Journal of Creative Communications-2014-Ouirdi-107-26 PDF

Article
Social Media Conceptualization

and Taxonomy
A Lasswellian Framework
Mariam El Ouirdi
Asma El Ouirdi
Jesse Segers
Erik Henderickx
Journal of Creative Communications

9(2) 107126
2014 Mudra Institute
of Communications
SAGE Publications
Los Angeles, London,
New Delhi, Singapore,
Washington DC
DOI: 10.1177/0973258614528608
http://crc.sagepub.com
Abstract
Social media has become a widely used term, and the subject of a growing body of academic research,
but with little definitional consensus. T
he purpose of this article is to answer the question: what
are social media? W
e examined existing scholarly definitions of the term social media through a
Lasswellian lens, by applying directed content analysis to a sample of 23 academic definitions retrieved
from the top 179 cited papers on social media in the Web of Knowledge database. The present study
makes two main contributions to the theorization of social media. First, we build on previous academic
efforts to suggest an inclusive definition of social media based on Lasswells act of communication.
Second, using the suggested definition, we categorize social media channels based on three dimensions,
that is, user, content format and function. This taxonomy is illustrated by presenting a social media cube
that aims to help practitioners, managers, researchers and developers to both classify existing social
media platforms, and identify prospective ones.
Keywords
Social media definition, Lasswells act of communication, Web 2.0, social media taxonomy, social media
conceptualization, social media cube
Introduction
The term social media is widely used both by academics and practitioners. As of 12 September 2013,
a filter-free search for social media returned 5219 papers on the Web of Knowledge research platform,
and 353 million results on Googles search engine. Previous research on social media spans across
a variety of fields, including advertising, communication, marketing, and public relations (Khang,
Ki & Ye 2012), risk and crisis communication (Veil, Buehner & Palenchar 2011), the pharmaceutical
field (Grindrod, Forgione, Tsuyuki, Gavura & Giustini 2014), healthcare (Hamm et al. 2013) and higher
education (Tess 2013) among others.
Given the broad and elusive scope of social media, this term is often defined by providing examples
of its applications or websites (Tess 2013). Moreover, the novelty of social media and the constant
Downloaded from crc.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on March 11, 2015
108
Mariam El Ouirdi, Asma El Ouirdi, Jesse Segers and Erik Henderickx
advances in the field have made it a challenging task to provide a universal definition for the term
(Hamm et al. 2013; Tess 2013). As a result, the growing body of research on social media uses diverse
definitions. This definitional inconsistency threatens the validity of the construct (Cronbach & Meehl
1955), hinders our collective understanding of social media, and makes providing directions for
future research and applications problematic. Therefore, there is need for a robust, theorized conceptualization of social media, in order to help scholars evaluate the validity of their research (Engel
& Schutt 2009).
Concepts are indispensable to scientific study (Steinberg 2007), and conceptualization is crucial as
a first step towards measurement (Engel & Schutt 2009). To address the definitional issue related to
social media, while building on existing conceptualization efforts, we conducted a directed content
analysis informed by the communication model of Harold Lasswell (1948), on a sample of definitions
extracted from top cited publications on social media.
The purpose of this study is to address the research question what are social media through the
application of the Lasswellian framework on communication theory in the context of social media.
The main contributions of this study are: (i) an inclusive definition of social media based on the assessment of existing definitions and the application of Lasswells (1948) model; and (ii) a three-dimensional
cube to classify social media channels, with the goal of helping practitioners, managers, researchers,
and developers to both classify existing social media platforms and identify prospective ones. To the
best of our knowledge, this article is the first attempt focusing exclusively on the conceptualization of
social media.
Theoretical Framework: Lasswells Act of Communication

To understand the concept of communication, scholars rely on models that describe and explain the
communication process (Steinberg 2007). One of the first attempts at defining communication dates
back to Aristole who identified three components of rhetoric, that is, the speaker, the speech, and the
listener, and who perceived its objective as the search for all possible means of persuasion (Dagron
& Tufte 2006). Communication models and theories have evolved over the years to reflect the increasingly broad range of topics covered in communication studies (Steinberg 2007). Today, one of the
most influential communication models is that of Lasswell (Shoemaker, Tankard & Lasorsa 2004), who
advanced Aristoles proposition by adding two elements to it, that is, in which channel and with what
effect (Dagron & Tufte 2006).
A communication process is best explained by answering the questions who, says what, in which
channel, to whom and with what effect (Lasswell 1948). Who refers to the communicator who
formulates the content of the message, that is, what; the channel is the medium used to transmit the
message to an individual recipient or the audience of mass communication, that is, to whom; and the
effect refers to the messages outcome, such as persuading the recipient to adopt a particular point of
view (Steinberg 2007). For example, the purpose of television is to provide entertainment, but its effects
could vary from inhibiting conversation between family members, to stimulating interest in new topics
(Steinberg 2007).
In addition to Lasswells model, Shannon and Weaver suggested a mathematical theory of communication, and conceived a general system composed of noise, an information source, a transmitter,
a channel, a receiver and a destination (Dagron & Tufte 2006). This model is often referred to as
Journal of Creative Communications, 9, 2 (2014): 107126
Social Media Conceptualization and Taxonomy 109

a transmission or technical model, as it is primarily concerned by the efficiency and clarity of the
information transmission from communicator to recipient (Steinberg 2007).
Communication scholars agree that the proliferation of new communication technologies has not
changed todays communication problems compared to hundreds of years ago (Steinberg 2007). Longstanding communication models thus preserve their relevance and accuracy in contemporary contexts.
As a matter of fact, Lasswells science of communication can be applied in the twenty first century to
the emerging technologies and powerful communication tools such as social media (Auer 2011). For
example, Wu, Hofman, Mason & Watts (2011) examined the who, says what, to whom components of
Lasswells model in the context of Twitter. In particular, they distinguished between ordinary users on
the one hand and elite users, that is, celebrities, bloggers, media and organizations, on the other hand.
They found that roughly 50 per cent of URLs consumed on Twitter are generated by only 20 thousand
elite users; that the media produce the most information; and that celebrities are the most followed
(Wu et al. 2011).
In the present study, we use Lasswells (1948) communication act to conduct a directed content
analysis of social media definitions. We do not focus on social media as mere channels of communication; instead, we use the Lasswellian model to examine the entire act of communication involving
social media.
Content Analysis of Social Media Definitions

