SOCIAL MEDIAS NEW ROLE IN MARKETING COMMUNICATION AND ITS

OPPORTUNITIES IN ONLINE STRATEGY BUILDING

MARKOS-KUJBUS va
Corvinus University of Budapest
Institute of Marketing and Media
Department of Media, Marketing Communications and Telecommunication
H-1093 Budapest, Fvm tr 8.
(00 36)-30-730-3748
eva.kujbus@uni-corvinus.hu
GTI Mirk
Corvinus University of Budapest
Institute of Marketing and Media
Department of Marketing
H-1093 Budapest, Fvm tr 8.
(00 36)-20-567-3251
mirko.gati@uni-corvinus.hu

SOCIAL MEDIAS NEW ROLE IN MARKETING COMMUNICATION AND ITS

OPPORTUNITIES IN ONLINE STRATEGY BUILDING
Abstract
New trends affected communication recently, modifying the basic aspects and attitudes of
firms and consumers. Many companies believe that their existence on social media platforms
is the key ingredient to a successful way of activity in the web 2.0 era. However, these new
tendencies entail a myopia in strategy for companies who do not integrate these tools.
Nevertheless, implicating social media elements globally is quite complex. An important and
significant problem is that business actors can barely distinguish the different types of these
tools. In the extensive construct of social media, there are multitudinous main categories, for
example social networks, microblogs, virtual worlds, sharing surfaces etc.
Social media has a growing effect in many perspectives: from one standpoint, it reverses the
way how and why users communicate with each other. From another standpoint, it permits of
the extension of marketing communication opportunities both in a business-to-business (B2B)
and a business-to-consumer (B2C) aspect. Social media supports firms to rethink the
traditional one-way communication flow of their marketing messages. Consequently, business
actors have to incorporate a new, interactive communication flow into their marketing
strategy. In such an environment, users are able to create, modify, share and discuss a
significant part of contents on the web. In our research, our aim is to enhance the relevance of
social media phenomenon as a tool, which can impact a companys performance, sales and
reputation level as well.
However, many firms are not acquainted with the numerous types of social media and the
attributes of them. In accordance with Kietzmann et al. (2011), there coexist seven functional
blocks in social media, which are the principles of understanding how it works. These
elements are the following: identity, conversations, sharing, presence, relationships,
reputation and groups. Identity delineates the way how consumers reveal themselves on a
social media platform. Conversations describe how they communicate, including their
motivations, frequency and content. Sharing reveals the rate of content exchange process
between the different actors. Presence describes the reachability of the users on the social
media platforms. The following element characterizes the ties between the participants
(relationships). Reputation is the measure of identifying themselves, mainly relating to others
in the community. Groups are the communities, which are the grounding elements of social
media phenomenon.
We hypothesize that these functional blocks can be treated as contributions to the companies
marketing strategy. In our literature review, we would like to lay the foundations of our
theoretical implications in an interdisciplinary way, which can help firms to better understand
the nature of the online social platforms, thus to answer the following main questions: on
what social media platforms should the firms be present and how they should apply them as
strategic tools.
Keywords: social media (SM), marketing communication, online marketing strategy,
functional blocks of social media

Introduction
As stated in Internet World Stats data, from 2,1 billion internet users globally, at the same
time, 82% of them over the age of 15 (1,2 billion users) use SM, by joining social networks,
reading (or writing) blogs, or reviewing shopping sites, etc. These tendencies represent a
significant and impressive rise from 75% in 2008 (Social Networking Watch, 2011). The
worlds biggest social networking site, Facebook has got over 800 million users globally, with
more than 200 million users joined only in 2011 (Socialbakers, 2012). On the most famous
microblogging site Twitter, there are 100 million active users (who log in at least once a day).
At the same time on the video sharing site YouTube, more than 24 hours of video were
uploaded every minute and there were over 2 billion views a day on the platform in 2010
(Metekohy, 2010). Concisely, SM is growing beyond doubt and it is gradually influencing our
life.
SM represents a new trend for companies, too, who are trying to communicate with their
consumers on online or offline media platforms. For instance, Global Fortune 500 firms are
progressively using SM tools (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and corporate blogs were
investigated) in their marketing communication campaigns. Based on Burston-Marsteller
Research (2011), 25% of the companies actively use both four SM platforms, and at the same
time, 84% use at least one of them, expressing a 6% growth in one year. These media
applications are abundant opportunities for companies who are trying to work together with
their customers, business partners and suppliers. According to Tariq and Wahid (2011), data
shows that social media spending means nowadays 7,4% of marketing budgets (CMO Survey,
2012). And presumably spending on SM will increase up to 10,8% over the next year and will
be almost tripled (19,5%) in five years (CMO Survey, 2012).
At the end, SM has reached an important determinant for many companies in everyday
business life and an inevitable opportunity for marketing practice. Put it the other way round:
Social media is no longer a trend for marketers: It is a reality (Chung Austria, 2010: 582).

