanding of internet users’ opinions

and their online experience. PCQ software7 identified twelve consensus items in the

three factor solution (see Table 6.10 below).

Examination of the statements reveals users typically agreed around issues that were

mostly unimportant (i.e. were sorted as +/-1 or 0). The exception was Statement 44

concerning the time it takes to find information, ‘because a lot of the stuff on the

internet is wrong, irrelevant, or not useful anyway’. The Information Networker and

Individualised Networker disagreed strongly with this statement, possibly because

other statement items in their profiles indicate their online behaviour is highly

focused. By comparison, the issue is of less importance to the Internet

Communitarians, as they take time to participate and gather information from a range

of sources, which to them is a benefit, not a limitation.

7 PCQ compares each item across all factors in the study and declares a consensus if the scores are

in contiguous piles or not separated by more than one pile (Stricklin, 2004, email communication).

194


Table 6.10: Consensus items

Factors I II III

It takes a lot of time to find information on the Internet because a lot of the stuff on the internet is either wrong, irrelevant, or not useful anyway. [44]

-2 -3 -3

I’m skeptical about some of the people exchanging information online, so I take that information with a grain of salt. [37]

0 -1 -1

You’d only really developed a good sense of trust in an online relationship if you also met the person you regularly emailed face-to-face. [35]

-1 0 -1


0 0 -1

People could legitimately drive a cause online that they were not interested in, you know, from a totally anonymous point of view. [10]

0 1 0

I think people take on another identity online to fool others, as opposed to revealing more about themselves. [32]

0 1 0


-2 -1 -1

I’m much more likely to sign a hard paper petition down at the local shopping centre than I would be to sign something through email. [11]

-1 0 0

Participating in online discussion groups can effect change. For instance, I’ve been involved in a list that lobbied for change and we were successful. [26]

0 -1 0

I think the internet’s liberating; it lets people talk about issues that they wouldn’t talk about in other circumstances. [38]

1 0 0

Bulletin boards tend to attract people who are very driven by their particular experience and their cause and it’s quite easy to see how sometimes they can get a bit carried away. So the information’s anecdotal and personal, it isn’t substantiated basically. [12]

0 0 -1

I’m actually quite scared of the implications for the world, the numbers of people, the numbers of countries, the numbers of children who will never have access to a computer in their life. And what does that mean … whole populations are left behind. [7]

1 0 0

Also evident in the consensus statements is a theme about anonymity. This is a

subject that has been the source of contention amongst internet dystopians and

utopians who argue respectively that anonymity is harmful and deceptive or

liberating and empowering. However, the three segments identified were not

concerned about the influence of anonymity (Statements 37, 35, 5, 10, 32). The

195


remaining unimportant statements typify the more exaggerated experiences and

claims about the internet. As a consequence, they were not represented in the online

segments, which have sought to demonstrate more typically patterns of how the

internet is integrated into everyday life.

6.6 Discussion and implications for online social marketing

Q methodology is particularly well-suited to studying the inherent subjectivity in

people’s perceptions about the internet because it is a methodology that provides a

‘basis for measurement of feelings, attitudes, opinions, thinking, fantasy and all else

of a subjective nature’ (Stephenson, 1967, p. 11). Subjective feelings and experiences

impact on users’ innovation-adoption process, and innovation-diffusion theorists

(Rogers, 1995) suggest that attributes of innovation appeal differently to users (Lee

& Anderson, 2001). As Rogers and Shoemaker (1971, p. 138) have described, ‘[it] is

the receivers’ perceptions of the attributes of innovations, not the attributes as

classified by experts or change agents which influence the innovation-adoption

process’. The three segments described in this chapter demonstrate that people are

not uniform in their backgrounds, personalities, needs and levels of satisfaction with

new technologies, and thus they perceive the benefits and drawbacks of the internet

differently (Lee & Anderson, 2001).

Figure 6.2 below summarises the characteristics drawn from the profiles. Indicated in

all three profiles is an engagement with the network infrastructure of the technology,

which demonstrates how the internet’s functions and facilitates are shaped to meet

the different needs of users. Internet Communitarians are differentiated from

Information Networkers and Individualised Networkers primarily in their intention to

leverage the social benefits of online community. These users have positive

associations with the functions and facilities offered through communicating,

exchanging information and sharing emotion online. In this sense, they exhibit ‘we’

feeling (Van der Poel, 1993, p. 2), which ‘provides the individual with a sense of

social unity’, giving them a connection and identity with a communitarian spirit

(Haythornthwaite, 2000). Alternatively the other two segments exhibit more ‘me’

intentions, leveraging the internet’s network infrastructure for personal needs, with a

desire for more one-to-one exchanges. Information Networkers are instrumental

users of the technology. They focus on informational resources rather than support

196


and exchange of confidences (Granovetter, 1982). Consequently, they are

disinterested in emotional exchanges online and have more negative attitudes

towards the relational aspects of internet exchange. Social resources are not sought

by Information Networkers from online sources. Individualised Networkers share

similar ‘me’ intentions in their online behaviour; however, they value the networks

ability to stay connected to established relationships. These users are differentiated

from the other ‘me’ profile by their fears and concerns about the technology. The

online behaviour of this user segment is influenced by their privacy concerns and by

their belief that people should be spending more time in their local communities,

rather than forming relationships online.

Evidenced in all the segments is a range of intentional behaviours. These involve the

desire to participate in communities involving issues of interests, the need to source

information from credible sources, an interest in engaging in discussion lists to learn

and share information, and the motivation to help other people and share life

experiences. These differences will influence users’ responses to social marketing

strategy and tactics online.

Three interviews were conducted with internet users regarding their actions and

responses to social marketing online. These “exemplar” users are well placed

informants, able to provide detailed accounts of their responses to online campaigns.

As discussed earlier in the chapter, these internet users were identified during Q

analysis based on a highest factor loading in the profile. As a result, their opinions

and experiences were influential in defining the three internet user segments

discussed. In an interpretive sense, these exemplar subjects provided good access for

the researcher to issues concerning specific social marketing related behaviours on

the internet (Mason, 1996).

197


198

‘me’ intentions & behaviours

‘we’

behaviours intentions &

Segment I Segment II Segment III

Name Internet Communitarian

Information Networker

Individualised Networker

Emphasis Community Information Personal Networking

Overall attitude to the internet

Optimistic – about finding diverse sources of information online. Value the support and ability to participate in online communities.

Optimistic — about finding useful information online that meets their individual needs. Enjoy the traits of the technology: anonymity, interactivity.

Ambivalent — selective because of concerns about power and privacy issues, but find it useful for staying connected with family & friends. Value the internet as a source of information.

Social construction of internet

The internet’s a persuasive tool that facilitates communication and relationships. An empowering technology — access to people, information, services — which are shaped by individual needs ‘any time of day’.

The internet is more an instrumental tool — providing information resources rather than support and exchange of emotion. Internet information is integrated with other information sources and technology currently used to inform work & life decisions.

The internet is an information tool –selectively connecting with people & finding credible information sources.

Social use of internet technology

Value community engagement online. Intentionally seek out interpersonal connectivity & social benefits — support, friendship, emotional exchanges, sharing information —derived from establishing & maintaining contacts with people online. Value the diversity of information online.

Internet provides a useful network to exchange information and get ‘second opinions’ — developing acquaintance around issues of interest. Opportunities to mobilise and get involved in political issues. Not looking for community online. Internet does not offer a safe or supportive environment to deal with sensitive issues.

Maintenance of established, personal relationships — strong & weak tie relationship maintenance. Seeking information—concerns about over-use of internet. Not looking for community online.

Construction of power / control imbued in the technology

Unconcerned: consider it is an empowering technology to assist users’ in personal and work lives — benefits society.

Some concerns about agenda setting. Balanced by belief that users have control over what they say, do and see online.

Concerned. Too much time spent online detracts from ‘real-life’. Believe others are setting the agenda online. Internet can be disempowering.

Problems with internet technology

Unconcerned about information quality — considered no bigger problem than in other media sources. Unconcerned about anonymity. Slight concern about others in society being ‘left-behind’.

Some concerns about information quality online, which is balanced against concerns about source credibility in other media. Believe it is not a safe environment to discuss sensitive issues.

Concerns mediate online behaviour—privacy and security concerns. Information quality concerns.

Figure 6.2: Summary characteristics


In Chapter Three, the prevalence of mass media models in social marketing was

discussed. This type of strategy reflects the “learning effect” to behaviour change.

That is, social marketing strategy disseminates social product information online to

make it accessible to targeted adopters (Kotler & Roberto, 1989). Consequently, this

was considered a useful starting point to engage interviewees in thinking about their

response to social marketing online. Furthermore, the centrality of information has

been illustrated in the online behaviour of each segment. Hence, it was not surprising

that there was strong agreement between interviewees regarding the benefits of using

the internet to learn more about social and health issues relevant to their everyday

lives. Erin’s account about dealing with a recent health diagnosis summarises their

attitudes. In the following excerpt she describes information seeking behaviour that

facilitated contemplation. Referring to the ‘Stages of Change’ (SOC) model

(Prochaska & DiClemente, 1986, 1992), this stage involves thinking about and

evaluating recommended behaviours (Donovan & Henley, 2003):

I googled Australia, I thought it would be enough … I knew there’d be enough info … I learnt heaps from the internet … and got tons of well sourced information. I was really at the stage where I was only contemplating … so it was really good for things like ‘this is what the disease means’ … these are [what] you can do, these [things] will effect you …


Referring to the SOC model used during the interview (see Appendix 10: Q sort

follow-up interview guide), Kristie pointed out however that:

I guess what I’d say about information on the web is that I would see it as more likely important as I move down the track, because you’re looking for it. Web-based information doesn’t come looking for you … I’d only use it when I’ve made a decision … so you’ve got to decide to visit …I can’t see where it would be relevant at the pre-contemplation stage.


The Information Networker and Individualised Networker both pointed out that

internet information was more focused on the contemplation stage and that credible,

personal sources such as doctors or friends needed to be consulted before taking any

action. As Erin noted, ‘I guess I have enough disregard for what’s on the internet to

not make any actions based on it’. Sharing a similar view, Kristie explained the

process of giving up smoking, stating:

199


… I certainly think that if I have an understanding of what I think is the best way to approach something … I’d go to my doctor and discuss it you know; should I go on these patches and what are the pros and cons of that? … That’s how I’d go about it. And how do I know about them? Well, through television advertising.


What differentiates segments is the sources of information that users will engage to

make a decision. Kotler and Robert (1989, p. 99) define three important sources of

information: personal sources, non-personal sources, and the adoption experience

itself. The first two of these are relevant to the current discussion. It is arguable that

Internet Communitarians considered the internet a source for both personal (personal

communication) and non-personal sources of information (information obtained

through the mass media). At the same time, both ‘me’ intention segments consider the

internet a non-personal source of information. Cassandra, an Internet Communitarian,

justified the online behaviour she believed she would demonstrate if diagnosed with a

disease:

If my doctor diagnosed me with breast cancer … once I got over the shock I think I’d be more likely to go home and I would go to the internet as being one of the very early sources of information. Mainly because I find it quite unthreatening that I can put any sort of garbage into a search engine … the most basic kind of question and see what comes back. See I don’t need to justify stupid questions to somebody, particularly in those sort of circumstances where you’d probably be feeling very, very vulnerable. I’d want to be able to ask stupid questions without somebody saying that it was, or thinking that …


Later in the interview Cassandra added that she would also join a support group

online:

Yes, that probably would be something I’d do down the track, particularly if it was a group where there were women who’d been through the same thing … I think you can get a sense of personality, you can get a warmth through the way people express themselves. … Particularly in those sorts of groups … and if I felt that the group was likely to be supportive I would ask the stupid questions.


200


Alternatively, both ‘me’ intention interviewees strongly disregarded accessing online

communities for support, or as a means to get further detailed information. Erin

claimed:

… if I wanted opinions, I would go to my friends … because I have a degree of trust in them and that’s my thing with the internet and those chat boards and discussions. I don’t value their opinions because they’re an unknown quantity in terms of the truth and whether they’re bogus or whatever. I know that’s tarring everyone with the same brush but I’d rather use personal contact. I’d use a friend of a friend ― like if I knew someone’s brother or sister had it, I’d go through them to have chat before I’d chat online.


Sharing a similar view, Kristie discussed the relationships required to maintain

positive behaviour change:

I can’t say that being part of a discussion group would help me stay strong on something; I’m not that kind of person.

Interviewer: You’d get support from other areas?

Kristie: Yeah, but I suppose until you’re there with a particular issue you can’t ever be sure.

Interviewer: So does knowing the internet …

Kristie: … that information’s available in lots of different places? Yeah …multiple sources of information are most important.


The underlying belief of Information Networkers and Individualised Networkers ―

that the internet is an unsafe environment ― influences their intentional behaviours.

As Rafaeli and Sudweeks (1998) point out, safe environments promote dynamic and

interactive communication, which leads to increased cooperation, learning and

sociability. Consequently, the ‘me’ segment profiles of online behaviours do not

involve community, or ‘we’ based interactions.

Interviewees also reported on their responses to other interactive tactics used to

initiate and maintain behaviour change. These strategies included tactics such as:

signing up for email alerts which provided supportive information to maintain

positive behaviour change; subscribing to organisational newsletters detailing useful

201


information (i.e. new dietary recipes); receiving email postcards from family or

friends to support or initiate behaviour change; or opting into an email protest about a

relevant social cause. When Information Networker Kristie was asked how she would

respond to an electronic post card forwarded from a friend or family member, which

included information from the Cancer Councils’ QUIT Smoking site, she responded:

‘I would think “stop cluttering up my email, leave me alone!” … or I’d just trash it’.

By comparison, Erin the Individualised Networker, noted that: ‘… if someone I knew

sent me something tomorrow and it was about an issue important to me, yeah … you

know, I’d click to show my protest’ (In-depth interview, October 2004). In contrast,

Cassandra, an Internet Communitarian, believes there is a role for supportive email

reminders and relevant organisational newsletters. She noted:

… I think there’s a role for those sorts of things actually. If it comes from a source that I trust, and its got information that I’m ready for and really want, yeah I think there’s … the information in it is valuable and its not trying to sell me something and it about getting me to take a particular action, I think there’s definitely a role for that sort of thing. I’ve done something similar by signing up to a meditation site ...


These accounts from different internet users have initiated discussion about using the

internet for social marketing. Revealed in the descriptive analysis above are the

differences between users’ responses based on perceptions of personal and non-

personal information sources online. Also evident in the accounts provided is the idea

that the acceptability of sources is dependant on the user’s ‘me’ and ‘we’ behaviours

which influences their response to different social marketing tactics online. These

online strategies and others will be discussed and analysed in detail in the following

chapter.

6.7 Summary

This chapter has described the Q method steps taken to analyse internet users’

behaviours. The analysis identified three significant internet user segments, which can

be related to discourses evident in the broader internet and society literature.

Intentional ‘we’ and ‘me’ behaviours are apparent in the internet segments profiled,

providing interesting insights into downstream users’ behaviours online. Internet

Communitarians are descriptive of those internet users who seek out community

202


online and engage in emotional exchanges. This segment contrasts with the

Information Networker, who accesses the internet primarily for information and

connection to get ‘second opinions’. The Individualised Networker also values access

to information online; however, they also appreciate the ability to use the internet to

stay connected to established relationships. This segment of users however also

exhibits concerns about negative societal influences of the internet.

The chapter concluded by reporting users’ responses to current online social

marketing strategies, which were revealed during in-depth interviews with selected Q

sorters. The following chapter now turns to an examination of upstream internet users

to describe and analyse how stakeholders in the social change marketplace leverage

the internet to inform, educate and persuade internet users towards positive social

change. Then, in Chapter 8, both the upstream and downstream perspectives are

drawn together to make recommendations for future social marketing strategy.

203

CHAPTER SEVEN UPSTREAM STAKEHOLDERS’ INTERNET EXPERIENCES

Chapter 7: Upstream Stakeholders’ Internet Experiences

… interactive programs in this campaign have clearly moved this social marketing campaign from a traditional ‘information out’ approach to a revolving door where the target audiences have first become partners and then advocates for the campaign’s message within their own social networks.

(Schwartz and Hardison cited in Andreasen & Kotler, 2003, p. 429)

7.0 Introduction

This chapter reports findings on upstream internet users’ experiences of the internet

by applying the widely accepted ‘Stages of Change’ (SOC) behaviour model

(Prochaska & DeClemente, 1983; 1985). Drawing on twenty in-depth interviews

with upstream stakeholders, this qualitative enquiry focused on exploring social

change practitioners’ interpretation of internet technologies when they target internet

users’ progress toward adoption of desired behaviours. This focus was important in

responding to the aims of Study 3, which was to investigate how social marketing

could be more responsive to internet user behaviour and to make recommendations

towards planning and implementing online social marketing. To accomplish these

aims the analysis explores experiences of upstream users who have engaged in

transactions and relationships with targeted internet users.

Essential to understanding upstream internet users’ behaviours is the context of the

social change marketplace. Hence this chapter commences with a contextual

description of the competitive marketplace in which social marketers plan

behavioural interventions. This marketplace is competitive in the sense that social

change practitioners can choose from a range of mass media, behavioural models and

intervention strategies in their attempts to change individual behaviour and broader

social structures in society. This is an important starting point for understanding how

social marketers integrate internet technology into broader social change strategies;

primarily because the social marketing literature indicates that social change

professionals, and specifically social marketers, characteristically construe the

internet as a one-way information tool. Arguable, this is because social marketers

think of the internet as a cost-effective and efficient distribution channel for

information, rather than as a medium that engages users in persuasive cognition and

behaviour change. Within the social change marketplace, however, selected social

205


change agencies and government bodies have demonstrated a growing interest in,

and application of, the internet as a means to support and facilitate pro-social and

health behaviours. Consequently, recruitment of research participants in the study

reported in this chapter extended the research sample beyond social marketers. The

aim was to seek the perspectives of social change practitioners who have trialled and

adopted the internet as both an information tool and a persuasive, personal

technology for promoting and maintaining pro-social behaviours.

7.1 Social change marketplace

Social change practitioners are concerned with a variety of health and social issues

and are focused on changing practices and cultures of individuals in society

(Andreasen, 2002). However, social marketing does not only consist of talking to

individuals. It is thus a framework that targets behaviour change of individuals

within industry organisations, government bureaucracies and institutions and focuses

on achieving change within local communities, state and national groupings

(Donovan & Henley, 2003; Andreasen, 1995). Recently, when Alan Andreasen

(2002, p. 5) was addressing the barriers to social marketing’s growth, he noted that

‘social marketing should be considered a brand in the marketplace of social change

approaches’. The marketplace landscape, however, is complicated by different

agencies, organisations, institutions and governments coalescing to influence and

respond to social problems. This complexity is further amplified because social

change practitioners may select from a range of models, grounded in competing or

complementary disciplines to social marketing, which are all part of a vast effort to

understand and shape social change (Smith, 2002). Furthermore, social change

advocates are influenced by the institutions and organisations for which they

practice. This predisposes them to different social change approaches and influences

their adoption of internet technologies.

To reflect the complexity of the social change marketplace, the sampling strategy for

Study 3 was not limited to recruiting social marketing practitioners. Instead, it sought

to draw upon the experiences of organisational users that had adopted the internet to

service client needs. As such, the findings from Study 3 do not describe typical social

marketing practices online. Rather, the findings demonstrate the opportunities and

challenges faced by social change innovators that have engaged the internet in social

206


change. This sampling approach was advantageous in that it allowed the researcher

to choose the best instances of how social change organisations have embraced

internet technologies, as well enabling the selection of less successful cases to

elaborate further understanding of online social change strategies. Whilst some of the

agencies represented in the sample do not practice social marketing, they face related

and similar challenges and barriers in the marketplace. Social marketing can

therefore learn from the online experiences of these organisations.

7.1.1 Sample of social change decision makers

Chapter Four highlighted that representatives from the upstream strategic group of

legislators, industry representatives and marketing decision makers would be an

interesting and valuable group to include in this study. This is because upstream

users represent the types of influential individuals who design and implement

prevention measures and campaigns which aim to influence human behaviour (see

Appendix 3: Study 3 sample description). In the current study, twenty upstream

participants were interviewed for one to two-hours, in either face-to-face settings at

the participant’s workplace, or via telephone. Participants selected for Study 3

included policy makers (n=5), social marketing decision makers (n=5), and decision

makers from social change agencies (n=5). Also included in the sample were

gatekeepers such as media representatives (n=3) as well as professionals with

technical expertise, such as producers and web developers (n=2).

Lindlof and Taylor (2002) describe the type of interviews undertaken with the

upstream group as informant interviews. This is because they are conducted with

people who can inform the researcher about key features and processes of the

phenomenon, as well as discuss significant practices, how they are done, and so

forth. Therefore, the organising principle for sampling in Study 3 was seeking out

maximum variation in social change professionals’ experiences of internet

technologies. Sampling participants for Study 3 focused on recruiting informants

with relevant internet experience, which also meant selecting professionals who

could account for successes and failures in their online social change programs.

During Study 3 a good informant was identified as having one or more of the

following characteristics (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002):

207


• they had long experience in planning internet strategies, and could thus serve as a

reliable source of the local institutional memory (e.g., government policy

concerning integration of internet technology and its role in social change

agendas);

• they were well respected by their peers, superiors, and/or subordinates, and

involved in one or more key social networks;

• they had been involved in the social change marketplace across a number of

different roles, and were therefore able to speak knowledgeably about people’s

roles and responsibilities and how various social change agendas worked

together.

The aim in Study 3 was not to obtain a sample representative of a particular

population, setting or group. Rather, the aim was — as Mason (1996, p. 96) explains

in terms of interpretive research — to select those who could provide access to

‘something that the researcher was interested in’ (that is, upstream decision-makers’

experiences of combining organisational and social practices with internet

technology) instead of actually ‘being what the research was interested in’ (that is,

the social change agents and type of organisation). Consequently, whilst social

change agents have been sampled, it was their experience and their interactions with

clients, internet technologies and the social change program that were of interest. To

examine these experiences and interactions the researcher needed to sample these

particular upstream internet users (Williams, 2003). Thus the following study draws

upon upstream users’ experiences — which are relatable to accepted social change

models (e.g., SOC) so that recommendations could be made for future social

marketing strategy.

Key informants were also categorized by the different roles they undertook in the

social change marketplace. To reiterate, these included: social marketers (n=5);

representatives from nonprofit organisations (n=5); government and policy

representatives (n=5); and gatekeepers (e.g., web designers, digital producers and

media representatives) (n=5). The participants involved in Study 3 were able to offer

various insights and sets of information due to their unique roles in the social change

marketplace. They were knowledgeable and shared detailed anecdotes about the

internet and were thus valuable in achieving the researcher’s aim of exploring the

208


experiences of using the internet for social change outcomes. Each stakeholder group

contributed to these findings for four key reasons outlined below:

• Social marketers focus on customer-centricity and employ the theory of

marketing exchange as a guiding principle in their practice and assessment of

successful social marketing programs that use the internet.

• Representatives from non-profit organisation are aware of the opportunities and

limitations in using a social marketing framework in social change programs.

Additionally, they deal with similar funding and resource challenges typically

experienced by social marketing programs in other organisational settings that

have adopted the internet.

• Policy decisions makers in government are important stakeholders who influence

social marketing practice through funding. Furthermore, policy makers’ attitudes

and opinions of internet technologies influence commitment and interest in

online social change programs, which further impacts on funding and acceptance

of program outcomes.

• Gatekeepers influence the representation of the internet and social marketing

programs in the broader marketplace. Web designers, for example, influence the

form, aesthetics and interactivity which facilitate exchange online (Beigeri et al.,

2003). Media representatives can also operate as gatekeepers to the interests of

social marketing programs. In addition, the media is an important “vehicle” for

the diffusion of specific social ideas and actions. Consequently, gatekeepers’

attitudes towards social marketing practice and experiences of the internet

contribute to the broader public’s evaluation of social change programs and the

internet.

7.1.2 Adoption of a social marketing program view

Donovan and Henley (2003, p. 2) state that social marketing makes a major

contribution to understanding and facilitating social change because it uses a range of

passive and active methods aimed at influencing the ideas, attitudes and behaviours

of target audiences as they progress toward adoption of desired behaviours.

However, Andreasen (2002) has asked, why social marketing is not better accepted.

Dann (2004) states, that in comparison to social marketing internationally, Australia

209


is well advanced in its acceptance of social marketing. She contends that, compared

to the United States, governments in Australia, the UK and New Zealand have

demonstrated greater acceptance of social marketing as a social change tool. This

view, that Australian government agencies have recognized the importance of social

marketing, was acknowledged by a social marketer interviewed:

I think as people have recognised the importance of understanding consumer behaviour, and that people do make health decisions in some ways similar to the ways they make decisions in other parts of their lives, the acceptance of the use of those sorts of techniques has certainly grown to the point now, that within government, the use of the term ‘social marketing’ and the application of the social marketing framework in behaviour changing programs — whether it’s in health or in other areas like environmental for instance, it’s pretty well accepted.

(In-depth interview, June 2002)

Dann (2004) points out that the adoption of social marketing by governments in

Australia can be attributed, in part, to the fact that Australia has a stronger historical

tradition of government intervention than some other western democracies. She

writes that this has meant governments ‘present their social marketing campaigns as

socially beneficial and not aligned to, or in opposition to, any particular agency,

industry or political system’ (Dann, 2004, p. 9). In the context of this current study it

was interesting to note that whilst awareness of social marketing was high amongst

the social change organisations sampled, their application of it as a social change

strategy was modest. Of the twenty interviewed participants, seventeen were aware

of social marketing as a social change tool. However, of these participants, only five

currently applied social marketing as the organising framework that guided their

social change programs and campaigns (see Appendix 3: Study 3 sample

description). This is indicative of the fact that, as interviewees explained, there are

major barriers which confront practitioners as they seek to apply a social marketing

framework. The following discussion describes these barriers.

As evidenced in the social marketing academic literature, a significant challenge

facing social marketing in the marketplace is its full application and understanding

by practitioners (Andreasen, 2002). The majority of participants interviewed

acknowledged the value and contribution of social marketing in behaviour change. In

the extract below, Stewart draws on twenty years of experience as a social marketer

to reflect on this point:

210


… I’d say [social marketing has] become much more accepted in recent years obviously; certainly much more through the ’90s particularly. I think a lot of people have been applying what would now be referred to as a social marketing framework without calling it such. The use of a human orientation, integrated strategy — use of formative research in understanding the mindset of a target in terms of communications challenges, barriers, opportunities and things like that, pre-testing research in terms of developing communication, ongoing monitoring, tracking mechanisms, feedback into ongoing strategies development — those sorts of practices I think have been around now — I’d say in Australian health promotion since the late 1970s.

But in terms of it being referred to as Social Marketing and being applied in more of an accepted framework, it’s certainly much more recent and probably throughout the ’90s, but very much accepted now in current terms.


Interview participants were united in their assertion that within the social change

marketplace there is some evidence of confusion surrounding the nature of social

marketing. Importantly, being conversant with mainstream marketing or having a

success with mainstream marketing did not translate to knowledge about social

marketing. For example, a representative from a dot.cause, funded by a nonprofit

organisation, explained that his organisation had enjoyed considerable marketing

success online and offline through the creation of a youth brand to communicate the

organisation’s image and positioning to a youth market (16-25 years). However,

when discussing problems that arose from marketing a social cause, Rhys explained:

… when we did the ‘real appeal’ … they wanted to do a fundraiser around youth suicide and they wanted to give that money to us. And certainly in terms of social marketing that’s certainly something we would never do again. We would never run a fundraiser around suicide, when you think in retrospect. And the thinking has shifted on this, you know … that was a good thing to do, but now it isn’t. And if someone approached us saying ‘Hey we want to do a big fundraiser round suicide’. We would go, ‘no thank you very much’.

In effect, the translation of commercial marketing to the suicide issue had led this

social change practitioner to feel the organisation had participated in ‘marketing

suicide’. However, Rhys also accounted for positive marketing influences, including

the future positioning of the social product in the marketplace. He elaborated:

Once we launched … we quickly realised that focusing on issues of suicide was doing more harm than good. … [the] thing about suicide and

211


communicating around suicide is, it’s either alienating as a concept because it’s too close to the bone … or it’s not at all relevant because at any given time 95% of young people aren’t suicidal. So, to talk about suicide for me, alienates at the very least 95% of the population and the other 5% it hits too close to the bone.

Whist not directly applying social marketing, the organisation’s market experience

illustrates the importance of defining the social product, and then, positioning the

product’s benefits more appropriately in the mind of the target market. The

organisation’s final strategy was to position the causes’ youth brand around ‘helping

young people through tough times’:

Talking about tough times is … an inclusive concept and people can judge the degree in relation to their own lives. So if you speak to a suicidal person about tough times, they may bring up issues of suicide. If you talk to someone who’s just having a bad day at school and tough times, it’s still an equally appropriate concept.

(In-depth interview, November 2002)

Further to the constraint of a lack of knowledge and understanding about social

marketing, is a second barrier faceing social marketers. This is the fact that some

people have a negative attitude towards marketing and advertising. This is

compounded by the tendency of some professionals to conflate marketing and

advertising. As Sophie noted during an interview, ‘a lot of policy people don’t like

the word “marketing” and “social marketing” has a bad taint to it’. Stewart shared

similar experiences and suggested this was a significant factor in explaining why

some government agencies do not use social marketing:

[There are] … those who see social marketing as simply advertising … I think that’s where there’s a lot of negativity about it is because people would see that as a very simplistic notion; that by creating a television commercial for instance, that you’re going to “change” people.


Additional marketing challenges confront social marketers working in or with

government departments. Five issues were raised in the interviews. Firstly,

interviewees noted that governments typically require short-term results. The

consequence of this thinking is the creation of barriers to developing a long-term

program view, required to effect social change involving complex social problems.

The fact that Australian governments may change in cycles of three years, with

212


concomitant influence on ministerial positions, was cited as problematic by all

government employees. It is a sentiment expressed by Madelyne, a social marketer

working in Federal Government: ‘I think that the direction is positive, but I think that

change has been very, very slow and because the political persuasion of

government’s change over time and because Ministers change all the time’ (In-depth

interview, June 2002).

Secondly, and more critically, budget allocation constraints result because of these

three-year cycles. Consequently, long-term projects and documented evaluations of

sustained behaviour change are less achievable, as the same social marketer

explained:

You actually have to take them [the target market] on a kind of an iterative journey and government can’t do that, because they’re looking for short-term results. I think it’s a huge problem and I struggle with it all the time … so what I think is that the budget cycle and the constraints of government are such that while social marketing can have impact and does derive behavioural benefits and can, it’s not worth doing if you only do it for a two-month period.


In another interview, Chris explained that social marketing program successes in

other departments such as road safety were achievable, because they had external

funding that supported continuity in campaigns. He stated:

… the reason that road safety campaigns have been able to continue over a period of time is they work outside the budget process. They actually have a revenue stream that feeds to them from speed cameras and speeding fines, and they get something like $4 million a year, which is not being taken away from services anywhere.

Later in the interview, Chris explained that adopting a social marketing framework

created additional resources demands upon government beyond that of simply

funding a campaign. He explained:

I think the real concerns are that, you know, you can actually create more workload for areas that are already stressed. For example, if you start doing something around child protection and you raise awareness of child protection issues, what you actually end up with is … an increase in the number of notifications for child protection. So in the short-term you’re actually … going to create an increase in the workload for people

213


which, if your resources are already stretched, is something you may or may to want to do. So there’s some internal resistance as a result of that.


The third challenge facing social marketers working with government is that for

some political and bureaucratic managers, social marketing is considered to be

peripheral to “core business”. In general, government workers interviewed believed

that there is a lack of appreciation of social marketing at top management level in

government (Andreasen, 2002). As one participant explained: ‘… our current CEO

… was quite proud that he’d never spent a dollar on marketing, and he saw

marketing as a either inappropriate and/or a grassroots activity that didn’t need to

be funded (In-depth interview, June 2002). While concurring with this perspective,

another interviewee went further, arguing that outside the health arena, governments

are typically loathe to become involved in social change campaigns as they do not

‘want to be seen to be manipulating the population’ (In-depth interview, November

2002). The view was that in liberal democracies, government should not be viewed

as having influence over individuals’ behaviours. Furthermore, the marginal place of

social marketing in the agenda of senior government management impacts on the

ability of social marketers to plan and implement campaign strategies that require

long term commitment to effect change. Chris, for example, said that in

‘organisations that are fairly resource-sensitive and strapped for resources’, social

marketing campaigns would be dismissed as an “add-on” or “adjunct” rather than

central to the organisation. In elaborating on this point, he raised a fourth constraint

facing social change agents working in the government sphere. That is, there is

significant professional competition for funding and departmental resources across

government. He stated:

… the other interesting thing that you have in most organisations as well, which is a significant factor in this organisation, is there’s a dominant culture by the dominant professional group, and in this particular department it’s social workers, and social workers have some mixed views about social marketing.

… a more pragmatic view, I guess, is about how government administration should be done and there are tensions as well around the use of resources. Departments, particularly departments like ours, can be criticised for spending money on any kind of advertising, marketing or promotion rather than putting that money into front-line services. So you

214


need an administration that’s prepared to go into bat and argue for [a social marketing campaign].


The final constraint raised by interviewees to implementing social marketing

programs with government concerned the political sensitivity and political

acceptability of social change programs. How political realities may impinge on

social marketing programs was well illustrated in anecdotes from two social

marketers interviewed. They described having to change social marketing campaigns

that had been successfully tested in order to make them more politically sensitive to

the elected government. The following exemplifies what was described in these

interviews:

We were developing a particular campaign here … [and] the direction of the campaign changed from being something along the lines of New Zealand, which is a fairly hard-hitting, integrated style of campaign … to something that was much more, I guess what amounted to be something politically acceptable … which was a much softer campaign directed more broadly.


