SNS 营销推广 外文翻译.doc

1、 本科毕业论文外文翻译论文题目：网络社区品牌推广模型研究以联想集团“彪悍的 小Y”品牌推广为例 学 生 姓 名： 学 号： 二级学院名称： 管理学院 专 业：文化产业管理 指 导 教 师： 职 称： 讲师 .填表日期：2011 年 12 月 27 日浙 江 传 媒 学 院 教 务 处 制Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarshipdanah m. boyd, Nicole B. EllisonJournal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Volume 13, Issue 1, pa

2、ges 210230, October 2007Social Network Sites: DefinitionWe define social network sites as web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and trave

3、rse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. The nature and nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site.While we use the term “social network site” to describe this phenomenon, the term “social networking sites” also appears in public discourse, and the

4、two terms are often used interchangeably. We chose not to employ the term “networking” for two reasons: emphasis and scope. “Networking” emphasizes relationship initiation, often between strangers. While networking is possible on these sites, it is not the primary practice on many of them, nor is it

5、 what differentiates them from other forms of computer-mediated communication (CMC).What makes social network sites unique is not that they allow individuals to meet strangers, but rather that they enable users to articulate and make visible their social networks. This can result in connections betw

6、een individuals that would not otherwise be made, but that is often not the goal, and these meetings are frequently between “latent ties” (Haythornthwaite, 2005) who share some offline connection. On many of the large SNSs, participants are not necessarily “networking” or looking to meet new people;

7、 instead, they are primarily communicating with people who are already a part of their extended social network. To emphasize this articulated social network as a critical organizing feature of these sites, we label them “social network sites.”While SNSs have implemented a wide variety of technical f

8、eatures, their backbone consists of visible profiles that display an articulated list of Friends1 who are also users of the system. Profiles are unique pages where one can “type oneself into being” (Sundn, 2003, p. 3). After joining an SNS, an individual is asked to fill out forms containing a serie

9、s of questions. The profile is generated using the answers to these questions, which typically include descriptors such as age, location, interests, and an “about me” section. Most sites also encourage users to upload a profile photo. Some sites allow users to enhance their profiles by adding multim

10、edia content or modifying their profiles look and feel. Others, such as Facebook, allow users to add modules (“Applications”) that enhance their profile.The visibility of a profile varies by site and according to user discretion. By default, profiles on Friendster and T are crawled by search engines

11、, making them visible to anyone, regardless of whether or not the viewer has an account. Alternatively, LinkedIn controls what a viewer may see based on whether she or he has a paid account. Sites like MySpace allow users to choose whether they want their profile to be public or “Friends only.” Face

12、book takes a different approachby default, users who are part of the same “network” can view each others profiles, unless a profile owner has decided to deny permission to those in their network. Structural variations around visibility and access are one of the primary ways that SNSs differentiate t

13、hemselves from each other.After joining a social network site, users are prompted to identify others in the system with whom they have a relationship. The label for these relationships differs depending on the sitepopular terms include “Friends,”“Contacts,” and “Fans.” Most SNSs require bi-direction

14、al confirmation for Friendship, but some do not. These one-directional ties are sometimes labeled as “Fans” or “Followers,” but many sites call these Friends as well. The term “Friends” can be misleading, because the connection does not necessarily mean friendship in the everyday vernacular sense, a

15、nd the reasons people connect are varied (boyd, 2006a).The public display of connections is a crucial component of SNSs. The Friends list contains links to each Friends profile, enabling viewers to traverse the network graph by clicking through the Friends lists. On most sites, the list of Friends i

16、s visible to anyone who is permitted to view the profile, although there are exceptions. For instance, some MySpace users have hacked their profiles to hide the Friends display, and LinkedIn allows users to opt out of displaying their network.Most SNSs also provide a mechanism for users to leave mes

17、sages on their Friends profiles. This feature typically involves leaving “comments,” although sites employ various labels for this feature. In addition, SNSs often have a private messaging feature similar to webmail. While both private messages and comments are popular on most of the major SNSs, the