Social Media definitions

There are more trends that affected the marketing (communications) practices of companies,
one of them is the spread of online applications which has great influence. SM, as a new
application which reflects not only to consumers, but to organizations as well is very
popular and its usage is increasing continuously. Despite the wider penetration of SM, it is
still difficult to exactly define SM and its elements. The cause is that in academic context
there does not exist one unified definition, nearly every description delineates this
phenomenon from another perspective.
Before defining SM, it is important to make a distinction between web 2.0 and SM, because
firms use often them as synonyms, but they are only related concepts. Web 2.0 can be
considered from a technological aspect: web 2.0 serves as an infrastructure with a main focus
on cooperation and mutual exchange of values (OReilly, 2005) that enables the social
phenomenon of collective media, i.e. the creation, distribution and exchange of content, that
itself is going to become SM (Berthon et al., 2012). In other words, SM comprises internetbased applications that build on web 2.0 and promote online interaction among users to
communicate with each other (Montoya, 2011; Johnston, 2011) to create, transform and share

contents, perspectives, opinions, insights, media, relationships and connections (that have
been generated by the users themselves) (Kaplan-Haenlein, 2010; Nair, 2011).
SM can be considered a give-to-get environment (Uzelac, 2011: 46), because interactions
among users are based on the free exchange of contents opposed to traditional media.
Utilizing the technological background of web 2.0, we can characterize SM with the core
attitudes: global, open, transparent, non-hierarchical, interactive and real-time (Dutta, 2010).
From another point of view, [s]ocial media is anywhere people are conversing and sharing
information in a two-way platform. (Johnston, 2011: 84), which is a broader aspect than the
technological platform. After all in widest interpretation SM can be considered as a variety
of new and emerging sources of online information that are created, initiated, circulated and
used by consumers intent on educating each other about products, brands, services,
personalities, and issues (Blackshaw Nazzaro, 2006: 2). Hence users main goal on the
[SM] platforms is to connect with other people, not with companies (Piskorski, 2011: 118).
Bottles and Sherlock (2011: 71) venture further in defining social media and its platforms:
these are not marketing platforms. As recently as just a couple of years ago we spoke of
social media marketing but no more, because that phrase sends the wrong message.
Summarizing we are able to say that SM is a highly audience-focused medium where people
want to hear solutions to their problems instead of product offers even when it involves
having to have recourse to counseling to use of a competitors product for showing a
maximum of genuine corporate interest (Bottles Sherlock, 2011) toward users problems.
Companies marketing communications efforts in SM should be consequently planned just as
any other corporate strategy (Cohen, 2009).

The Importance of Social Media

After representing the SM notion, we introduce its effect on companies and the way of
communication with their consumers. SM has a spreading influence on firms in many
viewpoints. On the one hand, it reflects to the evolution of the way how and why users
communicate with each other (Parsons, 2011). SM is very interactive in nature, and users can
easily share information with others on it. On the other hand, as a new media platform, SM
enables the development of marketing communications opportunities. The transformation
from a one-way communication model to a more complex, two-way model is a direct effect of
the democratization of information, where not only companies talk to their customers, but
customers talk directly to one another.
This shift in the communication flow entails various consequences for firms using SM. As
reported by Mangold and Faulds (2009), SM is a new, hybrid element of the promotion-mix.
In traditional marketing communications, the content, frequency, timing and medium are
controlled by organizations and the basic elements of the promotion-mix advertising,
personal selling, public relations, direct marketing, sales promotion are the tools through
which control is ensured. The information flow out of the barriers of this paradigm is
something peripheral, without significant effect on marketplace dynamics (Mayzlin, 2006).
With the appearance of SM, control over content, timing, frequency and the medium itself has
decreased sincerely. Companies have less power to affect consumer choices, because there
exist many SM platforms, which are totally independent of the producing organization or of
its agents. These platforms develop consumers ability to communicate with each another.
The generated conversations involve the following consequence for firms: a large number of

information is announced by SM forums about their products and services among individuals,
and they have to learn the way of reacting to these discussions.
Table 1 shows the main distinctions between traditional and SM, including seconds instantly
updateable feature and its ability to reach an infinite amount of people. With SM, companies
have a wider perspective for listening and talking to their customers, making them
enthusiastic, let them help each other and work together to enhance products and services
(Stokes, 2011). Consequently, marketing managers can not control information spread
through SM, but they have the ability to monitor and shape the discussion (Mangold
Faulds, 2009:365).
Table 1. Traditional vs. Social Media
Traditional Media
Fixed, unchangeable
Commentary limited and not real time
Limited, time-delayed best-seller lists
Archives poorly accessible
Limited media mix
Committee publishers
Finite
Sharing not encouraged
Control
Source: Stokes (2011: 334)