The research and academic literature demonstrates the growing acceptance of social

marketing (Andreasen, 2002). However, a number of barriers confront social change

agents as they seek to adopt and apply a social marketing framework. Particular

challenges exist for those working in the government sector. Given the difficulties

confronting Australian social marketers, the following section will examine the

potential of the internet for social change programs. In order to examine how

interviewees have incorporated the internet to facilitate social change, a widely

accepted theoretical model in social marketing, the Transtheoretical Model (TM),

will be engaged (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1984, 1986).

7.2 Stages of behaviour change in social marketing programs

A range of attitudes, values and behavioural models are used by social marketers to

inform social marketing programs and campaigns. One of these is the TM (Prochaska

& DeClemente, 1983, 1985), or the ‘stages of change’ model. In the following

section this model is engaged to present a metasynthesis of qualitative findings

(Morse & Richards, 2002) from the interviews conducted with upstream internet

215


users. The choice of this model can be justified on two counts. Firstly, the model is

widely accepted across the social marketing discipline because it describes behaviour

change as a process in which individuals’ progress through a series of phases or

stages of change. Secondly, the model has been used successfully in the field to

guide programs and campaigns that have dealt with a spectrum of social and health

problems.

The stages of change, outlined by Prochaska and DiClemente (1983, 1985), can be

conceptualised in six phases:

• Precontemplation, in which individuals are not thinking about or aware of the

need to change behaviour.

• Contemplation, in which targeted individuals are considering changing their

behaviour and seek out information about the possibilities.

• Preparation, where the target intends to take action in the next month.

• Action, where the target attempts trial and adoption of the desired behaviour

change.

• Maintenance of the behaviour change for an extended period of time.

• Termination of the problem behaviour because the target feels no temptation and

there is 100 percent self-efficacy. This stage, however, is not relevant to all

behaviour (e.g., addictive behaviours).

In addition to the defined discrete stages of change, Prochaska and DiClemente

(1984, p. 33) underscore that the process of change and movement between stages is

also influenced by four factors. The first is the perceived pros and cons of the

problem behaviour (and the decision balance between them). The second is self-

efficacy, that is, confidence in one’s ability to change the problem behaviour. The

third is the temptation to revert to the problem behaviour, while the fourth are the ten

‘processes of change’ which are basic coping mechanisms used to modify a problem.

As stated, there has been positive response to this model in social marketing. There is

also evidence to suggest its acceptance in clinical health work. At the same time,

Bandura (1997, 1998) and other critics (Littell & Girvin, 2002) from health

education and counseling, argue that the model oversimplifies the complexities of

216


behaviour change. Specifically, they contend that imposing artificial categories on

continuous processes in behaviour change does not demonstrate the inherent

complexity required to change some behaviour. Furthermore, they believe there is a

lack of evidence to support a ‘stages of change’ process, because they believe change

does not occur in discrete states. This is refuted by Andreasen (1995) and Donovan,

Leivers, and Hannaby (1999) who state that in social marketing the five stages

(excluding the termination stage) provide a reliable framework for aligning

marketing tasks to progress behaviour change. This is primarily because the

framework applies marketing’s ‘buyer readiness segmentation’ to describe

consumers in terms of those unaware, aware or informed of the social product, to

those interested and motivated, to those who have formed an intention to purchase

the social product (Donovan & Henley, 2003). For social marketing purposes

Andreasen (1995) proposes a more simplified model which relates the decision

making tasks of social marketers to Prochaska and DiClemente’s model (see Table

7.1) below. In this chapter, Andreasen’s (1995) model is adopted to guide the

following discussion.

Table 7.1: Stages in behaviour change

Prochaska & DiClemente’s Stages

Marketing Task Andreasen’s Modified Stages

Precontemplation Create awareness and interest

Change values

Precontemplation

Early Contemplation Persuade; motivate Contemplation

Late

Preparation Action

Create action Action

Maintenance Maintain change Maintenance (Source: Adapted from Andreasen, 1995, p. 148)

The staged process in the model provides a workable device in the current analysis

for explaining upstream users’ planning and integration of the internet into social

change strategy. As described in Chapter Two, the internet is a recombinant

technology, and, as such, the proceeding discussion focuses on the results of human

actions and decisions that have taken advantage of the internet to combine elements

217


of the technology, practice and social organisation to achieve particular goals and

purposes. In this study, social marketing goals and outcomes are highlighted.

The following analysis does not seek to record all of the experiences of the upstream

users interviewed. The aims are, instead, to present a spectrum of strategies used by

social change agents to effect behaviour change and to respond to the research

question in Study 3. That is, how can social marketing be more responsive to internet

user behaviour? While the twenty interviewees expressed optimism about the

potential of the internet to contribute to social change practice, there was

considerable variation in their experiences of actually using the internet for social

change. Some had highly successful experiences while others related accounts of

failure in attempting to engage the internet for social change purposes. Focusing on

the successful and unsuccessful experiences in the interview narratives is useful for

two reasons. Firstly, as Morse and Richards (2002, p. 173), argue, ‘the characteristics

of a phenomenon are more easily explored in the outstandingly good or bad

examples’. Secondly, there remains a critical divide between the theory of applying

the internet for social change and the practice. To breach this divide further

knowledge is required of practitioner experiences of social marketing

implementation via the internet. As one of the interview participants, Stewart

comments:

… I think potential and real use can be quite different things. I think the potential, there is significance there, simply because there’s more and more people becoming connected and have the opportunity to communicate on a one-to-one level with so many people, so quickly. Whether it’s being used effectively now varies tremendously, obviously. Does it have potential to do [social marketing]? Yes, it does, because depending on how sophisticated the use of it is, you can get down and with personal profiles or whatever, deliver personal, quite tailored information to people in a way that they receive it on a one-to-one basis.


The following discussion addresses each stage of change and explains how social

change agents have used different functions and traits of the internet to effect social

change. To contextualise the following discussion, however, it is important to note

that the majority of interviewees (n=17) accounted for internet strategies as an

integrated element in broader marketing and social change strategies. Therefore, at

various stages during campaigns the internet was either a focal point, or supportive

218


device to the campaign message. This is not to say that the remaining three

interviewees did not use some traditional marketing strategies, but rather their social

change strategies focused on internet interactions and exchanges. Hence the

following discussion at times highlights how different users’ exploited other

marketing elements to complement and support internet strategy.

7.2.1 ‘Precontemplation’ in internet behavioural planning

In social marketing the precontemplation stage involves focusing on strategies that

increase awareness of new behaviour possibilities, and on demonstrating that the

proposed behaviours may improve individual audience members’ lives, as well as

educating potential adopters that the proposed behaviours are aligned with the values

of the consumers’ society. Andreasen (1995) states that to achieve this, social

marketers bring together educators, popular communication media (e.g., television,

radio, newspapers) and various public agencies and figures to ensure that necessary

education and value change takes place. In their research, Donovan and Owen (1994,

p. 270) found that involving mass media vehicles at this stage raised ‘the salience

and personal relevance of the issue’. However, as noted in Chapters Three and Six,

shaping the internet as a passive media channel is relatively ineffective when users

are unaware of an issue. This is because internet users are proactive consumers, who

actively seek out information and communication, rather than being passive receptors

of communication messages. Sophie’s experience from advertising message testing

confirms this thinking:

When we’ve tested it [the internet] compared to radio or print or even outdoor advertising or TV, there are very small numbers that would actually be bothered to look for something on the internet. It requires an active search, verses media that actually comes into your living room. Unless you’ve a highly motivated target group that are searching for that information, [which] we find there is always part of the population that wants information and will attempt to seek it. … So if they’re a passive consumer of the message, then I just can’t see how the internet could work.


Andreasen (1995) points out that the important role for social marketers at this stage

is making sure that the necessary education and value change takes place. Two

different online tactics — using an online competition and leveraging email activist

networks — were reported by interviewees as tools to initiate education about an

219


issue, and to influence users’ values. Stewart, a social marketer, accounted for the

use of an online competition as part of the broader youth national alcohol campaign.

He justified how using an online competition initiated teenagers’ cognitive

processing of the potential negative aspects of excessive use of alcohol. He

explained:

… we want to generate some sort of level of engagement when they’re thinking about [making decisions about alcohol]. Now, thinking that they’re going to do that on their own is not realistic, but if you create a competition, or some sort of incentive for them to want to win a prize, have an entertainment experience or rewarding experience and you ask them to describe in 25 words or less why … the way that they enjoy having a good time with their friends without drinking alcohol … then you promote that through a web address and they go to the website. They’ve actually got to take steps through your site looking at particular information in order to enter the competition. Then you can be using it effectively to … encourage them to go through those cognitive steps. Not because they’re there to learn, but because they’re there for another reason. But they can be entertained along the way and come out at the end of it having had a learning experience.


Later in the interview, Stewart explained that he did not think using the internet was

necessarily better than other media, and that incorporating the internet into social

marketing should relate strongly to the campaign message. This perspective was

based on the following experience:

I’m not sure that what we get from our entries to those sorts of competitions on our website is any different to what we would get on a magazine base, tear-off slip that we’ve used for about ten years. I’m not sure that communicating through the web or delivering an answer to a competition about not drinking tonight, or whatever, makes a difference from a website than if they pulled out a magazine coupon.


Joseph, another social marketer interviewed, outlined the frustrations that occur in

attempting to raise awareness around issues. He noted that ‘organising people was

always the most interesting thing, and reaching people always a pain in the arse’.

However, developments in internet technology have changed ‘getting the message

out’ to target audiences, as Joseph justified:

… the internet has come along … it’s relatively free, and you can do it yourself and reach all the organisers. Or you can put up a website and

220


activist groups can access the information they need, as long as you get the URL out. It’s a dam sight easier than trying to get out a whole brochure, or equivalent …

As a recruitment fulfillment vehicle it’s pretty powerful. I kept seeing missed opportunities for this you know. Take for example Sydney’s ‘No Aircraft Noise’ campaign, no one did a website … it could have doubled petitioners by just having a website. I saw it happen with the San Diego Airport campaign website; it was crudely done, … but gee it was good, it got people speaking out because they knew what was going on.


Andreasen (1995) argues, however, that social marketers should focus on those

educational and propaganda elements that are likely to influence behaviour — or to

move potential customers on to the next stage in the behaviour change process. Other

interviewees noted a range of information content strategies aimed at creating

interest once users had entered their websites. These included fact sheets,

downloadable pocket help-cards and copies of information booklets. Explaining their

online information strategy for suicide prevention, Rhys explained:

The driving force behind what we do is being as inclusive as we can, from a content delivery and a service delivery point of view that certainly has represented challenges in ensuring that we meet that spectrum of content. You know, we currently have got probably about 180/200 stories from young people and we have twenty topic areas and 160 fact sheets and the body of content keeps growing


Anita also outlined the variety of information available to women about domestic

violence through her service’s website:

The story stuff where women can read true stories from other people who have been there has been really positive and it’s the most popular part of the our site; but that’s supported with a lot of other information about identifying signs of violence. There’s fact sheets, checklists, as well as a ‘relationship warning signs’ quiz where women can assess their relationships. That information is all there to help women identify what they can do to get out of an abusive relationship.


Brooke, a government worker, outlined the success of an offline postcard campaign

that raised awareness about a government department’s e-democracy strategy to

engage community more actively in online community consultation. She noted:

221


This was a real hit … the evaluation showed uptake was very high, we’re still … monitoring impacts and measuring people actually using it. … But once people get to the website they can see the ‘Online Consultation’ list, [which] centralises whole of government list of consultation activities that are happening across government … It’s aimed at making greater transparency to government processes, which is what the community engagement agenda is really all about.


Importantly, some interviewees expressed concerns about the provision of online

information. For the non-profit organisations involved in the study for example, there

were basic logistical issues about not providing services to clients outside of their

service area. Duty-of-care issues were also raised. Anita justified her service’s

response, saying:

One of the big issues is that we provide fairly locally based information but, of course, to promote it you have to register in international search engines like Yahoo and as soon as we did that we had traffic from all around the world … our traffic is about 50/50, about 50% are Americans. Which meant that, you know, we’d get women who’d just been beaten up emailing us saying, ‘Help’ and we wouldn’t have a clue where this little state or whatever was in the USA.

Interviewer: How does the service respond to those emails?

Anita: We’ve now included an alert on our site as well as in an email response to posted message saying ‘If you are in an unsafe situation check out this link’ … and we’ve now included a couple of US-based links. So having a website opens up an avenue for communication, but with limited resources we have to be conscious that were focused on our local clients. But it really makes me think about duty-of-care to these women when we have a site that is accessible from all around the world.


The majority of interviewees’ understanding of information strategy online was

limited to raising awareness by providing existing printed materials such as reports,

fact sheets and pamphlets easily and inexpensively to clients. Megan’s statement

below summarises this attitude:

I think it's been really useful in making government reports very physically accessible. It’s provided another level of transparency to government that sometimes people find hard to access … so at least for those people that have internet skills I think it works.


222


Arguably the internet’s strength is not grounded in creating awareness, because users

require some awareness of the issue to seek out the information. However, its

accessibility to targeted populations and the internet’s interactive traits make it a

useful communication tool to stimulate thinking about issues. The above discussion

has illustrated that different information strategies are used online to create interest,

and, in some instances, to commence educating targeted clients with information

about specific issues by providing options for more detailed information to enhance

users’ knowledge. It is at this level, once users have accessed the website, where

more innovative, online information sources and creative content have been used to

motivate users to engage more actively in pro-social behaviours. These include

strategies such as ‘sharing stories’ about dealing with problems, reading campaign

discussion lists or posting feedback on a campaign message. These information

strategies provide evidence of internet users moving towards contemplating pro-

social behaviour change, influenced by online exchanges and interactions.

7.2.2 ‘Contemplation’ in internet behavioural planning

Social marketing tasks during the contemplation stage focus on motivating and

persuading individuals to weigh the “pros and cons” of the proposed behaviour

change. Andreasen (1995) suggests that this stage involves beliefs about changeable

consequences (‘bundles’ of cost-benefits beliefs), the competition (from past habits

or inertia) and level of importance. The latter informs two subcategories: Early

Contemplation and Late Contemplation. Andreasen (1995, p. 168) argues that, at this

stage ‘costs and benefits are probably the most important cognitive elements

influencing movement to the next stage’. During early-contemplation, benefits are

more important, because the consumer needs to know that the action has positive

outcomes. During an interview, Stewart recounted the usefulness of online

information that catered to the different needs of parents’ contemplation about child

immunization. He stated:

… in the area of child immunization … attitude of segmentation of parents [shows] at one extreme … people who are real advocates … and all you’ve got to do is mention immunisation and they’re out there talking to everyone else about how important it is and aren’t your children immunised and all the rest of it. At the other end you’ve got a small group who’ve totally rejected immunisation for a range of different reasons and you’ve got different groups in the middle. There are a

223


significant proportion of people who are questioners … in relation to immunisation. They’re not anti-immunisation, but they’re not going to just go and do it because someone says it a good idea. They want to know information, they want to know about potential side effects and things like that. And in that respect a website plays a very critical role because you can provide different levels of information and detail of information which people will pursue according to their own level of need …


Agreeing with this assessment about the value of internet at this stage of decision-

making, Aaron, a content creator of interactive health information, explained further

benefits that assist users’ online contemplation of issues:

… the levels and layers that you can create for people through interactivity is very different to how you reach people like in advertising — in a very linear way. … You can enable people to set their own levels and layers … specific to their personal needs. The second thing is that it’s an on-demand system. So people can often access that sort of content at the time when they need it most … [so people see things on TV, etc., and] it might be completely irrelevant to them because they’re not facing an issue like that then … . Whereas online stuff you really get that peak engagement where people will tend to engage with it when they need it most. So it’s a tremendous difference …


Andreasen (1995) argues that as customers move towards taking up social change,

the marketing task during late-contemplation is to reduce perceived costs. It is at this

stage that ‘significant others’ (e.g., family members, media personalities, etc.) play

an important role and can also serve as role models. Selected social change agencies

have been successful in leveraging the internet to combine information strategies,

based on tailored messages about desired behaviours. These tailored messages are

also important in modelling positive behaviour change. The underlying strategy in

these campaigns is to involve the target customer’s reference group in online

exchanges to influence behaviour (Bearden & Etzel, 1982). The strategy focuses on

the inclusion of users’ stories that explain how they dealt successfully with a

personal problem. Online stories are influential on potential adopters because they

originate from the adopters’ membership groups (‘people like me’) and aspirational

groups (‘people I’d like to be like’) (Andreasen, 1995, p. 15). In effect, other internet

users serve as a credible source of information simply by providing models for the

desired behaviour. The experience of a successful nonprofit organisation that

224


established a support information referral service online six years ago, addressing

suicide prevention, demonstrates this strategy.

We’ve created community around … people sharing their stories around how they’ve got through tough times, and talking about their life. On the site, content and posting are about reinforcing that message that everybody goes through tough times. … So through the website young people can reach information that can help them manage those issues a little better. They can also read stories of people who are just like them and been through it as well, which gives them that sense of optimism that there is something that can come out of this. And the important thing for us though, is that the young people who may need something more, we’re able to provide support into encouraging them to go back into the community to seek long-term support.


Later in the interview, the participant cited above discussed how his organisation had

tailored the prevention messages through users’ stories for the target audience. He

explained that there are two criteria for stories posted to the website. Firstly, stories

are selected by an internet youth advisory board made up of members. This group

effectively tests the stories in terms of credibility. Explaining that the second

criterion concerns what value the stories hold for other users, he stated:

… they represent how that person’s got through a tough time. We’re not actually interested in the tough time, we’re interested in the coping strategies and its strengths. The reason being that, when you tell someone the story of your tough time, they inevitably feel sorry for you. You tell them how you got through, you become an inspiration.


The level of importance placed on a social issue by individual customers will

influence the balance between either reducing costs, or promoting benefits based on

the level of knowledge about a specific issue. Andreasen (1995) points out that

consumers do not make these decisions in a social vacuum. Therefore, sources of

information and sources of social pressure also influence acceptance of the

behaviour. The strategy of targeting opinion leaders is a well-accepted persuasive

strategy used in social marketing. Some social change advocates have extended this

strategy by using email to target decision makers and to mobilise broader community

participation in social causes. The benefit to organisations using email is merging the

‘two-step flow of communication’ into one-step, combining the rapid dissemination

225


of mass media with the persuasiveness of personal communications (Wellman &

Guilia, 1999). Joseph noted the positive outcomes from using email during a ‘rolling

union’ campaign, which was part of a larger social marketing program dealing with

union issues:

We had a good strategy … in the morning there’d be union organisers going around holding meetings … they’d hand out information to members to logon to the campaign website and send emails. Attached to the campaign was a website that had features like ‘ratbag of the day’ — it’s an MP … one that we thought was wavering, who we focused on to send an email to …


Joseph also recounted the success of this email campaign, which brought social

pressure from union members, combined with media advocacy to influence a

politician’s behaviour. He explained that in response to the volume of email, ‘… they

then started to block emails from our server. We were then able to turn that action

into a Sydney Morning Herald story. And they actually … backed down and had to

make a response to what we wanted …’ (In-depth interview, June 2002).

Some interviewees were less positive about the use of email campaigns, or online

petitions, as a means to influence and mobilise social pressure. The argument made

was that these strategies lacked credibility. The following statement from Stewart

summarises these concerns:

I think online petitions are particularly an interesting one, because I think the problem with something like that is that people have seen, or in my experience have seen, something that started like that on the internet where it was specifically asking them to commit to something or support something which didn’t have a particular chronological milestone. It didn’t say it’s by this date or whatever. Those things can just keep diffusing … I think the function of the petition itself can lose credibility because people then don’t know whether it’s ever going to start and stop. And unless it’s very clearly articulated as to how it’s actually going to be used, by whom, delivered to whom, at what particular time or date or whatever, I think they’re … at risk of not being as credible as something that …. a person delivering it to you .. can actually deliver to you.


This sentiment was shared by another participant, Joseph:

226


I think that emails have slightly less currency than print, but print has less currency in our letter boxes. But this is the virtue of the technology, because it makes quite good news stories. We’re able to put a hook, the fact that they were bouncing back emails, or they had received 20,000; it’s better than doing a survey. You know, the old dodgy approach of getting media coverage is you phone up other people with a survey because you’ve found out that ‘eight out of ten of the people contacted are against the war’. So you put it in the newspaper. Well, in this case you can do it with 20,000 emails — a bigger, more persuasive number.


An alternative perspective was offered by other participants who noted the

considerable resources being dedicated to educating the Australian public about e-

petitioning. Megan explained:

… in relation to the petitioning there were issues about the authenticity of petitioners and how you could confirm that in an online environment and what we ended up doing was that if you really look very closely at the hard copy system, like anything it's not one hundred percent fool proof so we just had to think, instead of being so nervous about an online environment say we want to bring it up to the standard of the physical petitioning system as opposed to having it so secure that no one is ever going to do it. It's a risk management thing that just equates it to the offline practice.


The experience of different government representatives indicates future acceptance

and potential adoption. As one member of this group, Brooke noted:

I think what you'll find, based on the limited marketing evaluation that we've done to date around the e-petitioning system, is the uptake has really been focused on those who are quite savvy in terms of working with government or are used to working with government and this is the thing. You find that people who know how to work government are quite vocal or part of lobby groups. They're going to take up any sort of option or avenue that they can benefit from…


Question and feedback facilities embedded in campaign websites also operate as

credible information sources. Users’ questions and “expert” responses are posted to

site discussion boards, which ‘can have direct influence on consumers’ own

perceptions of specific consequences and the importance attached to them’

(Andreasen, 1995, p. 158). Lyn, a health promotion worker, who created an

227


interactive website to educate young people about sexual health, believed there was

considerable value in the provision of ‘feedback’ options to assist parents and youth:

… kids can write in questions and have them answered which is another element of the site that makes it, I think, more interesting than a book … also kids asked whatever they wanted to because they felt certain of their privacy.


She also explained how being identified as an ‘expert’ in an area such as health

influenced parents:

Our evaluations also indicated that it was a model of how to answer tricky questions so it’s not that the parents don’t want to talk about the subject, but they’re really concerned about saying the right things or not the wrong things and so there’s a section there specifically for parents and it directs them to different sections on the site and I think it provides really useful advice on how to answer hard questions.


The role of ‘significant others’ perform important roles in social marketing, because

they can act as a pressure source (Andreasen, 1995). Some social change agencies

have successfully transferred these offline strategies to online, benefiting from the

internet’s speed and reach via strategies such as email campaigns and online

petitions. In other instances, social change agents have taken traditional word-of-

mouth from adopters, titled it ‘Tell us your story’ in a website, and leveraged these as

tailored campaign messages to motivate and persuade other adopters. These

innovative social change agents are successfully combining the network reach of the

internet with the persuasiveness of personal communications.

7.2.3 ‘Action’ in internet behavioural planning

Andreasen (1995) posits that the action stage involves the consumer holding one

additional important belief: the belief that the behaviour can be accomplished. The

social marketing task at this ‘stage of change’ is to focus on creating and supporting

consumer action. Traditional mass media strategies have been found to be least

influential at the action and maintenance stages (Donovan & Owen, 1994).

Consequently, those social change agencies that have primarily shaped the internet as

a passive media channel to disseminate information, have not developed internet

228


strategies that focus on engaging users in personal and emotional exchanges that can

contribute to building users’ self-efficacy. This is the ‘belief that the behaviour can

actually be accomplished’ (Andreasen, 1995, p. 161). Online sharing behaviour

strategies (for example, forwarding information to friends and family, or sharing a

personal story) contribute to internet users’ behaviour-change processes, because

they give target audiences a sense that they can enact the behaviour. More

specifically, they provide a vicarious learning experience through observing

behaviour change (Andreasen, 1995). In one interview, Madelyne applied this view

of technology as a means of justifying the incorporation of sharing behaviour

strategies in her social marketing campaigns. She stated:

… my philosophy is power of the personal story. I think allowing people to tell their story and to legitimize that by putting it somewhere in popular culture is really, really, really profound and very engaging and very empowering. I think for the people reading it, it’s very engaging, and for the people doing it, it’s often very empowering. … and the internet’s fantastic for that …In a creative-arts project I was involved in we extended that so people could also contribute arts-based stuff to an online-zine, which we published on the campaign site as well.


Figure 7.1: Social marketing product

Adapted from Kotler & Roberto (1989, p. 25)

Social Product

Practice

Tangible Object

Idea

Belief

Attitude

Value

Act

Behaviour

Interact Act

Kotler and Roberto’s (1989) social product definition describes ideas and behaviours

as the ‘product’ to be marketed (see Figure 7.1). Hence, the focal point of online

229


behaviour interventions is inducing action. For example, a single act such as

forwarding a help sheet to a friend in trouble can persuade an individual to further

contemplate positive behaviour change. The experiences of some social change

agents interviewed, however, indicates that continued online interaction (that is,

multiple acts) leads potential adopters towards an altered pattern of behaviour. For a

depressed person, this may be seeking professional services or establishing coping

mechanisms for dealing with the illness. Rhys’ experience in dealing with youth

suicide prevention supports this view:

By setting up a support information referral service, we believe that we’ve taken full advantage of the internet, in a way that a counseling service couldn’t. Our evaluations show that we can help, short of our servers falling over. … Once they’re there, for many young people they don’t need to go any further. For those young people who do need to go further we can actually funnel them into the already great services that exist within their communities.

Interviewer: How do you know they don’t need anything more?

Rhys: Because of the responses we get from young people. Like ‘I’ve come to [the site], it’s helped me and I’ve gone on with my life.


A similar perspective of the potential of the internet to combine social marketing

information with expert advice that supports positive behaviour change, was

articulated by Madelyne. She outlined the development of a real-time component to a

current campaign dealing with relationship issues:

The real advantage for me of online is the ability to set up a chat room that could be moderated by relationship experts that would be linked to a radio broadcast where people, if they didn’t want to ring in, could go online to share their experience, hear other survivor’s stories and get advice. I think that’s important for those people who might not have the social networks where that happens.


Strategies such as those outlined above simultaneously integrate the use of expert

opinion leaders with the use of people from the potential adopters’ reference group.

This is achievable because of the internet’s traits of interactivity, space and time

compression — immediate feedback — and anonymity.

230


Social change agents interviewed were not unequivocal in their support for online

chat rooms and discussion lists for social marketing campaigns. For example, Rhys

explained:

I know there is a lot media around in the area of mental health about chat rooms. [We’re still testing that] … because if you set up a chat room in a space like [ours – dealing with suicide prevention] people are chatting away and it’s generally supportive and lovely and someone comes in to that environment and says … quite often suicidal people are also very angry … will pursue their pain and decide to have a real go at someone in that environment and then they leave that environment and from our point of view, that interaction … has caused someone harm. So even though … and even on the good side of that, quite often people will chat with each other, but if you’ve got a number of depressed people who are chatting with each, what they might actually do is confirm the worldview that actually it’s fairly crap!


Other social change agencies faced challenges in incorporating sharing behaviour

strategies into their social change programs. One interviewee accounted for the

failure of an online health promotion strategy aimed at creating awareness and

changing attitudes towards self-harm, saying:

I started out with the idea … that the internet was maybe a good way to communicate information, and in that way empower people to be able to make wise or better choices in health, especially in relation to self harm. … Because I knew that when people self harm they often don’t make effective use of health services and tend to be very isolated … [and] don’t communicate those concerns very well and so don’t access help when they need it … Effectively we set out to build a community in a disenfranchised group … that included people who self harm and clinicians that care for those clients. … Our vision was to act as a gateway service.


In setting up a social change program online, to support women that self-harm,

Jessica noted the importance of establishing a community. Jessica regarded a sense

of community as integral to the program, because she believes that people who self-

harm have important knowledge and ‘a lot of untapped advice to give’. Furthermore,

she feels the internet provids women with an ‘anonymous safe way to find’ additional

information about an issue that can be shaming to survivors. As Jessica noted, ‘… we

231


wanted to have expert advice in there, but we also didn't want to deny the voice of

consumers — who we believe are also experts (In-depth interview, March 2002).

Jessica assumed that potential users would find it easier to access advice and health

care online, compared to traditional avenues such as going to a GP ‘or waiting

around an emergency department’. However, the site never achieved a critical mass

of participants. In reflecting on why the strategy failed, Jessica listed three main

issues. Firstly, she felt that maybe women were not that interested in the technology

and newer technologies such as mobile phones might have fitted more comfortably

with women’s lifestyles. In addition, she felt there was a perceived gap between

content created by experts and the women’s involvement and power to influence the

sites design and issues covered. She noted, ‘… I think the gap was that experts

designed these things and are perpetuating I suppose an “expert other” thing, where

we’re doing the provision of services instead of saying to consumers “What ideas do

you have” (In-depth interview, March 2003). Jessica also felt that because the

community was based on a health problem, the target market presumed that problem

was the focus of all communication. As she explained:

… I think the young women involved that helped us develop the project didn’t want to be ‘trouble talking’ all the time, they wanted to be doing things that [were] useful and helpful …. But there's [was] a belief that they [had] to be self-revelatory — you know — they didn't have to use it as a testimonial place. But I think that's what people thought they had to do?


What Jessica learnt from the project’s failures was that to establish a community

required the active engagement of the target market as co-producers in the

campaign’s design. In addition, the sense of community also needed to include the

provision or capacity to provide inspiration to deal with problems, as well as

facilitating supportive advice on how to cope with the problem. Jessica noted:

So if we were to do it again, I think we could guide people to be more creative and not just spill their guts — you know — I think that's the temptation — maybe because a lot of other sites are about ‘get something off your chest’ and I think we should have been much more socially minded, just saying ‘What are the issues that you want people to know about?’


232


Drawing on the experience of the social change agents interviewed, it can be argued

that the internet’s strengths, such as interactivity and making emotional exchanges

possible, can be used to facilitate late contemplation. Positive outcomes include

building adopters’ self-efficacy, and, where possible, instituting actions that lead to

longer-term behaviour change processes.

Typically, social marketing programs are focused on longer-term behavioural

practices that require maintenance throughout a lifetime (for example, using

condoms to prevent STDs, getting regular exercise to prevent heart disease).

However, Andreasen (1995) states that, occasionally, social marketing deals with a

single act (for example, encouraging a vasectomy as a means of birth control).

Another example of a short-term project with discrete acts is a volunteer program —

registering and turning up on the planned day. Beth, the coordinator of an online

program, explained that there were considerable barriers in seeking to engage young

people in volunteering. Her organisation had conducted focus groups which revealed

that young people were easily frustrated by a failure to connect with an agency.

Thus, if they telephoned and a volunteer co-ordinator was not available to speak to

them or if their call was not returned promptly, they were likely to lose interest or to

direct their energies elsewhere. The internet was consequently viewed as an

important avenue for circumventing these problems. She explained the advantages of

launching an online site that engages volunteering:

One organisation reported that they had about an 85% rate of the people that applied had already started. Whereas they got about 30% of people that just rang and said ‘Oh what do you do there, I might get involved’, or who had seen the advertisement through a volunteer centre or had seen it at the local shopping centre or something. There was something there where it had filled that need.


As a means of demonstrating the effectiveness of the internet, Beth related the

following story of a satisfied customer. It reveals the way in which the internet can

be used to induce action that directly translates to an offline pro-social behaviour:

One of my favourite quotes from the evaluation was a young woman who emailed and said ‘I got your postcard this morning from North Sydney station, looked up the website when I got to work and within half an hour I’d ended up volunteering for WIRES, you know, the wildlife people? And

233


she said ‘There is absolutely no way without this website I ever would have done this!’ And so that’s exactly the person that we’re talking about. She’s got web access, knows how to use the web, it’s just taken all the hassle out of it for her.


7.2.4 ‘Maintenance’ in internet behavioural planning

Social change agents interviewed provided accounts and justifications about a variety

of online strategies that have been used to increase perceived behaviour control,

leading to inducing action towards pro-social behaviours at the earlier stages of

change. To a lesser extent, they also recounted their experiences using the internet as

a strategy to sustain permanent lifestyle changes and maintenance. At this ‘final’

stage, marketers typically aim to influence continuous behaviour as well as correct

behaviour, which involves working closer with customers to prevent relapses

(Andreasen, 1995). Potentially, the internet provides new opportunities for social

marketers to establish relationships with target customers in the maintenance stage.

Because of confidentiality issues, many of the social change advocates interviewed

did not keep records about individual users’ behaviours, and thus could not provide

statistics on sustained behaviour change. Some would argue that this is further

evidence of social marketing’s ‘starting change’ bias (Andreasen, 2002). That is,

within social marketing, strategies and resources are typically focused on starting

new behaviours, rather than on sustaining adopted new behaviours. However, two

factors were cited as being evidence of the positive influence of the internet as a

support mechanism during the maintenance stage.

The first factor seen to be illustrative of the value of the internet at this fourth stage

was the number of interactive messages that provide positive feedback and support.

The second was users’ membership subscriptions to campaign websites. Stewart

noted, for example, the innovative work currently being trialled with interactive

‘quitting’ advice:

The ‘Quit Now’ site that we’ve got up … gets used for different sorts of reasons … people who clearly do want assistance in going through a quitting process themselves or wanting to help someone else … that’s now being extended to include interesting work with interactive quitting advice [— an online quit coach], where you click on to the site and you

234


end up in an interactive process [which involves] sending you quit tips and giving you tailored reinforcement on a daily basis.


This type of strategy simply transfers a successful offline strategy to an online

exchange that may be more convenient and beneficial to target adopters’ lifestyles. A

more innovative maintenance strategy was outlined by Rhys in relation to the suicide

prevention campaign. He highlighted two strategies that sustained positive behaviour

change. The first is involving users as co-producers of the campaign’s direction and

content. Central to the suicide prevention program was the use of a Youth Advisory

Board to provide input into developing content and planning future campaigns and

events for the program. Users of the program’s resources were also invited to provide

ongoing feedback about the service and actively participate as co-producers of the

campaign’s message to prevent suicide:

So … that in of itself is saying that the people who use the service, the young people going through a tough time actually can contribute in a very positive way … which helps them stay on a path to recovery, as well helping other young people like themselves. That something the internet really is ideal for.


