Suchergebnisse

The purpose of this paper is to employ an extended notion of gift giving by showing that much of the gifts exchanged in social media are driven by social emotions. We argue that consumers have migrated from the production of services to the production of experiences and that, in social media, the primary experience of value is emotion. Web 2.0 is markedly different compared with its predecessor Web 1.0, in that it empowered social media, the fastest growing phenomenon on the Internet to occur; yet people are struggling to make money from it. Much value is created and exchanged, but most of it escapes monetization. Whereas, consumption on Web 1.0 was mostly goal‐oriented, rational, and functional, consumption on Web 2.0 is exploratory, idiosyncratic, and social. Traditional economic paradigms of market exchange have struggled to explain consumer behavior in this new dispensation: most exchange is 'free'. So the question is, what is the currency and motivation driving social relations in Web 2.0? We argue that it is gifts and social emotions. We develop a circumplex of social emotions and show how different organizations utilize these emotions to archive their objectives. Implications for managers and researchers are discussed. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

There are thousands of journal articles that concern themselves with markets at the bottom of the pyramid (BoP).1 What is there to say that hasn't been said already? In 2002, an article published in the Harvard Business Review (Prahalad and Hammond, 2002) brought to the forefront of business and academic attention a ' missing market' that was claimed to be lying dormant, ignored by international and multination corporations yet worthy of attention for its potential to contribute to both economic and social prosperity. The notion of markets at the BoP is concerned with providing the 'poor' in developing and emergent economies with access to markets. Prahalad and Hammond (2002) champion the needs of the 'invisible poor' to the marketing efforts of multinational corporations. Prahalad and Hammond's (2002) assert that the poor as ' consumers' constituted a sizeable market opportunity but this view has been criticised. In this essay, we explore how BoP markets might be reconceptualising to better shape interventions that relieve poverty.