Social Media
Instantly updateable
Unlimited real-time commentary
Instant popularity gauge
Archives accessible
All media can be mixed
Individual publishers
Infinite
Sharing and participation encouraged
Freedom

Classification Schemes and the Basic Attributes of Social Media

After defining SM and presenting its main attributes and characteristics relating to
communication flow and traditional media, we further classify the different types of SM tools.
Regardless of the belief that SM has only some manifestations (e.g. Facebook, YouTube or
Twitter), or that it is very easy to use these tools are probably the results of a strategic myopia,
as observing SM elements globally is quite complex. One significant problem in this area is
that business actors can not differentiate the numerous types of these tools. In the broad
construct of SM, there exist various main categories, but here are some of these which can be
strategically determining: social networking sites, blogs, microblogs, social news websites,
virtual worlds, collaborative projects, content communities, commerce communities.
Social networking sites (SNS) can be depicted by users connections. Using these platforms
(e.g. Facebook, LinkedIn) participants are able to create personal profiles, invite friends or
colleagues to view or participate on their profiles (e.g. add content, like), and to send
messages to each other. Information feeds related to each profile may include photos, videos,
audio files, blog content or other external links to multimedia content making social
networking sites an aggregator for socially relevant media content.
Blogs are special types of websites serving mainly as a sort of online diary (etymology of the
term: web log). Blog providers offer space and tools (i.e. a web 2.0 platform) for easy
content publishing. The platforms enable the blog owners to attach to their texts graphics,
videos and links to web pages, and visitors to comment to the original posts encouraging a
two-way communication scheme. Bloggers can post original content or gather other blogs
content to make it their own (by transforming them, translating them or simply copy-pasting

them). A large part of existing blogs are owned and written by nonprofessional individuals,
about themselves (personal blogs). Another wide category is that of what could be referred to
as collaborative blogs, where individuals or a group of individuals (editors) blog about an
entertainment or professional interest. This category can be intended as a pastime but can
follow a more or less corporate purpose (i.e. promoted by firms) or be financed by various
media firms thus making the blogger a professional. There exist official institutional/corporate
blogs serving the main purpose of promoting an institutions activity, products, services, etc.
Microblogs account for a special cast of blogs. Users of these platforms (e.g. Twitter) are able
to send and read short (140 characters) messages. Microblogs can be considered as a passage
between social networking sites, blogs and even news media (Kwak et al., 2010) as they
provide a possibility to write and publish short registries but also to keep in touch by
following people or organizations of interest.
Social news websites let users discover and share content from anywhere on the web, by
submitting, voting and commenting (e.g. Digg, Reddit).
Virtual worlds are characterized with a persistently active three-dimensional virtual
environment that enables real-time present users to interact with each other in the form of
personalized avatars (Bell, 2008). Depending on the main focus and goal of the virtual
environment, one can differentiate between two types of virtual worlds (Castronova, 2005):
virtual social worlds (e.g. Second Life) and virtual game worlds (e.g. World of Warcraft).
Collaborative projects are a joint and simultaneous creation and sharing of content and
knowledge. The co-creators are equally end-users. The most popular example of collaborative
projects is Wikipedia.
Content communities are platforms devoted to users to create, publish and share various
media content. Within this type we can differentiate video, picture and sound sharing sites
(e.g. YouTube, Flickr, Soundcloud). Another category of content communities is intellectual
sharing sites, where authors of original content can publish their works (e.g. under a Creative
Commons license).
Commerce communities represent communities built around e-commerce sites and
specialized product or service rating sites. Here, content provided and shared by users
themselves (e.g. opinions about products and services) account as an added commercial value
to the given site. For instance, social rating gives additional credibility to professional
reviews, bring distinction and credibility (through a first layer of impartiality, providing
fairness) to them, or pictures or other media uploaded by users onto a stock media website as
a common platform provide direct financial income to both the platform as well as to its
uploaders.