The second strategy used in the suicide prevention campaign to facilitate

maintenance of behaviour change is the creation of community online. A range of

methods are used to achieve this aim. As discussed previously, these include the

sharing of stories about how users have come through tough times, links so users can

forward information to ‘help a friend’, and the inclusion of membership areas that

give young people access to maintaining personal online diaries. Andreasen (1995)

argues that providing visible benefits in social marketing programs are important

strategies for maintaining new behaviours. Hence, these online functions and

facilities, combined with various levels of interactive information and emotional

exchanges, influence users’ sense of commitment to the campaign message and

positive behaviour change. For example, Rhys explained that users can save results

from different activities online, which can help them identify issues and track change

overtime:

235


Members … can have their own diary on the website, they can save the results of those things and track themselves over time … that allows people to get a sense of progress.

But also, … one of the therapeutic ways to keep a diary … people always forget to bring things, certainly in a drug and alcohol setting and someone gets stoned and they’re not going to remember to do their diary everyday. So the young person and the counsellor knows that the diary is just up online and that young person can access that … and I think then from a therapeutic process we can actually see how that can be used.


In different instances the online environment has added value to social marketing

campaigns in a manner which can further contribute to social change. For example,

members who have formed relationships through the campaign websites create extra

information that influences new users entering particular websites at contemplation

stage. Whilst selected maintenance stage strategies exist that focus on private,

individual support (that is, personal diaries and online advice), other strategies which

contribute to a sense of community online, such as sharing stories, adds value to the

program. In turn, this benefits future new adopters of the campaign’s message.

In summary, this section has outlined innovative online strategies that social change

agents have developed to respond to social issues and problems. The ultimate answer

in each strategic situation, however, will depend on the behaviour in question and on

the target audience. Nonetheless, some general statements can be made about how

social marketers may best use interactive communication technologies for social

change. These can be gleaned from the experiences of the upstream users described

in this chapter as well as from the experiences of the ‘downstream’ internet users

described in Chapter Six.

Table 7.2 outlines planned strategies that have been used by internet innovators at

different stages of change. It illustrates the dominance of controlled informational

strategies (i.e., electronic pamphlets, brochures) in the earlier stages of change. The

table also reveals that social benefits accrue (i.e., achieving maintenance stage

interactions) from those strategies that have a more relational focus and shape

internet interactions as more social. These strategies are based on personal and

emotional exchanges which, for some users, lead to a sense of community,

established around the campaign message. As noted earlier, there are limitations in

236


237

applying the ‘stage of change’ model because it implies a simplistic, sequential

behaviour change. As a means of acknowledging that behaviour is more iterative —

in that people move between stages before moving forward in adopting positive

behaviour change — arrows have been added to Table 7.2. The table is a useful

summary that highlights different marketing based internet strategies that have been

applied to influence and effect pro-social behaviour change.


238

Table7.2: Social change internet strategies and tactics

STAGE OF CHANGE

Issue News & Events

Activist Network (e.g. email

campaigns)

Competitions Fact Sheets &

Pamphlets

Questions Feedback from Professionals

Sharing Behaviour

Participation in Online

Communities

Memberships/ Subscription (e.g., online

diary, interactive advice, content

creation )

Stories Information

Influencing Precontemplators

Influencing Contemplators

Benefits

Costs

Influencing Actors

Self-Efficacy

Influencing Maintainers

INFORMATIONAL RELATIONAL


7.3 Strategic use of the internet in social change

Andreasen and Kotler (2002) believe the twenty-first century nonprofit world is using

technology in imaginative new ways and argue that the internet will be a powerful

tool for reaching upscale markets and young people. Such assumptions were prevalent

when the internet was first used to sell products and subscriptions to online

newspapers, and provide access to free content. Many of these original ideas have

now been strategically reorganised, and products, services and content customised to

target the diverse needs and desires of online user segments. However, as was the case

with the introduction of the internet in commercial marketing back in the 1990s, there

is currently an apparent lack of strategic thinking in incorporating the internet in

social change strategies. Dann and Dann (2004) argue that the fundamental principle

in strategic marketing is the necessity to integrate all organisational activities to

produce a single set of outcomes. The previous section demonstrated that some social

change advocates are attempting to integrate online activities into broader social

marketing programs. However, for others the internet is simply used as an additional

media source or communication channel that enables users to provide campaign

“feedback” or access to a printed brochure. In the quotation below, Chris articulates

this construction of the internet:

As a marketer, … thinking about how to reach our target audience … I just look at the most appropriate tools to use. The internet would just be one of those tools and in most cases really only used as an adjunct. … I think … the techniques we’re using in social marketing to change social attitudes and behaviours and so on, is a fairly powerful one. The internet probably has a role to play in that, but as a marketer, at least at the current stage of its development, I would just view it as another tool to be used in a selective kind of way ...


The notion of good marketing strategy is well established in social marketing. This

thinking is based on specific managerial activities such as researching the market,

developing segmentation strategies and targeting key segments, creating positioning

strategies, developing strategic partnerships and conducting these activities to achieve

organisational goals (Andreasen & Kotler, 2002; Andreasen, 1995). Highlighted in

Section 7.3 are examples where some upstream users have integrated the internet as a

part of broader marketing strategy. What was more dominant in interviewees’ use of

239


the internet in social change programs, however, was shaping the technology as a

functional tool that made information-based activities easier or more efficient. What

was less obvious was thinking about the internet as an infrastructural technology that

combines the technology with practice and social organisation (Lievrouw &

Livingstone, 2002). Whilst some organisations exploited partnerships with offline

entities, focused on achieving program goals of increasing awareness and adding

value to the cause’s brand, others had not integrated online strategy into overall

program goals. Stewart outlined how the government department for which he worked

had integrated an offline, retainment strategy into their campaign:

… when we launched that campaign we went in with a number of marketing partners … . One of them was Video Ezy. We had a youth card as part of that campaign and it could be picked up from Video Ezy and it had a lot of useful information about tips to avoid drinking too much and things like that in there … and there was an incentive device in there that each time they borrowed a video from Video Ezy they’d get a stamp and after five stamps they’d get a free video. So, that was obviously a retainment type of strategy, so they didn’t just get a card, look at it once and throw it away.


Social change programs can increase value by creating relationships with

complementary online partners, such as websites and online services that target the

interests and desires of the same target market. King’s (2004) online anti-drug

campaign leveraged non-paid partnerships that contributed to the social change

program by building awareness of the campaign and sending traffic to the site’s online

resources. She found the most successful online strategic partnerships were based on

‘reciprocal content swaps, which provided relevant content of interest to common

target audiences with links back and forth between the campaign’s site and partner

sites’ (King, 2004, p. 78). This is illustrative of strategic thinking based on

recombining the system’s network infrastructure, organisational practices and the

social organisation of target groups, with the internet’s unique traits of interactivity,

anonymity and hyperpersonal communication.

240


Table 7.3: Stakeholders’ shaping of internet technology

Marketspace view of the internet

Recombinant Traits

Upstream Users

Informational Personal &

Relational

Infrastructural Anonymity Interactivity Hyperpersonal

Joseph Madelyne Sophie Chris

Soc

ial M

arke

ters

Stewart Lyn Anita Rhys Beth

Soc

ial C

hang

e Ag

ency

Jessica Brooke Laura Megan Patrick G

over

nmen

t

Kurt Sally Virgina Sarah Rod

Gat

ekee

pers

Richard

Table 7.3 illustrates the way in which each interviewee shapes the internet in social

change programs. The categorisation of upstream users’ interpretation and application

of the internet was defined by the subjective evaluation of the researcher through

seeking examples and justifications that are relatable to theories and concepts from

internet sociology, as discussed in Chapter Two. All upstream internet users (n=20)

demonstrate a marketspace view of the internet, in that they accounted for it as an

information tool that increases people’s capacity to gather relevant information. To a

lesser extent, they also account for the internet as a personal and relational technology

(n=13). For example, Patrick’s view of the internet is that it is an information

technology. When discussing government services online he noted that the internet’s

value was based on its effectiveness as a tool that increases people’s capacity to

complete transactions with government:

241


The general approach of e-government has been how to provide government services better or government information better to the citizen and community. … We're looking at … portal-based approaches … you want to do a particular transaction, you don't have to work out which level of government, whether it's federal or state, local or what ever … you just say ‘Look I want to do this’ and the portal will take you to the right area. That reduces the whole structural aspect and potentially improves people perception of government services.


Furthermore, when discussing community interaction with government, Patrick

discussed ‘passive’ interactivity, where transactions are conducted based on a uni-

directional intake of information from the government to the consumer. Patrick’s

infrastructual shaping of the internet focuses on government’s needs to efficiently and

cost-effectively provide information to citizens. In explaining some of the current

discussions about the value of delivering services online Patrick stated:

Some of the aspects that we've been looking at in government with this is because it actually costs less to do things on the web for example, than to print out a report and send it to someone — as an example. There's always been a tension within government about whether to provide some sort of differential pricing for example for those services.

It would be more pay by use if you're not online — as an example — or pay more for non-online things. Just because it will be so much more efficient for government to try to keep everything online and any sort of other approach will incur additional cost for government processing to be able to do that. But that's still a little way off yet.


By comparison, Anita’s infrastructural view of the internet is not based just on

thinking about making information available to target customers. Instead, it but also

includes combining features of the technology — interactivity, anonymity and

hyperpersonal communication — with organisational services by leveraging the

relational aspects of the technology to engage internet users in ‘active’ muti-

directional, interactive exchanges. These include informational exchanges between

the targeted user and the organisation, as well as the provision of opportunities for

users to make emotional exchanges with each other if they desire:

242


I think what’s been so important about our sites you know is that some people are just not going to ring the service basically unless they’re absolutely pushed to the limit … [in] using the internet we’re trying to provide very comprehensive information because, … if they’re not going to contact the services it’s really important that the website’s there and they can look at it anonymously.

The other important thing is that I think the anonymity let’s them share stuff … it’s a safe place that they use to maybe share information about their experiences, and also get advice and a sense of support by reading how other people have dealt with violent relationships.


Drawing a distinction between functional and relational aspects in online exchanges is

not to imply a binary, either/or relationship. The following section will demonstrate

the differences between upstream users’ social shaping of the internet as a functional

tool, and their framing of the internet as a personal and relational resource that can

influence individual and group pro-social behaviours. Additionally, the discussion

reveals the differences in these persuasive strategies — both informational and

relational — and highlights the opportunities and challenges of marketing social ideas

and actions using the internet. The following analysis is grounded in two assumptions.

The first of these is that the internet can be used persuasively in social change

strategies in an ‘attempt to change attitudes or behaviours or both’ in targeted groups

(Fogg, 2003, p. 15). The second is that supporting online relationships using the

internet makes a valuable contribution to sustain and progress internet users through

pro-social behaviour change. Such thinking is aligned with Hastings (2003a) and

Peattie and Peattie’s (2003) relational thinking, which argues that behaviour change in

social marketing programs is a long term adventure, not a short term transaction.

Integrating the internet into social change programs provides an opportunity for social

marketers to engage relational thinking and to work more closely with targeted

populations where appropriate.

7.3.1 Functional aspects

One basic function of the internet is to perform as a tool. In this role the internet

facilitates users’ activities and interactions, making tasks easier, more convenient and

efficient. Fogg (2003) argues that persuasion strategies will differ depending on

whether the internet is functioning as a tool, or facilitating relational exchanges in

243


which the internet’s networks are leveraged by social actors to convey social

influence. For example, the internet is a tool that makes targeted behaviour easier to

perform, leads users through a process, or performs a task that motivates behaviour

(Fogg, 2003). When Stewart discussed his government department’s youth alcohol

campaign, he highlighted two functional purposes for providing online access to

campaign information. He first noted that having online information can make

targeted behaviours easier. Embedding an online competition in campaign

information was intended to motivate the target market to contemplate the campaign’s

social product. Whilst the competition was entertaining to the target market, the

targeted behaviour was learning more about the social product — alcohol abuse. In

the second instance, Stewart acknowledged the organisational convenience of

providing health information online for student projects, which is both time saving

and cost effective for government. He argued:

… a campaign website like this … will be for two reasons. It will be … that you’ve created an incentive for them to want to go through some steps and have to think about that in terms of writing an entry to go into a competition, or they’ve got to go there for a school project; that happens a fair bit. When we are running our teenage campaigns, teachers see these campaigns as well and see them as opportunities to enhance their own teaching activities in the classroom, often they might direct kids to get information about this, whatever and they can go to a campaign website. So having information there is an important part for that sort of aspect of it, but we don’t really expect teenagers will go there just to learn — for a learning experience as such.


In a discussion about social issues typically dealt with by social marketers, Stewart

went on to contend that internet access also makes some targeted behaviours easier

for potential adopters, because users do not necessarily have to identify to the world

that they have a specific need or problem. He explained:

… if you want to do it in a more anonymous way, a web-based service is far more useful. It means that people can get information without necessarily identifying to the world that they have that need. Lessons [from] research in the National Illicit Drugs Campaign targeting parents we find that … there is a very high level of need identified by the parents to know more about illicit drugs … they need to be able to talk to the child about it, but they feel inadequately informed. But just by putting a brochure or a pamphlet in places like GP’s surgeries … our research with that indicated that it’s unlikely that they would actually pick it up. By

244


picking it up, they’re saying to everybody else who’s around them, either: ‘I’ve got a problem with drugs in my family’, or ‘I don’t trust my son’ or ‘I know someone else who’s got a drug problem’; all of which stigmatises and aggravates the situation. So the answer from a social marketing point of view is that it was more effective to literally deliver that information into the hands of everyone which would mean that you get that to all parents without any stigma attached to the delivery of that … . I think the internet can provide something similar.


When shaping the internet as a functional tool, upstream users interviewed

demonstrated a predisposition towards the ‘learn-feel-do’ model of planning social

change strategies (Kotler & Roberto, 1989). This ‘learning model’ implies a sequence

in behaviour, which suggests that adoption will not take place unless the people first

learn about and then develop an attitude toward the social product. However, in some

instances, this translates to ‘passive’ information dissemination and websites created

purely to host printed brochures and reports in electronic form. A good example of

this is the Western Australian Government’s website for the ‘Freedom from Fear’

domestic violence prevention campaign targeting male perpetrators of intimate

partner violence (Donovan, Paterson & Francas, 1999)

<http://www.freedomfromfear.wa.gov.au/>. Whilst a campaign website address is

published, it simply provides electronic copies of printed materials. These campaigns

are invested in “passive” information strategies, which provide little incentive for

users to return to such sites. In discussing his organisation’s website, which also

focused on delivering campaign brochures, Stewart stated:

... people were going to the site – again not to find out information themselves but about entering a competition. The most telling aspect was that most people didn’t come back. They’d spent a reasonable amount of time when they were there, but they didn’t return to it. On the basis of that actually we change the function of it quite a bit since then, but it wasn’t something that was offering people return benefits. Once they’d been there and they’d entered the competition that was it.


In a similar vein, Aaron raised concerns about the value of the simple provision of

information online and the emphasis on the internet’s capacity to deliver information

in a fast and efficient manner. He suggested that social change agencies relying on

245

http://www.freedomfromfear.wa.gov.au/


these attributes of the internet did not necessarily add any real value to their social

change strategies:

… there seems to be a tendency to think that the faster more efficient delivery of more information is of itself valuable. And it's not. The mere fact that I can get information faster and more of it has no benefit to my life. Knowledge is what's valuable so it's I suppose the engagement with information that I think is significant in delivery in online services. But there's a huge tendency to think that content aggregation — just getting more and more stuff is somehow beneficial and I think that's … deeply problematic. So I'm concerned that that's all that a lot of people are doing; is just more and more links to more and more sites …


Selected social change agents have used the internet as a persuasive tool that

customises information for users’ specific needs and desires. For example, the Federal

Government’s ‘Quit Now’ campaign includes a ‘Quit Coach’ that customizes

supportive advice and information based on a subscriber’s description of their

smoking behaviours. As Fogg (2003, p. 41) explains, the internet in these strategies is

being used as a ‘suggestion technology’, which builds on people’s existing

motivations. In the smoking example, the technology operates to support and remind

smokers about reasons for giving up and provides suggestions on how to cope with

withdrawal and changing lifestyle.

Funding and resources are significant issues in sustaining social marketing programs.

Thus, integrating the internet into a campaign and using more persuasive strategies

such as online communities were considered financially prohibitive by some upstream

users interviewed. The quotation from Chris below summaries this sentiment:

It doesn’t seem to have a lot of broader functions or appeal beyond those three areas … that it’s really entertaining, good at delivering project information, or [provides] one link to get help needed at a particular time. To have a really highly engaging, entertaining site is an expensive ongoing commitment, which usually is not viable within national social marketing campaigns to undertake.


In contrast, other social change agents from nonprofit organisations viewed the

internet as an affordable information and communication technology for use in

achieving campaign goals. Therefore, whilst information dissemination was

246


considered by some interviewees as an effective strategy that moves target adopters to

contemplate and prepare for action, they also initiated additional online strategies that

encourage positive adoption — action and maintenance behaviour. As noted earlier,

these stages of change are based on exchanges where the social marketer engages a

target market by using relational strategies that incorporate customers’ experiences.

7.3.2 Relational aspects

The internet is also employed by some upstream internet users to create a sense of

social influence, grounded in online relationships. These strategies have been

successful because, as outlined in Chapter Five, people respond socially to online

interactions and engage in emotional exchanges that provide support. As other

researchers have documented (Haddon, 2004; Preece, 2000), online social support has

being positively associated with individual well-being and happiness. Online

relational exchanges in social change programs investigated in Study 3 have focused

on facilitating people’s exploration of cause and effect relationships, providing target

markets with vicarious experiences that motive them to change, and providing a

secure environment where they can rehearse a positive behaviour (Fogg, 2003). Aaron

explained how using interactivity in an online social change program enabled his

group to engage target audiences’ thinking about a social issue. He commented:

I think it's [the internet] a very good way for people to begin to articulate their issues and it's also a ‘hearts and minds medium’ for me. That is, it can engage you, but it's not diagnostic. I keep as far away from using online and multi-media to diagnose and then respond to people. … what we do is a lot of work which helps people to discursively start talking about issues and often quite playfully engaging with that but, always coming back out of the computer into the real world with printouts or ways of talking to people. So the key issue for me is that early prevention is really good and motivation about issues and engaging with issues and so on is very good. But I would never like to see it [the internet] as de-humanise the role of the social work or counselling relationship.

Later in the interview, Aaron explained how the campaign exploited the visual and

interactive traits of the technology, as well as utilising expert online opinions and

online counseling to further facilitate the engagement with social issues by users:

One thing they can do while waiting online for a counsellor, because you sometimes have to wait up to 20 minutes, is to combine a series of naturalistic images together which then when you connect with a

247


counsellor becomes like a story-telling machine. The counsellor will, if they choose can say ‘well, I see you've put sand and sky together, why?’ and the kids might say ‘Oh that reminds me when my father was still with us and we always used to go to the beach’ or another one is they might combine fire and ice and they might say ‘Well internally I'm full of fire but my outside world is cold’ so they might use it to tease out a metaphor. Or to make a geographic reference or it allows them the opportunity to speak about a memory that they have. So there's lot of different ways they can use that but that becomes what counsellor call a ‘presenting issue’. So if they say ‘well the sand and the sky remind me of my father’ of course a counsellor is most likely to say ‘Oh so you miss your father’ or pick up on that element. So, one thing is a story telling machine. So what we're doing is giving kids the opportunity to construct images that then become discursive with the counsellor and initiates a conversation.


Other persuasive strategies focus on using the internet’s network reach to engage

users’ community involvement and sense of activism. These relational strategies aim

to motivate internet users to become involved in issues that are of personal

importance. In these instances the internet facilitates new relationships by providing

people with access to services that can lead them to commence a process, or even

undertake a new behaviour such as stating their opinion on government strategies. As

Brooke, a government worker, noted:

[For] people who are time poor the internet's great … because they can do it at any time, anywhere and so the anonymity associated with it as well, particularly that addresses some of those cultural barriers that people who don't feel comfortable standing up in public forums or going to meetings or don't have the time to go to meetings or fill out surveys or whatever, they can just get on the internet and provide their opinions and views online.

So I guess — the thing though is that they expect something responsive and timely because you think the internet is efficient, it's convenient and so what we try to do from an e-democracy perspective is promote it as being a safe secure and convenient way of engaging with the government … So when community members do provide their opinion, view, feedback or whatever we always make sure that there's an email back to them acknowledging them because most of the time people just want to heard.

Brooke also acknowledged that online community consultation was about providing

an effective government service and educating the public about government

processes. She explained that extending government consultation to online exchanges

was:

248


… also about completing the feedback loop, so people are providing their views and opinions, there's an expectation that they're going to see how their community views are being reflected in policy and decision-making of government.


Joseph noted that the internet’s immediacy was valuable because of its usefulness at

critical times for influencing behaviour and persuade people to act:

I can’t do some things with print because mail is such a one-way medium … the immediacy of email lets me use people’s emotion reactions. [So with targeted] email petitions [it] gives me a bigger reach and you can harness the immediate emotion reaction. Email lets you do that as does the web. … I think that’s what new about this technology using those emotional triggers and I don’t believe a lot of people do that.


Aaron, however, saw as problematic the pervasive view that online activism will have

a positive influence on the democratic process. He argued that the implication of such

thinking is that society will be better off because the internet provides a new public

sphere and thus democratic opportunities. He believes this may be an outcome for

some members of society, but not necessarily for all. He stated:

I think it's profoundly useful for that [activism] and a great medium for that. But, I'm always cautious about elites who have access to high-level technology believing that they're being democratic without engaging with an audience. And activism is still, I think, elitist … it still concerns me, for example, that activists won't necessarily democratise the process, but will have an appearance of democratising the process so the internet offers you opportunities to still be a fascist, but to appear to be a democrat. And that's got to do with who makes those resources and how they make those resources and how they engage with their audiences.


On the other hand, other upstream users felt that the internet’s network reach provides

new opportunities for connecting people, which also motivates them to share

information and knowledge more readily. Joseph, for example, believes the internet

amplifies the diffusion of information. His perspective values sharing behaviours

online, which can also be persuasive because the information is being forwarded by a

source known to the receiver.

249


You know if you translate that activity of distribution of learning, the distribution of knowledge across the globe, and in my case, my sharing of information that I acquire would be in the order of at least 10 times more than 10 years ago. And you translate that across all human activity in people who have access to … the internet even if you just double that, you’ve got a massive explosion of knowledge sharing!


The benefits of this type of sharing behaviour are outlined by Burt (1992) who has

argued that instrumental ties, such as forwarding information to acquaintances and

work colleagues, represents weak tie relationships. Such relationships provide users

with access to new information because contact with different sets of others gives

users access to information sources different from their own social network (Haddon,

2004).

Creating relationships based on sharing behaviour between users also provides

vicarious experiences that some social change agents have exploited to increase the

sense of credibility and user involvement in a campaign message. Online relational

strategies, noted earlier in this chapter, included the use of personal narratives, where

users were actively engaged to share their experiences about specific issues or

problems. Rhys explained their program’s relational strategy, which is based on

involving the target market as co-producers in the campaign message. Their aim is to

facilitate young people sharing their stories about ‘getting through tough times’. He

justified the use of such a strategy, saying:

We responded to young people’s request to talk with each other … by setting up an environment where the outcome is to improve their mental health and well-being, rather than just giving them a sense that other people have gone through it as well.

We’ve created community by ensuring that the voice of young people going through tough times and getting through the other end of it is heard. We’ve achieved that by encouraging them to share their own stories … it’s those stories that gives the website a sense of personality … and for us that personality has to be fundamentally caring.

Rhys explained other interactive features embedded in the website that enabled people

to rehearse behaviours. These strategies aim to increase the target market’s self-

efficacy and ability to deal with and talk about their problems.

250


… “scream-it, dream-it” is a small interactive, text box instant graphics, where people type their problems and it gets shot off in a rocket, or put in a dream thing. Yes, it’s interactive, and yes people may say its fun, but it also achieves a particular purpose, which is helping people sort through their issues.


Relational strategies focus on a sense of reciprocity in the emotional exchanges that

happen online. Such exchanges can be explained and described by applying Bagozzi’s

(1975) complex exchange process, where a system of mutual relationships have

evolved between at least three parties and are interconnected in a web of relationships.

These relationships contribute to social change programs online through various

interactive and anonymous forums that reward people with positive feedback and

provide social support because users can share emotion and exchange hyperpersonal

communication.

7.4 Summary

This chapter has drawn on interviews with upstream internet users to explore the ways

in which the internet is being engaged in social change campaigns and programs. The

qualitative analysis did not seek to present an idiosyncratic view of the role of internet

in the social change marketplace. Rather, the aim of the analysis was to explain the

opportunities and challenges faced by social change agents when leveraging internet

technologies in pro-social behaviour change. Analysis of the data has revealed the

social shaping of the internet as a functional information source, and as a persuasive

technology that exploits information and relationships. As the Schwartz and Hardison

(2003) quotation at the beginning of the chapter highlights, online target adopters can

elect to become partners and advocates in an online social marketing campaign, thus

moving social marketing from its traditional “information out” approach, to a more

interactive and relational strategy. The following chapter will draw upon this analysis,

as well as data from the preceding chapters, to explain the wider generality and

applicability of the experiential accounts outlined to propose a strategy map for online

social marketing.

251

CHAPTER EIGHT ONLINE SOCIAL MARKETING

Chapter Eight: Online Social Marketing

The goal of the interpretive approach is an understanding of behaviour in terms of a particular system of ideas and from the frame of reference of these ideas. Data are made meaningful by virtue of the application of these ideas, and this gives rise to ‘interpretation’ as the most general label for this exercise. Interpretations are proposed and evaluated among a community of scholars sharing the particular system of ideas.

(Hunt, 1989, p. 568)

8.0 Introduction

This chapter draws together the analysis of the three studies outlined in the preceding

chapters. The data, drawn from in-depth interviews, focus groups and face-to-face Q

sorting, have revealed the discrete differences and shared experiences of people who

access the internet for social and relational purposes. The three study design, which is

grounded in internet users’ experiences, demonstrates that the internet facilitates

users’ engagement with pro-social behaviours. Analysis has also revealed users’

social shaping of the internet as an informational, social and relational technology.

The social marketing interpretation in this chapter will highlight the opportunities and

challenges of engaging the internet in online social marketing programs and

campaigns.

The following discussion responds to Goldberg’s (1995) and Winett’s (1995) critique

that successful social marketing should take into account both upstream and

downstream perspectives. It therefore integrates findings from the three studies

discussed to inform the development of a strategy map for online social marketing. To

further develop this analysis, the chapter also draws upon current research from

literature on internet sociology, internet marketing and social marketing reviewed in

Chapters Two and Three. The overall aim of the chapter is to address the research

questions of the study as outlined in Chapter One. These are:

• How do internet users describe their experiences of the internet as an everyday

technology?

• What different profiles of internet users’ opinions, attitudes and actions can be

identified?

253


• How can social marketing be more responsive to internet user behaviour?

The following discussion emphasises marketing’s ‘continuous-process perspective’

and embraces the view of internet users as potential ‘coproducers’ of value (Vargo &

Lusch, 2004, p. 11). The continuous-process perspective is well established in the

services marketing literature which embraces customer interaction processes.

Gummesson (2002a, p. 11), for example, argued that this perspective extends the

customer-centric idea to the ‘integration of the voice of the market with the voice of

the enterprise’. Sharing a complementary view, Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2000)

argue that the market has become a venue for proactive customer involvement, and

thus, marketers are able to co-opt customer involvement in the value creation process.

Together these views position customers, and by extension customers who engage the

internet, as empowered, proactive consumers who actively interact (or not) in various

exchanges as they recombine the internet’s functions and facilities to meet their

individual needs. These are not radical marketing perspectives for social marketing to

consider; rather the research undertaken in this study demonstrates their worth in

guiding a social marketing interpretation that answers the overarching, thesis research

question: What is the role of the internet in social marketing?

8.1 Experiencing the internet

Early research about ICTs focused on the internet as an information technology. As a

result, the research conducted in the 1990s was dominated by a view of the internet as

a static repository of information. Hearn et al. (1998) disagreed with this singular

view of the internet. They argued that the internet is also an interactive and dynamic

communication technology that underlies all society’s activities, whether they be

banking and finance, health and medical services, or education and training.

Consequently, at the commencement of this study some of the literature that informed

the research questions described the internet as a ‘different’ experience. This

particularism has since been criticised by Haythornthwaite and Wellman (2002, p. 5),

because it focuses on the ‘internet as a lived experience distinct from the rest of life’.

As Hearn et al. (1998) envisaged, the private use of the internet is today a reality of

everyday life, because over time users have consumed, modified, domesticated and

‘remade’ the internet to meet individual and societal needs (Oudshoorn & Pinch,

2003).

254


Evident in the current internet sociology literature is an holistic view of internet users

(see for example, Herring, 2004; Haythornthwaite, 2002; Wellman &

Haythornthwaite, 2002). However, many marketing scholars remain committed to a

dominant view of the internet as a medium for commercial transactions involving

tangible goods and some services. This is in spite of corresponding, scholarly

developments in the services marketing area which contend that marketers move

‘away from tangibles and towards intangibles, such as skills, information, and

knowledge, and toward interactivity and connectivity and ongoing relationships’

(Vargo & Lusch, 2004, p. 15). Roland Rust (2004, p. 24) posits that this focus on

intangible, operant resources is attributable to information technology, which he

argues has brought with it a new capability to leverage knowledge and information

into services, in turn expanding ‘the intangible aspect of virtually all economic

exchanges’. The experiences of internet users presented in the findings of this study

relate well to Vargo and Lusch’s (2004) marketing perspective. Furthermore, the

findings illustrate individual users’ experiences of the internet as personal and social,

and the desire of some internet users to be coproducers as they engage in online

exchanges. These different behaviours and experiences have evolved as users have

shaped the internet’s traits and functions to meet their individual needs.

Findings from the study also support Wellman and Haythornthwaite’s (2002)

argument that the internet is not “special”. The internet has become integrated into

people’s lives and is no longer constructed as a ‘dazzling wonder’, because users have

been able to employ the internet’s technological network frequently and easily to

locate personal services, or information. As a result users see the internet as a

technology that they can use to solve everyday problems. Consequently, social

marketing needs to reassess the internet and to further engage internet users, not

simply as information consumers, but also as potential coproducers of value in social

marketing programs. The challenge for social marketing is to move from thinking of

the internet as an instrumental tool, towards a simultaneously competitive and

collaborative view (Day, 1994) that exploits the internet’s network relationships

(Vargo & Lusch, 2004). Whilst some social marketers appreciate the interactive

opportunities of the internet, few have exploited its relational opportunities. To

effectively reach internet users with the intent to support or change behaviour, social

marketers need to be aware of online competition, involving not only behavioural

255


competition relating to a specific social issue, but also the social and entertainment

competition that demands users’ online time. To counter this type of competition

social marketers could leverage online content and advertising opportunities, such as

cross-promotional efforts using non-paid partnerships with complementary websites,

which could increase consumer awareness and stimulate contemplation of new social

behaviour. The following section provides illustrations on how social marketers can

leverage the internet as an everyday technology. Section 8.3 then outlines some

practical examples on using the internet to target the internet segments identified

during Study 2. Following this an Interactive Strategy Map (Figure 8.1) is outlined to

provide practical examples and explanations on how the internet can be used in

creating exchanges of value, based on transactional and relational activities, in social

marketing practice.

8.2 HOW DO INTERNET USERS DESCRIBE THEIR EXPERIENCES OF THE INTERNET AS AN EVERYDAY TECHNOLOGY?

The analysis drawn from interviews and focus groups in Study 1 demonstrates how

users have become active agents in the social construction of the internet. Internet

users provided evidence of the way in which they engage the internet’s network for

personal and relational benefits, such as social support and connection with family,

and as a tool to access information online. Users’ accounts thus revealed the social

construction of the internet as a personal and social space. This construction evolved

from their interactions with other users, and from their exchanges with corporate and

nonprofit organisational interests. The data also demonstrate the internet’s flexibility,

a characteristic which enables users to recombine the technology’s traits and functions

to meet their social needs and desires. These experiences illustrate how internet users

are shaping the internet and how, at the same time, users’ behaviours are shaped by

the technology. It was users’ accounts of shaping the internet which revealed the

qualitative differences between functional and social behaviours online. These

behaviours are described in the remainder of this section, and then advanced in

relation to the three profiled downstream segments discussed in Section 8.3.

From the users’ perspective, the internet is both a functional and social technology.

Moreover, the experiences of internet users in Study 1 revealed the internet not as an

elite preserve, but as a technology used by ordinary people in the daily activities of

work and business, as a way to locate specific information on political and health

256


issues, and as means to chat with friends, family and other internet users. In their

narratives, users suggested that the “real-world internet” did not function on its own,

but is more accurately described as being embedded in the real things users do

everyday (Haythornthwaite & Wellman, 2002). That is, for some of the users

interviewed, online community is becoming one of the many ways they stay

connected, along with using other modalities such as face-to-face, phone and postal

contact.

Before discussing the differences between users’ functional and social behaviours

online, it is important to clarify the use of the term “functional” in the context of this

study. There are potential epistemological contradictions in drawing on a functional

metaphor, given this thesis is situated in a constructionist perspective. In addition,

scholars have been critical of the marketing discipline’s simplistic, functional

approach to consumer interactions in the market. For example, managerial marketing

has been criticised by interpretivists for its application of the 4Ps, which they argue

implies a systemic view of relationships between inputs and outputs for a desired,

profitable outcome. Such an application fits comfortably with Alderson’s (1965)

original proposition and introduction of functionalism in marketing as an approach to

problem solving (see Fraedrich, 1987). Marketing’s history is littered with debates

concerning the limitations of functionalist thinking (see Chapter Three). Recounting

those debates here is unnecessary for explaining the use of a functional metaphor in

this thesis. This is primarily because, in the context of this research, the term

“functional” is used to simply distinguish between practical uses of information

gathered from various online sources, as compared to the relational behaviours in

exchanging and diffusing information and communication online. This is not applying

a functionalist approach. Rather, being functional in the context of this study is

thinking about online interactions from the users’ perspective and considering the

exchanges between computers and other users as serving a practical and purposeful

task. These exchanges would include online behaviours such as easily locating

information on a health issue, sending an email to a doctor to confirm an appointment,

or using the internet as an efficient tool to assist self-diagnosis of a health problem.

