“Like”

How Facebook is revolutionizing Peer-to-Peer Advertising

Kurtis Smejkal (301110480)

2010-04-13

CMNS 323

Jay McKinnon
 In his work, The Gutenburg Galaxy: The Making of the Typographic Man, Marshall McLuhan

discusses how in so many ways, changes in society are intrinsically tied to technological

development. (1962, Pg. 41.) In many ways, McLuhan understood these trends in culture, and with

the recent developments of social-networking. It’s readily apparent that with the current popularity

in social-networking, sites like Facebook offer a subtle way in which products, services, and groups

are promoted within the framing of personal interests. While this method of advertising could be

seen as a more direct and personalized form of advertising, giving consumers a new way to discover

products and services that are tailored for them; that view excludes the idea that in using a personal

forum for advertising, these advertisers are using the trust of personal relationships to sell a product

by turning an individual and their profile into a site for promotion. It’s this trust in the idea that our

friends know what’s best for us that is misguiding for the people on Facebook. So with that, the

question posed is one of how do advertisers transform our Facebook identities into methods for

advertising. By addressing issues of the collective self, authenticity and trust in social-networking;

insight can be gained into just how and why corporations and advertisers see an online

representation of someone as one of the final frontiers for advertising.

To address the issue of advertising within the context of social-networking, the dichotomy

between culture and social-networking needs to be analyzed. For the relationship is crucial to the

understanding of why advertisers have turned to social-networking to advertise their products. To

understand this relationship, the motivations and behaviours of users on Facebook need to be

analyzed, for interaction amongst Facebook users is ultimately where the key to this relationship is.

1
 In the article “Social networking: Communication revolution or evolution?” the authors suggest

that the findings of their study correlate to the findings of other studies from prior studies into

social-networking. These studies indicate that Facebook, is seen by users in an undergraduate,

university setting as being a method to stay in touch with friends (Coyle, Vaughn, 2008; Pg. 15).

This is crucial, for in understanding how advertising affects the culture of users; we need to

understand how the users interact. If interaction with their friends is important, then by turning

Facebook into a medium for advertising; advertisers can use an individual’s profile as a means to tap

into the realm of peer-to-peer advertising. If you use a person’s profile as an indicator of their social

hierarchy, then if you see that Facebook is showing which Xbox or Playstation game they’re playing,

then the profile becomes a part of the advertising process by advertising those products as a part of

their lifestyle. Users are now spreading word about a product, even if they’re unaware of doing so. In

this sense, the culture becomes a site for promotion, and uses the friend as a means to add authority

and authenticity to the image of the product. In Danna Boyd’s “Why Youth <3 Social Networking

Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social life”, the author discusses the attraction of

the teenage demographic to sites like Facebook and Myspace. In her article she discusses how the

idea of the public refers to a “collection of people who may not all know each other but share a

common understanding of the world, a shared identity, a claim to inclusiveness, a consensus

regarding the collective interest[...]a group bounded by a shared text” (Boyd, 2008; Pg. 125). This

quote helps us understand the notion of the public in the context of this paper, for in creating a

shared identity lies the connections that will lay the groundwork for social sharing. As mentioned

2
 prior, the youth market generally views Facebook as a means to reconnect with friends, and

this article offers insights into how that need for connection; is rooted in the history of connection.

The author argues that this is by interest, which could possibly be the case, but is the way in that we

meet friends, ones more or less tied to interests? It can be understood however that whether these

connections are historically tied to long lost connections, or rooted in modern, technologically

intervened, relationships; they are still rooted in that feeling of the shared consciousness. It’s that

cognitive connection, which is key to understanding the meaning of advertising on Facebook.

These connections help unify users, creating a shared consciousness that in many ways is

critical to the sites viability in the market. To unify though, the individual points (or in this case,

people) need to be playing that crucial role of connecting and authenticating values, ideas, and

brands to their friends. In this sense, the individual is the strongest piece that holds together

advertising in the social-networking network. For as the authors of “Avoidance of Advertising in

Social Networking Sites: The Teenage Perspective” put it,

“The future success of online social networking sites as an advertising medium depends on its acceptance

as an advertising vehicle that can deliver a message to a micro-target in a manner that will be well received

and that increases the likelihood of interaction.” (Kelly, Kerr, and Drennan, 2010; Pg. 25)

While the above quote is not wrong, it leaves out the cultural theories of a shared online identity.

