A social network is a social structure made of nodes (which are generally individuals or organizations) that are tied by one or more specific types of interdependency, such as values, visions, ideas, financial exchange, friendship, kinship, dislike, conflict or trade. The resulting structures are often very complex, after all human nature is inherently complex.
The question of how the pattern of interconnection among social entities – consumers, colleagues, business units, competitors and complementors - affect behaviours and the outcomes of those entities in now receiving more attention than ever (Van Den Bulte and Wuyts 2007).
Social network analysis views social relationships in terms of nodes and ties, as basic building blocks. Nodes are the individual actors within the networks, and ties are the relationships between the actors. There can be many kinds of ties between the nodes. Research in a number of academic fields has shown that social networks operate on many levels, from families up to the level of nations, and play a critical role in determining the way problems are solved, organizations are run, and the degree to which individuals succeed in achieving their goals.
In its simplest form, a social network is a map of all of the relevant ties between the nodes being studied. The network can also be used to determine the social capital of individual actors. These concepts are often displayed in a social network diagram, where nodes are the points and ties are the lines.
Tie Strength is an important property of social network, and of particular importance to marketers. Tie strength simply refers to the intensity and tightness of a tie between nodes, such examples are the depth of a friendship, or frequency of interaction. It should be noted that tie strength, therefore, is not a binary on or off state, but, is a variable measurement. Van Den Bulte and Wuyts (page 10, 2007) conceptualise tie strength as having two dimensions, (1) tie intensity or activity (the frequency of contact) and (2) tie valence (the affective, supportive, or cooperative character of the tie) and they state that this conceptualisation of tie strength agrees with best empirical evidence to date. Mark Granovetter (1973) first introduced the “Strength of weak ties” where acquaintances are weak ties and our friends are strong ties. He concludes that Strong ties share the same limited information while weak ties are a source of new information and thus are more valuable.
I shall write some follow up posts to this, which will explore in a little more detail the different structural properties of Social networks.
References:
Van Den Bulte, C., Wuyts, S. 2007, Social networks and Marketing, Marketing Science Institute .
Granovetter, M (1973), The strength of weak ties, American Journal of Sociology.
8 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.
Mark, aren’t nodes another way to characterize the strength of the affinty/relationship between the individual and the group. Success of affinity based marketing (in old world, offline marketing terms) dependent on the loyalty and affinity the individual had with the group.
Mark,
we are using Communities like social networks to promote sharing of information, preempting problems before they happen in beta and prototype products. In other words, our networks are designed with specific objectives.
We have seen that some of these networks are more successful than others. We suspect that the strength of the network leader plays a role in the success of the community.
In your experience, what is the driving force that makes a community successful? Is there a common goal or set of goals / desires? In other words, what makes a successful social network tick?
From your blog above, you quote Mark Granovetter saying that “weak ties are a source of new information and thus are more valuable”. If the ties are the network’s bond, then it seems contradictory that weak ties can be more valuable.
Perhaps (just musing now) a mix of weak and strong ties is important. The strong ties show the community the way forward, while the weak ones can weigh in with new perspectives.
thanks,
Brian Byrne
Lam Research, Fremont CA.
UL Class of ‘86
Una,
Thanks for you comments, nodes can indeed be another way to characterize the strength of the affinty/relationship between the individual and the group. I am currently writing the second part to this post and this will contain some more properties of nodes within a social network.
Regards,
Mark.
Brian,
Thanks for your comments, great to see that you are using communities (which are a type of social network) to especially pre-empt problems. In my experience, with communities, it is normally clear goals and objects are most prominent factor to success, however there may be many other factors such as the structure of the network and how information flows through this network. Leadership is a factor, but the “leaders” are not always obvious, and depending on the size of the network (yet another factor) there may be many leaders or influencers.
I agree on your opinion in relation to the contradictory quote from Mark Granovetter, and for sure a mix of weak and strong ties are very important. Your statement “The strong ties show the community the way forward, while the weak ones can weigh in with new perspectives” sums this how I would answer this also, it is about balance.
I would really like to learn a little more about your community from a Social Network analysis perspective, is it internal or external to your organisation?
Regards,
Mark.
Hi Mark, that’s very interesting - our company (based in Dublin) is expert in using SNA to help mobile operators improve their marketing & CRM.
We’ve learned (& proven) that weak ties are more important for transmission of certain things (new mobile handsets, etc.) whereas strong ties are more important for others which have a high cost of being wrong (e.g. changing network in a market with network quality issues). Of course, every market is different!
Simon,
Thanks for the sharing what you have learned and proven in relation weak ties versus strong ties in practice. Theory is great however, it is really just starting point, practice reveals more interesting information, as in your case. You example also illustrates in the importance of context, the consequence of weak ties for transmission, versus the high cost of being wrong where strong ties become a priority.
By the way, I find what you company is doing very interesting, I first came across it in October 2007 as I was sitting beside Liam Connolly at the first annual EAC (enterprise acceleration centre) showcase in Limerick Institute of Technology .
Regards & Thanks,
Mark.
Continuing the Discussion