257


8.2.1 Functional information technology

As described in Chapter Five, functional internet users shape the technology more as a

“tool” to complete personal tasks and to easily locate information from credible

sources. All users involved in Study 1 (n=29) related to the internet as a source of

information. Users accounted for accessing a variety of information online about a

range of topics and valued the opportunity to access information from diverse sources

and locations. These included using the internet to locate work related resources, to

find personal information about health issues for themselves, family members or

friends, and to search for information on political and social issues. For some users,

the opportunity to make tasks such as locating and updating information simpler and

to customise information to meet their personal needs, such as using newspaper

services that forward digests of news headlines, was important.

Whilst the majority of internet users involved in Study 1 typically agreed that there

were positive opportunities to access diverse information via the internet,

interviewees also justified and explained their negative attitudes and opinions of

internet information and content. Negative attitudes that mediated users’ interactions

and use of online information manifested in two major concerns. The first concern

was about the quality of information disseminated from websites, as well as

potentially misleading personal messages being posted to discussion forums.

Concerns about quality of information were typically resolved through methods such

as using information from credible sources. For some users, a credible information

source was an identifiable and known organisations or institutions; for others it

included information from online communities of which they were members. The

second concern related to beliefs about personal privacy in online interactions. Some

users explained how they used selective behaviours — only using websites of known

institutions, or never providing full personal details, because they had privacy fears

about their personal information being abused, or that their personal online behaviour

could be monitored. Privacy concerns typically arose because of the internet’s

anonymity trait. Some users associated anonymous interactions with greater risk; this

influenced how these users exchanged and shared information online. These concerns

are addressed in more detail in relation to the profiles discussed in Section 8.3.

258


8.2.2 Social and personal technology

In Study 1, a smaller group of internet users interviewed (n=12) described their social

and relational interactions involving the internet. Whilst these users embraced the

functional opportunities internet access provided, they also valued the social aspects

afforded by the technology. Social internet user accounts revealed the network

potential of the internet and illustrated how users’ engagement of the technology

facilitated their evolution to social actors. What was evident in their descriptions is

that these interview participants have moved beyond being atomic, individualised

‘users’ and become social actors who communicate and interact with others through

online social networks of affiliations (Lamb & Kling, 2002). Internet actors thus draw

from their membership in online and offline networks to actively interact and

disseminate information to other users in their network of relationships. These users’

stories in Study 1 provide evidence for the creation and maintenance of social

relationships in online communities and networks, the active customising and sharing

of information to others in their networks, and the seeking out of social and political

opinions in online forums and discussions lists.

Networks of personal relationships facilitated by online connections, both work

related and socially oriented, help network members to act together to achieve their

goals (Haythornthwaite & Wellman, 1998), to ease working relationships (Gabarro,

1990), and to build the necessary trust for collaborative activity (Haythornthwaite,

1996, 2000; Wegerif, 1998). Also evident in some internet actors’ accounts was a

consciousness of the potential harm in internet connections and concerns about the

“dark side” (for example, pornography, hate groups, or bomb sites) of public access to

a global network of people and information. Anonymity, which was considered to be

either liberating or deceptive and harmful, also affected social actors’ behaviours in

this context. These influential issues are discussed further in relation to the segments

identified from Study 2, which are addressed in Section 8.3.

8.2.3 Summary of users’ everyday experiences of the internet

Study 1 was undertaken to investigate and to identity the influences on internet users’

online behaviours. These influences were identified from the accounts of internet

users’ experiences and acts of consumption. Users’ experiences evolved from their

259


interactions with nonprofit organisations, governments, and commercial institutions,

as well as from their communication and exchanges with other users. The notion of

“experience” entered marketing through Holbrook and Hirschman’s (1982)

pioneering research on experiential consumption. More recently, however, Carừ and

Cova (2003, p. 268) have been critical of marketing’s limited view of experience,

which they argue ‘tend[s] to consider every experience as extraordinary’. Of less

interest has been the ‘ordinary experience’, which Abrahams (1986, p. 50) describes

as everyday life, routine, the past, and the passive acceptance of events. By

comparison an ‘extraordinary experience’ is related as a ‘more intense, framed and

stylised practice’. What was interesting in studying users’ experiences in Study 1 was

that they described the internet as an everyday technology that embraces ‘ordinary’ to

‘extraordinary’ experiences, because internet users and actors can shape the

technology as a functional, social and cognitive space (Riva, 2001). The users in

Study 1 thus constructed the internet as being a flexible technology that is used in

multiple social situations. Consequently, internet users, given different social

situations, shift between being a ‘user’ and ‘social actor’ who leverage the internet

network by combing information, network structures and operant resources (for

example intangible skills and knowledge relating to a pro-social behaviour). In the

following section, three distinct segments that describe users’ social shaping of the

internet are outlined.

8.3 WHAT PROFILES OF INTERNET USERS’ OPINIONS, ATTITUDES AND ACTIONS CAN BE IDENTIFIED?

Segmentation strategy, which is based on the principles of selectivity and

concentration, continues to be a core marketing strategy for those organisations and

industries that focus on customer retention as a primary goal (Wedel & Kamakura,

2002). This is particularly relevant to social marketing strategy, especially for

programs focused on consumers’ long-term commitment to change. As Andreasen

(1995) points out, consumers dealing with high involvement decision-making do not

adopt the planned behaviour instantaneously. Rather, changes in such behaviours are

both difficult and time consuming, and behaviour change unfolds through a series of

stages (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983). As highlighted in Chapter Seven, the

internet’s functions and traits can be recombined to influence users’ behaviours at

different stages of change and thus achieve social marketing goals. Furthermore,

260


when launching campaigns and programs that either partially or wholly incorporate

interactive technology, social marketing strategy needs to be responsive to the discrete

differences in users’ behaviours. This is because today, online users can no longer be

simply defined by their access to technology, or their preference for interactive media

over traditional media channels.

Whilst market segmentation is one of the most widely accepted concepts in

marketing, it still remains of research interest to scholars. For example, recently two

special issues on market segmentation were published (see Australasian Marketing

Journals, 2004, and International Journal of Research in Marketing, 2002). In one of

those issues, Wedel and Kamakura (2002, p. 182) argued that although ‘much

progress has been made in the area of models for segmentation, much remains to be

done in conceptualisation of strategic market segmentation’. The segmentation

analysis undertaken in this study has responded to Wedel and Kamakura’s (2002)

request for greater conceptualisation, and presents Q methodology as an approach to

refine strategic market segmentation for social marketing. Q’s suitability for

theorising internet user segments is evident, because it has enabled the description of

subjective perceptions and appreciations of the internet. Furthermore, the experiential

profiles of internet users described in Chapter Six reflect marketing research’s

movement away from basic considerations of demographics to include lifestyle

aspects and psychographics (Nataraajan & Bagozzi, 1999). Q methodology

contributes to a rich, detailed description of online consumers by providing subjective

detail of lifestyles and psychographics.

Findings from Study 2 using Q methodology outlined three distinct profiles of internet

users’ experiences and behaviours. Experienced internet users (n=32) sorted a

communication concourse of 50 statements about the internet (see Table 6.1). The

concourse detailed positive and negative opinions and experiences of internet

information and content, network relationships and communication, virtual

communities, internet traits, online social activities, and general opinions of the

societal impacts of the internet. Relevant statements, explaining users’ subjective

interpretation of the internet, then informed the profiling of three internet user

segments. These were: Internet Communitarians, Information Networkers, and

Individualised Networkers. The profiles of these three segments illustrate some

261


homogeneity in users’ online behaviours and their social shaping of the internet. Of

more importance, however, are the differences between segments, which can be used

to plan and implement social marketing strategy that is responsive to the differences

that occur in users’ preferences for:

• locating (i.e. channel preference and style — online/offline channel);

• communicating (i.e. values, attitudes and lifestyles); and

• motivating (i.e. stimulated by different information and message styles and

sources) (Donovan & Henley, 2003, p. 211).

As detailed in Chapter Six, the differences evident in users’ behaviours influence their

responsiveness to internet exchanges involving social issues. Arguably, internet users

are potentially more committed to the pro-social issues, since they seek out

information and actively participate in online interactions and exchanges, rather than

being the passive targets of traditional mass communication messages.

The following section extends the discussion of the differences between segments of

internet users that demonstrate distinct “we” and “me” intentions and behaviours.

Most recently, Bagozzi and Dholakia (2002) defined and tested a model of “we-

intentions”, based on the attitudes, motivations and identities of people who

purposefully seek out and interact in virtual communities. They drew a clear

distinction between the intentions of users who look for group interactions, as

opposed to personal interaction, because they believe that the ‘allure of a virtual

community for an individual member derives from the collectivity, the positive

experience of congregating and communicating in the mediated environment,

together, as a group’ (Bagozzi & Dholakia, 2002, p. 7). The following discussion

extends Bagozzi and Dholakia’s “we-intentions” and construes internet users’

intentions and behaviour involving pro-social issues that separately illustrate personal

“we-intentions” and “me-intentions”. The “me-intention” behaviours are illustrative

of users who engage internet technology for more individualised and personal

exchanges. The “me-intention” profile can be further differentiated by users’

individualised behaviours which are influenced by negative attitudes towards a sense

of community online. Drawing a comparison between the two individualised “me-

intention” segments points to users that leverage the internet to simply communicate

262


and obtain information, compared to those internet users that embrace information

opportunities online, but also use the internet’s network to stay connected in

established relationships. Wellman and Hogan (2004, p. 11) argue that these

individual users are evidence of ‘the flourishing of person-to-person connectivity’,

because they are seeking connection with each other as individuals, rather than as

members of households, communities, workgroups or organisations.

8.3.1 Internet communitarian segment

The segment of internet users described as Internet Communitarians are those who

engage technology for both informational and relational purposes, and who have

positive attitudes towards the internet’s influence on society. As users, they shape the

internet as an empowering technology that connects them to networks of family and

friendship ties, as well as other users who can provide them with social support,

information, and communication about social and political issues. The sense of “we”

feeling (Van der Poel, 1993, p. 2) exhibited by these users ensures that they have

more people to call upon in times of stress, or when they are in need of social support

(Haines, Hurlbert & Beggs, 1996). Consequently, they believe the ‘internet’s really

useful for helping and supporting people’ (Statement 14) and that it ‘connects isolated

communities and communities that wouldn’t necessarily have an opportunity to

connect with others at all’ (Statement 18). These users value the internet’s network

connections, because of ‘what it has offer on a communication basis for people’

(Statement 47). In a social marketing context, these users would actively seek out

personal exchanges of information and emotion, which give them a sense of

community. Furthermore, they are operant resources for social marketers, in that

Internet Communitarians can share their skills and knowledge about a social issue,

and provide a campaign with an additional source of information by providing models

of desired behaviour (Andreasen, 1995). As a result, Internet Communitarian

participation creates a sense of community around the social issue concerned.

Community, in a social marketing sense, does not just equate to real-time chat or

online discussion boards. Rather, community evolves from continued participation

and sharing of personal and emotional exchanges. As discussed in Chapter Seven, a

sense of community evolves from users’ ability to coproduce the information and

content that is part of the overall social change program.

263


Internet Communitarians are differentiated from other users because of their desire to

exchange information and emotion in online networks and virtual communities. As

users, they engage the internet for social exchanges because they think it is a safe

environment. Rafaeli and Sudweeks (1998) argue that safe environments promote

dynamic and interactive communication. This is evident in Communitarians’

behaviour and enjoyment of interactive communication which enables them to have

‘a discussion back and forth [where they feel] they’re not just being told things,

you’re discussing them with someone’ (Statement 20). These users value interactivity

because it promotes collaborative learning, which they believe does ‘politicise people,

because they’re taking the time online to talk about issues and the big pictures’

(Statement 49). Haythornthwaite (2000, p. 197) argues that this sense of

collaboration, ‘including peer-to-peer sharing of experiences … increases an

individual’s exposure to ideas, techniques, and approaches to problem solving’.

Internet Communitarians are social actors online who actively share information and

exchange emotion because they believe it enhances their lives. They also believe the

technology contributes to society because it ‘is a network [that] makes us a global

community’ (Statement 8) while not reducing people’s participation in ‘their physical

communities’ (Statement 45).

8.3.2 Information networker segment

Information networkers believe the internet ‘represents a fundamental change’ in the

way we interact and gather information (Statement 33). Whilst these users benefit

from the internet’s unique traits of interactivity and anonymity, they do not engage in

online relational and emotional exchanges. As users, they leverage the internet’s

functional abilities to gather information that gives them a sense of ‘getting a second

person’s opinion’ (Statement 46). Interactivity enhances their information gathering

because they can participate in a ‘discussion back and forth, [which for them leads] to

a more in-depth and more rounded views than what you get on the six o’clock news at

night’ (Statement 20). Quality of information, however, is not of concern to these

users; they are not ‘concerned about false information on the Net’ (Statement 9), nor

do they construe that ‘a lot of the stuff on the internet is wrong, irrelevant or not

useful’ (Statement 44).

264


The Information Networker uses the internet more for weak tie relationships. They

actively engage the technology for instrumental purposes such as providing and

gathering information rather than seeking support and exchange of confidences

(Granovetter, 1982). Granovetter (1973) argues that weak tie relationships are

beneficial to users because these relationships provide contact with different sets of

people, which gives them access to diverse information outside of their personal and

physically based networks. The Information Networker is thus located within the “me-

intentions and behaviours” segment because they use the internet for personal,

individualised interactions. Their individualised behaviour is further reinforced by

their strong disagreement with the statements that describe the “we” behavioural and

community attitudes included in the statement concourse.

Information Networkers do not believe the ‘internet’s really useful for helping and

supporting people’ (Statement 14), because they feel ‘having friends online doesn’t

help at the end of the day because these [are] friends [you] can’t really get help

[from], or give assistance to’ (Statement 40). Furthermore, they are of the opinion that

‘people participating in a list serve [do not] form a community just as surely as any

group of people bounded by geography or thought’ (Statement 2). It is evident that

Information Networkers do not construct the internet as a space for community

engagement. Potentially influencing these attitudes is their belief that the internet is

not a safe environment ‘to be able to talk about sensitive issues online’ (Statement

30). As Haythornthwaite (2000, p. 197) points out, a safe environment ‘is necessary to

encourage questions and the exchange of ideas’. Consequently, the Information

Networkers construction of the internet as unsafe for personal exchanges means they

do not engage in emotional exchanges, or the sharing of confidences online.

In a social marketing context, servicing the social needs of the Information Networker

would rely on integrating the internet within offline information and program

activities. This is because these users do not only use technology to ‘find information

about issues that are important to [them]’ (Statement 4), but as a source to add to

information gathered elsewhere. Online information provision that applies social

marketing’s traditional learning-based models (Kotler & Roberto, 1989) remains

important for these users, because online information will facilitate Information

Networkers’ learning and contemplation of pro-social behaviours.

265


8.3.3 Individualised networker segment

Individualised networkers are differentiated in their “me-intentions and behaviour” by

their privacy concerns and negative attitudes towards the internet’s influence on

society. The benefits of the internet for these users are the ease and functionality of

staying connected with personal, strong tie relationships of family and friends. They

are frustrated ‘when a friend that’s part of [their] immediate social group … doesn’t

have email contact’ (Statement 19). In addition, these users connect to weak tie

relationships because they have found a ‘number of people [they] can network and

connect with … and … a group of people that [they] will be able to have something in

common with’ using the internet’s network ability (Statement 15). This profile

illustrates true individualised networkers because they do not connect with

community through online exchanges, nor believe that the internet is a network that

‘makes us a global community’ (Statement 8). Rather, these users exhibit societal

concerns about internet use in that they believe ‘if people weren’t spending so much

time on the internet, they’d be out working in their physical communities’ (Statement

45). They also represent societal fears about the internet’s detrimental effects in that

they are ‘concerned about interactivity, [and] the capacity for kids to get on the Net

and then have someone being able to find them, or get their credit card number’

(Statement 23).

Concerns about privacy and the quality of information online moderate these users’

social and political exchanges using the internet. Privacy concerns inhibit the

Individualised Networkers from sharing personal information online; consequently

they will ‘never write anything private in an email’ (Statement 39). They also

construe information gathered from online sources as potentially false and believe it is

‘easier to trust information published in books’ (Statement 9). This concern, however,

is balanced by the belief that they can ‘find relevant and useful information easily

online’ (Statement 44).

Applying social marketing’s traditional learning models will service the needs of

these internet users to locate relevant information. Given privacy fears and concerns

about the quality of information online, however, source credibility and brand

identification related to the social marketing message online will be important to

targeting these users and influencing their adoption of the social marketing campaign.

266


The online behaviour of Individualised Networkers may also be an opportunity for

social marketers to leverage the user’s network of strong and weak tie relationships.

As King (2004) identified, internet users will share information with friends that is

downloaded from a campaign website and includes either a personal message from

the sender, or restatement of the campaign’s prevention message. Given

Individualised Networkers’ privacy concerns, they will be more receptive to messages

that are forwarded from individuals in their established networks. Alternatively, if

these users have accessed social marketing information from a credible source they

are also a potential channel for diffusing social marketing messages to other people in

their personal networks.

In summary, the three profiles identified through Q analysis illustrate the differences

in the social shaping of the internet for personal and social exchanges by internet

users. Internet users are not a homogenous group of technology users. Rather, based

on their needs, they will shape the internet as functional or relational — to find

relevant information or to engage in emotional exchanges respectively. The following

section proposes a strategy map for online social marketing, based on the downstream

profiles of internet users discussed, and the findings from upstream users’ experiences

in the social change marketplace as outlined in Chapter Seven.

8.4 HOW CAN SOCIAL MARKETING BE MORE RESPONSIVE TO INTERNET USER BEHAVIOUR?

The preceding discussion has focused on consumer perspectives of the internet. The

chapter now turns to the social marketer’s perspective, and outlines strategies and

tactics that are responsive to internet users’ online behaviours. Whilst being consumer

focused is the starting point for all social marketing strategy, evidence from the

published social marketing literature demonstrates that social marketers have made

limited attempts to respond to internet users’ needs as they seek social change

products and services via the internet. As Sharma and Sheth (2004, p. 696) point out,

the advent of the internet has changed the marketplace — and the social change

marketplace — in that it is a technology that adapts to the needs of customers and

‘allows customers to move from time- and location-based behaviour towards

nontemporal and nolocational behaviours’. As a result, social marketing that

incorporates the internet should be responsive to users’ individualistic and

personalised behaviours online. At the same time, social marketers using the internet

267


should also proactively engage the behaviours of users who engage communities of

interest and who exhibit “we-intentions and behaviours”, because these users can also

add value to campaign messages and social change programs online.

To be responsive to the individualised needs of internet users, social marketing would

benefit by embracing reverse marketing when deploying the internet in social change

programs. Sharma and Sheth (2004, p. 697) propose reverse marketing as an

alternative to traditional marketing’s ‘supplier perspective’ which is focused on

demand management. They argue that reverse marketing embraces a ‘customer

perspective’ where the customer becomes the starting point for marketing activities

for multiple reasons (e.g., personalisation and customisation of communication,

services and products). Social marketing is already firmly situated in a focused

consumer perspective. Yet reverse marketing implies that rather than trying to

influence consumers to adopt a new behaviour at a specific time (within a given time

period by accessing selected services for commensurate individual rewards or societal

outcomes), social marketers should be concerned with better responding to the

individual social needs and demands of a customer. To adopt this perspective requires

that social marketing migrate towards a continuous-process perspective and a

relationship building approach. This will cause those internet users involved in social

marketing online to ‘take an increasing role in the fulfillment process, leading to

“cocreation”’ (Sharma & Sheth, 2004, p. 699). Vargo and Lusch (2004, p. 2) argue

that a continuous-process perspective is grounded in a revised marketing logic that

focuses on intangible resources, the cocreation of value and relationships. This, they

suggest, ‘points marketing toward a more comprehensive and inclusive dominant

logic, one that integrates goods and services and provides a richer foundation for the

development of marketing thought and practice’. The continuous-process perspective

is argued as the future of marketing theory and practice because:

[t]hought leaders in marketing continually move away from tangible output with embedded value in which the focus was on activities directed at discrete or static transactions. In turn, they move toward dynamic exchange relationships that involve performing processes and exchanging skills and/or services in which value is cocreated with the customer. The worldview changes from a focus on resources on which an operation or act is performed (operand resources) to resources that produce effects (operant resources).

(Vargo & Lusch, 2004, p. 4)

268


As discussed in Chapter Seven, some social change practitioners are achieving

success because they are engaging target adopters in interactions and communication

who contribute to the social change program. In these programs both the target

adopter and the social change practitioner interact in aspects of campaign design,

production of information and content, and the shared consumption of online

experiences.

Social marketers who deploy the internet in social change programs, and who aim to

embrace the full potential of the internet, should therefore adopt customer-centric

marketing (Sheth, Sisodia & Sharma, 2000), apply an exchange continuum that

embraces a relational perspective (Hastings, 2003a), and plan online strategies that

focus on the internet as a recombinant technology that can be “remade” by individual

users (Lievrouw & Livingstone, 2002a). These principles should inform the

development of a strategy map for specific social marketing programs. This map

should replace the current social marketing practice which simply transfers traditional

social marketing strategy to online environments. The three principles and a proposed

strategy map for online social marketing are discussed in the remainder of the chapter.

8.4.1 Adopt a customer-centric marketing view

In the introduction to his book Marketing Social Change (1995, p. 8), Andreasen

emphasises that ‘first-rate social marketing is always totally centered on the target

customers’. To support this view he argues that the ‘the best social marketers realise

instinctively that the customer holds the key to success’ because ‘it is the customer

who must ultimately undertake the action the marketer is promoting’. Extending this

traditional focus to adopting customer-centric marketing (Sheth et al., 2000, p. 56)

implies focusing on ‘satisfying the needs, wants, and resources of individual

consumers and customers rather than those of mass markets or market segments’.

Sheth et al. (2000, p. 57) clarify that customer-centric marketing is distinct from one-

to-one as well as relationship marketing in two important ways:

• Firstly, one-to-one marketing employs a product-centric approach that focuses on

adapting products or offerings. As a result, the starting point of the planning

process is the product. Sheth et al. (2000) state that in comparison, customer-

269


centric marketing focuses on the needs, wants and resources of customers as the

starting the point.

• Secondly, whilst effective relationship marketing requires a customer-centric

perspective, customer-centric marketing does not require a relational perspective.

Sheth et al. (2000) explain, for example, that customer-centric marketing occurs

frequently in transactional and direct marketing relationships where customer

involvement and interest is low.

The recommendation to focus on customer-centricity in social marketing is ‘not

meant to undermine the utility of the online to foster value creation by other external

entities’ (Nambisan, 2002, p. 393). These external entities may include developing

partnerships with complementary health services dealing with the same social issue,

or utilising commentators from the mass media, or creating network links with

commercial organisations that share the values and interests of targeted segments. A

focus on customer-centricity serves to demonstrate the power, potential and flexibility

of the internet to facilitate value creation by internet users participating in social

change strategies. By exploiting the internet’s network as well as its multiple

functions and traits, social marketers can facilitate different types of partnering with

customers in creating social products and creation of value.

Depending on their individual needs, users will embrace the internet to create

different partnerships with the social change organisation. Drawing from the findings

in Studies 1 and 2, online consumers have been identified as internet users and social

actors. Findings from Study 3 describe internet user behaviours that indicate

customers are also cocreators and a resource. Variation in these four consumer roles

reflects the exchange and relational processes that consumers undertake to achieve

their individual needs. As was evidenced in the segments of internet users identified

in Chapter Six, customers will engage the internet from simple information exchanges

to the more complicated relational exchanges in online communities. In addition, the

social context of the issue addressed by the social marketing campaign will also

influence an individual customer’s adoption of the social issue, and their role in value

creation online. In general terms, however, each role can be described as follows:

• Customers as internet users engage in transactional relationships and focus

primarily on B2C exchanges with organisations to gather and exchange

270


information. Social marketers using the internet should ensure ample information

and content is provided to initiate users’ contemplation of the social issue.

Potential strategies include: content such as ‘issue news & events’, electronic fact

sheets and pamphlets and online competitions (see Table 7.2).

• Customers as social actors participate in transactional and relational exchanges by

communicating and interacting online in B2C and C2C exchanges. These

customers are active participants in the diffusion of information drawn from their

offline and online networks. They actively interact and disseminate information to

other users in their relationship networks. To meet the needs of social actors,

social marketers should provide opportunities for repeat exchanges, which will

also enable social actors to disseminate organisational information to others in

their social network. Additional strategies that engage social actors include:

downloadable information, registration for email campaigns, and campaign

messages that initiate diffusion of the message to upstream and downstream

stakeholders (see Table 7.2).

• Customers as cocreators are active consumers who engage the internet for

communication, information and relational purposes. Cocreators seek out

opportunities to participate in online community exchanges, which evolve from

B2C and C2C. Furthermore, they enhance their personal value by establishing a

type of partnership with the social cause through sharing behaviours (e.g., sharing

personal stories and information) (see Table 7.2). Social marketers can harness the

competence of these proactive customers and add further value to campaigns by

extending the network of awareness raising and persuasion towards the social

issue. Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2002, p. 81) point out that harnessing

consumers is not an easy task. They argue ‘at a minimum organisations will need

to engage customers in an active, explicit, and ongoing dialogue; they have to

mobilise communities of customers; they have to manage customers diversity; and

they have to cocreate personalised experiences with customers’. Co-opting

customer competence was a central strategy of those social change practitioners

who designed and implemented programs online that addressed the needs of users

in the later stages of change towards adopting a “new” behaviour (see Sections

7.3.3 and 7.3.4). Challenges confront social marketers focused on value creation

partnerships with customers. This is particularly the case in terms of any

271


unintended consequences from C2C interactions. These challenges will be

discussed in Section 8.4.4.

• Customers as a resource act as operand and operant resources for social

marketers. Social marketing is well advanced in embracing customers as operand

resources, through strategies such as segmentation and target marketing.

Customers are classified as an operand resource because social marketers plan an

operation or act (e.g., marketing communication, service offering), to produce an

effect (e.g., contemplation of a new behaviour, adoption of a specific actions)

(Vargo & Lusch, 2004; Constantin & Lusch, 1994). In comparison, social

marketers have not widely considered the relative role of customers as operant

resources. Operant resources produce effects, are typically intangible and likely to

be dynamic and infinite (Constantin & Lusch, 1994). For this reason, operant

resources ‘enable humans both to multiply the value of natural resources and to

create additional operant resources’, such as skills and knowledge (Vargo &

Lusch, 2004, p. 3). Customers as cocreators are operant resources who can be

leveraged by social marketers to enhance internet users’ and social actors’

participation and commitment to social causes online. Social marketers focused on

customers as operant resources will need to embrace a relationship marketing

perspective that encourages customers towards repeat participation in online

activities. As noted in Chapter Seven, some social change practitioners are

embracing co-opting customer competence through interactive exchanges such as

sharing personal stories of their experiences and membership services that create a

sense of community (see Table 7.2). Importantly, some of these online community

activities are transparent to other internet users. As a result, online activities

supporting customers’ sharing behaviour is then presented as information,

knowledge and skills to non-adopters as sources of information. These online

activities influence future adoption because as information sources they are

considered by potential adopters to have greater relevance, credibility and

empathy (Bickart & Schindler, 2001).

8.4.2 Leverage an exchange continuum

Leveraging an exchange continuum involving transactions and relationships will be

important for managing online social marketing. Marketing theory distinguishes

272


between marketing mix decisions grounded in a traditional transactional approach to

strategy, and developments in managing marketing relationships (Brodie, 2002).

Prefaced in Chapters Two and Three was a discussion of the literature on the role of

relationships in marketing, specifically in internet marketing. While this literature is

understandably contested over a range of issues, there is one point on which all

authors concur. That is, the consumer is core to marketing strategy. However,

marketing opinion and research diverge when discussing B2C and C2C relationships.

Stewart and Pavlou (2002, p. 376) argue that the relationship between organisations

and customers has shifted because ‘interactive media change marketing

communications from a one-way process to a two-way process, with the interaction of

the marketer and consumer at core’. Duncan and Moriarty (1998) reason that this

change means that communication, rather than persuasion, is the foundation of

consumer-marketer relationships in an increasingly interactive experience.

Whilst in theory the appearance of a simple dyad between transactional and relational

marketing concepts exists, in practice these concepts are not either ends of a

continuum (Pels, Coviello & Brodie, 2000). For example, in customer-centric

marketing the focus is on a customer’s needs which could simply imply an interactive

transaction of information, or a longer term relational commitment. Considering

marketing relationships as being ‘based on interactions within networks of

relationships’, Gummesson (2002b) moves marketing strategy from an

‘action/transaction perspective’ to an ‘interactive/relationships perspective' (Jancic &

Zabkar, 2002, p. 666).

Social marketing, however, is firmly entrenched in a traditional, marketing mix

approach to social issues and problems (see Andreasen, 2002a). Yet if social

marketers are to capitalise on the internet, they will need to make marketing decisions

that balance interactive, transactional and relational strategies to manage behaviour

change. This is because, as Hastings (2003a, p. 9) recently argued, ‘moving from

transactions to relationships adds the vital dimension of time to the social marketing

exchange, which turns trust into commitment and enables long-term, strategic

planning’. Embracing relationship marketing strategy would shift social marketing

thinking about discrete exchanges around behaviour, towards a long term view that

incorporates the individual customer with other stakeholders and consumers in the

273


influence process. The opportunity afforded by this reconstituted view of marketing is

that it has greater potential to leverage proactive customer involvement, where the

‘customer becomes primarily an operant resource (coproducer) rather than an operand

resource (target)’. This type of customer involvement is advantageous because users

‘become part of value-creation in the exchange process’ (Vargo & Lusch, 2004, p.

11). The advantage for social marketing would be creating value from coproduced

offerings that mobilise customers (Normann & Ramirez, 1993).

Blois (1997) cautions that ‘the risk of viewing relationships as if they must involve (as

advocated by relationship marketing theory), commitment and an almost blanket trust,

is to ignore the rich diversity of relationships which not only exist, but also are

appropriate in different contexts’ (Blois, 1997, p. 63). In Blois’s opinion, unless a

counter-intuitive definition of a relationship is used, all companies have relations with

their customers and vice versa, and the level of trust and involvement varies

considerably along a scale from none to extremely important. An exchange continuum

is thus important in guiding online social marketing as it focuses on balancing

transactions and relationships, is embedded in a customer-centric perspective, where

customers can self-select their level of involvement in a social issue, and uses the

internet’s interactivity, anonymity and hyperpersonal capability as required.

8.4.3 Position the internet as a recombinant technology

Currently, social marketing positions the internet as a mass media tool which has ‘led

to enormous advances in increasing people’s access to information (provided they

have a PC and an internet link)’ (Donovan & Henley, 2003, p. 285). The simple

classification of the internet as an information technology underestimates the potential

of the technology, which research has identified as being infrastructural and

recombinant (Lievrouw & Livingston, 2002a). The internet is characterised as

recombinant because in social contexts it can:

• enable and extend social marketers’ ability to communication directly with

customers, or provide opportunities for customers to communicate with each

other;

274


• incorporate different activities that stimulate customers’ behaviours — community

mobilisation through an email campaign, or the cocreation of value through use of

narrative stories that model positive behaviours to other users;

• create social arrangements or different organisational partnerships around the

technology itself, creating new marketing practices. For example, King (2004)

highlights the value of using non-paid partnerships to create content links between

the social marketing message and online portals popular with the target market.

Furthermore, new social arrangements emerge as internet users transform from

being users, to actors to cocreators of value in social change programs online.

These relational exchanges initiate alternative partnerships between the customer

and the social change organisation.

Social marketing practice is better served by considering the strategic opportunities in

recombining the internet’s functions and traits. There are new opportunities for social

marketers to influence adoption of the social change message by positioning the

internet to customers as a flexible technology that they can recombine to satisfy their

needs at different stages of change. For example, customers could combine anonymity

with available information sources to gather facts about a sensitive issue, without

being identified. Alternatively, a different customer could network with other users to

share their problems and find out how to sustain behaviour change. In another

instance, a different social actor could download a branded, electronic postcard, add

their name and address and send it to a government representative to register their

protest against a change in legislation.

8.4.4 Develop a social marketing strategy map

This section has identified three major recommendations to exploit the full potential

of the internet in social marketing. Firstly, social marketers need to practise customer-

centric marketing, because internet users are not an homogenous group of technology

users. In different social, economic and cultural contexts internet users are shaped by

the internet, and will shape the internet to meet their individual needs. In online

contexts, social marketers can create exchanges with customers who are internet

users, social actor and cocreators. Importantly, online customers can become operant

resources (coproducers) rather than just traditional operand resources (targets). Being

proactive consumers, involved in a social marketing program, these customers can

275


thus become involved in creating greater value for social marketing by influencing

and mobilising potential adopters of new behaviours (Vargo & Lusch, 2004).

The second recommendation for the more fulsome use of the internet in social

marketing requires the addition of a relational perspective. As Hastings (2003a)

proposes, relationship marketing has much to offer social marketing because the

behaviours being targeted are often high involvement and multifaceted, and further,

trust is important given the context of social issues and problems. Additionally, a

relational view is critical to leveraging the internet, because it informs strategies

focused on personalised and customised communication, services and products.

The third recommendation for planning and implementing online social marketing is

to deal with the internet as a recombinant technology, not just as an information

source. Social marketers can recombine the internet’s functions and traits to facilitate

a customer’s information, communication and relational needs as they progress

through stages of change in adopting pro-social behaviours.