Content analysis is a research technique that may be used in an inductive or a deductive way (Elo &
Kyngs 2008), to make inferences by systematically and objectively identifying specified characteristics
of messages (Holsti 1968). According to Hsieh and Shannon (2005), there are three distinct content
analysis approaches: (i) conventional content analysis, in which coding categories are derived directly
from the text data, and which is generally used to describe a phenomenon when existing theory or
research literature on this topic is limited; (ii) directed content analysis, in which coding is guided by
a theory or relevant research findings, and which aims to conceptually validate or extend a theoretical
framework or theory and (iii) summative content analysis, in which coding relies on counting and
comparing keywords or content, and which is primarily concerned with quantifying terms. In this
article, we conduct a directed content analysis based on the theoretical framework of Lasswells (1948)
communication model.
There is wide agreement on three main characteristics of content analysis: objectivity, system and
generality (Holsti 1968). To be objective, the analysis must follow explicitly formulated rules; to be
systematic, the analysis must include or exclude content according to consistently applied criteria of
selection; and to satisfy the condition of generality, the findings of the analysis must be theoretically
relevant (Holsti 1968). Accordingly, we describe further the sampling method, the systematic process
of extracting the academic definitions for further analysis and the ensuing results.
Sampling and Coding

Sampling for content analysis is usually purposive in order to inform the research questions being
investigated (Zhang & Wildemuth 2009). For the present study, we searched for the term social media
in the titles of academic publications in the Web of Knowledge database, with the filters of article as
110
a document type and English as the publication language. This search inquiry yielded 904 results on
6 September 2013. Sorted by number of citations, the results showed 179 papers cited at least twice,
304 papers cited once, and the rest of papers beyond the 305th publication with no citations. This
paper focuses on the 179 top cited papers given that the citation number of a publication is an indicator
of popularity and a possible measure of its influence among other researchers.
In qualitative content analysis, units of analysis are usually individual themes expressed as a sentence
or a paragraph (Zhang & Wildemuth 2009). The unit of analysis in the present study is the academic
definition of social media. After listing the top cited papers, two of the authors examined their full texts
independently in order to select all textual units that contribute to answering the main research question
(Krippendorff 2004), that is, what are social media. Some disagreements resulted from the fact that
certain definitions were either partially quoted from other authors or were general, vague statements
about social media uses without a proper conceptual definition of the term. Therefore, to be included in
the analysis, a definition had to be an original contribution by the papers authors, and not a citation of
other sources. After settling all disagreements, a final set of 23 definitions were admitted for inclusion in
the content analysis, as illustrated in Table 1. The included definitions were extracted from 23 papers
published between 2008 and 2012, from research fields varying from business and management, to
health and politics.
The process of coding systematically transforms and aggregates raw data into units that permit precise
description of relevant content characteristics (Holsti 1968). Based on the principles of directed content
analysis, a three-step process was followed. First, an initial coding scheme was developed. Coding
schemes can be derived from the data, previous related studies and theories (Zhang & Wildemuth 2009).
For this article, the coding scheme was derived from Lasswells (1948) work on communication acts,
and contained five codes: (i) who, that is, the communicator or the initiator of the act of communication;
(ii) says what, that is, the content of the communication; (iii) in which channel, that is, the media in
which the communication takes place; (iv) to whom, that is, the audience or persons reached by the
media and (v) with what effect, that is, the impact of the message on the audience. Second, the extracted
definitions were analyzed and coded based on the established coding scheme. During the process of
coding, the coders had two critical insights: (i) none of the definitions mentioned the audience or the
effect of social media communication; (ii) the content of the communication focused on the format
instead of the message itself. Third, after completing the first round of coding, the definitions were
examined in an iterative fashion to note any other emerging aspects of social media communication to
be included in the coding scheme. Consequently, one major theme emerged from the units of analysis,
namely the function or purpose of social media. When we referred to the literature, we found that
this category was in line with the why dimension added by Holsti (1968) to Lasswells (1948) model,
to investigate the mechanisms that cause a source to send a certain message. Therefore, we added a
new code labelled why, denoting the purpose of the communication act taking place on social media.
Table 2 shows the coding of the 23 definitions included in the directed content analysis.
Findings
First, out of the 23 extracted definitions, the initiators of communication, that is, who, were mentioned
in 14 papers, and included individual users, communities of people, organizations and industries.
The wide accessibility of social media was particularly emphasized in one definition pointing to tens
32
31
17
10
10
16
31
33
61
67
75
79
39
206
A Losing strategy: the impact of

nondisclosure in social media on
relationships
Social media and political change: capacity,

constraint and consequence
The convergence of GIS and social media:
challenges for GIScience
The impact of polices on government

social media usage: issues, challenges and
recommendations
Social interaction via new social media:
(How) can interactions on twitter affect
effectual thinking and behaviour?
The information ecology of social media
and online communities
Emergency knowledge management and

social media technologies: A case study of
the 2010 Haitian earthquake
Users of the world, unite! The challenges

and opportunities of social media
Using ICTs to create a culture of
transparency: E-government and social
media as openness and anti-corruption
tools for societies
Online professionalism and the mirror of
social media
Social media? Get serious! Understanding the
functional building blocks of social media
Number of
Citations* Article Title
Rank in Top 179

Cited papers
John Carlo Bertot, Paul

T. Jaeger, Derek Hansen
Eileen Fischer, A.
Rebecca Reuber
2012
2011
Kaye D. Sweetser
2010
2011
2012
Tim Finin, Anupam Joshi,