18、y are not universally available.Not all social network sites began as such. QQ started as a Chinese instant messaging service, LunarStorm as a community site, Cyworld as a Korean discussion forum tool, and Skyrock (formerly Skyblog) was a French blogging service before adding SNS features. C, a dire

19、ctory of school affiliates launched in 1995, began supporting articulated lists of Friends after SNSs became popular. AsianAvenue, MiGente, and BlackPlanet were early popular ethnic community sites with limited Friends functionality before re-launching in 20052006 with SNS features and structure.Whi

20、le SNSs are often designed to be widely accessible, many attract homogeneous populations initially, so it is not uncommon to find groups using sites to segregate themselves by nationality, age, educational level, or other factors that typically segment society (Hargittai, this issue), even if that w

21、as not the intention of the designers. 社交网站：定义、历史以及内涵作者：danah m. boyd, Nicole B. Ellison计算机通讯,第13卷,第一期,第230 - 210页,2007年10月社交网站：定义我们将社交网络定义为基于网络的服务，允许个人（1）在一个有界系统内建立一个公开或半公开的个人档案，（2）阐明与他们共享一个连接的其他用户的列表，和（3）查看和导线连接和其他系统内的用户清单。这些联系的性质和命名可能因为网站不同而存在差异。当我们使用“ social network site”一词来形容这种现象时，“social netwo

22、rking sites”也出现在公共话语中，这两个词往往交替使用。我们选择不选择“网络化”一词的原因有二：着重和范围。“Netwoeking”强调关系的建立，常常发生在陌生人之间。虽然网络是有可能在这些网站上，它是不是其中最重要的做法，也不是它区别于其他形式的电脑中介传播（CMC）。使社会网络站点独特的并不在于是允许个人与陌生人接触，而在于他们使用户的表达可视。这可能会导致人与人之间的联系无法实现，但这往往不是目标，这些联系经常是一些分享一些脱机联系的“关系链”（Haythornthwaite 2005年）。许多大型SNS网站，用户并不一定是“网络化”的或正在寻求新朋友，相反，他们主要沟通的人

23、群是那些早已在社交圈的人们中的一部分。为了强将这些网站视为一个重要的组织功能的社交网络，我们将他们成为“社交网络”。虽然SNS网站已经实现了多种技术特点，他们的主干由可见资料构成，他们主要展示系统中是朋友的用户的资料。资料是独特的网页，其中一个可以“点击生成”（Sundn，2003年，第3页）。加入一个SNS后，个体会被要求填写表格中的一系列问题。生成的资料有这些问题与答案构成，通常包括如年龄，现居地，兴趣，和“关于我”的选项。大多数网站还鼓励用户上传个人照片。有些网站鼓励用户改善个人资料，允许加入多媒体内容或修改他们的个人资料的外观和感觉，如Facebook就允许用户添加模块（“应用程序”）

24、以改善他们的个人资料。生成的资料因网站而不用，也因为用户的自由选择填写而不同。默认情况下，型材Friendster和T是通过搜索引擎抓取，无论观众是否有帐户，使资料被任何人可见。此外，LinkedIn设置中，通过用户是否为付费帐户，去决定该用户可以看到资料的哪些部分。像MySpace网站，允许用户选择是否希望他们的个人资料是被公众可见还是“朋友”可见。Facebook采用了不同的方法用户在默认情况下是相同的“网络”的一部分，可以查看对方的情况，除非用户拒绝自己资料在网络中可见。可见性与可进入性德结构变化是SNS网站将自己与其他网站做区分的的主要方式之一。加入一个社会网络站点后，用户会被提示在该