Figure 1. The Components of Social Media

Source: own elaboration, based on Mangold Faulds (2009), Botha et al. (2010), Kaplan
Haenlein (2010).
A classification scheme that helps to better explain the attributes of SM types relies on media
and social process theories (Kaplan Haenlein, 2010). In a media perspective, researchers use
social presence and media richness principles. In accordance with social presence theory,
different types of media have dissimilar degree of social presence (acoustic, visual and
physical contacts that can be achieved). This phenomenon is determined by the intimacy of
the medium (it can be interpersonal: e.g. face-to-face discussion, or mediated: e.g. telephone
conversation) and by the immediacy of the medium (asynchronous: e.g. email; synchronous:
e.g. live chat). Besides, the level of social presence is expected to be lower for mediated and
asynchronous communications; and the higher the level of social presence, the larger the
social influence of partners on each others behavior. The other relating theory is concerns
media richness. In pursuance of this concept the aim of any communication form is the
resolution of ambiguity and reduction of uncertainty. The degree of richness means the
amount of information that is transferred in an interval. We can presume that some types of
media are more effective from the viewpoint of diminishing ambiguity and uncertainty.
The other dimensions of this classification scheme are social processes: self-presentation and
self-disclosure. Based on the previous concept, the participants of any type of social
interaction have desire not only to effect on others in the process but to control the
impressions what the others form of them. Self-disclosure is a critical step in the interpretation
of this concept: it allocates the progress of close relationships, which can be a desired
objective in the connection between firms and consumers. Table 2 illustrates a two-dimension
system of the different SM categories.

Table 2 Classification of Social Media by social presence/media richness and selfpresentation/self-disclosure

Social presence/Media richness
Low
Medium
High
Social
Virtual social worlds
Blogs
networking sites
High
(e.g. Second Life)
Self(e.g. Facebook)
presentation/SelfCollaborative
Content
Virtual game worlds
disclosure
projects
communities
Low
(e.g. World of Warcraft)
(e.g. Wikipedia) (e.g. YouTube)
Source: Kaplan Haenlein (2010: 62)
Ultimately, we can classify the element of SM according to information-attributes. Weinberg
and Pehlivan (2011) defined two information-related issues in connection with the different
types of SM. The first factor in their presentation is the half-life of information. It refers to the
availability and appearance of information on the screen or in the interest (e.g. Twittercomments move quite fast on and off the screen). The second factor is the depth of
information. The contents richness and diversity of perspectives (e.g. Facebook community
can bring together rich and comprehensive information around a topic).
The results of these classifications can be useful tools to identify which SM type to apply. We
are able to see that these tools can be described by social presence, media richness, selfpresentation, self-disclosure, half-life of information and depth of information.
Figure 2 Social Media by information half-life and depth, and associated marketing
objectives and purposes

Source: Weinberg Pehlivan (2011: 279)

To establish a presence in social media, the organization first has to understand the nature of
each building components in order to be able to most match them to the corporate strategy.
According to Kietzmann et al. (2011), there exist seven functional blocks in SM, which can
contribute to understanding its working mechanism and characterize each elements of SM but
at the same time make differences between them. These elements are as follows: (1) identity,
(2) presence, (3) conversations, (4) relationships, (5) groups, (6) reputation and (7) sharing.
Identity describes how consumers reveal themselves on a social media platform. This
functional block can include various types of information (e.g. name, age, gender, profession
or location). During the presentation of their identity, users often unfold deeper information
such as thoughts or feelings (Kaplan - Haenlein, 2010). The importance of identity is analyzed
by Bagozzi and Dholakia (2002), who determine that internalization and identification are
significant predictors of participation in a virtual community. Later Dholakia et al. (2004)
extend and strengthen this direction: identification and internalization are considered the two
salient social influences of the virtual community on member participation.
With presence block one can describe the reachability of the users on the SM platforms.
Presence and identity (on social media) blocks have two main dimensions that are related to
the social processes of self-presentation and self-disclosure. Numerous social challenges can
directly influence consumers presence or non-presence on a social medium: connecting with
strangers, reconnecting with friends, interacting with strangers, interacting with friends
(Piskorski, 2011). Moreover, the participators of any type of social interaction have the desire
not only to impact on others in their connection but to control the impressions that other
participants form of them (self-presentation) (Goffman, 1959). The other dimension is selfdisclosure which is a critical step in the interpretation of social processes: it allocates the
development of close relationships. This result is desired (mainly from the organizations
point of view) in the connection between firms and consumers. Furthermore, according to
Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) intimacy and immediacy of the medium influence SM presence.
Presence of an organization on SM platforms is a necessary but not sufficient condition for
participation (tweet some times or have a Facebook profile which is almost empty do not
mean a properly usage of social media).
Conversations represent the way how consumers communicate, including motivations,
frequency and content. Considering the fact that several SM types primary goal is facilitating
the communication among individuals and groups therefore this block may seem the most
unambiguous element. One fundamental implication related to this group - for firms is the
importance of integrating bi-directional communications into their marketing processes, i.e. to
engage, to enter into a discussion with their customers and take into account the feedbacks
(Nyir et al., 2011).
Identity and conversations lead to - what can be referred in theory to - social presence. In
accordance with social presence theory (Short-Williams-Christie 1976), different types of
media have diverse degree of social presence (acoustic, visual and physical contacts that can
be achieved), moreover it is determined by the intimacy of the medium. In this interpretation,
communication can be interpersonal (e.g. face-to-face discussion) or mediated (e.g. telephone
conversation). By the immediacy of the medium, one can distinguish asynchronous (e.g.
email) and synchronous (e.g. live chat) communications. According to this theory, the level of
social presence is expected to be lower for mediated and asynchronous communications; and
the higher the level of social presence, the larger the social influence of partners on each
others behavior. Media richness theory (Daft Lengel, 1986) suggests that the purpose of
some communication form is the dispelling of ambiguity and decrease of uncertainty. The