The authors state that the defining issue regarding the success of Facebook is whether it can be

found to be relatable. Relatability is ultimately an issue of authenticity. The definition of what

defines authenticity is understood by Richard Peterson who describes authenticity as “not [inhering

to] the object, person, or performance said to be authentic. Rather [authenticity] is a claim that is

3
made by or for someone, thing, or performance and either accepted or rejected by relevant others”

(Peterson, 2005, p.1083). By understanding this shared consciousness amongst friends, advertisers

can then target that relationship by using the intimate connection between friends as a means to

construct a brand identity that through one or another user will be reaffirmed as authentic by its

popularity amongst that pool of friends. If we think about brands, Arvidsson sees a brand in the

same way that a shared identity is constructed, and seeing “people’s ability to create trust, affect and

shared meanings: their ability to create something in common” (Arvidsson, ‘Brands’, p. 236). This

common theme of unity is prevalent, and not easily ignored. By providing a feeling of familiarity

and authenticity, profiles on Facebook are created to be a part of a shared mindset; and by

associating that with a brand means to tap into that collective mindset, thereby commodifying

friendship. Arvidsson discounts the larger models of brand identity, such as social networking, but

for the sake of this argument, consideration needs to be paid to not only social networking, but also

its role in conceiving brand identity. By examining the ability of brands using relations to create

brand identity, it becomes readily apparent that with these new ways of advertising that the key to

the promotion is ourselves.

The individual is the key for success in the new landscape of advertising and social-

networking media. If we consider that relationship, along with the user on Facebook, through their

choices into what they like or dislike; is immediately interpreted by those around them.

“A key element of this framework is that individual level processing is only important when the individual

has a direct impact on the strategy development and implementation process. Conversely, those

campaigns lacking strategic insight may not be coherently executed across several media simultaneously”

4
 (Sasser, Koslow, and Riordan, 2007; Pg. 242)

For subcultures, it’s the definition of what is cool and not cool that defines acceptance. In that sense,

Facebook could be considered a place full of different subcultures. Ones that while digital, still

maintain an exclusiveness and trust about them. While we may think of subcultures as styles, it also

translates into a sample of different attitudes. It’s these attitudes, and our willingness to belong, that

then gives the user the role of promoting the product, and that role being entrusted to the

individual. These companies are then using personal relationships to then develop that brand

recognition. If we’re to view our social networking profiles as vehicles for promotion, then the role of

ourselves is to deliver everything to the other cities along the highway.

The one thing that defines this new form of advertising is its use of the individual as a

promotional representative. One of the issues facing that however is trust. Just because something

appears on my friend’s wall, doesn’t mean that I need to support what they support. There needs to

be a trust in the system. While this trust offers a sense of comfort, in its subtle delivery, Facebook

creates an illusion of trust that is used to fetishize the process of promoting to its users. In analyzing

the potential of this trust, it’s interesting to further examine the reasons for avoiding advertising

discussed in the Kelly, Kerr, and Drennan article. In the article the authors discuss how there is a

model that looks at four antecedents of the avoidance of advertising in social-networking; those

include an expectation of negative experiences, a perception of relevance in the advertising message, a

scepticism of advertising message claims, and (most importantly) a scepticism of online social

networking sites as a credible advertising medium (Kelly, Kerr, and Drennan, 2010; Pg. 24). The

5
 reasons for why people don’t have trust in advertising on Facebook are related to the

individual. What isn’t mentioned is how the issues of avoidance and mistrust in social-networking

advertising are intrinsically linked to the individual’s perception of the media. In that sense, the

argument fails to recognize the subtle forms in which consumption and the promotion of goods is

masked behind an authentic image of a shared connection. We trust in that relationship, to the

point where the perceived notions of what is advertising and what isn’t cease to exist; for within

Facebook lies an inherent distrust. For advertisers to circumvent that, they would need to become

authentic, to become genuine to the demographics on Facebook. We may be unfamiliar with a film,

TV series, or album; but our contacts do. With this relationship, comes that mediator, who can

efficiently preface a product or service into the collective consciousness by tapping “in[to] a situation

where there is lack of trust or low initial trust between two particular actors, [and] a common third

party can act as a mediator and enable the two actors to create trust between them.” (Westerlund,

Rajala, Nykänen, Järvensivu; Pg. 2). In relation to the quote, the brand is essentially just another

friend in the group. If examined more carefully, this relationship shows how advertisers in many

regards act as a bridging point for friends. In many ways the author makes a valid point, if attention

is turned to the idea of subclutures, the answer can be found. Dick Hebdige put subcultures against

the backdrop of the punk scene at the time, describing how:

Like Duchamp's 'ready mades' - manufactured objects which qualified as art because he chose to call them

such, the most unremarkable and inappropriate items - a pin, a plastic clothes peg, a television

component, a razor blade, a tampon - could be brought within the province of punk (un)fashion...Objects

borrowed from the most sordid of contexts found a place in punks' ensembles; lavatory chains were

6
 draped in graceful arcs across chests in plastic bin liners. Safety pins were taken out of their domestic..