In Chapter Seven, a range of planned strategies to influence customers’ behaviours in

the social change marketplace were outlined. Evident in social change practitioner

stories and accounts of the internet was an implicit planned approach, supported by

thinking that exploits the strategic potential of the internet. This is because, as Kaplan

and Norton (2004, p. 4) argue, strategy is being focused on creating value for an

organisation’s shareholders, customers, and citizens. Strategy and planning have

always had a central role in the success of social marketing programs. The strategic

use of the internet requires that the internet be integrated into broader organisational

or institutional marketing activities to produce a singe set of social marketing

outcomes (Dann & Dann, 2004). The three studies reported in this thesis demonstrate

that the internet can contribute beyond the typical ‘learning models’ widely used in

social marketing. The internet can also be integrated into behaviour change programs

to initiate and influence other adoption processes (e.g., ‘do-feel-learn’ adoption

processes, multipath adoption processes) (Kotler & Roberto, 1989, p. 93).

Figure 8.1 outlines a strategy map for planning online social marketing. The map

identifies four important elements to guide social marketing. Firstly, online social

marketing involves a continuous-process perspective which relates to the nature of

276


customer interactions or communications, and reflects the fact that customer

exchanges occur in a computer-mediated and community oriented setting (Nambisan,

2002). The pattern of customer interactions and exchanges varies with the customer’s

stage of change. Secondly, the strategy map adopts an interactive/relationship

perspective, which positions the exchange continuum as a balance between

transactional and relational exchanges dependent on the role the social marketing

customer adopts. Thirdly, the exchange between the customer and pro-social

behaviour can be facilitated through recombining the internet’s functions and traits

based on an individual customer’s needs. During the adoption of a new behaviour,

customers will undertake a range of behaviours, depending on their specific needs.

For example, customers may:

• seek information transactions with credible organisations;

• interact with interactive, creative elements embedded in a dot.cause website;

• communicate with online opinion leaders from referral services to locate reputable

services in their physical community;

• contribute to online discussions which educate and persuade them towards

adopting new behaviours;

• participate as a member of a social cause and become a proactive consumer,

diffusing the social cause to other internet users;

• develop a sense of community, through participation and feedback, with other

internet users experiencing similar problems and issues and create a new

partnership online with the organisation involved in the social cause.

The fourth element outlined in the strategy map is the application of Andreasen’s

(1995) modified staged process to change. As noted in Chapter Seven, this is a useful

model for guiding social marketing practice because it encompasses those consumers

who are unaware, aware or informed of a social product, those interested and

motivated, as well as those who have formed an intention to purchase the social

product (Donovan & Henley, 2003). It is thus a valuable guide for planning online

social marketing strategy as consumers move through the adoption of new behaviours.

Described in the model are examples, drawn from the findings in Chapter Seven,

277


which illustrate the recombination of internet functions and traits that engage online

customers as they progress through pro-social behaviour change.

Adopting online social marketing creates two major challenges for social marketers.

The first challenge relates to managing change in customer roles. Social marketing

has successful strategies for dealing with customers as an operand resource. However,

new challenges emerge when dealing with customers as an operant resource. When

using customers as a resource, social marketers will need to consider how to:

• Encourage customer participation and adoption of cocreation roles in customers

who contribute (and do not confuse) the social marketing product and message.

This could lead to unintended consequences because new adopters are focused or

misinformed.

• Create appropriate incentives to foster customer willingness to contribute to the

social cause that are ethical and do not detract from the social cause — target

markets might get pleasure from the technology, but adopt the social product.

• Provide the technical infrastructure for facilitating community participation and

capturing customer knowledge, which meets the needs of customers seeking a

sense of community.

• Manage the differential roles of existing (current) and potential (future) customers

online.

• Create new partnerships with cocreators. Customer involvement in the

development of the social marketing product and campaign messages could

increase product uncertainty and lead to unintended consequences. Thus, new

marketing mechanisms may be needed to monitor and control the contribution of

cocreators.

• Mange the expense incurred from leveraging customer contributions. Customer

involvement could be frustrated and limited because of higher costs incurred from

requiring personnel with appropriate technical skills and time to commit to engage

customers online and offline. Additional technology costs could arise from

acquiring technical equipment and designing interactive elements in websites,

email campaigns and electronic pamphlets and flyers.

278


279

The second challenge in adopting online social marketing relates to difficulties that

emerge from adopting a relational perspective in social marketing. Hastings (2003a, p.

6) points out that adopting relationship marketing will exacerbate existing funding

issues for two reasons:

• Social marketing is typically dependent on short term, publicly funded contracts,

which ‘emphasise a quid quo pro of behaviour change for tax dollars, with

subsequent funding often tied to this bottom-line success’ (Hastings, 2003a, p. 9).

• A relationship marketing perspective implies a long-term commitment to

behaviour change, however, because the funded organisation and the customer of

the social cause are different entities. Hastings (2003a, p. 6) argues that this ‘is

likely to reduce the importance given to the satisfaction of the latter’.


280

Figure 8.1: Interactive strategy map for social marketing

CUSTOMER

INTERNET FACILITATED EXCHANGES

Information

Membership

Interactions

Knowledge Creation

Sense of Community

Communication

RELA

TION

AL

T

RA

NSA

CTIO

NA

L

ONLINE SOCIAL MARKETING STRATEGY

Precontemplation Targeting adopters to create awareness & interest through access to credible resources and information sources

Contemplate Behaviour Change Persuade and motivate users through interaction, communication & visual images Users Engage B2C exchanges Users Monitor C2C interaction (lurking)

Action Create action — Offline behaviour Create action online — users initiate sharing behaviours through interactive features, visual images, story telling & sharing information offline

Maintenance of Behaviour Maintain change through membership services and supporting online community activities. Actively supporting cocreation behaviours

er as resource er as cocreator er as social actor er as user

Custom Custom Custom Custom


8.5 Summary

This chapter has provided an analysis of the three research questions addressed in this

thesis. The first of these questions asked how internet users describe the social

influences of the internet and questioned internet users’ experiences of the internet as

an everyday technology. It has been argued that internet users engage the internet as a

social and personal technology which has been incorporated into their everyday lives

and activities. This, it was suggested, should lead social marketers to reconsider the

way in which they are engaging the internet in campaigns and move beyond

constituting this interactive communication technology simply in instrumental or

informational terms. It is particularly timely and appropriate for social marketers to

integrate the internet into social change strategy given that internet users are shaping

the technology as a means of facilitating decision making about personal, political and

social issues

In addressing the second of the research question posed in this thesis, that of different

profiles of internet user opinions, attitudes and actions, the chapter summarised the

key findings from Study 2. These findings culminated in the presentation of a

typology of three internet profiles: the Internet Communitarian, the Information

Networker and the Individualised Networker segments. While each of these profiles

was briefly overviewed, of importance to this chapter was emphasising the

implications these profiles have for social marketing theory and practice.

In the final section of the chapter, attention shifted to the third of the research

questions; that is, how can social marketing be more responsive to internet user

behaviour. As a means of delineating the key findings in relation to this question, a

strategy map for online social marketing was proposed. It was suggested that the map

would be most usefully implemented by social marketers who followed three key

principles in seeking to deploy the internet in social change programs. These

principles are that they adopt customer-centric marketing (Sheth et al., 2000), apply

an exchange continuum that embraces a relational perspective (Hastings, 2003a), and

plan online strategies that focus on the internet as a recombinant technology that can

be “remade” by individual users (Lievrouw & Livingstone, 2002a). Collectively,

these principles should inform the development of a strategy map for specific social

281


marketing programs to replace the current, dominant practice of social marketers that

simply transfers traditional social marketing strategy to online environments. Before

concluding the chapter, it was acknowledged that the proposed strategy map for

online social marketing may also lead to difficulties for social marketers. Two issues

were highlighted. The first is the challenge which may emerge from creating

exchanges with customers based on their role, not just as an operand resource (target),

but also as an operant resource that can be used to influence and mobilise new

customers. The second is the challenge of funding arising from potentially increased

costs from relationship marketing strategies and the cost of the technology itself.

282

CHAPTER NINE CONCLUSIONS

Chapter Nine: Conclusions

As the internet becomes part of everyday existence and as exploiting it no longer seems to be the key to earning zillions, it is starting to be taken for granted. It is in danger of being ignored as boring … . Ignoring the internet is as huge a mistake as seeing it as a saviour. It is the boringness and routineness that make the internet important because this means that it is being pervasively incorporated into people’s lives.

(Haythornthwaite & Wellman, 2002, p. 7)

9.0 Introduction

This chapter summarises the main findings of the thesis. It begins by returning to the

research questions to outline key findings and to highlight the significance of the

research for theory and practice in social marketing and internet marketing. The next

section addresses the limitations of the study by revisiting the methodological

concerns raised in Chapter Four. Other limitations, including the sampling strategy

used in the three studies, the issues inherent in investigating a changing technology,

and the contextual influences of social and political contexts in social marketing

practice, are also addressed. The chapter concludes by providing recommendations for

future research.

9.1 Key findings

This study embraced an interpretivist theoretical perspective, which ‘acknowledges

that human beings are social beings who develop from, and are defined by,

interactions with other humans’ (Page & Sharp, 1994, p. 569). The study’s focus has

thus been on understanding users’ social lives online. Adopting the qualitative

research methods of focus groups and in-depth interviews, was considered the most

appropriate to gather internet users’ stories and accounts of their personal and social

interactions with internet technology and other users. Studying the personal and social

experiences of internet users may seem more properly the province of media, cultural

or communication theorists, rather then social marketers. However, this research has

taken up Deshpandé (1999, p. 164) suggestion that ‘marketers must cast their nets

wider to consider more disciplines as sources of rich constructs, models, and

technologies’ and embraced a social shaping of technology (SST) approach.

Sociological research applying SST has found that technology does not develop

283


according to some inner technical logic. Rather, this research has revealed that

technology is a social process, patterned by the conditions of its creation and use, and

informed by human choices and actions (Lievrouw, 2002b; MacKenzie & Wajcman,

1999). Hence, an SST approach has guided answering the overarching thesis research

question: What is the role of internet in social marketing? Findings from the research

emphasise that the internet shapes, and is shaped by, social marketing interests (i.e.

customers, partnerships and behaviour change) and practice (i.e. strategy to influence

and sustain behaviour change).

In the past interpretivists have been criticised because their research has focused

primarily on studying consumers’ extra-ordinary experiences. Illustrative of this work

is Arnould and Price’s (1993) ‘river magic’ study, Belk and Bryce’s (1993) Christmas

consumption research and Bonsu and Belk’s (2003) investigation of death. This bias

towards studying unusual experiences, combined with marketers’ constituting internet

technology as a revolution in future marketing practice (see most recently Sharma &

Sheth, 2004), has resulted in research that frames internet interactions as separate

from everyday life experiences, involving people who are unusual because of their

technology behaviour. Hence, the first study in the research undertook to investigate

how users incorporate the internet into their everyday activities. Data illustrated that

the internet is a technology that can be, simultaneously, a functional technology for

discovering facts and information on specific issues, and a social technology that is

used to find social support and advice about life events through online connections to

networks and virtual communities of interest.

Findings from the first study informed the use of Q methodology to differentiate

between profiles of internet users’ opinions, attitudes and actions. Differentiating

between users during Q analysis revealed three internet segments: the Internet

Communitarian, the Information Networker and the Individualised Networker

segmented. An examination of the segments highlighted that internet user segments

can be differentiated by their “we-intentions and behaviour” and “me-intentions and

behaviours” (see Figure 6.2). Intentional behaviours involve the desire to participate

in communities of interests, the need to source information from credible sources, an

interest in engaging in discussion lists to learn and share information, and the

intention to help other people and share life experiences. Internet Communitarians are

284


differentiated from Information Networkers and Individualised Networkers primarily

by their intention to leverage the social benefits of online community. These users

exhibit “we-intentions and behaviours” because they have positive associations with

the functions and facilities offered through communicating, exchanging information

and sharing emotion online. Alternatively the other two segments exhibit “me-

intentions”, exploiting the internet’s network infrastructure for personal needs, with a

desire for more one-to-one exchanges. Information Networkers are instrumental users

of the technology. They focus on informational resources rather than support and

exchange of confidences (Granovetter, 1982). Consequently, they are disinterested in

emotional exchanges online and have more negative attitudes towards the relational

aspects of internet exchange. Individualised Networkers share similar “me-intentions”

in their online behaviour; however, they value the network’s ability to stay connected

to established relationships. These users are differentiated from the other “me”

segment by their fears and concerns about the technology.

The final research question examined social marketing strategies that would be

responsive to the segments of identified internet users. To delineate the key findings

in relation to this question, a strategy map for online social marketing was proposed.

The strategy map is grounded in a ‘continuous-process perspective’ and embraces the

view of internet users as proactive consumers (Stewart & Pavlou, 2002) and potential

‘co-producers’ of value (Vargo & Lusch, 2004, p. 11). Based on the experiences of

social change practitioners, combined with recent theoretical developments in

marketing outlined in the literature, three key principles were proposed to guide

online social marketing. The three principles posited are: adopt customer-centric

marketing (Sheth et al, 2000), apply an exchange continuum that embraces a

relational perspective (Hastings, 2003a) and plan online strategies that focus on the

internet as a flexible, recombinant technology that can be “remade” by individual

users (Lievrouw & Livingstone, 2002).

Collectively, the findings from the three research questions have produced knowledge

that will make a contribution to theory in consumer research, as well as to theory and

practice in social marketing and internet marketing. This is explored in further detail

in the following section.

285


9.2 Study significance

Marketing research, and social marketing in particular, have focused on studying the

internet within existing social relations, practices and management strategies, rather

than as a new social space incorporating relations, practices and strategies of its own.

Whilst social marketing scholars have primarily focused on the internet as a media

channel for the dissemination of information, recently some internet marketing

scholars have engaged sociological thinking about technology to inform their

judgment about online consumers. Illustrative of this research is the work of Stewart

and Pavlou (2002) who describe interactive contexts in which active consumers

influence the process of selecting, using and responding to information. Bagozzi and

Dholakia (2002, p. 3) have also investigated virtual communities as social entities,

where online ‘community acts as an important reference group for its individual

participants’. The research conducted in this thesis contributes to the scholarly work

commenced by these internet marketers. Furthermore, the research findings contribute

detailed, qualitative evidence to motivate social marketing scholars and practitioners

to reassess the strategic opportunities present in leveraging the internet as a socially

produced technology.

9.2.1 Significance for theory

This research is theoretically and methodologically significant to marketing’s sub-

disciplinary areas of social marketing and internet marketing theory. By focusing on

qualitative differences in customers’ experiences, this research has moved away from

a focus on micro-studies of individual behaviour and engaged an holistic perspective.

In this sense, the research is reflective of a broader shift in consumer research away

from studies of buyer behaviour, to studies of consumer behaviour and consumption

studies (Østergaard & Jantzen, 2000). A significant proportion of social marketing

theory is dominated by consumer behaviour research that focuses on individual

behaviour before a new pro-social behaviour is adopted. Andreasen (2003) recently

acknowledged this focus as social marketing “starting change” bias.

This research is theoretically significant in that it does not follow a traditional social

marketing approach. In contrast, it contributes to the relatively under-developed area

in social marketing theory of critical marketing (Hastings & Saren, 2003b). As an

286


interpretive study its focus is not on consumption as a self defining activity, but on

consumption as an experience embedded in culture and involving relations between

consumers (Østergaard & Jantzen, 2000). As Cova and Cova (2002, p. 595) have

argued, effective marketing is not to accept and exploit consumers in their

contemporary individualisation, ‘rather the future of marketing is in offering and

supporting a renewed sense of community’. This is not meant to imply that social

marketing’s traditional focus on individual behaviour change is redundant. Rather, the

findings from this research contribute to an unexplored area in social marketing

theory, that is the intentions and behaviours ‘particularly as found in groups of

consumers and manifested through group action’ (Bagozzi, 2000, p. 388). A focus on

group behaviour is not to be confused with community mobilisation and advocacy

approaches. These approaches focus on collaborative strategies that draw together

upstream and downstream stakeholders to influence social change at a wider

community level. This research has demonstrated the differences in internet user

behaviour that exploit the network potential of the internet and seek community

online. These differences distinguish internet users as either operant, or operand

resources.

Social marketing theory has a well established view of the customer as an operand

resource. Less evident is the conceptualisation of customers as operant resources.

However, target adopters are an example of operant resources that have been used by

social marketers in the past. For example, opinion leaders have a well established

influencing role in social marketing theory because they persuade followers in the

‘early majority’ (Rogers, 1995) to accelerate adoption of new behaviours (Andreasen,

1995) through the sharing of expertise and knowledge with other adopters. In this

study, experiences of social change practitioners outlined in Chapter Seven illustrate

how social change customers become operant resources who produce effects based on

their sharing behaviours. Online sharing behaviour strategies (e.g. sharing a personal

story, participating in community discussion boards) provide a vicarious learning

experience (Andreasen, 1995), and contribute to behaviour-change processes, because

they give target audiences (operand resources) a sense that they can enact the

behaviour.

287


The multi-disciplinary approach in the thesis drew attention to the fact that some

internet users who participate in interactive exchanges with other users are also social

actors. These social actors may also elect to be co-creators of value in social change

campaigns. These customer roles, facilitated through interactive exchanges online,

demonstrate how users become proactive consumers in behaviour change that produce

effects, beyond traditional planned outcomes. Whilst current social marketing focuses

on a specific process by which marketing actions influence customers, this research

has presented qualitative findings that describe customers in social change programs

as active, co-creators who selectively engage a continuous relationship with other

marketing actors.

The findings from the research thus supports Peattie and Peattie’s (2003, p. 367)

argument that the future of social marketing theory is not reliant upon a more rigorous

application of conventional marketing principles, but upon the selective application of

these principles that emphasises the differences between commercial and social

marketing. They preface this claim on the fact that conventional commercial

marketing thinking is increasingly under attack from critics as ill-suited to the

demands of the contemporary world (see, for example, Brownlie & Saren, 1992; Janic

& Zabkar, 2002). In a similar vein they argue that ‘new schools of thought, such as

relationship marketing, may represent better sources of appropriate theory and

practice for the future development of social marketing’ (Peattie et al, 2003, p. 367).

The customer roles — user, social actor, co-creator, resource — theorised from the

study findings inform a shifting exchange continuum involving transactions to

relationships. Recently, Hastings (2003a) proposed that relationship marketing has

considerable potential in social marketing contexts. Evidence from this research

reinforces this view. However, the study also reveals that relationships with customers

move from transactions, such as ‘database social marketing’ (Hastings, 2003, pp. 9) to

building longer-term partnerships with customers who participate in the cocreation of

value. As a result the relational exchanges outlined in this study reveal that exchanges

are not just the discrete, ‘transactional’ variety, but rather are long in duration and

reflect an ongoing relationship-develop process (Dwyer, Schurr & Oh, 1987). As

Hastings and Saren (2003b, p. 311) have implied, social marketing can be ‘viewed as

288


a set of pluralistic approaches from transactional to relational,’ informed by the nature

of human relationships facilitated through online interactions and exchanges.

In addition to the contribution to social marketing theory this thesis also makes a

contribution to internet marketing theory. As canvassed by Sharma and Sheth (2004),

internet marketing is witnessing a change in marketing thought and practice through

the emergence of reverse marketing, customer-centric marketing and a changing

perspective on marketing process. Evidence in the findings and of theoretical

significance, is the conceptualisation of the continuous-process-perspective that

evolves from the partnerships facilitated through internet technologies when

information, communication and transactions occur online. The study elucidates an

understanding of internet marketing’s migration towards marketing processes rather

than discrete transactions and functions. Furthermore, by investigating the internet not

just as a functional tool, but as a socially produced technology this research provided

evidence of internet users as active, co-producers of value in marketing exchanges.

This doctoral research drew on multiple methodologies and adopted a qualitative

inquiry focus to present “supporting evidence” describing internet users’ interactions

and relationships. Typically social marketing adopts a practical view of marketing

research, which generally includes needs’ assessments at the start of projects, and

formal evaluations at their conclusion. This process imbues the social marketing’s

research process with an objectivist stance. Similarly, internet marketing incorporates

more positivist methods to measure online users’ behaviours. This thesis makes a

methodological contribution that demonstrates the value of alternative methods such

as Q methodology to study the inherent subjectivity in peoples’ human relationships

and exchanges with interactive technologies. The study undertook, not just to describe

the internet and users’ online behaviours, but to analyse why users constitute the

technology in different ways. This close examination of users’ subjectivities means

the study will be an important accompaniment to other broader research about the

internet.

9.2.2 Significance for practice

This thesis also has practical implications for social marketers and internet marketers.

Marketers in both contexts need to reassess the opportunity-cost involved in a simple

289


construction of the internet as channel for disseminating one-way information to

potential customers. This study supports the evidence from broader sociological

literature which has posited that the internet is a human-centered technology solution.

Opportunities lie in moving beyond a stagnant product view in marketing. In

commercial marketing this involves controlling tangible products online and in social

marketing involves controlling the communication of social ideas, practices and

occasionally a tangible object. Future marketers need to consider and plan the

exchanges of intangibles such as specialised skills and knowledge, and processes

(doing things for and with other users and partners) that can be facilitated through

interactive communication technologies. Important to the extended product view, will

be the relational exchanges supported through marketing partnerships with customers

and other stakeholders. In addition, further intangible benefits such as loyalty and

brand preference could be gained through customer-centric strategies that empower

internet users to become co-producers in services and other intangible products

offered online. Vargo and Lusch (2004, p. 6) point out however, that ‘this means more

than simply being consumer oriented: it means collaborating with and learning from

customers and being adaptive to their individual and dynamic needs’.

It is important in the social marketing context that social change practitioners identity

with the view that the internet is a socially produced technology which is incorporated

into people’s everyday lives and activities. As a result social marketers will need to

reconsider how they engage the internet in campaigns, and move beyond constituting

interactive communication technology in simple instrumental or informational terms.

This is because internet users who actively search and locate information and

communication on line are potentially more highly committed to an issue, compared

to markets targeted through mass media. This is because internet users have

commenced contemplation of the social issue before seeking out information and

exchanges online.

Despite the potential benefits that can be realised from customer cocreation, this

process may also create management challenges. Nambisan (2002) raised two main

problems that evolve from customer cocreation. First, customer involvement in

product creation can lead to an increased level of uncertainty. Therefore, new

mechanisms will need to be incorporated to monitor and control for unintended

290


consequences that could be potentially harmful in social marketing contexts. Further,

customers may abdicate their role as co-creator, thereby severely disrupting the

program. In a social marketing context this could be problematic if organisations have

restricted funding. Second, to be an effective contributor, co-creators may need to

possess higher levels of product/technology experience and knowledge. Thus, social

marketers using the internet may need to offer incentives or invest in enhancing users’

knowledge within the bounds of ethical marketing practice. In considering potential

unintended consequences, social marketers may need to evaluate exchange networks

that consider both value chains and harm chains (Polonsky, Carlson & Fry, 2003).

Social marketers focused on resolving a harm chain from online social marketing

would need to determine ‘how harm can be prevented’ in the future and ‘who is being

harmed’ (Polonsky et al. 2003, p. 349).

9.3 Limitations

There are several potential limitations which need to be considered when reviewing

the study. The limitations of data collection methods used in the thesis were outlined

in Chapter Four. The discussion focused on the limitations of interviews, focus groups

and Q sorting. From a traditional marketing perspective, a significant limitation of all

qualitative methods is the problem of generalising from the data, because

interpretivists rely upon nonparametric sampling approach. This criticism of

qualitative method, however, is linked to positivist’s epistemic criteria of reliability

and validity substantiated through large sample sizes, based on positivists concerns

with objective precision in measuring outcomes that have meaningful statistical

significance (Carson et al., 2001). In contrast, this study was embedded in an

interpretivist approach. Its aim thus was not quantification, but to produce rich and

insightful descriptions of internet users within the context of their information and

relational exchanges online (Hackley, 2003).

The three studies undertaken to answer the research question used a purposeful

sampling approach focused on maximum variation. Using maximum variation

sampling aimed to capture and describe internet users according to their varied

experiences, opinions and attitudes towards the role of the internet in everyday life

and pro-social behaviours. Whilst nonrandom samples can speak only of the

participants involved in the study, their experiences of the internet were of inherent

291


interest to the study investigation. As a result, sampling internet users’ experiences

helped provide a “thicker description” of internet user behaviour involving pro-social

issues online. These participants’ comments have increased knowledge of what is

happening from the perspective of the upstream and downstream participant

involvement in functional and relational exchanges online. Hence, the knowledge

produced will assist social marketers in understanding the context and import of the

adoption of the internet in society (Katz and Rice, 2002).

An age, gender and professional bias was evident in the sample of internet users.

More women participated in the study and overall the age and professional status of

the interviewees was different to the accepted, stereotype of “typical” internet user as

being a young, white male with a bachelor degree living in a metropolitan area. Using

maximum variation sampling however in the study focused more on capturing the

core experiences and described aspects of internet users’ experiences, in spite of the

differences in individual users’ demographic characteristics. Whilst acknowledging

that gender, age and professional background influence the lived experiences of

internet users, sampling was more focused on individual users’ access to the internet

— material access, skills access, mental access and usage access (see Chapter Two).

Hence, the sample represented users who had not experienced any significant barriers

to access and participation in social or economic activities online. This ensured that

the full diversity of opinion and experience were present in the discourse of research

participants. Specifically in Q method, representation of diverse opinion is more

important when selecting participants for Q sorting, than proportionality in a random-

sampling sense (Addams, 2000).

A detailed discussion of the limitations in Q methodology was presented in Chapter

Four. However, two limitations are revisited here in connection to sampling issues

and transferability of findings. First, there is a potential limitation in the Q statement

set used in the study, in that it may not represent the full breadth of internet users’

experiences. In addition, some of the statements in the communication concourse

could appear ambiguous. There are accepted, more structured approaches, to

generating a communication concourse for Q sorting. However, the current study used

an unstructured, statement sampling approach to represent the meaning of the internet

and its concomitant experiences in the dialogue of current users. Representing the

292


internet in users own words was considered important to the interpretivist principles

of researcher. Furthremore, statement ambiguity is resolved during Q sorting, as each

participant places statements in relation to other statements. Additionally, the

segments derived from the Q analysis were justified throughout the thesis by relating

each segment to recently published literature, which confirmed users’ experiential

representation in the broader population of internet users. In addition, confidence and

trustworthiness in the sample of statements presented is assumed because interviews

were conducted in Study 1 until no new viewpoints were encountered and the same

comments were being repeated (Addam, 2000).

The second acknowledged limitation in relation to using Q method in this study was

that only three additional post-hoc interviews were conducted. Additional interviews

with Q sorters would have enhanced transparency and transferability of Study 2

interview findings by comparing users’ experiences within each segment identified.

As Watts and Stenner (2005) have argued, qualitative detail gathered during a post-

hoc interview ‘fills out’ the meaning of every statement in the Q set to further explain

the relative likes and dislikes, interpretations and overall understanding presented by

each profiled segment. In the current study however it was considered sufficient to

conduct interviews with only an exemplar subject from each profile to confirm

agreement with the concourse. This approach meets with Q methodology’s primary

function, which is accenting the group’s shared viewpoints, rather than the

individual’s experience. The group experience however was of more interest in the

current study, because of the accepted traditions developed in market segmentation

and target marketing strategies used in social marketing practice. Therefore, within

the time and resource limitations of completing the study, three post-hoc interviews

were conducted.

Two further limitations of the research need to be acknowledged. These concern the

nature of the technology under investigation, and the generalised rather than

particularised perspective on social issues and problems discussed. First, it is a

challenge to study a dynamic technology, because users’ experiences continue to

change whilst data is collected. Consequently, saliency and recency effects have

influenced the study findings. This however had some benefits since the study was

attempting to identify the social and dialogic qualities of the internet, and these can, at

293


one level, be provided by examining the topical choices of rhetorical expression about

the internet (Katz and Rice, 2002). For example, the internet’s novelty effect waned

during the time of study. As a result, some of the more exaggerated claims included in

the Q statement set had lower salience with users during Q sorting. As was noted in

Chapter Six however, Q sorters discarded the more exaggerated statements

concerning anonymity and societal influences. Nevertheless the manifest effects and

concerns of users were represented throughout the study, which is what Q analysis

and qualitative analysis set out to discover. A further limitation in studying the nature

of the internet is the contextualisation of online versus offline activities of subjects.

Recent literature in sociology has highlighted the limitation of studying online activity

in isolation. It brings to mind the same criticism faced by audience studies that only

observe television viewers in the act of viewing (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002). These

singular studies fail to depict how the internet is integrated into users larger life

experience and activity. Throughout the study however, and specifically during

interviewing in Study 1, users were asked to relate and judge their internet behaviour

in relation to other media and technology. As a result, the internet experiences

presented were contextualised by past experiences with traditional technology and

other information sources (e.g. newspaper, television).

The second limitation in regard to contextual issues relates to the generalised

approach to studying social issues and problem. It is well documented within the

social marketing literature that different social issues and problems impact on

adopters’ engagement and progress through stages of change. Throughout the thesis,

specific social problems and issues have been highlighted, not in relation to the issue

itself, but as a description of internet behaviour. It is acknowledged however that the

specific condition of the social problems and issues would impact on users’ decisions

to access the technology. Future research, involving specific case studies of social

problems, would reveal the differences between internet users engagement of

technology when dealing with either high or low involvement decision scenarios.

The following section will now turn to a more detailed discussion of additional areas

for future research.

294


9.4 Future research

The outcomes of this study suggest further areas of inquiry. The following future

research opportunities emerge from the finding and limitations of this study.

One important way in which the findings from this research could be advanced, would

be to use them as a conceptual scheme for a quantitative study. This would allow

generalisability, as well as ensure the transferability of the qualitative findings. A

generalised study would present an opportunity to explore causal relationships

between the characteristics of individual internet user behaviour in relation specific

social problems and issues. Furthermore, the characteristics of the profiled segments

could be further refined through operationalisation and construct development to

elaborate the psychological and motivational characteristics evident in the

conceptualised “we-intentions and behaviours” and “me-intentions and behaviours”.

Some of this research work has commenced through a study presented by Dholakia,

Baggozzi and Pearo (2004), which focuses on examing small group behaviour in

virtual communities. However, further understanding could be contributed through a

comparison with the conceptualisation of individualised “me” behaviours. This has

been suggested in recent sociological literature, which qualitatively describes

individualised users as ‘people portals’ because it has been identified that people are

moving towards personalisation, portability and ubiquitous connectivity (Wellman,

2004, p. 127). Generalisable studies could also embrace the current holistic view of

situating online internet behaviour within studies that embrace online and offline

activities. This would lessen the criticisms directed at current studies that focus on the

internet in isolation, which create an unintentional (or intentional) hard distinction

between online and offline lived experiences.

The research in this thesis embraced a relationship marketing perspective, which was

influenced by the researcher’s theoretical position as a critical marketer. Positing a

relational perspective in social marketing however, is not suggested without

considerable thought toward the need and opportunity for future research and analysis

to establish its long-term value to theory and practice. Two research opportunities are

presented to extend a relational view. First, social marketers could adopt standard

social scientific methods and consumer behaviour models to document the nature of

internet-based relationships. Theoretically-driven research that details relational

295


analysis of B2C and C2C exchanges is required. This relationship analysis should be

extended to other stakeholder exchanges in the social change marketplace, because as

Hastings (2003a, p. 9) suggests ‘relationships should not just be nurtured with

customers but also suppliers, stakeholders, competitors, and employees’. Conceptual

work commenced by Polonsky (1996) in stakeholder theory would provide a useful

framework for guiding study commencement in this area.

Second, the future study of a relational paradigm in social marketing requires detailed

analysis of the implied concepts of trust and commitment regularly discussed in

relationship marketing strategy. As Dwyer, Schurr & Oh (1987) stated, trust is a

fundamental attribute of the marketer-consumer relationships. In addition, recent

publication of extant, multi-disciplinary literature has defined trust and commitment

as fundament constructs in the study of relational behaviour. As yet, little of this

research has transferred to the social marketing context. Understanding trust and

commitment influences in social marketing strategy should be a priority in the further

investigation of the value of relationship marketing strategy. How and whether

consumer trust can be converted into value and loyalty will be central to this

scholarship.

In proposing the strategy map for future online social marketing it was argued that

social marketers who decide to integrate the internet into their social marketing

programs adopt a customer-centric focus. This proposition implies a reverse market

focus (Sharma & Sheth, 2004), which also implies social marketers will need to

change the way they exploit various components of traditional marketing practice.

Further research of stakeholders and customers will be needed to understand and

quantify implications and challenges emergent from technology driven value chains

and harm chains. Additional research is required to understand customers as co-

creators of value and operant resources in social marketing programs.

Future research could also investigate the applicability of the strategy map in relation

to other interactive technologies. The internet has unique traits in that it is interactive,

provides opportunities for both anonymity and hyperpersonal communication. There

are also the computer’s technical features of vision, text and sound that create new

creative opportunities in delivering social marketing programs. Nevertheless, the

continuous-process perspective of interactivity implied in the strategy map is a critical

296


element in the communication and relationships that evolve between organisations

and users. Studying the specific influences of interactivity and its concomitant social

and personal activities within other technologies, such as mobile phones devices, are

also a promising future research area. This research would demonstrate the

transferability of the proposed strategy map to other interactive, technological

environments.

9.5 Summary

This chapter has drawn attention to the findings of the three research questions posed

in the introductory chapter, which in turn were discussed throughout this thesis.

Emphasis has been given to the ways in which future social marketing theory and

practice can be extended by engaging a critical marketing perspective when analysing

the benefits and challenges of integrating the internet into social marketing programs

and campaigns. The choice of methodology, the implications of sample bias, the

importance of context in technology studies and the generalised study of social issues

and problems were all addressed. Recommendations for future research in social

marketing were also proposed. These included future research opportunities in the

areas of relationship marketing, generalised studies of internet users’ behaviours

identified from Q analysis, and further situation-dependant applications of the online

social marketing strategy map.