Pranam Kolari, Akshay Java,
Anubhav Kale, Amit Karandikar
Philip N. Howard,
Malcolm R. Parks
Daniel Sui, Michael Goodchild
2008
2011
2011
S. Ryan Greysen, Terry Kind

and Katherine C. Chretien
Jan H. Kietzmann,
Kristopher Hermkens,
Ian P. McCarthy,
Bruno S. Silvestre
Dave Yates, Scott
Paquette
Andreas M. Kaplan,
Michael Haenlein
John C. Bertot, Paul T. Jaeger,
Justin M. Grimes
Authors
2010
2010
2010
Year of
Publication
Information and
communication
technologies
Politics
Business and
management
Politics
Information and
communication
technologies
Business and
Management
Health
Business and
management
politics
Field
(Table 1 continued)
Journal of
communication
Other
International
journal of
geographical
information science
Journal of public
Public relations
relations research
AI Magazine
International
journal of
information
management
Government
information
quarterly
Journal of business
venturing
Journal of general
internal medicine
Business Horizons
Government
information
quarterly
Business horizons
Journal
Table 1. T
he Thematic Field and Publication Year of the 23 Papers Containing Social Media Definitions, and Extracted from the Top 179 Cited Papers with
Social Media in the Title, in Web of Knowledge
104
106
111
123
126
129
141
157
175
Note:
Social media impact on holiday travel

planning: the case of the Russian and
the FSU markets
Social media and health care: an overview
Attention and other 21st-century social

media literacies
Road-mapping the societal transformation
potential of social media
Virtually local: social media and community
among Polish nationals in Dublin
Local e-government 2.0: Social media and
corporate transparency in municipalities
Marketing meets Web 2.0, social media,

and creative consumers: implications for
international marketing strategy
Breaking Ground in the use of social media:
a case study of a university earthquake
response to inform educational design
with Facebook
Social multimedia: highlighting opportunities
for search and mining of multimedia data in
social media applications
Leveraging social media networks
for classification
*As of 6, September, 2013.
Source: Web of Knowledge.
Social media analytics and intelligence
92
99
Understanding the factors that influence the

adoption and meaningful use of social media
by physicians to share medical Information
Number of
Citations* Article Title
81
Rank in Top 179

Cited papers
(Table 1 continued)
2010
2011
2012
2009
2010
2010
2011
Health
Journal of medical
internet research
Data mining
and knowledge
discovery
Educause review
Multimedia tools
and applications
Petya Eckler, Gregory

Worsowicz, J. Wesley Rayburn
Enrique Bonsn, Lourdes

Torres, Sonia Royo, Francisco
Flores
John Fotis, Dimitrios Buhalis,
Nicos Rossides
Government
information
quarterly
International
journal of online
marketing
PM&R
Health
Business and
management
Politics
Other
Other
Information and
communication
technologies
Information and
communication
technologies
Education
Internet and higher Education

education
The IEEE computer Information and

society
communication
technologies
Business horizons Business and
management
Field
Journal
Toni Ahlqvist, Asta Back, Sirkka Foresight

Heinonen and Minna Halonen
Lee Komito, Jessica Bates
Aslib proceedings
Howard Rheingold
Lei Tang, Huan Liu
Mor Naaman
2012
2012
Pierre R. Berthon, Leyland

F. Pitt, Kirk Plangger, Daniel
Shapiro
Nicki Dabner
Brian S McGowan, Molly

Wasko, Bryan Steven
Vartabedian, Robert S Miller,
Desirae D Freiherr, Maziar
Abdolrasulnia
Daniel Zeng, Hsinchun Chen,
Robert Lusch, Shu-Hsing Li
Authors
2012
2010
2012
Year of
Publication
Fischer and
Reuber
(2011, p. 2)
Bertot et al.
(2012, p. 30)
Yates and
Paquette,
(2011, p. 6)
Kietzmann et al.
(2011, p. 241)
Greysen, Kind
and Chretien
(2010, p. 1227)
Social media refers to a set of online tools

that are designed for and centred around
social interaction.
Social media channels are user-friendly,
inexpensive, scalable internet- and mobilebased technologies that allow for the
sharing of user-generated material.
Social Media is a group of Internet-based

applications that build on the ideological
and technological foundations of web 2.0,
and that allow the creation and exchange of
user generated content.
Social media are the content and
interactions that are created through
the social interaction of users via highly
accessibly web-based technologies.
Social media are the content created by
Internet users and hosted by popular sites
such as Facebook, Twitter,YouTube and
Wikipedia and blogs.
Social media employ mobile and web-based
technologies to create highly interactive
platforms via which individuals and
communities share, cocreate, discuss and
modify user-generated content.
Social media consists of tools that enable
open online exchange of information
through conversation and interaction.
Kaplan and
Haenlein
(2010, p. 61)
Bertot et al.
(2010, p. 266)
Definition
Authors
Content
Internet
users
N/A
Usergenerated
material
N/A
N/A
To
Whom
Highly
interactive
platforms
Internet- and N/A

mobile-based
technologies
Online tools N/A
N/A
N/A
Popular sites N/A
Web-based N/A
technologies
Internetbased
applications
In Which
Channel
Information Tools
N/A
N/A
Individuals
Userand
generated
communities content
Content
User
generated
content
N/A
Users
Says What
Who
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
(Table 2 continued)
Sharing user-generated
material
Enable open online

exchange of information
through conversation
and interaction
Social interaction
Share, co-create, discuss,

and modify usergenerated content
N/A
N/A
The creation and

exchange of user
generated content
With What
Effect
Why
Table 2. The Coding of 23 Definitions Extracted from the Top 179 Cited Papers on Web of Knowledge, with the Term Social Media in the Title
Definition
Web-based social media systems such
as blogs, wikis, media-sharing sites and
message forums have become an important
new way to transmit information, engage
in discussions and form communities on
the Internet. T
heir reach and impact is
significant, with tens of millions of people
providing content on a regular basis around
the world.
Howard
Social media may be defined in three
and Parks
parts, consisting of (a) the information
(2012, p. 362)
infrastructure and tools used to produce
and distribute content; (b) the content that
takes the digital form of personal messages,
news, ideas and cultural products; and
(c) the people, organizations, and industries
that produce and consume digital content.
Sui and Goodchild Social media can be defined as social
(2011, p. 1738)
interaction via the use of Web-based
and mobile technologies, to turn scalable
communication into interactive dialog.
Sweetser
Social media are an increasingly popular
(2010, p. 289)
means through which companies can
communicate in online communities
McGowan et al. Social media websites and applications
(2012)
are online environments where users
contribute, retrieve, and explore content
primarily generated by fellow users.
Zeng, Chen,
Social media refers to a conversational,
Lusch and Li
distributed mode of content generation,
(2010, p. 13)
dissemination and communication among
communities.
Authors
Finin et al.
(2008, p. 77)
(Table 2 continued)
Communities Content
Content
Users
N/A
N/A
Websites and N/A

applications
N/A
N/A
Companies
N/A
Web-based N/A
and mobile
technologies
N/A
N/A
To
Whom
N/A
Information N/A
infrastructure
and tools
In Which
Says What Channel
Information Web-based
and content systems
Digital
People,
organizations content
and
industries
Who
Tens of
millions of
people
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Content generation,
dissemination, and
communication
Contribute, retrieve and

explore content
Communicate in online
communities
Turn scalable
communication into
interactive dialog
Produce, distribute and

consume content
With What
Effect
Why
N/A
Transmit information,
engage in discussions,
and form communities
on the Internet
Ahlqvist Bck,
Heinonen
and Halonen
(2010, p. 4)
Rheingold
(2010, p. 14)
Tang and Liu