degree of richness is consistent with the amount of information transmitted during a given
time period. We are able to presume that some types of media are more effective from the
viewpoint of reducing ambiguity and uncertainty.
Relationships review the linkages between participants of a community. The method of users
connections often specifies the what-and-how of information exchange (Kietzmann et al.,
2011:246.). We are able to assume a strong connection between identity and relationship: the
higher the identity is valued by a social media community, the higher the relationship is
valued.
Groups describe the communities or sub-communities on SM platforms, which are the
building elements of social media. One can distinguish two main types of groups: the first is
open to anyone (e.g. blog responses, message boards), while the other form is where users are
able to manage their own existing relationships and create groups of them (e.g. social
networking sites). These elements are crucial for a successful implentation as according to
Culnan et al. (2010) organizations need to build communities and learn from interactions
within. Besides, Dholakia et al. (2004) suggest that users participation behavior in a virtual
community is tight influenced by - among others group norms - mutual agreement and social
identity influence.
Reputation is the extension of consumers identification (by themselves), mainly relating to
others in the community. This block is quite well measurable with metrics like strength,
sentiment, passion and reach.
In connection with reputation and relationships one has to mention the role of opinion-leaders
(i.e. individuals with the highest reputation within a community). These influencers can have
an effect not only on the adoption and but on the diffusion of innovations (Richins et al.,
1988; Valente Davis, 1999) and are able to influence other participants choices through
various types of media (Chan Misra, 1990; Goldsmith et al., 2003). An important
implication for companies is the feasibility to accomplish personalized (one-to-one)
communications through SM with those members of a community identified as particularly
influential (i.e. opinion-leaders). If this (one-to-one) dimension of firm-customer relationship
(identity block) is managed, then it fosters in turn the management of further interrelations
between the other participants (who are not opinion-leaders) of the given community
(relationship marketing).
Sharing can be linked to the process of content exchange between the different participators.
There exist two fundamental implications for corporate communications in line with users
willingness to share. First, the subject of users sharing action (i.e. what types of content are
they willing to share, thus these are probably not directly related to the brand, product or
company in question, so a dematerialization and abstraction from the (original) product will
likely be requested in SM communications) and second, the participants responsiveness to
share (i.e. how willing are they to share contents that are originated from the given company).
On the other hand, as mentioned before, social media can be a possibility for corporates, as
they are able to increase consumer loyalty through virtual community building. The model of
social media engagement by Parent et al. (2011) (Figure 3) explores the importance and
effects of conversations, sharing, content and SM usage. According to these authors, a firm is
able to facilitate user participation in social media through content; because content here can
operate as a catalyst for the consumers. After involving consumers into the online sphere,
company-created or -initiated contents are drawn out of the organizations direct control. The

cause is that the community consumes them: it can mean simply receiving, but it can also
be acquired, rejected, transformed, diverted etc.
By virtue of its innate characteristics, SM has brought extended alterations to communication
between organizations, communities and individuals (Kietzmann et al., 2011). Nevertheless
the main tendency is that the majority of customers are still those who only give feedbacks
about their purchases (or lack thereof). In spite of the bi-directional communication context
and engaged customers, companies have to be acknowledged in connection with their passive
customer base as well (Van Dijck-Nieborg, 2009). Therefore, the extent of consumers willing
to participate in corporate-established online groups of their own free will can become a
core competence for firms, because this willingness (to participate) directly signifies
consumer engagement (Parent et al., 2011) and their active involvement in company-related
activities (Nyir et al., 2011).
Figure 3. Consumer engagement through content: The 6C model of social media engagement

Source: Parent et al. (2011: 222)