The strategy map presented in this thesis should not be considered the ultimate guide

to future online social marketing; rather, it is one social marketer’s interpretation of

the opportunities marketers can leverage using the internet. The strategy map was

provided as a workable, but flexible plan that represents the recombinant nature of the

internet, which is shaped by the ‘complex exchange’ (Bagozzi, 1975) that occurs

between social marketers and customers, and the unique traits of internet technology.

The original motivation for commencing this study was the thought that social

marketers had not investigated the internet because many were influenced by the

common misconception that the internet is a purely technological event, or a “special”

technology adopted by teenagers, or that it is a technology only of interest and

accessible to elite populations of educated, ‘net-savvy’ users. In this light the main

contribution of the thesis is evidence that demonstrates the common, everyday

297


experiences of people who have engaged various aspects of the internet to facilitate

decision making and to enhance their lives through network connections of

information and people online. Williams and Rice (1983, p. 204) suggest that new

technologies are not ‘inherently impersonal or personal. [They posit that] our main

challenge is to understand better their distinguishing qualities and, even more so, to

develop our stylistic and persuasive strategies for their most effective use’. This thesis

has provided evidence that the internet is a flexible technology that is constituted in a

variety of ways by users to meet social needs and desires. As such, it can be engaged

as a potentially powerful and persuasive strategy in future social marketing programs

and campaigns.

298

APPENDICES

Appendices

299

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Study 1 Sample description

Focus Group 1: (December 2000) Socio-Demographic Detail Internet Experience

Name

Age Occupation(s) Political/ Non-political/Activist

Time Used

Internet

Level of Experienced

Virtual Community Experience

Participation in Petition

Harry

17 Student (High School)

Interested in Politics

5 yrs Advanced-Geek

Tony 26 Postgraduate Student

Non-political

5 yrs Advanced

Judy

36 Teacher (High School)

Non-political 4 yrs Beginner-Intermediate

Rob 37 Teacher (High School)

Non-political 4 yrs Intermediate

Lisa 40 Community Development

Worker

Political/ Activist 4 yrs Beginner

Trisha

66 Retired Academic

Political 4 yrs Intermediate

Study 1 Interviewees: (January 2001 – August 2001) Socio-Demographic Detail Internet Experience

Name Age Occupation (s) Political / Activist

Time Used

Internet

Level of Experience



Peter 24 University Student

Nonpolitical 5 years Intermediate

Sandy 24 Tourism Consultant

Nonpolitical 2 years Beginner

Billy 25 Web Programmer

Political 4 years Geek

Melanie 25 Online Networking Consultant

Political 5 years Advanced

Nicholas 28 Web Developer Nonpolitical 7 years Geek Michael 29 Video Producer Nonpolitical Over 7

years Geek

Amanda 35 Registered Nurse


Martin 36 Doctor Political 5 years Advanced Jake 38 Administrator Political 4 years Advanced Oscar 39 Internet

Marketer Nonpolitical Over 7

years Advanced

Liz 39 Lawyer Nonpolitical 5 years Advanced Alison 41 Teacher

(High School) Political 3 years Intermediate

Anne 44 Coordinator: Women’s Service


300

APPENDICES

Julie 45 Social Worker Political 2 years Intermediate Jane 52 Coordinator:

Health Service Political 7 Years Advanced

Kelvin 67 Priest Nonpolitical > 6 months

Beginner

Focus group 2: (September 2001) Socio-Demographic Detail Internet Experience

Name Age Occupation(s) Political / Activist

Time Used

Internet

Level of Experience



Amy 32 Website Developer/Librari

an

Political Over 7 years

Advanced

Stephen 37 Computing Research Scientist

Activist Over 7 years

Advanced

Angela

39 Web Page Editor Political Over 4 years

Experienced

Emma

40 Postgraduate Student

Political Over 5 years

Advanced

Anna 40 Sexual Assault Project Worker


Beginner

Jason 44 Community Artist/Designer


Intermediate

Michelle

53 Counselor Activist Over 2 years

Newbie

301

APPENDICES


Q Sort Interviews: (January 2002) Demographics Internet Behaviour

User Age Gender Occupation(s) 01 38 Female Office Manager Moderate 02 33 Female Physiotherapist Intermediate *03 (Erin) 37 Female HR Consultant Moderate 04 55 Male Academic

Researcher Intermediate

05 42 Female Officer Manager Intermediate 06 42 Male Researcher Moderate 07 40 Female Public Servant High *08 (Kristie) 34 Female University Lecturer Intermediate 09 49 Male Public Servant Moderate 10 41 Male Online Project

Manager Intermediate

11 35 Female Counselor Intermediate 12 35 Male Project Manager Moderate 13 35 Female Psychologist Moderate 14 37 Male Teacher

(High School) Moderate

*15 (Cassandra) 38 Female Public Servant Intermediate 16 39 Female Manager Intermediate 17 40 Male Manager Moderate 18 26 Male Postgraduate

Student High

19 31 Male IT Manager High 20 46 Female Researcher High 21 38 Male Commercial

Valuer Moderate

22 41 Female Editor High 23 28 Female Communication

Manager Intermediate

24 27 Male Postgraduate Student

Intermediate

25 46 Male Academic Intermediate 26 25 Female Administrator Intermediate 27 46 Male - Intermediate 28 22 Female Undergraduate

Student Moderate

29 41 Female - Moderate 30 40 Male Academic High 31 40 Male - Intermediate 32 35 Female Postgraduate

Student Intermediate

*Notes participant selected to complete in-depth interview for confirmatory analysis and social marketing application.

302

APPENDICES


In-depth Interviews: (June 2002 - June 2003) Socio-demographic Details Internet Experience Type of

Organisation Name Age Occupation(s) Political

/Non-political/ Activist

Time Used

Internet

Self Reported Level of

Experience**

Categorised by

Researcher

Joseph* - Social Marketer Social Change

Agency

Activist 6 years Moderate Social Movement Network

Madelyne* 36 Social Marketer Federal

Government

Political 4 years Moderate Government

Sophie 37 Social Marketer Commercial Research

Organisation

Political 6 years Moderate Research Network

Chris* 46 Social Marketer State

Government

Political 6 years Moderate Government

Stewart* 47 Social Marketer/ Psychologist & Senior Advisor

Federal Government

Nonpolitical 6 years Moderate Research Network

Lyn - Creator & Manager

Online Health Website

Nonpolitical 4 years Basic Research Network

Anita* - Online Campaign Manager Women’s Service

Political 6 years Basic Nonprofit

Rhys 27 Director of Programs

Online Nonprofit Organisation

Political 8 years High Dot.Cause

Beth 37 Project Manager Online Nonprofit

Organisation

Political 7 years Moderate Dot.Cause***

Jessica 42 Creator & Manager, Online

Social Cause

Nonpolitical 5 years Basic Dot.Cause

Brooke 29 Manager – Department

State Government

Nonpolitical 6 years Basic Government

Laura 34 Policy Analyst Federal

Government

Nonpolitical 8 years High Government

303

APPENDICES

Megan 35 Pubic Servant State

Government


Patrick 40 Policy Analyst Federal

Government


Kurt 43 Manager Federal

Government


Sally 31 Journalist Political 5 years Basic Nonprofit Virginia 32 Web Developer Nonpolitical 6 years Moderate Government Sarah 37 Digital Media

Designer Activists 6 years High Government

Rod 45 Online Publisher & Journalist

Political 8 years High Profit

Aaron 46 Producer & Designer

Interactive Health Media

Political 7 years Moderate Research Network

*Currently applying a social marketing framework **Self-reported level of experience:

• ‘basic’ level of involvement in online exchanges — that is, their online behaviour and interactions were primarily functional; using the internet (email and the Web) for information gathering and exchanges;

• ‘moderate’ level of involvement in online activities and relational exchanges — that is, they frequently used organising features of the internet (e.g., information seeking and exchange), and valued the relational aspects of the technology to maintain relationships with family and friends;

• ‘high’ level of involvement in online exchanges and relationships — that is, they regularly used the internet for functional purposes, also maintained family and friendship networks using internet communication, and regularly participated in communities of interest and/or practice.

***A Dot.cause is an organisation that implements in social change strategy wholly from online locations.

Unaware of social marketing strategy.

304

APPENDICES

Appendix 4: Sample interviewing guide A. Thank the interviewee for their time.

I’ve asked you along today to discuss the internet. I’m particularly interested in how the internet can be used in social causes, or as means to facilitate thinking or participation in social change programs online.

B. Explain the process of the interview. I would like to tape record the session as I will be

transcribing the discussion for analysis purposes. Could I also get you to complete the two forms:

a. one is an ethical clearance form which is part of university policy when conducting research. This document outlines that I will respect the confidentiality of information discussed here today and that I will not identify any of the participants here today in my thesis or other publications that may come out of the research.

b. The other is a form which gives me some personal information about you. I will be the only person who uses this information.

C. Move into second part of the research focus: 1. the role of information in daily life (personal and professional);

[Probe questions: How does internet compare to use of other media? How much has using the internet influenced the types of information you gather?]

2. What are some of the desirable and undesirable aspects of information on the internet?

[Probe questions: What is your experience, or opinion of the quality of information available on the Internet? Do you think there are any additional risks in using information from the Internet? Are you concerned about the availability of different types of information on the Internet? ]

3. Do you think the internet can be used for other activities other than information (e.g., like

chatting to special interest groups (personal and professional, or lobbying government?)

[Probe questions: Can you describe any social issues that you’ve been involved with online? what/who were the sources that deliver content/actions]

4. Have you been involved in discussion groups? What influenced you to get involved?

Were there any additional benefits in participating in the online forum? What got you

involved/or would get you involved? What types of issues discussed?

[Probe questions: Can you imagine your views about an issue being shaped, or changed, though discussion in an online discussion group? Would the fact the discussion is taking place on the Internet make a difference?]

5. What is your opinion of the value of participating in online networks for social change.

[Probe scenario: Have you ever been involved in e-mail petition? (Why/why not) Have you participated in any social causes online, or signed up to received newsletters, or information? What do you think of political group that target you using the interent?]

6. Do you think having access to the internet contributes to your daily life?

[Probe questions Do you think the internet is becoming fundamental to the way we live now? Have you thought about any negative impacts arising from internet use?]

305

APPENDICES

7. Have you identified any broader changes at a societal level?

[Probe questions Any changes to political systems, medical systems, eductational systems, etc.]

D. Thank participant for their involvement —if you’re interested you are welcome to read

the transcript from this discussion. Ask them if there is anything that anyone didn’t get a change to say that they wanted to say.

306

APPENDICES

Appendix 5: Qualitative coding examples

Following interviews with experienced and inexperienced internet users, coding

followed three phases: open coding (development of free nodes basedo n literature);

axial coding (establishment of major themes surrounding users’ opinions and

experiences); selective coding (idientifying negative cases and social marketing

themes).

INFORMATION • Skills

• Easy to find • Search skills • Time independence – 24/7 • Global

• Diversity • Access organizational info (e.g., UN, WorldBank, etc.) • New ideas (people)

• Resource • Currency • Customisation info • Sharing – networked information

INFORMATION PROBLEMS

• Overload • Misinformation • Credibility of source

• Self-publication (useless information) • Anonymity

• Commercial clutter • Bias/Self-interest - propaganda

SOCIETAL ISSUES (ABOUT TECHNOLOGY)

• Access • Skills to use technology • Time

RELATIONSHIPS ONLINE

• Personal • Family

• Short/reminders/functional • Comparison to telephone • Distance – networks • Face-to-face meetings

307

APPENDICES

• Friends • Local • National/ International — communities of interest • Meeting face-to-face

• Sense of community

• Involved • Dropped out

• Good idea, but not reality • Strangers described

• Support • Trust • Anonymity • Sharing behaviour

• Communities of practice (work related) Professional skills Professional knowledge sharing Perception of time

• Positive (reduce activities) • Negative (too much time already online)

COMMUNICATION STYLE

• Intimate Regular contact

• Impersonal Dislikes

• Lacks consequences Hard to interpret – lacks facial ques

• Hyperpersonal Emotion/caring/supportive

PERCEPTIONS ABOUT RISK/FEARS

• Stranger danger – children • Exploiting people — hoaxes • Stalking • Stealing (my details) • Pornography

good bad reality

SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR Activism

• Collective action • Protest commitment

o Emailing petitions (relates quality of information issues) Traditional approach

308

APPENDICES

309

• Activities (petitions, political groups, lobbying) o Positive contributions

Speed & reach Problems with fact-checking

o Negative – no impact Notions of credibility (why is a list of names different if

electronic?) Traditional barriers (politicians don’t read them)

Political interaction

• Diversity of information • Like minded people (opinions) • Concerns

o False information o Too general o Agenda setting

Health issues

• Concerns o Credibility of source

• Benefits o 24/7 o choice o social support

confidences, commitment o diversity of information o sharing knowledge o sharing skills (modeling beahaviour)

• Other information sources — authority sources • Benefits (contrasted) traditional sources

Self-help

• New ideas • Alternative sources

TECHNICAL FEATURES

• Discussion lists (email) • Networks

Work Interests Social/friendship

• Web CO-CONSTRUCTION

• People/technology • Technology/people

APPENDICES

310

Appendix 6: Q data collection table NAME: (first only)

(21) (8) (21)

Demographics Internet Behaviour (3)

(4) (6) (8) (8) (8) (6) (4) (3)

DOB Gender Edu Job Basic8

Involvement

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

Moderate9 Involvement

Record Data

Highly10 Involvement

8 Basic involvement: online information exchanges involving mainly work and professional life. 9 Moderately involved: ABOVE – including relationship building and maintenance with family and friends 10 Highly involved: ABOVE — including relationship development: i.e. participated in communities of interest/practice; collaborated and provided support to online

communities.

APPENDICES

Appendix 7: Reporting z-scores and equivalent factor scores

z-scores Factor Scores Item Factor A Factor B Factor C Factor A Factor B Factor C

1 .03 0.7 -.48 0 0 -2 2 .94 -.67 .02 1 -2 0 3 -.53 -.73 -.99 -1 -2 -4 4 .83 -.93 -.22 1 -3 -1 5 -.09 .08 -.23 0 0 -1 6 .40 -0.61 -.17 1 -2 0 7 .56 .04 -.20 1 0 0 8 1.64 .88 -.93 4 3 -4 9 -1.07 -.82 .57 -3 -3 3 10 -.13 .26 .24 0 1 0 11 -.72 1.37 .47 -1 4 2 12 -.12 -.26 -.38 0 0 -1 13 1.74 .51 -.82 4 2 -3 14 1.60 -.96 .36 3 -4 1 15 1.13 -43 .86 2 -1 3 16 1.04 -1.02 -.92 2 -4 -3 17 -1.78 .48 -.90 -4 1 -3 18 1.62 -.98 -1.16 3 -4 -4 19 -.51 -7 1.46 -1 0 4 20 1.15 1.44 .30 3 4 1 21 -.25 -.76 .46 0 -2 1 22 -.30 -1 .98 0 0 4 23 -.26 0 .49 0 0 2 24 -1.80 .61 .83 -4 2 3 25 -.18 -.34 .26 0 -1 1 26 .36 -.33 .05 0 -1 0 27 -.77 -.27 -.35 -2 -1 -1 28 -.08 -.57 -.58 0 -1 -2 29 .81 -.91 .48 1 -3 2 30 -.96 .82 .22 -2 3 0 31 -.32 -.24 -.52 -1 0 -2 32 -.27 .27 -.10 0 1 0 33 1.13 1.42 -.51 2 4 -2 34 .95 -.67 -.64 2 -2 -2 35 -.38 -.19 -.35 -1 0 -1 36 -1.27 -.11 -4 -3 0 0 37 .06 -.57 -.31 0 -1 -1 38 .65 .23 -.06 1 0 0 39 -.91 0 .88 -2 0 4 40 -1.97 .63 .06 -4 2 0 41 -1.40 .42 .47 -3 1 2 42 -.12 .76 .42 0 2 1 43 -.53 -.26 -.11 -1 0 0 44 -1.06 -.83 -.77 -2 -3 -3 45 -1.77 .27 .72 -3 1 3 46 -.77 .89 .24 -2 3 1 47 1.72 .13 .23 4 0 0 48 -.22 .27 .52 0 1 2 49 1.16 1.02 .19 3 3 0 50 1.03 .67 -.01 2 2 0

Note: factor scores are associated with the Q statement set

311

APPENDICES

Appendix 8: Normalised factor scores

FACTOR I: INTERNET COMMUNITARIAN Statement Factor

Score z-scores


+4 1.747

* I’m very positive about what the internet can offer on a communication basis for people … it’s creating communication where there was none. [47]

+4 1.722


+4 1.647

* I’m optimistic about the internet to a certain extent, in that it connects isolated communities and communities that wouldn’t necessarily have an opportunity to connect with others at all. [18]

+3 1.622

I’ve got a friend whose partner is very sick and he spends a lot of time on the Net getting support from other people in the same circumstances. The internet’s really useful for helping and supporting people. [14]

+3 1.605


+3 1.163


+3 1.155


+2 1.138


+2 1.138


+2 1.047


+2 1.038


+2 0.955


-2 -0.770


-2 -0.770

You need a safe environment to be able to talk about sensitive issues online. I don’t know if that’s possible on the Internet. [30]

-2 -0.962

I would never write anything private in an email, I don’t think that they’re private. [39]

-2 -0.912

It takes a lot of time to find information on the Internet because a lot of the stuff on the Internet is either wrong, irrelevant or not useful

-2 -1.062

312

APPENDICES

anyway. [44]


-3 -1.078

When I actually got to use the internet it wasn’t as wonderful as I thought it was going to be.[36]

-3 -1.270

* I don’t trust email communication. I don’t think it’s private. So, perhaps our communication will become shallower. [41]

-3 -1.403

* If people weren’t spending so much time on the internet, they’d be out working in their physical communities, which would be better for everyone. [45]

-3 -1.779

I don’t think the internet is people, I think it’s just information. [17] -4 -1.787

* Other people are setting your agenda on the internet. [24] -4 -1.804

* Having friends online doesn’t help at the end of the day because these friends can’t really get help from, or give assistance. [40]

-4 -1.979


313

APPENDICES

FACTOR II: INFORMATION NETWORKER Statement Factor

Score z-score


+4 1.447


+4 1.422

I like being anonymous online, I can be anybody.[11] +4 1.372


+3 1.023


+3 0.898


+3 0.885

You need a safe environment to be able to talk about sensitive issues online. I don’t know if that’s possible on the internet. [30]

+3 0.823

The internet’s really changed the way people exist, instead of just being receivers of information; you have to generate information now as well. [42]

+2

0.761


+2 0.673

Having friends online doesn’t help at the end of the day because these friends can’t really get help from, or give assistance. [40]

+2 0.636

Other people are setting your agenda on the internet. [24] +2 0.611


+2

0.511

I’m not particularly optimistic about the internet in the sense that like any powerful thing, it’s about whether or not you can actually afford to access it. [21]

-2

-0.761


-2

-0.736


-2

-0.673

People participating in a list serve form a community just as surely as any group of people bound by geography or thought. [2]

-2

-0.673


-2

-0.611


-3 -0.823

It takes a lot of time to find information on the internet because a lot of the stuff on the internet is either wrong, irrelevant, or not useful anyway. [44]

-3 -0.836

* By using the internet I keep in touch with people more than I ever -3 -0.910

314

APPENDICES

would have done before. [29]

I use the Net to find out as much as I can about issues that are important to me. [4]

-3 -0.935

* I’ve got a friend whose partner is very sick and he spends a lot of time on the Net getting support from other people in the same circumstances. The internet’s really useful for helping and supporting people. [14]

-4 -0.960


-4 -0.985


-4 -1.023


315

APPENDICES

FACTOR III: INDIVIDUALISED NETWORKER Statement Factor

Score z-score

*So much of my personal and social interactions with close friends happen electronically. It’s a real frustration for me when I have a friend that’s part of my immediate social group that doesn’t have email contact. [19]

+4 1.468

*I think I’ve got a greater opportunity to meet more like-minded people online, than in my local community. [22]

+4 0.980

*I would never write anything private in an email, I don’t think that they’re private. [39]

+4 0.889


+3 0.863

Other people are setting your agenda on the internet. [24] +3 0.838

If people weren’t spending so much time on the internet, they’d be out working in their physical communities, which would be better for everyone. [45]

+3 0.721

*I’m concerned about false information on the Net. Even government’s putting information up on websites use disclaimers that say they’re not responsible for anything on the site. I think it’s easier to trust a book. [9]

+3 0.579

I don’t care about the types of information exchanged online, I want children to have as much information as they can about the world. I’m more concerned about the interactivity, the capacity for kids to get on the Net and then have someone being able to find them, or get their credit card number. [23]

+2 0.493

By using the Internet I keep in touch with people more than I ever would have done before. [29]

+2 0.482

I like being anonymous online, I can be anybody. [11] +2 0.477

I don’t trust email communication. I don’t think it’s private. So, perhaps our communication will become shallower.[41]

+2 0.472

I think the internet increases physical meeting, after meeting on the Net people what to meet face-to-face. [48]

+2 0.523

I’m optimistic about the Internet because I see a lot of potential out of it, but I see that you’ve got not a lot of choice but to be enthusiastic and just carve off your slice of it. [1]

-2 -0.488

* I think that there’s a world before the Net and there’s a world after the Net and I think that the change is fundamental and really significant … it represents a fundamental change in the way people do stuff or interact … [33]

-2 -0.518

People have access to your name, address, the things you like, your movements, where you go, what you do. But these risks exist anyway. [31]

-2 -0.528

Sending email is a good way to maintain bonds with friends, but it’s not as good as talking on the telephone. [28]

-2 -0.589

How good the Internet will be depends on how a person uses it and how the person actually uses it to better themselves for the good of society and things like that. [34]

-2 -0.645

*It takes a lot of time to find information on the internet because a lot of the stuff on the Internet is either wrong, irrelevant, or not useful anyway. [44]

-3 -0.777


-3 -0.823

I don’t think the internet is people, I think it’s just information. [17] -3 -0.904

316

APPENDICES

Information quality is a big issue on the internet — but it is in any form of media. [16]

-3 -0.929

*The value of the internet is the network; it makes us a global community. [8]

-4 -0.939


-4 -0.995


-4 -1.168


317

APPENDICES

Appendix 9: Summary of distinguishing statements in three-

factor solution

Stricklin (personal communication, 15 July, 2004) explains that a distinguishing item

signifies that the score on one factor is at least three ‘piles’ away from all other

factors. In mathematic terms, this means a difference of at least one standard

deviation. For example,

Factors A B C D E Item X +5 -4 +1 +1 0

Item X is distinguishing for factors A and B, A and C, A and D, A and E; also for B

and C, B and D, B and E; but not for C and D, C and E; nor for D and E. Thus, one

might say that Item X distinguishes A from all other factors; also it distinguishes B

from all other factors; but Item X does not distinguish factors C, D or E from one

another.

Table: Item statements that distinguish Internet Communitarians

Item Statement I II III Information quality is a big issue on the Internet. But it is in any form of media. (16)

2 -4 -3

I’m optimistic about the Internet to a certain extent, in that it connects isolated communities and communities that wouldn’t necessarily have an opportunity to connect with others at all. (18)

3 -4 -4

Other people are setting your agenda on the Internet. (24) -4 2 3

How good the Internet will be depends on how a person uses it and how the person actually uses it to better themselves for the good of society and things like that.(34).

2 -2 -2

Having friends online doesn’t help at the end of the day because these friends can’t really get help from, or give assistance. (40)

-4 2 0

I don’t trust email communication. I don’t think it’s private. So, perhaps our communication will become shallower. (41)

-3 1 2

If people weren’t spending so much time on the Internet, they’d be out working in their physical communities, which would be better for everyone. (45)

-3 1 3

I’m very positive about what the Internet can offer on a communication basis for people … it’s creating communication where there was none. (47)

4 0 0

318

APPENDICES

Table: Item statements that distinguish Information Networkers

Item Statement I II III I’ve got a friend whose partner is very sick and he spends a lot of time on the Net getting support from other people in the same circumstances. The Internet’s really useful for helping and supporting people. (14).

3 -4 1

I don’t think the Internet is people, I think it’s just information. (17) -4 1 -3

By using the Internet I keep in touch with people more than I ever would have done before. (29)

1 -3 2

Table: Item statements that distinguish Individualised Networkers

Item Statement I II III The value of the Internet is the network, it makes us a global community. (8)

4 3 -4

I’m concerned about false information on the Net. Even government’s putting information up on websites use disclaimers that say they’re not responsible for anything on the site. I think it’s easier to trust a book. (9)

-3 -3 3

The Internet’s about empowerment of individuals, but it … depends on how humans use it to their advantage. (13)

4 2 -3

So much of my personal and social interactions with close friends happen electronically. It’s a real frustration for me when I have a friend that’s part of my immediate social group that doesn’t have email contact. (19)

-1 0 4

I think I’ve got a greater opportunity to meet more like-minded people online, than in my local community. (22)

0 0 4

I think that there’s a world before the Net and there’s a world after the Net and I think that the change is fundamental and really significant … it represents a fundamental change in the way people do stuff or interact … (33)

2 4 -2

I would never write anything private in an email, I don’t think that they’re private. (39).

-2 0 4

319

APPENDICES

Appendix 10: Q sort follow-up interview guide Interview overview:

The aim of the interview is to flesh-out your internet user profile (see attached) and to relate your internet experience to social marketing strategy. The interview will take approximately 1-1.5 hours. Interview process:

I would like to tape record the interview and can assure you that the information discussed during the interview will remain confidential. I will not identify you personally in my thesis or any other publications. The interview will be divided into three areas of discussion: (a) discussion of your internet user profile, (b) discussion of the influence of the internet when making social and health decisions; (c) discussion of social and commercial relations/exchanges involving the internet. PHASE 1: CONFIRMATION OF INTERNET USER PROFILE

Discussion about internet user profile (see Profile attached to email) 1. Do you agree with the profile’s representation of your attitudes, opinions and experiences

of the internet? Are there any statements in your profile that you don’t agree with? Would you like to clarify any of the statements — which you’d feel better describes

your personal experience of the internet? 2. Has anything in the last few months changed your attitudes towards the internet? PHASE 2: DISCUSSION ABOUT YOUR INTERNET USE (NON-USE) WHEN MAKING SOCIAL AND HEALTH DECISIONS (Social Marketing) 3. If you or a member of your family were facing a social or health problem/issue, how

would you use the internet? 4. What other sources of information, support, and advice do you seek out when making a

health or social decision? What information sources (channels), or media do you use? What do you look for in the types of information and advice that you gather?

I’d like you now to consider how you might use the internet to help your decision making and actions during a specific social or health problem. [I’ll give you a number of issues to select from – e.g. quitting smoking, taking up physical activity, finding information about a dietary problem, helping a friend or family involved in a violent relationship, dealing with a cancer scare, dealing with an illicit drug problem involving a friend or family member, dealing with a binge drinking problem, recycling, environmental issue like ‘save the whales’]. I’ll ask you to select one issue that you find highly involving, and one that is only low involvement.

EXPLANATION: In social marketing, health and social issues are categorised as being either high or low involvement decisions:

High Involvement Decisions would include something like helping a friend to stop taking drugs. The behaviours involved in highly involving decisions include collecting a good deal of information about an issue; thinking about the decision at some length and is characterise as decision making that is emotionally involving.

Lower Involvement Decisions are typified as those that are not very important and involve issues that you don’t think about very much, consequently you don’t gather very much information before making your choice(s) and don’t think about

320

APPENDICES

the issue in detail and have few regret – or thoughts – about the issue after you’ve chosen a solution.

5. Using the ‘stages of change model’ (see attached) I’d like you to: Define where you’d currently place yourself on the model? To discuss the types of information that you would use and advice you would seek to

help with solving the health or social problem. Discuss at what stage you’d access the internet. Discuss specific internet activities / facilities you’d use (or not use). Discuss how frequently you would use the internet during each stage? (Why wouldn’t you use the internet?)

PHASE 3: DISCUSSION ABOUT YOUR SOCIAL AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS USING THE INTERNET 6. What would encourage you to use the internet more as a relational or personal

technology? 7. SOCIAL INTERACTIONS ONLINE: Can you discuss briefly where your use of the

internet has incorporated online interactions — the process of friendship building through internet & email?

• Positive experiences: e.g. where social relationships have evolved because of intrinsic value gained through using internet technologies for staying connected.

• Negative experience: e.g. relationship has deteriorated / become distrustful / felt exploited /), OR;

• Opted out the relationships wasn’t necessary anymore 8. COMMERCIAL INTERACTIONS ONLINE: Can you discuss briefly where your use

of the internet has incorporated an online relationship for work or commercial purposes (e.g. building commercial relationships using the internet & email)?

• Positive experiences: e.g. where social relationships have evolved because of intrinsic value gained through using internet technologies for staying connected.

• Negative experience: e.g. relationship has deteriorated / become distrustful / felt exploited /), OR the relationship has become intrusive selling of additional services and information that are not required and which you have never requested.

• Opted out the relationships wasn’t necessary anymore NETWORKS INTERACTIONS: (individual relations, groups or communities that you participate in online) 9. Can you tell me a little about how you use the internet to network for personal and social

purposes? 10. Do you look for similar types of people to yourself to network with? Can you think of

when you last accessed this type of network? 11. Do you look for networks which include different sorts of people? Can you think of when

you last accessed this type of network? 12. Have you ever participated in starting or forward a social cause message online? Why/

why not?

321

APPENDICES

Appendix 11: Rotated factor matrix for three-factor solution

Factor Loadings Internet User

Gender Age Internet Involvement

A B C

User15 Female 38 High 0.76 -0.28 -0.11

User07 Female 40 High 0.75 -0.21 -0.03

User02 Female 33 Moderate 0.73 0.01 0.06

User22 Female 41 High 0.72 0.11 -0.06

User01 Female 38 Moderate 0.71 -0.05 -0.22

User20 Female 46 High 0.71 -0.18 -0.10

User09 Male 49 Moderate 0.66 0.11 -0.35

User04 Male 55 Moderate 0.62 0.09 -0.27



User30 Male 40 High 0.46 -0.34 0.23

User08 Female 34 Moderate -0.12 -0.71 -0.02

User31 Male 40 Moderate 0.04 -0.71 -0.13

User24 Male 27 Moderate 0.19 -0.54 0.25

User06 Male 42 Basic -0.24 -0.49 -0.09

User03 Female 37 Basic 0.02 -0.15 -0.70


User14 Male 37 Basic 0.19 -0.19 -0.51

User17 Male 40 Basic 0.18 0.09 -0.50

User29 Female 41 Basic 0.06 -0.28 -0.50

User28 Female 22 Basic -0.16 0.06 -0.46


User12 Male 35 Basic 0.19 -0.13 -0.30

User13 Female 35 Basic 0.46 0.17 -0.44


322

APPENDICES

User18 Male 26 High 0.12 -0.25 -0.12

User19 Male 31 High 0.30 -0.34 -0.12

User21 Male 38 Basic -0.18 0.25 0.32



User27 Male 46 Moderate -0.18 -0.24 0.35


323

REFERENCES

References

Abrahams, R. D. (1986). Ordinary and extraordinary experience. In V. W. Turner & E. M. Bruner (Eds.), The Anthropology of Experience (pp. 45-73). Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press.

Adams, R. C. (1983). An evaluation of research replication and market segmentation with Q method. Operant Subjectivity, 6(4), 126-139.

Addams, H., & Proops, J. (2000). Social Discourse and Environmental Policy: An application of Q methodology. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Addams, H. (2000). Q Methodology. In H. Addams & J. Proops (Eds.), Social Discourse and Environmental Policy: An application of Q methodology (pp. 14-40). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Alba, J., Lynch, J., Weitz, B., Janiszewski, C., Lutz, R., Sawyer, A. & Wood, S. (1997). Interactive home shopping: consumer, retailer, and manufacturer incentives to participate in electronic marketplaces, Journal of Marketing, 61(July), 38-53.

Albrecht, T. L. (1997). Defining social marketing: 25 years later. Social Marketing Quarterly, 3(3&4), 21-23.

Alderson, W. (1965). Dynamic Marketing Behaviour: a functionalist theory of marketing. Homewood, Ill: Irwin.

Allen, K., & Rainie, L. (2002). Parents Online [World Wide Web]. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved 2 December, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://www.pewinternet.org/

Anderson, P. F. (1982). Marketing, Strategic Planning and the Theory of the Firm. Journal of Marketing, 46(2), 15-27.

Anderson, P. F. (1983). Marketing, scientific progress, and scientific method. Journal of Marketing, 47(Fall), 18-31.

Anderson, P. F. (1986). On method in consumer research: A critical relativist perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(2), 155-173.

Andreasen, A. R. (1994). Social marketing: its definition and domain. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 13(1), 108-114.

Andreasen, A. R. (1995). Marketing social change: changing behaviour to promote health, social development, and the environment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Andreasen, A. R. (1995). Marketing social change: Changing behaviour to promote health, social development, and the environment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Andreasen, A. R. (1997). Prescriptions for theory-driven social marketing research: A response to Goldberg's alarms. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 6(2), 189-196.

Andreasen, A. R. (2000). Intersector transfer of marketing knowledge. In P. N. Bloom & G. T. Gundlach (Eds.), Handbook of Marketing and Society (pp. 80-104). Thoursand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Andreasen, A. R. (2002). Marketing social marketing in the social change marketplace. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 21(1), 3-13.

Andreasen, A. R., & Kotler, P. (2002). Strategic Marketing for Nonprofit Organisations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Andreasen, A. R. (2002a). Marketing social marketing in the social change marketplace. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 21(1), 3-13.

325

REFERENCES

Andreasen, A. R. (2002b). Commercial marketing and social change. Social Marketing Quarterly, 8(2), 41-45.

Andreasen, A. R. (2003). The life trajectory of social marketing: some implications. Marketing Theory, 3(3), 293-303.