(2011, p. 448)
Naaman
(2010, p. 10)
Authors
Berthon, Pitt,
Plangger and
Shapiro
(2012, p. 263)
Dabner
(2012, p. 69)
Multimedia N/A
content
N/A
N/A
User
created
content
N/A
People
People
Users
To
Whom
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Networked N/A
digital media
N/A
N/A
Internet and N/A

mobile-based
tools and
devices
Words,
images
(static and
moving)
and audio
N/A
Social media can be described as Internet

and mobile-based tools and devices that
integrate technology, telecommunications
and social interaction enabling the
construction, co-construction and
dissemination of words, images (static and
moving) and audio.
Social media channels are online sources
of multimedia content posted in settings
that foster significant individual participation
and that promote community curation,
discussion and re-use of content.
Social media, such as Facebook, MySpace,
Twitter, BlogSpot, Digg,YouTube, and
Flickr, has streamlined ways for people to
express their thoughts, voice their opinions,
and connect to each other anytime and
anywhere.
Social medianetworked digital media
such as Facebook, Twitter, blogs and wikis
enable people to socialize, organize, learn,
play and engage in commerce.
Our definition of social media is built on
three key elements: content, communities
and Web 2.0. First, content refers to user
created content which may be of very
different types (). Second, social media is
based on communities and social interaction
among users.
In Which
Channel
Internetbased
applications
Says What
N/A
Who
N/A
Definition
Social media is the product of Internetbased applications that build on the
technological foundations of Web 2.0.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
(Table 2 continued)
Social interaction
Socialize, organize,
learn, play, and engage in
commerce
Foster significant
individual participation
and promote community
curation, discussion and
re-use of content
Express thoughts, voice
opinions, and connect to
each other anytime and
anywhere
Enable the construction,

co-construction and
dissemination of words,
images (static and
moving) and audio
With What
Effect
Why
N/A
N/A
Source: Web of Knowledge
Definition
Social media are internet applications [that]
enable greater interaction between user and
application through user generated content.
Social media are applications that offer
services to communities of on-line users:
blogs, social bookmarking, wikis, media
sharing, and social networks that promote
collaboration, joint learning and the speedy
exchange of information between users.
Fotis, Buhalis
Social media are a group of online software
and Rossides
platforms that enable and facilitate sharing
(2011, p. 4)
of user generated content.
Eckler, Worsowicz Social media are forms of new media that
and Rayburn
eclipse the traditional static Web site and
(2010, p. 1046)
allow online users to interact with one
another.
Authors
Komito and
Bates, (2009,
p. 233)
Bonsn et al.
(2012, p. 123)
(Table 2 continued)
User
generated
content
Online users N/A
N/A
Says What
User
generated
content
Communities Information
of on-line
users
Who
User
N/A
N/A
N/A
Enable and facilitate

sharing of user
generated content
Allow online users
to interact with one
another
With What
Effect
Why
N/A
Enable greater
interaction between
user and application
N/A
Promote collaboration,
joint learning and the
speedy exchange of
information
N/A
N/A
Applications
Online
software
platforms
New media
To
Whom
N/A
In Which
Channel
Internet
applications