The Linkage Between Social Media and General Marketing Strategy

According to Barker et al. (2012) in SM context, or relating to Kotler Keller (2012) from
general marketing literature, the single and most important action a company can take to reach
success in using SM (or any other marketing communication) tools and trying to reap its value
is to think out carefully and prudently a marketing plan. To do so, a company must know first
what it wants to accomplish first, then the way how to reach this aim. The whats are the
main goals which can satisfy the needs of consumers by seizing company opportunities, while
minimizing internal weaknesses and external threats (e.g. competitors or economic
conditions) at the same time. The hows of a companys marketing planning process are
mainly broad guidelines for a company to reach its marketing goals, by setting strategies for
each firms unique strength, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.
As stated before, practitioners in SM literature often elaborate their own SM marketing
strategies. There also exists a tendency in academic teaching (Barker et al., 2012) to
implement a SM marketing planning process, presenting a framework, starting up with the act
of listening to people talking about the company. During the listening phase, companies
usually follow conversations about themselves or the competitors, the SM platforms and the
industry, too. This looks alike with the suggested steps to be followed by company
practitioners (Fields, 2012). The preparation of a strategy phase and perceiving, listening and

monitoring consumer conversations is the first step to enable the company to determine its
social media presence, and to lay the foundations of SM goals and strategies to realize them.
For understanding the general goals in SM marketing, it is advisable to keep in mind that the
desired outcome of SM usage is determined mostly on the flexible adaptation of goals (Barker
et al., 2012). When engaging into SM, different marketing goals are to be achieved. One of
the most important aims can be brand building (increasing brand awareness, improving brand
perception, positioning a brand, expanding brand loyalty), where contrary to traditional brand
policy, it is more important to know what people are saying about the company then what it
says about itself. Furthermore, SM can increase customer satisfaction, too, by building
relationships and solving problems. Driving e-wom recommendations as a marketing goal by
engaging into conversations is another way to see the effect of a successful SM marketing
strategy (Armelini Villanueva, 2011, Barker et al., 2012).
Listening and setting goals are determining a companys SM marketing strategy, which is not
a separate and isolated element of the overall corporate marketing strategy. After gaining
indispensable information about the target audience, the competitors and the industry, the
company can be able to identify its target markets location and activities and eventually to
use these as marketing knowledge used to identify strategic opportunities (Barker et al.,
2012:35). The presentation of SM features linked into the general segmentation-targetingpositioning (Kotler Keller, 2012) as the essence of marketing strategy are meant to bring
SM marketing strategy building out of its shell and show that it can be an integral part of
general marketing planning process. With the identification and differentiation of distinct
target audiences and the engagement of them into a call-to-action (e.g. watch a video, click on
a link), a company using SM realize the segmentation and targeting phase of marketing
strategy. With this step, their SM strategy can be better placed into their broader marketing
objectives for key consumer segments (Lipsman et al., 2011). The company can finally
elaborate its social USP (reason-to-like or reason-to-follow), which is not much different in
sense from what positioning is conceptualized originally: To succeed in our
overcommunicated society, a company must create a position in the prospects mind, a
position that takes into consideration not only a companys own strengths and weaknesses,
but those of its competitors as well. (Ries Trout, 1981: 24).

Managerial Implications
Sheenan and Morrison (2009) determine four key challenges of corporate communications on
social media platforms: (1) engagement challenge, (2) social media challenge, (3) consumergenerated media (CGM) challenge, and (4) training challenge.
The engagement and social media challenges imply the corporates capability to reinvent
itself on a transforming communications market where do not exist longer unidirectional
communications and mass messages, this means that the firm equally needs to perform in a
new advertising landscape. In this environment the brand becomes the base for the creative
product (Sheenan Morrison, 2009: 41). In this term, entering into social media is in a
certain sense - entering into a new product market that, by definition, contains the process of
strategic marketing planning and thus supports the main subject of the present article about
the strategic role of SM.

The third is the consumer-generated media (CGM) challenge that arises from adding value to
users by being able to letting them denote themselves about the brand, to managing the
process and learning from the positive and/or negative feedbacks. As mentioned before, if a
firm is relevant and take a step backwards from promoting its concrete brands or
products/services it will be able to meet its consumers social needs. The results can be trust
and loyalty among its followers and new followers through the positive wom generated by
these latter.
The essences of challenges are the facts that a company-wide organizational change and
education is requisite in the process of adopting and acquiring a social media philosophy. But
furthermore the organization as a whole is required to generate new capabilities (e.g. of data
mining) to be able to perceive, extract and apply bottom-up (i.e. user-led) intelligence.