Andreasen, A. R., & Kotler, P. (2003). Strategic Marketing for Nonprofit Organisations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Armstrong, A., & Hagel, J. (1996). The real value of on-line communities. Harvard Business Review, May-June, 134-141.

Arndt, J. (1985). On making marketing science more scientific: role of orientations, paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving. Journal of Marketing, 49(3), 11-23.

Arnould, E. J., & Price, L. L. (1993). River magic: extraordinary experience and the extended service encounter. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(June), 24-45.

Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS]. (2002). Measuring a knowledge-based economy and society: An Australian framework (Catalogue: 1375.0). Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Bagozzi, R. P. (1975a). Marketing as Exchange. Journal of Marketing, 39(Oct), 32-39.

Bagozzi, R. P. (1975b). Social exchange in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 3(Summer/Fall), 314-327.

Bagozzi, R. P. (1977). Is all social exchange marketing? a reply. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 5(Fall), 315-326.

Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). On the concept of intentional social action in consumer behaviour. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(December), 388-396.

Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). On the concept of intentional social action in consumer behaviour. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(December), 288-396.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Dholakia, U. M. (2002). Intentional social action in virtual communities. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 16(2), 2-21.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Dholakia, U. M. (2002). Intentional social action in virtual communities. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 16(2), 2-21.

Balch, G. (1982). New Books in Review - Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science. Journal of Marketing Research, February, 162-163.

Balka, E. (1996). Women and computer networking in six countries. The Journal of International Communication, 3(1), 66-84.

Bardakci, A., & Whitelock, J. (2003). Mass-customisation in marketing: the consumer perspective. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20(5), 463-479.

Barker, A., Nancarrow, C., & Spackman, N. (2001). Informed eclecticism: A research paradigm for the twenty-fist century. International Journal of Market Research, 43(1), 3-27.

Bartels, R. (1970). Marketing Theory and Metatheory. Homewood, Ill: R.D. Irwin.

Baym, N. K. (1995). The emergence of community in computer-mediated communication. In S. G. Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety: Computer-mediated communication and community (pp. 138-163). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication.

Baym, N. K. (1998). The emergence of on-line community. In S. G. Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety 2.0: Revisting computer-mediated communication and community (pp. 35-68). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

326

REFERENCES

Baym, N. K. (2002). Interpersonal life online. In L. A. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), Handbook of New Media: Social Shaping and Consequences of ICTs (pp. 62-76). London: SAGE Publications.

Bearden, W. O., & Etzel, M. J. (1982). Reference group influence on product and brand purchase decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 183-195.

Bell, C. & Newby, H. (1971). Community Studies, London: Unwin.

Belk, R. W., Wallendorf, M., & Sherry, J. F. J. (1989). The sacred and the profane in consumer behaviour: Theodicy on the Odyssey. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 1-38.

Belk, R., W. (1991). Highways and Byways: naturalistic Research from the Consumer Behaviour Odyssey. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

Belk, R. W., & Bryce, W. (1993). Christmas shopping scenes: from modern miracle to postmodern mall. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 10, 277-296.

Benigeri, M., & Pluye, P. (2003). Shortcomings of health information on the internet. Health Promotion International, 18(4), 381-386.

Bennett, R., & Sargeant, A., (2005), Special Issue: The nonprofit marketing landscape. Journal of Business Research, 58(6), 705-862.

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The Social Construction of Reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge. London: Penguin.

Berlo, D. K. (1960). The process of Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Berthon, P., Holbrook, M. B., & Hulbert, J. M. (2000). Beyond marketing orientation: A conceptualisation of market evolution. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 14(3), 50-66.

Bettman, J.R., Roedder, J.D., & Scott, C.A. (1984). ‘Consumers’ assessment of covariation’, in T.C. Kinnear (ed.) Advances in Consumer Research 11, (pp. 466-471). Provo, Utah: Association for Consumer Research.

Bickart, B., & Schindler, R. M. (2001). Internet forums as influential sources of consumer information. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15(3), 31-40.

Blaikie, N. (2000). Designing Social Research. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc.

Blois, K. (1997). When is a relationship a "relationship". In H. G. Gemunden & T. Ritter & A. Walter (Eds.), Relationships and Networks in International Marketing (pp. 53-64). Oxford: Pergamon.

Boczkowski, P. J. (2004). The processes of adopting multimedia and interactivity in three online newsrooms. Journal of Communication, June, 197-213.

Bonsu, S. K., & Belk, R. W. (2003). Do not go cheaply into that good night: Death-ritual consumption in Asante, Ghana. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(June), 41-55.

Bracht, N. (1990). Introduction. In N. Bracht (Ed.), Health Promotion at the Community Level (pp. 5-10). Newberry park, CA: Sage.

Brodie, R. J., Coviello, N. E., Brookes, W., & Little, V. (1997). Towards a paradigm shift in marketing? An examination of current marketing practices. Journal of marketing Management, 13(5), 383-406.

Brodie, R. J. (2002). The challenge to include relational concepts. Marketing Theory, 2(4), 229-343.

Brouwer, M. (1999). Q is accounting for tastes. Journal of Advertising Research, March-April, 35-39.

Brown, S. R. (1971). The forced-free distinction in Q-technique. Journal of Educational Measurement, 8, 283-287.

327

REFERENCES

Brown, S. R., & Brenner, D. (1972). Science, Psychology, and Communication: Essays Honouring William Stephenson. New York: Teachers College Press.

Brown, S. R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Brown, S. R. (1985). Comments on 'The search for structure'. Political Methodology, 11, 109-117.

Brown, S. R. (1991). Concourse Theory [Web Document]. International Society for the Scientific Study of Subjectivity. Retrieved 18 July, 2004, from the World Wide Web: http://www.qmethod.org/Tutorials/Primer_2.htm

Brown, S. (1993). Marketing as multiplex: screening postmodernism. European Journal of Marketing, 28(8/9), 27-51.

Brown, S. (1995). Postmodern Marketing. London: Routledge.

Brown, S. R. (1996). Q methodology and qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 6(4), 561-567.

Brown, S. R., Durning, D. W., & Selden, S. (1999). Q methodology, Handbook of research methods in public administration (pp. 599-637).

Brownlie, D., & Saren, M. (1992). The four Ps of the marketing concept: prescriptive, polemical, permanent and problematical. European Journal of Marketing, 26(4), 34-47.

Brownlie, D., Saren, M., Whittington, R., & Wensley, R. (1994). The new marketing myopia: Critical perspectives on theory and research in marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 28(3), 6-12.

Buchanan, D. R., Reddy, S., & Hossain, Z. (1994). Social marketing: a critical appraisal. Health Promotion International, 9(1), 49-63.

Buller, D. B., Woodall, W. G., Hall, J. R., Borland, R., Ax, B., Brown, M., & Hinges, J. M. (2001). A web-based smoking cessation and prevention program for children aged 12 to 15. In R. E. Rice & C. K. Atkin (Eds.), Publication Communication Campaigns (3rd ed., pp. 357-372). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes : the social structure of competition. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Burton, D. (2001). Critical marketing theory: the blueprint? European Journal of Marketing, 35(5/6), 722-743.

Bussell, H. (1998). Parental Choice of Primary School: An Application of Q Methodology. In G. Hogg & M. Gabbott (Eds.), Service Industries Marketing: New Approaches. London: Frank Cass.

Buttle, F. A. (1994). The co-ordinated management of meaning: a new consumer research technology. European Journal of Marketing, 28(8/9), 76-99.

Buttle, F. A. (1995). Marketing communications theory: what do the texts teach our students. International Journal of Advertising, 14, 297-313.

Buttle, F. A. (1998). Rules Theory: understanding social construction of consumer behaviour. Journal of Marketing Management, 14, 63-94.

Bye, L. (2000). Toward an integrated social change methodology. Social Marketing Quarterley, 6(3), 58-62.

Cairncross, F. (1998). The Death of Distance: How the communication revolution will change our lives. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press.

328

REFERENCES

Callon, M. (1991). Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In: J. Law (Ed.) A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination (pp. 132-161) London and New York: Routledge.

Carey, J. (1989). Communication as Culture: Essays on media and society. New York: Routledge.

Carroll, T. E., & donovan, R. J. (2002). Alcohol marketing on the internet: new challenges for harm reduction. Drug and Alcohol Review, 21, 83-91.

Carson, D., Gilmore, A., Perry, C., & Gronhaug, K. (2001). Qualitative Marketing Research. London: Sage Publications.

Caru, A., & Cova, B. (2003). Revisiting consumption experiences: a more humble but complete view of the concept. Marketing Theory, 3(2), 267-296.

Castells, M. (1989). The Informational City: Information Technology, Economic Restructuring, and the Urban-Regional Process. Oxford: Blackwell.

Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society (Vol. 1). Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers Inc.

Castells, M. (2001). Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, Business and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Catterall, M., & Maclaran, P. (2002). Researching the social web: Marketing information from virtual communities. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 20(6), 319-326.

Chen, M. (1984). Computers in the lives of our children: Looking back on a generation of television research. In R. E. Rice (Ed.), The New Media: Communication, Research, and Technology (pp. 269-286). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Chen, W., Boase, J., & Wellman, B. (2002). Comparing Internet users and uses around the world. In B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Internet in Everyday Life. Malden, MA; Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Christians, C. G. (2003). Ethics and politics in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Landscape of Qualitative Research (pp. 208-243). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Chung, E., & Alagaratnam, S. (2001). Teach ten thousand stars how not to dance: A survey of alternative ontologies in marketing research. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 4(4), 224-234.

Clark, L. S., Demont-Heinrich, C., & Webber, S. A. (2004). Ethnographi interviews on the digital divide. New Media & Society, 6(4), 529-547.

Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1989). Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge.

Compaine, B. M. (2001). The digital divide: Facing a crisis or creating a myth? Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Constantin, J. A., & Lusch, R. F. (1994). Understanding Resource Management. Oxford, OH: The Planning Forum.

Cook, G. (1992). The Discourse of Advertising. London: Routledge.

Cova, B., & Cova, V. (2002). Tribal marketing: the tribalisaiton of society and its impact on the conduct of marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 36(5/6), 595-620.

Coviello, N., & Brodie, R. (1998). From transaction to relationship marketing: An investigation of managerial perceptions and practices. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 6, 171-186.

329

REFERENCES

Coviello, N., Milley, R., & Marcolin, B. (2001). Understanding IT-enabled interactivity in contemporary marketing. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15(4), 18-33.

Crotty, M. (1998). The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. St Leonards, Australia: Allen & Unwin.

Cunningham, W. H., & Sheth, J. N. (1983). Special Issue the Journal of Marketing looks at Marketing Theory. Journal of Marketing, 47(4), 7-8.

Curt, B. C. (1994). Textuality and tectonics: troubling social and psychological science. Buckinham: Open University Press.

Danbury, T. (1985). An original in-depth segmentation study of the market research industry. Operant Subjectivity, 8(4), 113-122.

Dann, S. (1997). Greenpeace and the Mururoa Atoll campaign: Not a case study in social marketing. Social Marketing Quarterly, 3(3&4), 24-26.

Dann, S., & Dann, S. (1998). Cybercommuning: global village halls. Advances in Consumer Research, 25, 379-385.

Dann, S. J., & Dann, S. (1999). Strategic Internet Marketing. Milton, Queensland: John Wiley and Sons.

Dann, S. J., & Dann, S. (2003). Strategic Internet Marketing 2.0 (2nd ed.). Milton, Queensland: John Wiley and Sons.

Dann, S. (2004). Innovations in Social Marketing: Observations and reflections. In G. S. Mort (Ed.), Inaugural Nonprofit Marketing Conference (pp. 7-11). Canberra, ACT, 23-24 September 2004: Australian National University (ANU).

Dann, S., & Dann, S. (2004). Strategic Internet Marketing 2.0 (2nd ed.). Milton, Queensland: John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.

Day, G. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organisation. Journal of Marketing, 58(October), 37-52.

Day, G. (1998). Organising for interactivity. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 12(1), 47-53.

Day, G. S., & Montgomery, D. B. (1999). Charting new directions for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 63(1), 3-14.

DeCourville, N. H., & Hafer, C. L. (2001). Attitudes towards affirmative action Programs: A Q methodological study. Operant Subjectivity, 24(4), 183-200.

Deighton, J., & Grayson, K. (1995). Marketing and seduction: building exchange relationships by managing social consensus. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(4), 660-676.

Deighton, J. (1996). Perspectives - the future of interactive marketing. Harvard Business Review, November-December, 151-162.

Dennis, K. E. (1992/1993). Looking at reliability and validity through Q-coloured glasses. Operant Subjectivity, 16(October), 37-44.

Denzin, N. K. (1989). The Research Act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2003). Introduction: the discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and issues (pp. 1-45). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishers.

Deshpande, R. (1999). Section IV: what are the Contributions of Marketing to Organisational Performance and Societal Welfare? Journal of Marketing, 63(Special Issue), 164-167.

330

REFERENCES

Dholakia, U. M., Bagozzi, R. P., & Pearo, L. K. (2004). A social influence model of consumer participation in network- and small-group-based virtual communities. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21, 241-263.

Dholakia, U.M. & Rego, L.L. (1998). What makes commercial web pages popular? European Journal of Marketing, 32(7/8), 724-736.

DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Neuman, W. R., & Robinson, J. P. (2001). Social implications of the Internet. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 307-326.

Donovan, R. J., & Owen, N. (1994). Social marketing and population interventions. In R. K. Dishman (Ed.), Advances in Exercise Adherence (pp. 249-290). Illinois: Human Kinetics.

Donovan, R. J., Paterson, D., & Francas, M. (1999). Targeting Male Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence: Western Australia's "Freedom from Fear" campaign. Social Marketing Quarterly, 5(3), 127-144.

Donovan, R. J., & Henley, N. (2003). Social Marketing: Principles and practice. Melbourne: IP Communications.

Donovan, R., & Henley, N. (2003). Social Marketing: Principles and practice. Melbourne: IP Communications.

Downes, E. J., & McMillan, S. J. (2000). Defining interactivity: A qualitative identification of key dimensions. New Media & Society, 2(2), 157-179.

Doyle, P. (2002). Marketing Management and Strategy (3rd ed.). Harlow, England: Prentice Hall.

Drucker, P.F. (1954). The Practice of Management. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.

Dryzek, J. S., & Berejikian, J. (1993). Reconstructive democratic theory. American Political Science Review, 87(1), 48-60.

Du Val Smith, A. (1999). Problems of Conflict Management in Virtual Communities. In M. A. Smith & P. Kollock (Eds.), Communities in Cyberspace (pp. 134-167). London: Routledge.

Dubrovsky, V. J., Kiesler, S., & Sethna, B., N. (1991). The equalization phenomenon: Status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups. Human-Computer Interactions, 6(2), 119-146.

Duncan, T., & Moriarty, S. E. (1998). A communication-based marketing model for managing relationships. Journal of Marketing, 62(April), 1-13.

Durning, D. (1999). The Transition from Traditional to Postpositivist policy analysis: A role for Q methodology. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18(3), 389-410.

Dwyer, R. F., Schurr, P. H., & Oh, S. (1987). Developing buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 51(April), 11-27.

Eastin, M. S., & LaRose, R. (2000). Internet self-efficacy and the psychology of the digital divide. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 6(1), http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue1/eastin.html.

Edwards, D. (1991). Categories are for talking: On the cognitive and discursive bases of categorisation. Theory & Psychology, 1, 515-542.

Eeten, M. J. G. v. (2001). Recasting intractable policy issues: the wider implications of the Netherlands civil aviation controversy. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20(3), 391-414.

Egger, G., Donovan, R. J., & Spark, R.A. (1993). Health and the media: Principles and practises for health promotion. Sydney: McGraw-Hill.

331

REFERENCES

Elofson, G., & Robinson, W. N. (1998). Creating a customer mass-production channel on the internet. Communications of the ACM, 41(3), 56-62.

Enis, B. M. (1973). Deepening the Concept of Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 37(October), 57-62.

Featherly, K. (2003). Anonymity. In S. Jones (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of New Media: An essential reference to communication and technology (pp. 9-11). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Febbraro, A. R. (1993, 1995). On the Epistemology, Metatheory, and Ideology of Q Methodology: A critical analysis. Paper presented at the international society for theoretical psychology, Chateau de Bierville, Saclas, France.

Firat, A. F., Dholakia, N., & Venkatesh, A. (1995). Marketing in a postmodern world. European Journal of Marketing, 29(1), 40-56.

Firat, A. F., & Venkatesh, A. (1995). Liberatory postmodernism and the reenchantment of consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(3), 239-267.

Fogg, B. J. (2003). Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to change what we think and do. Amsterdam: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

Fox, S., Rainie, L., Horrigan, J., Lenhart, A., Spooner, T., & Carter, C. (2000). Trust and privacy online: Why Americans want to rewrite the rules [Online]. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved 2 December, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://www.pewinternet.org/

Fox, S., & Rainie, L. (2002). Vital decisions: How internet users decide what information to trust when they or their loved ones are sick [Online]. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved 2 December, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://www.pewinternet.org/

Foxall, G. (1993). Consumer behaviour as an evolutionary process. European Journal of Marketing, 27, 46-57.

Foxall, G. R. (1995). Science and interpretation in consumer research: a radical behaviourist perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 29(9), 3-99.

Fraedrich, J. (1987). Marketing functionalism: the enigma explained. In R. Belk & G. Zaltman & R. P. Bagozzi & D. Brinberg & A. Firat & M. B. Holbrook & J. C. Olson & J. F. Sherry & B. Weitz (Eds.), 1987 AMA Winter Educators' Conference: Marketing Theory (pp. 376-379). Chicago, Illinois: American Marketing Association.

Freedman, D. (2002). A 'Technological Idiot'? Raymond Williams and communications technology. Information, Communication & Society, 5(3), 425-442.

Gabarro, J. J. (1990). The development of working relationships. In J. Galegher & R. E. Draut (Eds.), Intellectual Teamwork: Social and technological foundations of cooperative work (pp. 79-110). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gallivan, J. (1994). Subjectivity and the psychology of gender: a as a feminist methodology. In S. D. Crozier & J. Gallivan & V. M. Lalande (Eds.), Women, Girls, and Achievement (pp. 29-36). North York: University Publishers.

Gandy, O. H. (2002). The real digital divide: Citizens versus consumers. In L. A. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), Handbook of New Media: Social shaping and consequences of ICTs (pp. 448-460). London: SAGE Publications.

Garton, L., Haythornthwaite, C., & Wellman, B. (1999). Studying On-Line Social Networks. In S. Jones (Ed.), Doing Internet Research: Critical Issues and Methods for Examining the Net (pp. 299). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

332

REFERENCES

Gauntlett, D. (Ed.). (2000). Web studies: rewiring media studies for the digital age. London: Arnold.

Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Geller, E. S. (2002). The challenge of social change: a behavioural scientist's perspective. Social Marketing Quarterly, 8(2), 15-24.

Gibbs, G. R. (2002). Qualitative Data Analysis: Explorations with NVivo. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Giles, D. C. (2002). Advanced Research Methods in Psychology. East Sussex: Routledge.

Glenane-Antoniadis, A., Whitwell, G., Bell, S. J., & Menguc, B. (2003). Extending the vision of social marketing through social capital theory: Marketing in the context of intricate exchange and market failure. Marketing Theory, 3(3), 323-343.

Glider, P., Midyett, S. J., Mills-Novoa, B., Johannessen, K., & Collins, C. (2001). Challenging the collegiate rite of passage: a campus-wide social marketing media campaign to reduce binge drinking. Journal of Drug Education, 31(2), 207-220.

Goldberg, M. E. (1995). Social marketing: are we fiddling while Rome burns? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4(4), 347-370.

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380.

Granovetter, M. S. (1982). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. In P. V. Marsden & N. Lin (Eds.), Social Structure and Network Analysis (pp. 105-130). Beverly Hills: Sage.

Grönroos, C. (2000a). Service Management and Marketing: A Customer Relationship Management Approach. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.

Grönroos, C. (2000b). Creating a relationship dialogue: communication, interaction, value. Marketing Review, 1(1), 5-14.

Gruca, T. S., & Wakefield, D. S. (2004). Hospital web sites: promise or progress. Journal of Business Research, 57, 1021-1025.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Gummesson, E. (2000). Qualitative Methods in Management Research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Gummesson, E. (2001). Are current research approaches in marketing leading us astray? Marketing Theory, 1(1), 27-48.

Gummesson, E. (2002a). Relationship marketing and a new economy: it's time for deprogramming. Journal of Services Marketing, 16(7), 585-589.

Gummesson, E. (2002b). Total Relationship Marketing (2nd ed.). Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.

Gupta, S. (1995). Consumer Survey of WWW Users, http://www.umich.edu/~sgupta/hermes.htm. University of Michigan.

Gurak, L. J. (1997). Persuasion and Privacy in Cyberspace: The Online Protests over Lotus MarketPlace and he Clipper Chip. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Gurak, L. J., & Logie, J. (2003). Internet protests, from text to web. In M. McCaughey & M. D. Ayers (Eds.), Cyberactivism: online activism in theory and practice. New York: Routledge.

333

http://www.umich.edu/~sgupta/hermes.htm

REFERENCES

Hackley, C. (1991a). Tacit knowledge and the epistemology of expertise in strategic marketing management. European Journal of Marketing, 33(7/8), 720-735.

Hackley, C. (1998a). Management learning and normative marketing theory: learning from the life-world. Management Learning, 29(1), 91-104.

Hackley, C. (1998b). Social constructionism and research in marketing and advertising. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 1(3), 125-131.

Hackley, C. (1999b). The communication process and the semiotic boundary. In P. J. Kitchen (Ed.), Marketing Communications: Principles and Practice (pp. 135-155). London: International Thompson.

Hackley, C. (2001). Marketing and Social Construction: Exploring the rhetorics of managed consumption. London: Routledge.

Hackley, C. (2003). Doing Research Projects in Marketing, Management and Consumer Research. New York: Routledge.

Haddon, L. (2004). Information and Communication Technologies in Everyday Life: A Concise Introduction and Research Guide. Oxford: Berg.

Hagel, J. (1999). Net gain: Expanding markets through virtual communities. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 13(1), 55-65.

Hager, R. L., Hardy, A., Aldana, S. G., & George, J. D. (2002). Evaluation of an internet, stage-based physical activity intervention. American Journal of Health Education, 33(6), 329-335.

Haines, V. A., Hurlbert, J. S., & Beggs, J. J. (1996). Exploring the determinants of support provision: provider characteristics, personal networks, community contexts, and support following life events. Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, 37(3), 252-264.

Hall, A. L., & Rist, R. C. (1999). Integrating multiple qualitative research methods (or avoiding the precariousness of a one-legged stool). Psychology & Marketing, 16(4), 291-304.

Hart, T. R. (2002). ePhilanthropy: using the internet to build support. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 7(4), 353-360.

Hastings, G., MacFadyen, L., & Anderson, S. (2000). Whose Behaviour is it Anyway? the broader potential of social marketing. Social Marketing Quarterly, 6(2), 46-58.

Hastings, G., Stead, M., & MacKintosh, A. M. (2002). Rethinking drugs prevention: radical thoughts from social marketing. Health Education Journal, 61(4), 347-364.

Hastings, G., & Donovan, R. J. (2002). International Initiatives: introduction and overview. Social Marketing Quarterly, 8(1), 3-5.

Hastings, G. (2003a). Relational Paradigms in Social Marketing. Journal of Marcromarketing, 23(1), 6-15.

Hastings, G., & Saren, M. (2003a). Special Issue on Social Marketing. Marketing Theory, 3(3), 291-405.

Hastings, G. (2003b). Social marketers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your shame. Social Marketing Quarterly, 9(4), 14-21.

Hastings, G., & Saren, M. (2003b). The critical contribution of social marketing: Theory and application. Marketing Theory, 3(3), 305-322.

Haythornthwaite, C. (1996). Social Network Analysis: an approach and technique for the study of information exchange. Library and Information Science Research, 18, 323-342.

334

REFERENCES

Haythornthwaite, C., & Wellman, B. (1998). Work, friendship and media use for information exchange in a networked organisation. Journal of American Society for Information Society, 46(12), 1101-1114.

Haythornthwaite, C. (2000). One person networks. New Media & Society, 2(2), 195-226.

Haythornthwaite, C. (2002). Strong, weak, and latent ties and the impact of new media. The Information Society, 18, 385-401.

Haythornthwaite, C., & Wellman, B. (2002). The internet in everyday life: an introduction. In B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Internet in Everyday Life (pp. 3-41). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Healy, M., & Perry, C. (2000). Comprehensive criteria to judge validity and reliability of qualitative research within the realism paradigm. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 3(3), 118-126.

Hearn, G., Mandeville, T., & Anthony, D. (1998). The communication superhighway: social and economic change in the digital age. St Lenoards, Australia: Allen & Unwin.

Heeter, C. (1989). Implications of new interactive technologies for conceptualising communication. In S. J.L. & J. Bryant (Eds.), Media Use in the Information Age: Emerging Patterns of Adoption and Computer Use (pp. 221-225). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Henderson, S., & Gilding, M. (2004). 'I've never clicked this much with anyone in my life': trust and hyperpersonal communication in online friendships. New Media & Society, 6(4), 487-506.

Herring, S. C. (2004). Slouching toward the ordinary: current trends in computer-mediated communication. New Media & Society, 6(1), 26-36.

Hertz, E. L., & Beauchemin, T. M. (2000). The power of successful web-based social marketing: Strategic use of technology for social change organisations. Social Marketing Quarterly, 6(3), 85-89.

Hill, K. A., & Hughes, J. (1998). Cyberpolitics: citizen activism in the age of the internet. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.

Hine, C. (2000). Virtual Ethnography. London: Sage.

Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1986). Expanding the ontology and methodology of research on the consumption experience. In D. Brinberg & R. J. Lutz (Eds.), Perspectives on Methodology in Consumer Research (pp. 213-251). New York: Springer.

Hirschman, E. C. (1986). Humanistic inquiry in marketing research: philosophy, method, and criteria. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(August), 237-249.

Hirschman, E. C. (1987). People as Products: Analysis of a complex marketing exchange. Journal of Marketing, 51(January), 98-109.

Hoch, S.J., & Deighton, J. (1989). Managing what consumers learn from experience. Journal of Marketing, 53(April), 1-20.

Hoek, J. (2003). Special Issue: Social Market. Australasian Marketing Journal, 11(1), 5-87.

Hoffman, D. L., Kalsbeek, W., & Novak, T. (1996). Internet and Web use in the U.S. Communications of the ACM, 39(12), 36-46.

Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. (1996a). Marketing in Hypermedia Computer-Mediated Environments. Journal of Marketing, 60(July), 59-69.

Hoffman, D.L., & Novak, T. (1996b). Perspectives: The future of interactive marketing. Harvard Business Review, 74(November-December), 161.

335

REFERENCES

Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (1997). A new paradigm for electronic commerce. The Information Society, 13(Jan-March), 43-54.

Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (2000). The growing digital divide: Implications for an open research agenda. In B. Kahin & E. Brynjolffson (Eds.), Understanding the Digital Economy: Data, Tools, and Research. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Hoffman, D. L., Novak, T.P., & Chatterjee. (1995). Commercial scenarios for the Web: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, Special Issue on Electronic Commerce, 1(3), http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol1/issue3/vol1no3.html.

Hoffman, D. L., Novak, T., & Schlosser, A. E. (2000). The evolution of the digital divide: How gaps in internet access may impact electronic commerce. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 5(3), http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol5/issue3/hoffman.html.

Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer feelings, fantasy and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(September), 132-140.

Holbrook, M., & Hirschman, E. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption: consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(September), 132-140.

Holbrook, M. B., & O'Shaugnessy, J. (1988). On the scientific status of consumer research and the need for an interpretive approach to studying consumption behaviour. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 398-403.

Holbrook, M. B., & O'Shaughnessy, J. (1988). On the scientific status of consumer research and the need for an interpretive approach to studying consumption behaviour. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(3), 398-402.

Hoover, S., Clark, L. S., & Rainie, L. (2004). Faith Online [Online]. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved 30 July, 2004, from the World Wide Web: http://www.pewinternet.org/

Horrigan, J. B., Rainie, L., & Fox, S. (2001). Online Communities: Networks that nurture long-distance relationships and local ties [Online]. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved 2 December, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://www.pewinternet.org/

Howell, D. C. (1992). Statistical Methods for Psychology (3rd ed.). Belmont, California: Duxbury Press.

Hunt, S. D. (1983). General theories and the fundamental explananda of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 47(Fall), 9-17.

Hunt, S. D. (1989). Naturalistic, Humanistic and Interpretive Inquiry: Challenges and ultimate potential. In E. C. Hirschman (Ed.), Interpretive Consumer Research (pp. 185-198). Provo, UT: Association of Consumer Research.

Hunt. (1989). Naturalistic, Humanistic, and Interpretive Inquiry: Challenges and Ultimate Potential. In E. C. Hirschman (Ed.), Interpretive Consumer Research (pp. 567-587). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

Hunt, S. D. (1991a). Positivism and paradigm dominance in consumer research: Toward critical pluralism and rapprochment. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 32-44.

Hunt, S. D. (1991b). On rethinking marketing: Our discipline, our practice, our methods. European Journal of Marketing, 28(3), 13-25.

Hunt, S. D. (1994). On rethinking marketing: our discipline, our practice, our methods. European Journal of Marketing, 28(3), 13-21.

Hunt, S. D. (2001). Book reviews: the influence of philosophy, philosophies, and philosophers on a marketer's scholarship. Journal of Marketing, 64(October), 117-124.

336

http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol1/issue3/vol1no3.html

REFERENCES

Hunt, S. D. (2002). Foundations of Marketing Theory: Toward a general theory of marketing. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe.

Hunt, S. D. (2003). Controversy in Marketing Theory: For reason, realism, truth, and objectivity. Armonk, New Yort: M.E. Sharpe.

Iacobucci, D. (1998). Interactive marketing and the Meganet: Networks of Networks. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 12(1), 5-16.

Jackson, M. H., Poole, M. S., & Kuhn, T. (2002). The social construction of technology studies of the workplace. In L. A. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), Handbook of New Media: Social shaping and consequences of ICTs (pp. 236-253). London: SAGE Publications.

Jancic, Z., & Zabkar, V. (2002). Impersonal vs. Personal Exchanges in Marketing Relationships. Journal of Marketing Management, 18(7/8), 657-671.

Jankowski, N. (2002). Creating Community with Media. In L. A. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), Handbook of New Media: Social Shaping and Consequences of ICTs (pp. 34-49). London: SAGE Publications.

Jones, S. G. (Ed.). (1995). CyberSociety: computer-mediated communication and community. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Jones, S. G. (Ed.). (1998). CyberSociety 2.0 : revisiting computer-mediated communication and community. Thousand Oaks, California: .Sage Publications.

Jones, S. G. (Ed.). (1999). Doing Internet research: Critical issues and methods for examining the Net. Thousand Oaks, California.: Sage Publications.

Jones, S. (2004). Conclusion: Contexting the Network. In P. N. Howard & S. Jones (Eds.), Society Online: The internet in context (pp. 325-333). Thoursand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Kahn, R., & Kellner, D. (2004). New media and internet activism: from the 'Battle of Seattle' to blogging. New Media & Society, 6(1), 87-95.

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2004). Strategy Maps: converting intangible assets into tangible outcomes. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.

Karim, K. (2000). Q methodology - advantages and the disadvantages of this research method. Journal of Community Nursing, 15(4), 8-9.

Karim, K. (2001). Q methodology - advantages and the disadvantages of this research method. Journal of Community Nursing, 15(4), 8-12.

Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P.F. (1955). Personal influence. New York: Free Press.

Katz, J. E., & Rice, R. E. (2002). Social consequences of internet use: Access, involvement, and interaction. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Kelly, K. J., Edwards, R. W., Comello, M. L. B., Plested, B. A., Thurman, P. J., & Slater, M. D. (2003). The community readiness model: A complementary approach to social marketing. Marketing Theory, 3(4), 411-426.

King, L. (2004). Using the internet to facilitate and support health behaviours. Social Marketing Quarterly, 10(2), 72-78.

Kitzinger, J. (1994). The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health & Illness, 16(1), 103-121.

Kleine, S. S., III, R. E. K., & Allen, C. T. (1995). How is a possession "me" or "not me"? Characterizing types and an antecedent of material possession attachment. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(December), 327-343.

337

REFERENCES

Kollock, P. (1999). The economies of online cooperation: Gifts and public goods in cyberspace. In M. A. Smith & P. Kollock (Eds.), Communities in Cyberspace (pp. 220-239). London: Routledge.

Kotler, P., & Roberto, E. L. (1989). Social Marketing: Strategies for Changing Public Behaviour. London: The Free Press.

Kotler, P. (1989). Principles of Marketing. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Kotler, P., & Andreasen, A. R. (1991). Strategic marketing for Nonprofit Organisations (4th ed.). Englewood Cliff, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Kotler, P., Adam, S., Brown, L., & Armstrong, G. (2003). Principles of Marketing. Australia: Prentice Hall.

Kozinets, R. V. (1999). E-Tribalized Marketing? The strategic implications of virtual communities of consumption. European Management Journal, 17(3), 252-264.

Kraut, R. E., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J., Helgeson, V., & Crawford, A. (2003). Internet paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 49-74.

Kraut, R., Scherlis, W., Mukhopadhyay, T., Manning, J., & Kiesler, S. (1996). The HomeNet field trial of residential internet services. Communications of the ACM, 30(12), 55-63.

Krueger, R. A. (2003). Focus groups. In M. S. Lewis-Beck & A. Bryman & T. F. Liao (Eds.), The SAGE Encyclopaedia of Social Science Research Methods (Vol. 1, pp. 391-396). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kupers, W. (1998). Phenomenology of embodied productivity in services. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 9(4), 337-358.