of millions of people contributing content to social media (See Finin et al. 2008). Textual units
extracted under the code who refer to users in general, and seem thus, to encompass both the communication initiator and the recipient, and to blur the line between the two. This finding explains why no
definition particularly mentioned the recipients, that is, to whom the communication act was directed
on social media.
Second, in our sample, 16 definitions mentioned the content of the communication act, that is, what.
Communication on social media consists mainly of information and digital user-generated content and
material in several formats, such as words, static and moving images and audio (Dabner 2012). Under
the what code, the extracted textual units seem to shed light mainly on the format, rather than on the
message itself.
Third, 19 definitions out of 23 mentioned the channels used to transmit social media messages. On
the one hand, some authors focus solely either on the mobile and web-based technologies underlying
social media, or on the user-interface referred to as web services, online applications or online software
platforms. On the other hand, several other authors make the distinction between the technologies and
the platforms by saying that social media employ mobile and web-based technologies to create highly
interactive platforms (Kietzmann, Hermkens, McCarthy & Silvestre 2011, p. 241) or that social media
are a group of Internet-based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations
of Web 2.0 (Kaplan & Haenlein 2010, p. 61). Furthermore, other definitions refer to social media
channels as tools, networked digital media or new media.
Fourth, 19 definitions out of the extracted 23 mentioned the function of social media, that is, why
they are used. Social media aim primarily to create, cocreate, exchange, share, discuss, modify, consume,
communicate and disseminate user-generated content. Social media are also designed to form communities that engage in social interactions. Some authors combine both standpoints and suggest that social
media tools enable the exchange, transmission and discussion of information through conversation and
interaction. Other social media functions include promoting collaboration and joint learning, playing
and engaging in commerce.
Finally, as mentioned earlier, none of the examined 23 definitions mentioned the effect of the act
of communication taking place on social media. Therefore, the coding phase led to (i) providing a general view of how previous academic definitions of social media identify the initiators, the content format
and the channels of communication on social media; (ii) identifying the lack of reference to the recipients of communication on social media, explained by the blurry lines between initiators and recipients
of communication on these technologies; (iii) discovering the omission of the effect of the communication act taking place on social media and (iv) adding a new component, that is, why or the function of
communication on social media.
Discussion
Researchers report that the main strength of directed content analysis is that it brings support to existing
theory and can even extend it (Hsieh & Shannon 2005). The findings of the present content analysis
support the application of the Lasswellian formula in the context of social media, and support previous
efforts to extend it with the why component.
First, regarding users, a primary finding in this analysis is that existing social media definitions blur
the line between the communication initiator, who, and the communication recipient, to whom. In
118
retrospect, in Web 1.0 or the early World Wide Web (Boulos & Wheeler 2007), only website owners
controlled the information or text displayed (Handsfield, Dean & Cielocha 2009). Information publication
and distribution were largely performed in a one-way fashion, and there were limited opportunities
for user engagement and interaction (Scott & Orlikowski 2012), as content creators were few and the
vast majority of users merely consumed content (Cormode & Krishnamurthy 2008) in a unidirectional
framework (Williams, Crittenden, Keo & Mccarty 2012). Today, however, in the user-centred
Web 2.0 (Hjorth 2010), or the social Web, content has become more easily generated and published by
users (Boulos & Wheeler 2007), and there is more focus on the active participation of users in websites
(Scott & Orlikowski 2012), both as contributors to, as well as consumers of, information (Dabner 2012),
thus emphasizing the new social aspect of the web in general and of social media in particular. This
may explain why none of the examined definitions explicitly distinguish between the initiators and the
recipients of communication on social media.
It should also be noted that the extracted definitions focus primarily on the use of social media at the
micro-level, with only one definition highlighting the use of social media by organizations and industries
(See Howard & Parks 2012). Previous research on social media, however, includes all three levels of
analysis. The level of analysis refers to the scope of a social theory, causal explanation, proposition,
hypothesis or theoretical statement, and ranges from the micro level, that is, social psychological, to the
meso-level, that is, organizational, to the macro-level, that is, large-scale social structure (Neuman 2007).
The micro-level deals with the concrete, small-scale, and narrow level of reality, and generally refers to
features of individuals or interactions among individuals (Neuman 2007). At this level, social media are
used by individuals to, for example, organize trip (Parra-Lpez, Bulchand-Gidumal, Gutirrez-Tao &
Daz-Armas 2011), and engage in online brand-related activities such as consuming and contributing to
brand-related content (Muntinga, Moorman & Smit 2011). The meso-level links macro- and microlevels, operates at an intermediate level, and deals with organizations, social movements, and communities
(Neuman 2007). At this level, social media are used by many actors including schools and colleges to
support face-to-face learning and collaboration (George & Dellasega 2011; Thomas & Thomas 2012)
among other uses. The macro-level deals with more abstract, large-scale, and broad-scope aspects of
social reality, and refers to larger aggregates such as social institutions, entire cultural systems and whole
societies (Neuman 2007). At this level, social media are used by governments and governmental agencies
to connect with the people, enhance transparency and disseminate information (Bertot, Jaeger, Munson
& Glaisyer 2010; Bertot, Jaeger & Hansen 2012; Bonsn et al. 2012; Kuzma 2010).
Second, while there seems to be a comprehensive discussion in the extracted definitions on social
media channels as internet- or mobile-based tools, and on the technologies behind them, there is a lack
of focus on the content of social media communication, that is, what. Moreover, when content was
mentioned, attention was given to its format; two definitions specified that the format of the content
could be multimedia (Naaman 2010), or more precisely that it can consist of words, static and moving
images, or audio (Dabner 2012).
Third, the examined definitions omitted the effect of communication acts involving social media.
This can be explained by the fact that effect analysis is a significant aspect that cannot be captured briefly
and included in a concise definition. Effect analysis can rather be the topic of separate studies investigating
the impact of social media on their audiences.
Finally, people communicate with the purpose of satisfying a personal or social need (Steinberg
2007). The extracted definitions provide a wide range of purposes explaining why users communicate
on social media. Consequently, Holstis (1968) why code was added during the coding process.

Based on the earlier mentioned findings, we argue that a comprehensive social media definition
ought to: (i) emphasize not only the wide accessibility of social media by the communication initiators,
that is, who but also the potential large-scale reach of social media communication to a receiving audience, to whom, in order to further highlight the interactional, two-way communication process on
social media channels; (ii) put forward the multi-level usage of social media by micro-, macro- and
meso-level users, who can both initiate and receive content and (iii) highlight the diversity of the format
of social media content, that is, what, as previous research identified five types of content formats
on social media, namely text (on blogs, micro-blogs, wikis, forums and social networks), images (for
example, Flickr and Picasa), videos (for example, YouTube), audio (for example, Last.fm) and games
(for example, World of Warcraft; [Cortizo, Carrero & Gmez 2011]). Finally, in line with former conceptualization efforts, it seems reasonable to put forward the purpose of communication acts on social
media, and to omit their effects given the width of this aspect that goes beyond the conceptualization
objective of the present article.
None of the 23 definitions extracted from the top 179 papers cover all four retained Lasswellian
aspects (who, says what, in which channel, to whom) in addition to Holstis (1968) aspect, why.
Therefore, there seems to be a need for an inclusive definition that fills this gap. Therefore, we suggest
defining social media as a set of mobile and web-based platforms built on Web 2.0 technologies, and
allowing users at the micro-, meso- and macro-levels to share and geo-tag user-generated content
(images, text, audio, video and games), to collaborate, and to build networks and communities, with the
possibility of reaching and involving large audiences. In this definition, by specifying that the content is
user-generated, we imply the process of creating and cocreating content that involves users; and by
mentioning sharing, collaboration and networking, we imply functions such as content consumption and
distribution, as well as exchanges, interactions and discussions.
Where to Go from Here? Towards a Typology of Social Media