Conclusions
In spite of the gradually growing influence and spread of SM, recent studies concerning the
phenomenon are still at the beginning. This tendency is confirmed by the fact that Global
Fortune 500 firms recognize the inherent importance of these tools. SM is present in the
classical promotion mix as a new, hybrid element, which affects the traditional (one-way)
communication flow. Nevertheless, the first stage of the aforestated studies has not described
SM with a clear and uniqu definition. In our study, we collect the definitions which are the
most consistent in a strategic perspective.
Nevertheless, most of the firms are not acquainted with the different SM types and the
attributes of them. The seven functional blocks (1) identity, (2) presence, (3) conversations,
(4) relationships, (5) groups, (6) reputation and (7) sharing presented in our study are meant
to help companies which element to use in different context for their marketing objectives.
According to our hypothesis these functional blocks can be treated as contributions to the
firms overall marketing strategy.
According to Culnan et al. (2010) organizations need to implement strategies when they want
to apply SM. With a proper (organized and strategic) application, firms will likely be able to
gain increasing business value. A thoughtful and effective implementation strategy on SM
platforms is based on three elements: mindful adoption, community building and absorptive
capacity. Mindful adoption can be described as: adopting the right innovation at the right
time and in the right way (Culnan et al, 2010: 4). The second element is community
building, which is the fundamental element of SM. The last element is absorptive capacity
which means that an organization should not only recognize but acquire new knowledge.
No research has examined SM in this context. We analyzed further managerial implications
and practical issues for organizations as well. Though, this article has several limitations: the
results and implications need empirical confirmation and not all of the illustrated functional
blocks are comprehensively confirmed by existing studies.
To sum up, we can predict that both academic researchers and company managers should take
into account SM in connection with marketing strategy.

References
Armelini, G., & Villanueva, J. (2011). Adding Social Media to the Marketing Mix. IESE
Insight, (9) 29-36.
Bagozzi, R.P., Dholakia, U.M. (2002). Intentional Social Action in Virtual Communities.
Journal of Interactive Marketing, 16(2) 2-21.
Barker, M., Barker, D., Bormann, N., Neher, K. (2012). Social Media Marketing A
Strategic Approach. South-Western Publishing/Cengage Learning.
Bell, M.W. (2008). Toward a definition of virtual worlds. Journal of Virtual Worlds
Research, 1(1). URL: https://journals.tdl.org/jvwr/article/view/283/237. Retrieved: Jul 8,
2012.
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, 261-271.
Blackshaw, P., Nazzaro, M. (2006). Consumer-Generated Media (CGM) 101: Word-of-mouth
in the age of the Web-Fortified Consumer. Nielsen BuzzMetrics White Paper. URL:
http://www.nielsen-online.com/downloads/us/buzz/nbzm_wp_CGM101.pdf, Retrieved: Jan 3,
2012.
Botha, E., Farshid, M., Pitt, L. (2011). How Sociable? An Exploratory Study of University
Brand Visibility in Social Media. South African Journal of Business Management, 42(2) 4351.
Bottles, K., & Sherlock, T. (2011). Who Should Manage Your Social Media Strategy?.
Physician Executive, 37(2), 68-72.
Burson-Marsteller Research (2011). 2011 Fortune Global 100 Social Media Study. The
Burson-Marsteller
Blog,
February
15,
2011.
URL:
http://www.bursonmarsteller.com/Innovation_and_insights/blogs_and_podcasts/BM_Blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx
?ID=254. Retrieved: January 5, 2012.
Castronova, E. (2005). Synthetic Worlds: The Business and Culture of Online Games,
London: The University of Chicago Press.
Chan, K. K., Misra, S. (1990). Characteristics of the opinion leader: a new dimension. Journal
of Advertising, 19 (3) 53-60.
Chung, C., Austria, K. (2010). Social Media Gratification and Attitude toward Social Media
Marketing Messages: a Study of the Effect of Social Media Marketing Messages on Online
Shopping Value. Proceedings of the Northeast Business and Economics Association. 581-586.
CMO Survey (2012). Highlights and Insights February 2012.
http://cmosurvey.org/files/2012/02/The_CMO_Survey_Highlights_and_Insights_Feb2012_Final.pdf. Retrieved: September 9, 2012.

URL:

Cohen, L.S. (2009). Is there a Difference between Social Media and Social Networking?. The
Cohenside, March 3, 2009. URL: http://cohenside.blogspot.com/2009/03/is-there-differencebetween-social.html. Retrieved: January 10, 2012.
Culnan, M.J., McHugh, P.J., Zubillaga, J.I. (2010). How Large U.S. Companies Can Use
Twitter and Other Social Media to Gain Business Value. MIS Quaterly Executive, 9(4) 243259.
Csords, T., Markos-Kujbus, ., Gti, M. (2012): The Attributes Of Social Media As A
Strategic Marketing Tool. In Press.
Daft, R. L., Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness,
and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554571.
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(1) 241-263.
Dutta, S. (2010). What's Your Personal Social Media Strategy?. Harvard Business Review,
88(11) 127-130.
Fields, N. (2012). Starting Up Social Media. Aba Bank Marketing, 44(1) 14.
Fraser, M., Dutta, S. (2008). Throwing Sheep in the Boardroom. Wiley, Cornwall, UK.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday Anchor
Books.
Goldsmith, R. E., De Witt, T. S., Meidan, A. (2003) The predictive validity of an opinion
leadership scale. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 11(1) 28-35.
Internet World Stats (2011). Internet Usage Statistics - World Internet Users and Population
Stats. http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm (download: 02/01/2012)
Johnston, R. (2011). Social Media Strategy: Follow the 6 P's for successful outreach. Alaska
Business Monthly, 27(12) 83-85.
Kaplan, A.M., Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the World, Unite! The Challenges and
Opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53(1) 59-68.
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(1) 241-251.
Kotler, P., Keller, K. (2012). Marketing Management (14th Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall
Kozinets, R. V. (1999). E-tribalised Marketing? The Strategic Implications of Virtual
Communities of Consumption. European Management Journal, 17, 25264.