'utility' context and worn as gruesome ornaments through the cheek, ear or lip...fragments of school

uniform (white bri-nylon shirts, school ties) were symbolically defiled (the shirts covered in graffiti, or fake

blood; the ties left undone) and juxtaposed against leather drains or shocking pink mohair tops. (Dick

Hebdige Pg. 106-12)

Simply put, subcultures are about culture capital. This idea that we’re defined by the varying aspects

of style; this helps in the understanding that for people to carry a unified style, that must create a

unified brand. Ultimately, what keeps these subtle forms of promotion from being rejected is the

idea that these ads play off of our basic trust in the underline desire to be a part of a shared

consciousness.

This interconnectedness between advertisers and the youth population is a subtle connection

that is crucial for “although the use of strategy in an advertising campaign is obviously helpful in

many ways, it should be especially helpful in determining whether campaigns can be coherently

executed in multiple media.” (Sasser, Koslow, and Riordan, 2007; Pg. 242). For these agencies, they

don’t view a site like Facebook as the personal diary that the general public seems to perceive it as.

It’s seen as another source for promotion, and with a whole bunch of new media arising; it’s easy to

see why social-networking is seen as a logical step forward for promoting and advertising. As

mentioned before, the people on Facebook use the site to list interests and hobbies. For advertisers,

that insight into the consumers mind can be easily commoditised. Does this make Facebook

authentic? The answer is more convoluted then what may be initially thought. Because ultimately, as

we see in the ads on Facebook. Conventional advertising has been rejected as a forceful attempt to

7
 enter the market. On the other hand, joining a group supporting a film or character, while

indirectly isn’t perceived as advertising—opens up the product to a wide range of people, all with

that idea that as a product “you” endorse, it adds a level of authenticity to the product.

The purpose of my paper is to understand how and why Facebook can become a site for

advertising. The answer, within the context of my research, is that Facebook is a community, one

where ideas and trends are referential based on your friends. Those connections we have with our

friends then become a site for advertisers. If I say I like the movie Avatar or the new Final Fantasy

video game, I may be thinking it’s a form of self-expression, and a method for forming ones identity

online. Yet, we’re then adding authority and authenticity to that reference. We’re then saying that

we support the film, and encourage if others are to see it; that in some ways, consumers are being

given a collective voice to something they support. Despite that, it’s still advertising, and as long as

it’s successful, advertisers will continue to target a personal online identity as a means of both

successful advertising, and successful data mining. There is still much that can be said on this topic,

and yet in this paper, an understanding has been established that while Facebook seems shallow

enough of a service, it ultimately serves as site for personal and communal promotion where the

perceived independence of the youth subculture acts as a vehicle for larger mechanisms of

promotion.

W.C. 2,700

8
References:

Arvidsson, Adam (2005) “Brands: A critical perspective” in Journal of Consumer Culture 5.2:

235-258.

Coyle, Cheryl L.; Vaughn, Heather (2008). Social networking: Communication revolution or

evolution? Bell Labs Technical Journal Volume 13, Number 2. Pg. 13-17

Hebdige, Dick (1979). Subculture: The Meaning of Style Routledge, March 10, 1981

McLuhan, Marshall (1962) The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man; 1st Ed.: Univ.

of Toronto

Nykänen, Katri; Westerlund, Mika; Rajala, Risto; and Järvensivu, Timo (2009) Trust and

commitment in social networking - Lessons learned from two empirical studies. IMP

Peterson, Richard. (2005) “In Search of Authenticity*”Journal of Management Studies. Blackwell

Publishing.

Sasser, Sheila L; Koslow, Scott; Riordan, Edward A. Creative and Interactive Media Use by Agencies:

Engaging an IMC Media Palette for Implementing Advertising Campaigns. Journal of

Advertising Research., Vol. 47 Issue 3, Pg. 237-256

Boyd, Danah. (2007) Why Youth <3 Social Networking Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in

Teenage Social Life. Youth, Identity, and Digital Media, Pages. Pg. 119-142

Kelly, Louise; Kerr, Gayle; Drennan, Judy (2010).Avoidance of Advertising in Social Networking Sites:

The Teenage Perspective Journal of Interactive Advertising. Vol 10 No 2 Spring 2010