In addition to the definitional issue surrounding social media, several authors also claim that there is no
rigid or definitive typology for these platforms (Fischer & Reuber 2011; Jorgensen 2012). Nonetheless,
many scholars acknowledge the existence of a common ecology that includes categories such as social
networking sites (Bertot, Jaeger & Grimes 2010; Fischer & Reuber 2011; Jorgensen 2012); professional
networking sites (Fischer & Reuber 2011; Kietzmann et al. 2011); blogs (Bertot et al. 2010; Finin et al.
2008; Fischer & Reuber 2011); micro-blogging services (Bertot et al. 2010; Fischer & Reuber 2011;
Jorgensen 2012); wikis (Bertot et al. 2010; Finin et al. 2008); videoand picturesharing sites, also
called multimedia or media sharing sites (Bertot et al. 2010; Fischer & Reuber 2011; Finin et al. 2008);
social news and bookmarking (Fischer & Reuber 2011; Kietzmann et al. 2011); and userand message
forums (Fischer & Reuber 2011; Finin et al. 2008; Kietzmann et al. 2011).
There are also social media classification efforts based on existing theories. For instance, Kaplan
and Haenlein (2010) categorize social media based on media theories (social presence and media
richness) and social processes theories (self-presentation and self-disclosure). Kaplan and Haenlein
(2010) argue that blogs are considered low on social presence/media richness but high on selfpresentation/self-disclosure; whereas virtual game worlds, such as World of Warcraft, are considered
high on social presence/media richness but low on self-presentation/self-disclosure. For their part,
120
Kietzmann et al. (2011) presented a honeycomb framework of seven social media building blocks,
that is, identity, conversations, sharing, presence, relationships, reputation and groups, for a better
understanding of the functionalities of social media sites. For example, the identity block represents
the extent to which users reveal their identities on social media settings; the sharing block represents the
extent to which users exchange, distribute, and receive content; and the groups block represents the
extent to which users can form communities and sub-communities (Kietzmann et al. 2011).
While the classifications of Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) and Kietzmann et al. (2011) are useful, there
is still need for further work on social media taxonomy. Inspired by the Lasswellian coding categories
used in the present content analysis, and using the ensuing definition, we elaborate a taxonomy of social
media from the channels perspective based on three dimensions:

Users (who/to whom), who can be from the micro-, meso- or macro-levels.
Content (what), which may take several formats, such as text, images, videos, audio, or games.
Function (why), namely sharing, collaborating, networking, or geo-locating.
Many social media sites can be classified with this taxonomy, as illustrated in Table 3. It should be
noted, however, that the subcategories of each dimension are not mutually exclusive. If we take the
example of Facebook, it can be used at the micro-level by individuals, at the meso-level by companies
and at the macro-level by governments such as the US federal government. Facebook essentially
promotes written content in the form of status updates, but it can also be an all-purpose website used to
share pictures, embed videos and play games; with the functional objectives of networking and sharing.
Another example is Twitter, which can also be used on all three levels, and which disseminates textual
content with the possibility of displaying pictures and videos. Twitter can be used for both sharing
and networking.
The classification of social media platforms based on users, content format and function can be
visually summarized in a social media cube illustrated in Figure 1.
According to Kaplan and Haenlein (2010), a classification scheme for social media ought to take into
account applications which may be forthcoming. The social media cube provides a novel but parsimonious
framework for classifying existing social media outlets, and for identifying more possible combinations
of the three dimensions (users, content format and function) to potentially create new social media
platforms (see Figure 2).
Limitations and Future Research

The main limitation of the present content analysis is covering only the top 179 cited papers containing
the keyword social media in the title, and searching for them in only one database. We may thus have
overlooked relevant papers because they are recent and have no citations yet, are indexed in other
databases, or do not include the social media keyword in the title. Moreover, it is possible that the
screened sample is not large enough to conclude on the incompleteness of available social media
definitions in scholarly publications. Furthermore, although highly cited papers indicate popularity and
a possible level of academic influence among other researchers, these papers might not be a representative
sample as citations do not always reflect the endorsement and agreement of the citers. Another limitation
Source: Authors.
Facebook
YouTube
Wikipedia
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flickr
Foursquare
Last.fm
Second life
Micro-level
Users
Macro-level
Users
Meso-level
Users
User
Content Format
Images Text Video Audio
Table 3. Examples of Social Media Websites in a Lasswellian Taxonomy
Games
Networking
Sharing
Collaboration Geo-location
Function
122
Figure 1. Social Media Cube to Help Classify Existing Social Media Platforms, and Identify Prospective Ones
Figure 2. Examples of Existing Platforms in the Social Media Cube


is the likelihood that some social media definitions might have been excluded because they were not
clearly stated.
Although Lasswells communication formula provides a solid foundation to define social media, it is
sometimes criticized for being linear. This shortcoming should be taken into account when considering
the results of this content analysis.
While the present study aims to provide a theory-based definition of social media, it does not aim
to address the lack of consistency that might exist in the social media terminology. It is possible that
other definitions exist for social media but with the name new media, social web or new web.
Although we are aware that there is no final universal definition for a constantly evolving concept such
as social media, the present study still aims at providing a working definition.
Addressing these limitations can open new venues for research. Future research could, for instance,
study other communication models and include components that are lacking in Lasswells formula.
Additionally, future conceptualization efforts could examine a wider sample of social media definitions.
Conclusion
Social media is a widely used term both in academia and practice. There are, however, discrepancies in
the way academics define social media in scholarly publications, hence the objective of this paper to
contribute to the conceptualization efforts of these emerging technologies. To answer the research question what are social media, we conducted a directed content analysis informed by the communication
formula of Lasswell (1948). In this analysis, we examined 23 academic definitions of social media,
extracted from the 179 top cited papers containing the term social media in the title, in the Web of
Knowledge database. During the analysis of these scholarly definitions, we decided to exclude the coding category to what effect, and to add the why component advanced by Holsti (1968). Since none
of the existing definitions cover the four retained Lasswellian dimensions in addition to why, we suggested an inclusive working definition for the ever-evolving concept of social media as a set of mobile
and web-based platforms built on Web 2.0 technologies, and allowing users at the micro-, meso- and
macro- levels to share and geo-tag user-generated content (images, text, audio, video and games), to collaborate, and to build networks and communities, with the possibility of reaching and involving large
audiences. We also presented a social media cube that builds on the content analysis findings, with the
objective of contributing to existing literature on social media taxonomies, and helping both practitioners
and academics categorize existing and prospective social media outlets.
New social media platforms are constantly emerging, making it a challenge to keep up with the fastpaced evolution in the field. The provided definition and taxonomy of social media will hopefully help
managers have a clearer visualization of existing social media platforms, and assist researchers in
indentifying new venues for research.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Ilke Inceoglu for her valuable comments on the final version of this manuscript.
References
Ahlqvist, T., Bck, A., Heinonen, S., & Halonen, M. (2010). Road-mapping the societal transformation potential of
social media. Foresight, 12(5), 326.