Kozinets, R. V., de Valck, K., Wojnicki, A. C., & Wilner, S. J. S. (2010). Networked
narratives: Understanding word-of-mouth marketing in online communities. Journal of
Marketing, 74(2) 71.
Kwak, H.,Lee, C., Park, H., Moon, S. (2010). What is Twitter, a social network or a news
media?. Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web, 591-600.
Li, C. & Bernoff, J. (2008) Groundswell: Winning in a World Transformed by Social
Technologies. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press
Lipsman A, Mudd G, Rich M, Bruich S. (2012). The power of 'like': how brands reach (and
influence) fans through social-media marketing. Journal of Advertising Research, 52(1) 4052.
Mangold, W.G., Faulds, D.J. (2009). Social Media: The New Hybrid Element of the
Promotion Mix. Business Horizons, 52(1) 357-365.
Mayzlin, D. (2006). Promotional Chat on the Internet. Marketing Science, 25(2) 155-163.
McAfee, A.,J. Howe, J., Surowiecki, J. (2011). The Revolution will be Shared: Social Media
and Innovation. Research Technology Management, 54(1) 64-66.
Metekohy, M. (2010). YouTube Statistics. ViralBlog, May 17, 2010, URL:
http://www.viralblog.com/research-whitepapers/youtube-statistics/, Retrieved: January 5,
2012.
Montoya, P. (2011). Social Media--The Do's and Don'ts. Investment Advisor, 31(11), 124.
Nair, M. (2011). Understanding and Measuring the Value of Social Media. The Journal of
Corporate Accounting & Finance 22(3) 45-51.
OReilly, T. (2005): What Is Web 2.0 - Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next
Generation of Software. URL: http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html,
Retrieved: 15/05/2012.
Parent, M., Plangger, K., Bal, A. (2011). The New WTP: Willingness to Participate, Business
Horizons, 54(3) 219-229.
Parsons, A.L. (2011). Social Media from a Corporate Perspective: a Content Analysis of
Official Facebook Pages. Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Studies, 16(2) 11-15.
Piskorski, M.J. (2011). Social Strategies That Work. Harvard Business Review, 89(11) 116122.
Richins, M. L., Root-Shaffer T. (1988). The role of involvement and opinion leadership in
consumer word-of-mouth: An implicit model made explicit. Advances in Consumer
Research 15(1) 3236.
Ries, A., Trout, J.(1981). Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Sheehan, K. B., Morrison, D. K. (2009). The Creativity Challenge: Media Confluence and Its
Effects on the Evolving Advertising Industry. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 9(2), 40-43.
Short, J., Williams, E., Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Socialbakers
(2012).
World
Continents
Facebook
http://www.socialbakers.com/countries/continents Retreived: January 5, 2012.

Statistics.

Social Networking Watch (2011). Social Networking is the Most Popular Online Activity.
URL: http://www.socialnetworkingwatch.com/all_social_networking_statistics/ Retreived:
January 1, 2012.
Stokes, R. (2011). eMarketing: The Essential Guide to Online Marketing. 4th edition. URL:
http://www.quirk.biz/emarketingtextbook/download, Retrieved: December 12, 2011.
Tariq, M., Wahid, F. (2011). Assessing Effectiveness of Social Media and Traditional
Marketing Approaches in Terms of Cost and Target Segment Coverage. Interdisciplinary
Journal of Contemporary Research in Business 3(1), pp. 1049-1074.
Uzelac, E. (2011). Mastering Social Media. Research, 34(8), 44-47.
Valente, T., Davis R. L. (1999). Accelerating the diffusion of innovations using opinion
leaders. ANNALS 566(1) 5567.
Van Dijck, J., Nieborg, D. (2009). Wikinomics and its discontents: a critical analysis of Web
2.0 business manifestos. New Media & Society, 11(5) 855-874.
Weinberg, B.D., Pehlivan, E. (2011). Social Spending: Managing the Social Media Mix.
Business Horizons, 54(1) 275-282.