For the homework assignment I had to discuss and criticize the required readings related to the topic ‘Social Influence and Diffusion’. I also had to pick a related paper of my own interest and another two mini-case examples for comparison and discussion. The challenge for me was to stay below the page limit, because there was a lot of ground to cover.
The first paper (Eisenmann et al. 2006) gives these mediating companies, whose products and/or services are called platforms, advice on how to act in two-sided networks. Eisenmann et al. provide three steps to help managers make the right decisions. The implicit conclusion lacked a summary.
The second paper (Aral and Walker 2011) I read, the writers asked themselves two basic questions: Can you add features to a product causing it to go viral? If so, which viral features are most effective in inducing Word-of-mouth and peer-to-peer influence in product adoption? To answer these questions they conducted a randomized field experiment testing the effectiveness of two of the most common viral features. The results were very insightful, not unexpected though.
The third and final required reading (Li et al. 2013) was, more than the paper above, very practical and pragmatic. Sometimes a bit complicated, but that’s because there is much (complex) data involved. Some of the results were unexpected, but when I read the explanations they made sense. The conclusion/discussion was satisfying; stressing a few final points not really mentioned before.
Reading the required readings for week six I expected the topics to be more like this paper (Bakshy et al. 2009): less business-oriented and more focused on the social aspect. I therefore chose to discuss this writing because it’s a different perspective. I also liked the idea of a social experiment in a virtual reality world.
If we compare this paper, for example, with “Strategies for two-sided markets” (Eisenmann et al. 2006) we see that the members are the ‘subsidy side’, Second Life is the platform and the ‘money side’ are the companies who advertise their products and/or services in this virtual world. This way we could combine the managerial knowledge we gained from reading the research papers to ‘beat’ the market.
The first mini-case example (DDMA 2011) has some things in common with “Creating Social Contagion through Viral Product Design: A Randomized Trial of Peer Influence in Networks”. (Aral and Walker 2011) Both give suggestions on how to create a viral effect. Both are a bit outdated too, because the internet is a fast-growing environment; in four or five years a lot can change. The Peugeot case is very practical, but also a bit simple. They should have elaborated more.
The second mini-case example (Stanley 2012) is inspirational, because it can happen to anyone who is motivated. A step-by-step plan is included, but doesn’t really give you any advice on how to actually complete those steps. It only gives the example of the student. In the end, however, she provided some useful tips from her successful networking initiative.
References:
- Aral, S. and Walker, D. (2011) Creating social contagion through viral product design: A randomized trial of peer influence in networks. Management Science 57(9) 1623-1639.
- Bakshy, E., Karrer, B., Adamic, L.A. (2009) Social Influence and the Diffusion of User-Created Content. EC ’09: 325-334.
- nl (2011) E-mail marketing & Social (Influence) Peugeot Case. https://ddma.nl/data/e-mailmarketing-social-influence-peugeot-case/
- Eisenmann, T., Parker, G., and Van Alstyne, M.W. (2006) Strategies for Two-Sided Markets. Harvard Business Review 84(10) 92-101.
- Li, T., Sprengers, D., and van Dalen, J. (2013) Leveraging public sentiment to beat the market. Working Paper.
- Stanley, D. (2012) Case study: Using social influence to build a personal brand. http://www.businessesgrow.com/2012/10/04/case-study-using-social-influence-to-build-a-personal-brand/