124
Auer, M.R. (2011). The policy sciences of social media. Policy Studies Journal, 39(4), 709736.
Berthon, P.R., Pitt, L.F., Plangger, K., & Shapiro, D. (2012). Marketing meets web 2.0, social media, and creative
consumers: Implications for international marketing strategy. Business Horizons, 55(3), 261271.
Bertot, J.C., Jaeger, P.T., & Grimes, J.M. (2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and
social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly, 27(3),
264271.
Bertot, J.C., Jaeger, P.T., & Hansen, D. (2012). The impact of polices on government social media usage: Issues,
challenges, and recommendations. Government Information Quarterly, 29(1), 3040.
Bertot, J.C., Jaeger, P.T., Munson, S., & Glaisyer, T. (2010). Social media technology and government transparency.
IEEE Computer Society, 43(11), 5359.
Bonsn, E., Torres, L., Royo, S., & Flores, F. (2012). Local e-government 2.0: Social media and corporate
transparency in municipalities. Government Information Quarterly, 29(2), 123132.
Cormode, G., & Krishnamurthy, B. (2008). Key differences between web1.0 and web2.0. First Monday, 13(6),
130.
Cortizo, J.C., Carrero, F.M., & Gmez, J.M. (2011). Introduction to the special issue: Mining social media.
International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 15(3), 58.
Cronbach, L.J., & Meehl, P.E. (1955). Construct Validity in Psychological Tests, 281302.
Dabner, N. (2012). Breaking Ground in the use of social media: A case study of a university earthquake response
to inform educational design with Facebook. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 6978.
Dagron, A.G., & Tufte, T. (2006). Communication for Social Change: Anthology: Historical and Contemporary
Readings. CFSC Consortium, Inc.
Eckler, P., Worsowicz, G., & Rayburn, J.W. (2010). Social media and health care: An overview. PM & R: The
journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation, 2(11), 10461050.
Elo, S., & Kyngs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1),
107115.
Engel, R.J., & Schutt, R.K. (2009). Conceptualization and measurement. In Fundamentals of Social Work Research,
5080. SAGE:
Finin, T., Joshi, A., Kolari, P., Java, A., Kale, A., & Karandikar, A. (2008). The Information ecology of social
media and online communities. AI Magazine, 29(3), 7792.
Fischer, E., & Reuber, A.R. (2011). Social interaction via new social media: (How) can interactions on Twitter
affect effectual thinking and behavior? Journal of Business Venturing, 26(1), 118.
Fotis, J., Buhalis, D., & Rossides, N. (2011). Social media impact on holiday travel planning: The case of the
Russian and the FSU markets. International Journal of Online Marketing, 1(4), 119.
George, D.R., & Dellasega, C. (2011). Use of social media in graduate-level medical humanities education: Two
pilot studies from Penn State College of Medicine. Medical Teacher, 33(8), e429434.
Greysen, S.R., Kind, T., & Chretien, K.C. (2010). Online Professionalism and the Mirror of Social Media. Journal
of General Internal Medicine, 25(11), 12271229.
Grindrod, K., Forgione, A., Tsuyuki, R.T., Gavura, S., & Giustini, D. (2014). Pharmacy 2.0: A scoping review of
social media use in pharmacy. Research in Social & Administrative Pharmacy: RSAP, 10(1), 256270.
Hamm, M.P., Chisholm, A., Shulhan, J., Milne, A., Scott, S.D., Klassen, T.P., & Hartling, L. (2013). Social media
use by health care professionals and trainees: A scoping review. Academic Medicine, 88(9), 13761383.
Handsfield, L.J., Dean, T.R., & Cielocha, K.M. (2009). Becoming critical consumers and producers of text:
Teaching literacy with web 1.0 and web 2.0. The Reading Teacher, 63(1), 4050.
Hjorth, L. (2010). The game of being social: web 2.0, social media, and online games. Iowa Journal of Communication, 42(1), 7392.
Holsti, O.R. (1968). Content analysis. In Lindzey, G., & Aronson, E. (Eds), The handbook of social psychology
(pp. 596692).


Howard, P.N., & Parks, M.R. (2012). Social media and political change: capacity, constraint, and consequence.
Journal of Communication, 62(2), 359362.
Hsieh, H.F., & Shannon, S.E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research,
15(9), 12771288.
Jorgensen, G. (2012). Social media basics for orthodontists. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial
Orthopedics, 141(4), 510515.
Kamel Boulos, M.N., & Wheeler, S. (2007). The emerging web 2.0 social software: an enabling suite of sociable
technologies in health and health care education. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 24(1), 223.
Kaplan, A.M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media.
Business Horizons, 53(1), 5968.
Khang, H., Ki, E.J., & Ye, L. (2012). Social media research in advertising, communication, marketing, and public
relations, 19972010. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 89(2), 279298.
Kietzmann, J.H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I.P., & Silvestre, B.S. (2011). Social media? Get serious! Understanding
the functional building blocks of social media. Business Horizons, 54(3), 241251.
Komito, L., & Bates, J. (2009). Virtually local: social media and community among polish nationals in Dublin.
Aslib Proceedings, 61(3), 232244.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. facultyunlvedu. 15, SAGE.
Kuzma, J. (2010). Asian government usage of web 2.0 social media. European Journal of ePractice, 9, 6981.
Lasswell, H.D. (1948). The structure and function of communication in society. In Bryson, L. (Ed.), The
Communication of Ideas (pp. 3751). New York: Harper & Row.
McGowan, B.S., Wasko, M., Vartabedian, B.S., Miller, R.S., Freiherr, D.D., & Abdolrasulnia, M. (2012).
Understanding the factors that influence the adoption and meaningful use of social media by physicians to share
medical information. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 14(5).
Muntinga, D.G., Moorman, M., & Smit, (2011). Introducting COBRAs: Exploring motivations for brand-related
social media use. International Journal of Advertising, 30(1), 1346.
Naaman, M. (2010). Social multimedia: Highlighting opportunities for search and mining of multimedia data in
social media applications. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 56(1), 934.
Neuman, W.L. (2007). Basics of Social Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Boston: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Parra-Lpez, E., Bulchand-Gidumal, J., Gutirrez-Tao, D., & Daz-Armas, R. (2011). Intentions to use social
media in organizing and taking vacation trips. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 640654.
Rheingold, H. (2010). Attention and other 21st-century social media literacies. Educause Review, 45(5), 1424.
Scott, S.V., & Orlikowski, W.J. (2012). Reconfiguring relations of accountability: Materialization of social media
in the travel sector. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37(1), 2640.
Shoemaker, P.J., Tankard, J.W., & Lasorsa, D.L. (2004). How to build social science theories. SAGE.
Steinberg, S. (2007). An Introduction to Communication Studies. In Shepherd, S. (Ed.). Juta & Co, Ltd.
Sui, D., & Goodchild, M. (2011). The convergence of GIS and social media: Challenges for GIScience. International
Journal of Geographical Information Science, 25(11), 17371748.
Sweetser, K.D. (2010). A losing strategy: The impact of nondisclosure in social media on relationships. Journal of
Public Relations Research, 22(3), 288312.
Tang, L., & Liu, H. (2011). Leveraging social media networks for classification. Data Mining and Knowledge
Discovery, 23(3), 447478.
Tess, P.A. (2013). The role of social media in higher education classes (real and virtual)A literature review.
Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), A60A68.
Thomas, M., & Thomas, H. (2012). Using new social media and Web 2.0 technologies in business school teaching
and learning. Journal of Management Development, 31(4), 358367.
Veil, S.R., Buehner, T., & Palenchar, M.J. (2011). A work-in-process literature review: incorporating social media in
risk and crisis communication. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 19(2), 110122.