25、识别系统中有哪些有联系的用户。这些关系标签的因网站的定位而不同，如“朋友”，“联系人”和“粉丝。” 大多数SNS网站需要用户的双向确认，但有些则没有。这些单向的关系有时会标示为“粉丝”或“追随者”，但许多网站依旧称这些用户为“好友”。“好友”一词容易被误导，因为连接并不一定意味着日常的白话意义上的友谊，因为和人建立联系的原因是多种多样的（博伊德，2006A）连接的公开展示是一个SNS网站的重要组成部分。好友列表包含每个朋友的个人主页的链接，使访客通过点击好友列表，查看好友页面。在大多数网站上，任何人被允许查看个人资料和好友列表，但也有例外：例如一些MySpace的用户已经破解了他们朋友隐藏的个

26、人资料，LinkedIn允许用户选择显示他们的网络。大多数SNS网站还提供了一种机制，为用户接收离线朋友们的个人消息。此功能通常包括“离线消息”，不同网站采用各种不同的标签。此外，SNS网站往往有私人消息功能类似邮局。虽然私人消息和评论是主要SNS网站最流行的。并非所有的社交网站从一开始就是社交网站。QQ作为一个中国的即时通讯服务，LunarStorm作为一个社区网站，赛我网作为韩国的讨论论坛工具，Skyrock（原Skyblog）作为法国的博客服务在之前都加入了SNS功能。C，在1995年推出的学校分支机构的目录，开始支持挂接好友列表后，SNS网站开始流行。AsianAvenue，MiGen

27、te，以及BlackPlanet等早期流行的民族社区网站在原有的网站功能之上，2005-2006年重新推出SNS功能和结构。SNS网站往往旨在普及，许多最初吸引同质人群，所以它找到团体使用的网站的情况并不少见，国籍，年龄，教育程度，或其他因素的分隔，即使这不是设计师的意图。Effects of Word-of-Mouth Versus Traditional Marketing: Findings from an Internet Social Networking SiteMichael Trusov,Randolph E. Bucklin,Koen Pauwels.Networking S

28、ite. Journal of Marketing, Volume 73, No. 5, pages 90-102.Word-of-mouth communication strategies are appealing because they combine the prospect of overcoming consumer resistance with significantly lower costs and fast deliveryespecially through technology, such as the Internet. Unfortunately, empir

29、ical evidence is currently scantregarding the relative effectiveness of WOM marketing in increasing firm performance over time. This raises the need to study how firms can measure the effects of WOM communications and how WOM compares with other forms of marketing communication.Word-of-mouth marketi

30、ng is a particularly prominent feature on the Internet. The Internet provides numerous venues for consumers to share their views, preferences, or experiences with others, as well as opportunities for firms to take advantage of WOM marketing. As one commentator stated, “Instead of tossing away millio

31、ns of dollars on Superbowl advertisements, fledgling dot-com companies are trying to catch attention through much cheaper marketing strategies such as blogging and WOM campaigns” (Whitman 2006, p. B3A). Thus, it is important to understand whether WOM is truly effective and, if so, how its impact com

32、pares with traditional marketing activities.One of the fastest-growing arenas of the World Wide Web is the space of so-called social networking sites. A social networking site is typically initiated by a small group of founders who send out invitations to join the site to the members of their own pe

33、rsonal networks. In turn, newmembers send invitations to their networks, and so on.Thus, invitations (i.e., WOM referrals) have been the foremost driving force for sites to acquire new members. As social networking sites mature, they may begin to increase their use of traditional marketing tools. Th

34、erefore, management may begin to question the relative effectiveness of WOM at this stage.The objective of this research is to develop and estimate a model that captures the dynamic relationships among new member acquisition, WOM referrals, and traditional marketing activities. In doing so, we offer

35、 several contributions.First, we are among the first to link observed WOM directlyto new customer acquisition. Second, we show how toincorporate both the direct effects and the indirect effects of WOM and traditional marketing actions (e.g., a marketing action increases WOM activity, which in turn i

36、ncreases new member acquisition). We empirically demonstrate, for our data set, the endogeneity among new member sign-ups and these marketing variables. This highlights the need to account for these indirect effects to avoid biased estimates for both WOM and traditional marketing effects. Third, we

