Lean Mateos

DMS 250 Final Annotated Bibliography

September 24, 2015 

Work Cited

Albergotti, Reed. "Furor Erupts Over Facebook's Experiment on Users." WSJ. The Wall Street Journal, 30 June 2014. Web. 17 Sept. 2015.

(Albergotti,, "Furor Erupts Over Facebook's Experiment on Users")

Hauke Wetzel, Maik Hammerschmidt, and Alex Zablah. "Gratitude Versus Entitlement: A Dual Process Model of the Profitability Implications of Customer Prioritization." AMA Journals. Journal of Marketing, 1 Mar. 2014. Web. 17 Sept. 2015. <http://journals.ama.org/doi/full/10.1509/jm.12.0167>.

(Wetzel, Hammerschmidt, Zablah, "Gratitude Versus Entitlement: A Dual Process Model of the Profitability Implications of Customer Prioritization”)

Original Annotation:

Romero, Daniel, Wojciech Galuba, Sitaram Asur, and Bernardo Huberman. "Influence and Passivity in Social Media." Vol. 6913. Athens: Springer, 2011. 16. Print. 

{Romero, Daniel, Wojciech Galuba, Sitaram Asur, and Bernardo Huberman. "Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases." Vol. 6913. Athens: Springer, 2011. 683. Print. }

(Romero, Galuba, Asur, Huberman, Influence and Passivity in Social Media, 2011, p. 16)

This excerpt is really interesting on a variety of levels. They essentially looked at social networking sites, specifically Twitter to see how strong of a correlation between the size of the following vs the influence they can have on that immediate following and further. The study later came to find that the correlation that most assumed was not as strong as once believed. They found that just because someone had a huge following didn’t necessarily mean that they could have a larger influence than someone who has a smaller following. What they found was that if a user was more interactive on their twitter than the correlation was stronger, which isn’t surprising. I find this study to be quite interesting simply because it feels as if this generation is driven by the urge to quantify their online/offline existence via the amount of followers they have. Social Networking and Media sites seem to be the driving force behind this generation, which only causes one to question every aspect of the sites they use, what the end goal is, and what happens to the economic/labor system that is already implemented into this country.

Comment Addressed: “Interesting! So their study's conclusions showed a suprising result about influence & numbers of followers. How did they define influence? What are "interactions"? Towards the end you mention the US current economic/labor system--what's the connection to social media & influence?”

Response to comments:

One of the ways they tested interaction was to create a link and measure the amount of times the link was clicked, it was known as “Click Data”. Along with looking at how many times the link was clicked, they also looked at how the link was presented. It was stated “we examined how the 99.9th percentile of the click varied as the measure of influence increased.” They also looked at the number of retweets the post with the link achieved as a both a sense of influence and positive interactivity. To sum it up, essentially they quantify and qualify interactivity as clicks on a link and if the post received retweets. The clicks don’t seem to have any positive or negative qualification in terms of interactivity but a retweet was seen as a positive. What I forgot to mention in the original post was that in the current day there are a good amount of people who make a living off of social networking and media sites. As technology increases I can only imagine that people will be given more opportunities to work from home which in turn causes me to question, what will happen how the preexisting system will react to a influx of people finding the convenience of working from home. There was no implication made by the study, it was just my thought.