126
Williams, D.L., Crittenden, V.L., Keo, T., & Mccarty, P. (2012). The use of social media: An exploratory study of
usage among digital natives. Journal of Public Affairs, 12(2), 127136.
Wu, S., Hofman, J.M., Mason, W.A., & Watts, D.J. (2011). Who says what to whom on Twitter. In Proceedings of
the 20th international conference on World wide webWWW 11 (pp. 705714).
Yates, D., & Paquette, S. (2011). Emergency knowledge management and social media technologies: A case
study of the 2010 haitian earthquake. International Journal of Information Management, 31(1), 613.
Zeng, D., Chen, H., Lusch, R., & Li, S. (2010). Social media analytics and intelligence. IEEE Intelligent Systems,
25(6), 1316.
Zhang, Y., & Wildemuth, B.M. (2009). Qualitative analysis of content. Applications of social research methods to
questions in information and library science, 308319.
Mariam El Ouirdi Stadscampus, S.C.465, Prinsstraat 13, 2000 Antwerpen, Belgium.

E-mail: Mariam.ElOuirdi@student.ua.ac.be
The author is a doctoral researcher at the Department of Management, University of Antwerp. Her
research interests include social recruiting, innovation in human resources management, and knowledge
management.
Asma El Ouirdi Stadscampus S.C.465, Prinsstraat 13, 2000 Antwerpen, Belgium.
E-mail: Asma.ElOuirdi@student.ua.ac.be
The author is a doctoral researcher at the Faculty of Applied Economics, University of Antwerp.
Jesse Segers Stadscampus S.C.465, Prinsstraat 13, 2000 Antwerpen, Belgium.
E-mail: Jesse.Segers@ua.ac.be
The author is a post-doctoral researcher at the University of Antwerp, and Professor Leadership &
Organizational Behaviour and Academic Director of The Future Leadership Initiative at the Antwerp
Management School.
Erik Henderickx Stadscampus, S.C.444, Prinsstraat 13, 2000 Antwerpen, Belgium.
E-mail: Erik.Henderickx@ua.ac.be
The author is a Professor of human resources management at the University of Antwerp.


Journal of Creative Communications-2014-Ouirdi-107-26 PDF

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Journal of Creative Communications-2014-Ouirdi-107-26 PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Article

Social Media Conceptualization

Journal of Creative Communications

Mariam El Ouirdi, Asma El Ouirdi, Jesse Segers and Erik Henderickx

Theoretical Framework: Lasswells Act of Communication

Social Media Conceptualization and Taxonomy 109

Content Analysis of Social Media Definitions

Sampling and Coding

Mariam El Ouirdi, Asma El Ouirdi, Jesse Segers and Erik Henderickx

A Losing strategy: the impact of

Social media and political change: capacity,

The impact of polices on government

Emergency knowledge management and

Users of the world, unite! The challenges

Rank in Top 179

John Carlo Bertot, Paul

Tim Finin, Anupam Joshi,

S. Ryan Greysen, Terry Kind

Social media impact on holiday travel

Attention and other 21st-century social

Marketing meets Web 2.0, social media,

*As of 6, September, 2013.

Source: Web of Knowledge.

Social media analytics and intelligence

Understanding the factors that influence the

Rank in Top 179

Petya Eckler, Gregory

Enrique Bonsn, Lourdes

Internet and higher Education

The IEEE computer Information and

Toni Ahlqvist, Asta Back, Sirkka Foresight

Lei Tang, Huan Liu

Pierre R. Berthon, Leyland

Brian S McGowan, Molly

Social media refers to a set of online tools

Social Media is a group of Internet-based

Internet- and N/A

Online tools N/A

Popular sites N/A

Enable open online

Share, co-create, discuss,

The creation and

Websites and N/A

Contribute, retrieve and

Produce, distribute and

Tang and Liu

Internet and N/A

Social media can be described as Internet

Enable the construction,

Source: Web of Knowledge

Enable and facilitate

Social Media Conceptualization and Taxonomy 117

Mariam El Ouirdi, Asma El Ouirdi, Jesse Segers and Erik Henderickx

Social Media Conceptualization and Taxonomy 119

Where to Go from Here? Towards a Typology of Social Media

Mariam El Ouirdi, Asma El Ouirdi, Jesse Segers and Erik Henderickx

Limitations and Future Research

Images Text Video Audio

Table 3. Examples of Social Media Websites in a Lasswellian Taxonomy

Mariam El Ouirdi, Asma El Ouirdi, Jesse Segers and Erik Henderickx

Figure 2. Examples of Existing Platforms in the Social Media Cube

Journal of Creative Communications, 9, 2 (2014): 107126