Lamb, R., & Kling, R. (2002). From users to social actors: Reconceptualising socially rich interaction through information and communication technology [Web]. Working Paper Series: Center for Social Informatics. Retrieved January, 2005, from the World Wide Web: http://www.slis.indiana.edu/CSI/WP/WP02-11B.html

Lance, C. E., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2001). Confirmatory Factor Analysis. In F. Drasgow & N. Schmitt (Eds.), Measuring and Analysing Behaviour in Organisations: Advances in Measurement and Data Analysis. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lapadata, J. C. (2000). Problematizing transcription: purpose, paradigm and quality. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 3(3), 203-219.

LaRose, R., Eastin, M. S., & Gregg, J. (2001). Reformulating the internet paradox: Social cognitive explanations of internet use and depression. Journal of Online Behaviour, 1(2), http://www.behavior.net/JOB/v1n2/paradox.html.

Laswell, H. D. (1948). The Structure and Function of Communication in Society. In L. Bryson (Ed.), The Communication of Ideas. New York: Harper.

Laswell, H. D. (1960). The structure and function of communication in society. In W. Schramm (Ed.), Mass Communication. Urbana, Illnois: Unversity of Illnois Press.

Lazer, W., & Kelley, E. J. (1973). Social Marketing: Perspectives and viewpoints. Homewood, Ill.: R.D. Irwin.

Levitt, T. (1960). Marketing myopia. Harvard Business Review, 38(July-August), 24-47.

Lebert, J. (2003). Wiring human rights activism: Amnesty international and the challenges of information and communication technologies. In M. McCaughey & M. D. Ayers (Eds.), Cyberactivism: Online activism in theory and practice (pp. 209-231). New York: Routledge.

338

REFERENCES

Lee, B., & Anderson, J. (2001). An analysis of internet adopters. Operant Subjectivity, 25(1), 11-36.

Lefebvre, C. (1997). 25 Years of social marketing: looking back to the future. Social Marketing Quarterly, 3(3&4), 51-58.

Lefebvre, C. R., & Rochlin, L. (1997). Social marketing. In K. Glanz & F. M. Lewis & B. K. Rimer (Eds.), Health Behaviour and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice (2nd ed., pp. 384-401). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Levy, S. J. (1981). Interpreting consumer mythology: A structural approach to consumer behaviour. Journal of marketing, 45(Summer), 49-62.

Lieberman, D. A. (2001). Using interactive media in communication campaigns for children and adolescents. In R. E. Rice & C. K. Atkin (Eds.), Public Communication Campaigns (pp. 373-388). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Lievrouw, L. A., & Livingstone, S. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of New Media: Social shaping and consequences of ICTs. London: SAGE Publications.

Lievrouw, L. A. (2002). Determination and contingency in new media development: Diffusion of innovations and social shaping of technology perspectives. In L. A. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), Handbook of New Media: Social Shaping and Consequences of ICTs (pp. 183-199). London: SAGE Publications.

Lievrouw, L. A. (2002b). Determination and contingency in new media development: Diffusion of innovations and social shaping of technology perspectives. In L. A. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), Handbook of New Media: Social Shaping and Consequences of ICTs (pp. 183-199). London: SAGE Publications.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2003). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues (2nd ed., pp. 253-291). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative Communication Research Methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Littell, J. H., & Girvin, H. (2002). Stages of Change: A critique. Behaviour Modification, 26(2), 223-273.

Livingstone, S. (2002a). The changing social landscape: Introduction. In L. A. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), Handbook of New Media: Social shaping and Consequences of ICTs (pp. 17-21). London: SAGE Publications.

Lloyd, R., & Bill, A. (2004). Australia online: How Australians are using computers and the internet (ABS Catalogue No. 2056.0). Canberra: Australian Burea of Statistics.

MacFadyen, L., Stead, M., & Hastings, G. (1999). Social marketing. In M. J. Baker (Ed.), The Marketing Book (pp. 562-592). Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.

MacKenzie, D., & Wajcman, J. (Eds.). (1999). The Social Shaping of Technology. Buckingham: Open University Press.

MacKinnon, C. A. (1995). Vindication and resistance: A response to the Carnegie Mellon study of pornography in cyberspace. The Georgetown Law Journal, 83.

MacStravic, S. (2000). The missing links in social marketing. Journal of Health Communication, 5(3), 255-264.

339

REFERENCES

Madden, M., & Rainie, L. (2003). America's Online Pursuits: the changing picture of who's online and what they do. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved 30 July, 2004, from the World Wide Web: http://www.pewinternet.org/

Maibach, E. W., & Cotton, D. (1995). Moving people to behaviour change: A staged social cognitive approach to message design. In E. W. Maibach & R. L. Parrott (Eds.), Designing Health Messages: Approaches from communication theory and pubic health practice (pp. 41-64). London: Sage.

Maibach, E.W., & Parrott, R.L. (eds.) (1995). Designing Health messages. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Maibach, E. W. (2002). Explicating Social Marketing: What is it, and what isn't it? Social Marketing Quarterly, 8(4), 7-13.

Malafarina, K., & Loken, B. (1993). Progress and limitations of social marketing: A review of empirical literature on the consumption of social ideas. Advances in Consumer Research, 20, 397-404.

Malhotra, N. K., & Peterson, M. (2001). Marketing research in the new millennium: Emerging issues and trends. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 19(4), 216-235.

Marsden, D., & Littler, D. (1996). Evaluating Alternative Research Paradigms: A market-oriented framework. Journal of Marketing Management, 12, 645-655.

Martin, W. S., & Reynolds, F. D. (1976). On the Usefulness of Q-Methodology for Consumer Segmentation. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 4(1), 440-445.

Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative Researching. London: Sage Publications.

Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative Researching (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.

Mauldin, C. R. (1990). A segmentation study of attitudes about advertising. Operant Subjectivity, 14(1), 20-33.

McAlexander, J. H., Schouten, J. W., & Koenig, H. F. (2002). Building Brand Community. Journal of marketing, 66(January), 38-54.

McCaughey, M., & Ayers, M. D. (2003). Cyberactivism: Online activism in theory and practice. New York: Routledge.

McCreadie, M., & Rice, R. E. (1999). Trends in analysing access to information: Part I: cross-disciplinary conceptualisation of access. Information Processing and Management, 35, 45-76.

McCreadie, M., & Rice, R. E. (1999a). Trends in analysing access to information. Part I: cross-disciplinary conceptualisation of access. Information Process and Management, 35, 45-76.

McCreadie, M., & Rice, R. E. (1999b). Trends in analysing access to information. Part II: Unique and integrating conceptualisations. Information Process and Management, 35, 77-99.

McKee, N. (1992). Social Mobilization and Social Marketing in Developing Communities: Lessons for Communicators (2nd ed.). Penang: Southbound.

McKenna, K. Y. A., and Bargh, J. A. (1998). Coming out in the age of the Internet: Identity "demarginalisation" through virtual group participation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 681-694.

McKenna, R. (1997). Real Time. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

McKeown, B., & Thomas, D. (1988). Q Methodology. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

340

REFERENCES

McMillian, S. J. (2000). Interactivity is in the eye of the beholder: Function, perception, involvement, and attitude toward web sites. In M. A. Shaver (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2000 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising (pp. 71-78). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.

McMillian, S. J. (2003). Interactivity. In S. Jones (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of New Media: An essential reference to communication and technology (pp. 241-244). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Mehra, B., Merkel, C., & Peterson Bishop, A. (2004). The internet for empowerment of minority and marginalised users. New Media & Society, 6(6), 781-802.

Mehta, R., Grewal, R., & Sivadas, E. (1996). International direct marketing on the internet: Do internet users form a global segment? Journal of Direct Marketing, 10(Winter), 45-58.

Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An explanded sourcebook (2nd Ed.). Thoursand Oaks: Sage Publciations.

Milio, N. (1996). Engines of Empowerment: Using information technology to create healthy communities and challenge public policy. Chicago: Health Administration Press.

Mishler, E. G. (1991). Representing discourse: the rhetoric of transcription. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 1, 255-280.

Moore, J. N., Raymond, M. A., Mittelstaedt, J. D., & Tanner, J. F. (2002). Age and consumer socialization agent influences on adolescents' sexual knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour: Implications for social marketing initiatives and public policy. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 21(1), 37-52.

Morgan, D. L. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Morse, J. M., & Richards, L. (2002). Readme First for a User's Guide to Qualitative Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Muniz, A. M., & O'Guinn, T., C. (2001). Brand Community. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(March), 412-432.

Nambisan, S. (2002). Designing virtual customer environments for new product development: toward a theory. Academy of Management Review, 27(3), 392-413.

Nataraajan, R., & Bagozzi, R. P. (1999). The Year 2000: Looking Back. Psychology & marketing, 16(8), 631-642.

Ngai, W.W.T. (2003). Commentary – Internet marketing research (1987-2000): a literature review and classification. European Journal of Marketing, 37(1/2), 24-49.

Nie, H., H. (2001). Sociability, Interpersonal Relations and the internet: Reconciling conflicting findings. American Behavioural Scientist, 45(3), 420-435.

Nie, H., H., Hillygus, D., & Erbring, L. (2002). Internet use, interpersonal relations and sociability: A time diary study. In B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Internet in Everyday Life. Oxford: Blackwell.

Normann, R., & Ramirez, R. (1993). From value chain to value constellation: Designing interactive strategy. Harvard Business Review, 71(July-August), 65-77.

Norris, P. (2001). Digital Divide: Civic engagement, information poverty and the internet in democratic society. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Norris, P. (2004). The bridging and bonding role of online communities. In P. N. Howard & S. Jones (Eds.), Society Online: The internet in context (pp. 31-42). Thousand Oaks: Sag Publications.

341

REFERENCES

Oliver, R. W., Rust, R. T., & Varki, S. (1998). Real-Time Marketing. Marketing Management, Fall/Winter, 29-37.

Olsen, M., Keevers, M. L., Paul, J., & Covington, S. (2001). E-relationship development strategy for the nonprofit fundraising professional. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 6(4), 364-373.

Oudshoorn, N., & Pinch, T. (2003). How Users Matter: The co-construction of users and technology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Oudshoorn, N., & Pinch, T. (2003). Introduction: How users and non-users matter. In N. Oudshoorn & T. Pinch (Eds.), How Users Matter: The co-construction of users and technology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Ozanne, J. L., & Hudson, L. A. (1989). Exploring diversity in consumer research. In E. C. Hirschman (Ed.), Interpretive Consumer Research (pp. 1-9). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

Østergaard, P., & Jantzen, C. (2000). Shifting perspectives in consumer research: From buyer behaviour to consumption studies. In S. C. Beckmann & R. H. Elliott (Eds.), Interpretive Consumer Research: Paradigms, Methodologies & Applications (pp. 9-23). Handelshojskolens Foriag: Munksgaard.

Page, N., & Sharp, B. (1994). Interpretivism: Separating revolutionary rhetoric from substance. Paper presented at the Australian Marketing Conference: Southern Marketing Theory and Application, University of South Australia, Adelaide, pp. 567-587.

Palmer, A., & Ponsonby, S. (2002). The social construction of new marketing paradigms: the influence of personal perspective. Journal of Marketing Management, 18, 173-192.

Papacharissi, Z., & Rubin, A. M. (2000). Predictors of internet use. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 44(2), 175-196.

Parasuraman, A., & Zinkhan, G. M. (2002). Marketing to and serving customers through the internet: an overview and research agenda. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(4), 286-295.

Park, C.W., Feick, L., & Mothersbaugh, D.L. (1992). Consumer knowledge assessment: How product experience and knowledge of brands, attributes, and features affects what we think we know. In J.F. Sherry & B. Sternthal (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research 19 (pp. 193-198). Provo, Utah: Association for Consumer Research.

Parks, M., & Roberts, L. (1998). Making MOOsic: The development of personal relationships online and a comparison to their off-line counterparts. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 519-537.

Parsons, A., Zeisser, M., & Waitman, R. (1998). Organising today for the digital marketing tomorrow. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 12(1), 31-46.

Patterson, P., & Uncles, M. (2004). Special Issue: market segmentation. Australasian Marketing Journal, 12(1), 5-65.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Pearce, W. B., & Cronen, V. E. (1980). Communication, Action and Meaning. New York: Prager.

Peattie, S. (2002). Using the internet to communicate the sun-safety message to teenagers. Health Education, 102(5), 210-218.

Peattie, S., & Peattie, K. (2003). Ready to Fly Solo? reducing social marketing's dependence on commercial marketing theory. Marketing Theory, 3(3), 365-385.

342

REFERENCES

Pechmann, C. (2002). Special issue on social marketing initiatives. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 21(1), 1-168.

Pels, J., Coviello, N. E., & Brodie, R. J. (2000). Integrating transactional and relational marketing exchange: a pluralistic perspective. Journal of marketing Theory and Practice, Summer, 11-20.

Peltier, J. W., Schibrowsky, J. A., & Schultz, D. E. (2002). Leveraging customer information to develop sequential communication strategies: A case study of charitable-giving behaviour. Journal of Advertising Research, July/August, 23-41.

Peterson, R.A., Balasubramanian, S., Bronneneberg, B.J. (1997). Exploring the implications of the internet for consumer marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(Fall), 329-346.

Peppers, D., & Rogers, M. (1995). A new marketing paradigm: Share of customer, not market share. Planning Review, March/April, 14-18.

Peppers, D., & Rogers, M. (1997). Enterprise One-to-One. New York: Currency Doubleday.

Peterson, R. A., Balasubramanian, S., & Bronnenberg, B. J. (1997). Exploring the implications of the internet for consumer marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(4), 329-346.

Pew Internet and American Life Project. (1998-2005). Pew Internet and American Life Project: A non-profit research centre studying the social effects of the internet on Americans. Washington, DC.

Polonsky, M. J. (1996). Stakeholder management and stakeholder matrix: Potential strategic marketing tools. Journal of Market Focused Management, 1, 209-229.

Polonsky, M. J., Carlson, L., & Fry, M.-L. (2003). The harm chain: a public policy development and stakeholder perspective. Marketing Theory, 3(3), 345-364.

Ponsonby, S., & Boyle, E. (2004). The 'value of marketing' and 'the marketing of value' in contemporary times - a literature review and research agenda. Journal of Marketing Management, 20, 343-361.

Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2000). Co-opting customer competence. Harvard Business Review, January-February, 79-87.

Preece, J. (2000). Online communities: Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Preece, J. (2001). Sociability and usability in online communities: Determining and measuring success. Behaviour & Information Technology, 20(5), 347-356.

Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: Towards an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 390-395.

Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1984). The Transtheoretical Approach: Crossing traditional boundaries of therapy. Malbar, FL: Krieger.

Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1986). Towards a comprehensive model of change. In W. R. Miller & N. Heather (Eds.), Toward a Comprehensive Model of Change. New York: Plenum.

Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1986). Toward a comprehensive model of change. In R. Miller & N. Heather (Eds.), Toward a comprehensive model of change. New York: Plenum.

343

REFERENCES

Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1992). Stages of change in the modification of problem behaviour. In M. Hersen & R. Eisler & P. M. Miller (Eds.), Progress in Behaviour Modification. New York: Academic Press.

Prochaska, J. O., Redding, C. A., & Evers, K. E. (1997). The transtheoretical model and stages of change. In K. Glanz & F. M. Lewis & B. K. Rimer (Eds.), Health Behaviour and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice (pp. 60-84). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Prochaska, J. O., Redding, C., & Evers. (1997). The transtheoretical model and stages of change. In K. Glanz & F. M. Lewis & B. K. Rimer (Eds.), Health Behavior and Health Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone : the collapse and revival of American community. New York.: Simon & Schuster.

Qualitative Solutions and Research (QSR). (2002). NVivo (Version 2.0.161) [Qualitative Software]. Melbourne: QSR.

Rafaeli, S., & Sudweeks, F. (1997). Networked interactivity. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 2(4), http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol2/issue4/rafaeli.sudweeks.html.

Rafaeli, S., & Sudweeks, F. (1998). Interactivity on the Nets. In F. Sudweeks & M. McLaughlin & S. Rafaeli (Eds.), Networks and Netplay: Virtual groups on the internet (pp. 173-189). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Rainie, L., & Kohut, A. (2000). Tracking online life: How women use the Internet to cultivate relationships with family and friends [Online]. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved 10 January, 2002, from the World Wide Web: www.pewinternet.org/

Rainie, L., & Fox, S. (2001, Web Document). Online Communities: Networks that nurture long-distance relationships and local ties. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved 30 June, 2002, from the World Wide Web: www.pewinternet.org

Rainie, L., Spooner, T., kalsnes, B., & Nof, S. (2001). The dot-com meltdown and the Web [Online]. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved 10 January, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://www.pewinternet.org/

Rainie, L. (2001). How Americans Used the Internet after the Terror Attack. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved 10 January, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://www.pewinternet.org

Rainie, H. L. (2004). Foreword. In P. N. Howard & S. Jones (Eds.), Society Online: The internet in context. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Raman, J.V. & Leckenby, J.D. (1998). Factors affecting consumers’ ”Webad” visits. European Journal of Marketing, 32(7/8), 737-748.

Rassuli, K. M., & Harrell, G.D. (1990). A new perspective on choice. Advances in Consumer Research, 17, 737-744.

Ravald, A., & Grönroos, C. (1996). The value concept and relationship marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 30(2), 19-30.

Rayport, J. F., & Sviokla, J. J. (1994). Managing in the Marketspace. Harvard Business Review, November-December, 141-150.

Rayport, J. F., & Sviokla, J. J. (1995). Exploiting the virtual value chain. Harvard Business Review, 73(6), 75-85.

Regan Shade, L. (2002). Gender & Community in the Social Construction of the Internet. New York: Peter Lang.

344

http://www.pewinternet.org/

REFERENCES

Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Reading: MA: Addison Wesley.

Rheingold, H. (2000). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier (Revised Edition). Cambridge, Massachusette: The MIT Press.

Rice, R. E. (1984). New Media Technology: Growth and Integration. In R. E. Rice (Ed.), The New Media: Communication, Research, and Technology (pp. 33-54). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Rice, R. E., McCreadie, M., & Chang, S-J. (2001). Accessing and Browsing Information and Communication. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Rice, R. E., & Williams, F. (1984). Theories Old and New: The study of new media. In R. E. Rice (Ed.), The New Media: Communication, Research, and Technology (pp. 55-80). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Rice, S. (2005). You don’t bring me flowers any more: a fresh look at the vexed issue of teacher status. Australian Journal of Education, 49(2), 182-197.

Rifkin, J. (2000). The Age of Access: how the shift from ownership to access is transforming capitalism. London: Penguin Books.

Ritchie, B., & Brindley, C. (2000). Disintermediation, disintegration and risk in SME global supply chain. Management Decision, 38(8), 575-583.

Riva, G. (2001). The mind over the web: the quest for the definition of a method for internet research. CyberPsychology & Behaviour, 4(1), 7-16.

Robbins, P., & Krueger, R. (2000). Beyond bias? The promise and limits of Q method in human geography. Professional Geographer, 52(4), 636-648.

Robinson, J. P., Kestnbaum, M., Neustadtl, A., & Alvarez, A. (2002). The internet and other use of time. In B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Internet in Everyday Life, Oxford: Blackwell.

Rodgers, S., & Sheldon, K. M. (2002). An improved way to characterise internet users. Journal of Advertising Research, September/October, 85-94.

Rogers, E. M., & Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Communication of innovations: A cross-cultural approach (2nd ed.). New York: The Free Press.

Rogers, E. M. (1987). Progress, problems, and prospects for network research: Investigating relationships in the age of electronic communication technologies. Social Networks, 9(4), 285-310.

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press.

Rogers, E. M., & Dearing, J. W. (1995). Communication and community in a city under siege: the aids epidemic in San Francisco. Communication Research, 22(6), 664-679.

Rogers, W. S. (1995). Q Methodology. In J. A. Smith & R. Harre & L. van Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking Methods in Psychology (pp. 178-192). London: Sage.

Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press.

Rogers, W. S. (1997/1998). Q Methodology, Textuality, and Tectonics. Operant Subjctivity, 21(1/2), 1-18.

Rosenbaum, M., Ostrom, A. L., & Kuntze, R. (in press). Loyalty programs and a sense of community. Journal of Services Marketing.

Rosenthal, C. S. (2001). Divided lives: Revisiting considerations of the personal and political. Women & Politics, 22(1), 37-62.

345

REFERENCES

Rothschild, M. L. (1999). Carrots, sticks, and promises: A conceptual framework for the management of public health and social issues behaviour. Journal of Marketing, 63(October), 24-37.

Rothschild, M. L. (2002). Accommodating Self-Interest. Social Marketing Quarterly, 8(2), 32-35.

Rust, R. T., & Varki, S. (1996). Rising from the ashes of advertising. Journal of Business Research, 37(3), 173-181.

Rust, R. (2004). Invited commentaries on 'Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing'. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 18-27.

Schlinger, M. J. (1969). Cues on Q technique. Journal of Advertising Research, 9(3), 53-60.

Schnell, D. J., Galvaotti, C., Fishbein, M., & Chan, D. K.-S. (1996). Measuring the adotion of consistent use of condoms using the stags of change model. Public Health Reports, 3(Supplement 1), 59-68.

Schramm, W. (1971). The nature of communication between humans. In W. Schramm & D. Roberts (Eds.), The Process and Effects of Mass Communication. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press.

Schwandt, T. A. (1997). Qualitative Inquiry: A Dictionary of Terms. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Schwandt, T. A. (2003). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Landscape of Qualitative Research (pp. 292-331). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Scott, A., Semmens, L., & Willoughby, L. (1999). Women and the Internet: The natural history of a research project. Information, Communication & Society, 2(4), 541-565.

Scott, A. (2001). (In)forming politics: processes of feminist activism in the information age. Women's Studies International Forum, 24, 409-421.

Seale, C. (1999). The Quality of Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications.

Shannon, C.E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Sharma, A., & Sheth, J. N. (2004). Web-based marketing: the coming revolution in marketing through and strategy. Journal of Business Research, 57(7), 696-702.

Sheehan, K. B. (2002). Of surfing, searching, and Newshounds: A typology of internet users' online sessions. Journal of Advertising Research, 42(5), 62-70.

Sherry, J. F. (1991). Postmodern alternatives: the interpretive turn in consumer research. In T. Robertson & H. Kassarjian (Eds.), Handbook of Consumer Behaviour (pp. 548-591). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Sheth, J. N., Sisodia, R. S., & Sharma, A. (2000). The antecedents and consequences of customer-centric marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 55-66.

Silver, D. (2000) Looking Backwards, Looking Forward: Cyberculture Studies 1990–2000. In D. Gauntlett (ed.) Web Studies: Rewiring Media Studies for the Digital Age. (pp. 19–30). London: Arnold Publishers.

Slater, D. (2002). Social relationships and identity on/off-line. In L. A. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), Handbook of New Media: Social Shaping and Consequences of ICTs (pp. 533-546). London: SAGE Publications.

Slater, M. D., Kelly, K., & Edwards, R. (2000). Integrating social marketing, community readiness and media advocacy in community based prevention efforts. Social Marketing Quarterly, 6(3), 125-137.

346

REFERENCES

Slevin, J. (2000). The Internet and society. Great Britian: Polity Press.

Smith, M. R., & Marx, L. (Eds.). (1994). Does Technology Drive History? The dilemma of technological determinism. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Smith, M. A., & Kollock, P. (1999). Communities in Cyberspace. London: Routledge.

Smith, B. (2000). Notes from the field - There's a lion in the village: The fight over individual behaviour versus social context. Social Marketing Quarterly, 6(3), 6-12.

Smith, W. A. (2002). Systems of change: Introduction and overview. Social Marketing Quarterly, 8(2), 3.

Smith, J. K. (2003). Reliability and validity in qualitative research. In M. S. Lewis-Beck & A. Bryman & T. F. Liao (Eds.), The SAGE Encyclopaedia of Social Science Research Methods (Vol. 3, pp. 957-958). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Smithson, J. (2000). Using and analysing focus groups: Limitations and possibilities. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 3(2), 103-119.

Sporton, R.K., & Francis, S. (2001). Choosing not to immunise: are parents m aking informed decisions? Family Practice 18(2), 181-188.

Sproull, L., & Faraj, S. (1997). Atheism, sex, and databases: The net as a social technology. In S. Kiesler (Ed.), Culture of the Internet (pp. 35-51). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Eribaum Associates, Inc.

Stainton Rogers, W. (1991). Explaining Health and Illness: An exploration of diversity. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Star, S. L., & Bowker, G. C. (2002). How to infrastructure. In L. A. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), Handbook of New Media: Social Shaping and Consequences of ICTs (pp. 151-162). London: SAGE Publications.

Stephenson, W. (1953). The Study of Behaviour: Q-Technique and Its Methodology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Stephenson, W. (1967). The play theory of mass communication. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Stern, B. B. (1998). Representing Consumers: Voices, Views and Visions. London: Routledge.

Steur, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication, 42, 73-93.

Stewart, D. W. (1981). The application and missapplcation of factor analysis in marketing research. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(February), 51-62.

Stewart, D. W. (1989). New Books in Review. Journal of Marketing Research, May, 249-250.

Stewart, D. W., & Pavlou, P. A. (2002). From consumer response to active consumer: Measuring the effectiveness of interactive media. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(4), 376-396.

Still, A., & Good, J. (1992). Mutualism in the human sciences: Towards the implementation of theory. Journal of the Theory of Social Behaviour, 22(1), 105-128.

Stoll, C. (1995). Silicon Snake Oil: Second thought on the information highway. London: Pan Books.

Strauss, J., El-Ansary, A., & Frost, R. (2003). E-Marketing. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

347

REFERENCES

Stricklin, M., & Almeida, R. (2002). PCQ Analysis Software for Q-Technique (Version Academic Edition 1.41) [Q analysis software]. Lincoln, USA: PCQ Software.

Stricklin, M. (2004). Correspondence with software developer by email. 15 July.

Stromer-Galley, J. (2000). Online interaction and why candidates avoid it. Journal of Communication, 50(4), 111-132.

Surman, M., & Reilly, K. (2003, November). Appropriating the Internet for Social Change: Towards the strategic use of networked technologies by transnational civil society organisations [Online]. Social Science Research Council. Retrieved July 2002, from the World Wide Web: www.ssrc.org/programs/itic

Sutton, S. M. (1996). The role of theory in social marketing. Social Marketing Quarterly, Winter, 62-63.

Sylvester, J. L. (1998). Directing Health Messages towards African Americans: attitudes towards health care and the mass media. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.

Sylvester, J. L. (1998). Directing Health Messages Toward African Americans: Attitudes towards health care and the mass media. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.

Sylvester, J. (2000). Q Methodology and Social Marketing: Interpreting Racial Attitudes towards Health Care. Operant Subjectivity, 23(2), 52-73.

Szmigin, I., & Foxall, G. (2000). Interpretive consumer research: How far have we come? Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 3(4), 187-197.

Thomas, D. M., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Q-Sorting and MIS research: A primer. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 6(8), 141-156.

Thompson, B. (2000). Q-Technique Factor Analysis: One Variation on the Two-Mode Factor Analysis of Variables. In L. G. Grimm & P. R. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics (pp. 207-226). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Toffler, A. (1981). The Third Wave. Toronto: Bantam Books.

Tones, K. (1996). Models of Mass Media: hypodermic, aerosol or agent provocateur? Drugs: education, prevention and policy, 3(1), 29-37.

Tönnies, F. (2001). Community and civil society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Turkle, S. (1996). Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

Turner, J., Grube, J., & Meyers, J. (2001). Developing an optimal match within online communities: An exploration of CMC support and traditional support. Journal of Communication, 51(2), 231-251.

Tyler, T., R. (2002). Is the internet changing social life? It seems the more thing change, the more they stay the same. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 195-205.

Van der Poel, M. (1993). Personal networks: A rational-choice explanation of their size and composition. Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Van den Poel, D. & Leunis, J. (1999). Consumer acceptance of the internet as a channel of distribution. Journal of Business Research, 45, 249-256.

van Dijk, J. (1999). The Network Society: Social aspects of new media. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

van Dijk, J. (2000). Widening information gaps and policies of prevention. In K. Hacker & J. van Dijk (Eds.), Digital Democracy, Issues of theory and practice (pp. 166-183). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

348

REFERENCES

van Dijk, J., & Hacker, K. (2003). The digital divide as a complex and dynamic phenomenon. The Information Society, 19, 315-326.

Van Maanen, J. (2000). Forward. In E. Gummesson (Ed.), Qualitative Methods in Management Research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Vanden Heede, F. A., & Pelican, S. (1995). Reflections on marketing as an inappropriate model for nutrition education. Society for Nutrition Education, 27(3), 141-145.

Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1-17.

Wagner, S.A. (2003). Understanding Green Consumer Behaviour: A qualitative cognitive approach. London: Routledge.

Wallack, L., Dorfman, L., Jernigan, D., & Themba, M. (1993). Media Advocacy and Public Health. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Walle, A. H. (2001). Immanuel Kant, marketing theory and the modern temper. Management Decision, 39(6), 426-430.

Wallendorf, M., & Brucks, M. (1993). Introspection in consumer research: Implementation and implications. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 339-359.

Walters, D., Halliday, M., & Glaser, S. (2002). Creating value in the 'new economy'. Management Decision, 40(8), 775-781.

Walther, J. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3-43.

Warren, C. A. B. (2003). Interviewing in qualitative research. In M. S. Lewis-Beck & A. Bryman & T. F. Liao (Eds.), The SAGE Encyclopaedia of Social Science Research Methods (Vol. 2, pp. 521-524). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2005). Doing Q methodology: Theory, method and interpretation. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2, 67-91.

Webster, F. E. (1997). The future role of marketing in the organisations. In D. R. Lehmann & K. Jocz (Eds.), Reflections on the Futures of Marketing (pp. 39-66). Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

Webster, F. (2002). The Information Society Revisited. In L. A. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), Handbook of New Media: Social shaping and consequences of ICTs (pp. 22-33). London: SAGE Publications.

Wedel, M., & Kamakura, W. (2002). Special Issue on Market Segmentation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19(3), 181-303.

Wedel, M., & Kamakura, W. (2002). Editorial: Introduction to the Special Issue on Market Segmentation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19(3), 181-183.

Wegerif, R. (1998). The social dimension of asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2(1), 34-49.

Wellman, B. (1979). The community question. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 1201-1231.

Wellman, B. (1992). Which types of ties and networks provide what kinds of social support. Advances in Group Processes, 9, 207-235.

349

REFERENCES

Wellman, B. (1997a). An electronic group is virtually a social network. In S. Kiesler (Ed.), Culture of the Internet (pp. 179-205). Mahway, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wellman, B. (1997). The road to utopia and dystopia on the information highway. Contemporary Sociology, 26(4), 445-449.

Wellman, B., & Gulia, M. (1999). Virtual communities as communities: Net surfers don't ride alone. In M. A. Smith & P. Kollock (Eds.), Communities in Cyberspace (pp. 167-194). London: Routledge.

Wellman, B. (2001). Physical place and cyberspace: The rise of personalised networking. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 25(2), 227-252.

Wellman, B. (2001). Physical place and cyberplace: The rise of personalised networking. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 25(2), 227-252.

Wellman, B., & Haythornthwaite, C. (Eds.). (2002). The Internet in Everyday Life. Malden, MA; Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Wellman, B. (2004). The three ages of internet studies: ten, five and zero years ago. New Media & Society, 6(1), 123-129.

Wellman, B., & Hogan, B. (2004, 4 March, 2004). The Immanent Internet [Web]. NetLab, Department of Sociology, University of Toronto. Retrieved 2 July, 2004, from the World Wide Web: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman/publications/

Werry, C. (1999, 1999). Imagined electronic community: representation of virtual community in contemporary business discourse. First Monday. Retrieved 21 September, 2004, from the World Wide Web: http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue4_9/werry/index.html

Whatis.com. (2000-2005). TechTarget: "Geek" [Website]. Whatis.com. Retrieved 27 January, 2005, from the World Wide Web: http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/

Wiebe, G. D. (1951-52). Merchandising Commodities and Citizenship on Television. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 15(4), 679-691.

Williams, R. & Edge, D. (1996). The social shaping of technology. Research Policy, 25, 856-899.

Williams, F., & Rice, R. E. (1983). Communication research and the new media technologies. In R. N. Bostrom (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 7. Beverley Hills: Sage.

Williams, M. (2000). Interpretivism and generalisation. Sociology, 34(2), 209-224.

Williams, M. (2003). Making Sense of Social Research. London: Sage Publications.

Wind, Y., & Mahajan, V. (2002). Convergence Marketing. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 16(2), 64-79.

Winett, R. A. (1995). A framework for health promotion and idsease prevention programs. American Psychologist, 50(5), 341-350.

Winett, R. A. (1995). A framework for health promotion and disease prevention programs. American Psychologist, 50(5), 341-350.

Wolfe, W. G. (2000). Assessing Customer Orientation Using Q Methodology. Paper presented at the ANZMAC 2000 Visionary Marketing for the 21st Century: Facing the Challenge.

Woolgar, S. (2002). Five rules of virtuality. In S. Woolgar (Ed.), Virtual Society? Technology, Cyberbole, Reality (pp. 1-22). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

350

REFERENCES

Wrobel, U. (2002). 'Not in front of you mother!': online marketing for pharmaceutical products addressing taboo topics. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 5(1), 19-27.

Wyatt, S., Thomas, G., & Terranova, T. (2002). They came, they surfed, they went back to the beach: Conceptualising use and non-use of the Internet. In S. Woolgar (Ed.), Virtual Society? Technology, cyberbole, reality (pp. 23-40). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Zeithaml, V. A., & Bitner, M. J. (2000). Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus Across the Firm. Boston: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

Ziebland, S., Chapple, A., Dumelow, C., Evans, J., Prinjha, S. & Rozmovits, L. (2004). How internet affects patients’ experience of cancer: a qualitative study. British Medical Journal, 328(March), 564-570.

351

Understanding everyday internet experiences: Applications to … · 2010. 6. 9. · Accordingly,...

Documents

Transcript of Understanding everyday internet experiences: Applications to … · 2010. 6. 9. · Accordingly,...