37、quantify and contrast the immediate and long-term elasticities of WOM and traditional marketing actions. In particular, we document strong carryover effects for WOM in our data. Finally, we attach an estimated monetary value to each WOM referral, providing an upper bound to the financial incentive m

38、anagement might consider offering for WOM referrals. Indeed, the practice of seeding or stimulating WOM has grown rapidly, but quantifying the effectiveness of this activity remains difficult (e.g., Godes and Mayzlin 2004).We organize the remainder of this article as follows: We begin by summarizing

39、 previous research to help put our contributions in perspective. We then describe our modeling approach. Next, we present our empirical analysis of the data from a collaborating Internet social networking site and offer implications for theory and managers. In particular, we find that WOM referrals

40、strongly affect new customer acquisitions and have significantly longer carryover than traditional forms of marketing used by the firm (21 days versus 3 to 7 days). We estimate a long-term elasticity for WOM of .53approximately 2030 times higher than the elasticities for traditional marketing.口碑营销Vs

41、传统营销：以对社交网站的研究为例作者：Michael Trusov,Randolph E. Bucklin,Koen Pauwels.网络站点营销杂志,第73期，5月编印,5号,第102 - 90页。口碑传播之所以具有吸引力，是因为它有着低成本、高效率的特点。特别是通过技术在互联网上的应用的前景。目前的经验依据是在增加公司业绩中时间的推移与口碑传播的有效性。这就提出了需要研究企业如何可以衡量口碑通信和其他形式的口碑营销的传播效果。口碑营销在互联网中是一个突出的现象，互联网为消费者提供了大量的空间来分享他们的意见，偏好或与其他人的经验，还为公司创造了采取口碑营销的机会。正如一位评论家所指出的“折

42、腾了数百万美元的超级广告之后，羽翼未丰的dotcom公司试图通过更便宜的营销策略来获得注意，比如博客和口碑营销的运动。”因此，重要的是要了解口碑营销是否是真正有效的，如果是的话，又如何与传统的营销活动的影响相比较。万维网中增长速度最快的网站之一，就是所谓的社交网站的空间。通常是发起一个小团体的创始人，他发送邀请给个人网络成员加入网站。同样的，新成员又会发送邀请去让其他人加入网站，如此循环。因此，邀请函（即口碑转介）已成为获得新成员对网站的首要推动力。由于社交网站的成熟，他们可能会开始增加他们的传统营销工具的使用。因此，管理层可能会开始怀疑在这个阶段口碑传播的有效性。这项研究的目的是开发和估计一

43、个模型，为研究口碑转介捕捉新成员和传统营销活动之间的动态关系提供一些帮助。首先，我们首次直接观察到的是口碑链接和新客户获取。第二，我们展示了如何比较口碑营销对传统营销效果（例如，一个营销活动增加口碑营销的活动效果，这反过来又增加新成员获取）的间接影响。我们的经验证明，我们的数据集，新成员登陆质检的内生性和这些营销变量。这突出表妹需要考虑到这些间接影响口碑与传统营销的效果，避免估计错误。第三，我们量化和对比口碑营销和传统营销行动的长期的弹性。特别是我们的文件较强的长尾效应，最后，我们估计货币价值附加到每个口碑转介，提供绑定的财政激励管理的上限可能会考虑提供口碑转介。实际上，播种或刺激口碑增长迅速，但这项活动的成效量化的做法仍然困难（例如2004年的gods和mayzlin）。我们本文的其余部分组织如下：我们开始通过总结以往的研究，以帮助正确地看待我们的贡献，然后，我们描述了我们的建模方法。下一步，我们目前合作的互联网社交网络站店，并提供理论和管理人员的影响数据的实证分析。值得强调的是，我们由该公司在21天的使用转介发现口碑转介强烈影响新客户增加以及明显强于传统营销的形式。我们估计口碑营销比传统营销的长期弹性强约2030倍。指导教师审阅意见：指导教师签名： 年 月 日. .此处忽略！