The Ambiguity of Online Sourcing

One of the most productive venues for studying the effects of social media are online news interfaces. A fundamental shift caused by social media has been the changing nature of information sources, and a less ambiguous understanding of online sourcing will make for more effective social media marketing. For instance, when the Penn State Press attempts to market a monograph on Facebook and it is shared by another Facebook user, the Press, the author of the monograph, and the Facebook user who shared the link can all be considered psychologically relevant sources, although not necessarily in that order. Surprisingly, the little research done on online sourcing would predict that the Facebook user who shared the link, not the Press or the monograph’s author, would be considered the most credible source of that information. Although this research was done in the context of online news, it is reasonable to believe the results would carry over across contexts. However, the question of how exactly to apply this information is just as ambiguous as online sourcing itself.

The concepts derived from the socialization of online news are very applicable to the marketing of academic monographs, so an example of the importance of sourcing would be a good first step. Major newspapers such as the New York Times and Washington Post have recently integrated social networking applications on their interfaces that allow news consumers to track the news their Facebook friends are consuming. Based on who or what is considered the source of the news on these applications, the papers can become either more social or much less credible. For example, The Washington Post, one of the most credible and recognizable American newspapers, has its masthead in the upper left-hand side of its online interface. On the right side is a Facebook Network News application which allows users to view either the most popular stories of the day accompanied by the number of people who have shared them or a summary of their Facebook friends’ news-viewing activity. By logging into Washingtonpost.com using Facebook Connect, users can share, like and comment on content, as well as see all the content their friends have shared, liked or commented on. Also, users can read content recommended by their network, see what Washington Post content is most popular across Facebook, and create a profile page showing the content with which their Facebook friends have interacted.

The Centre Daily Times does a similar thing, except instead of allowing users to become their own gatekeepers, the site invites users to become a fan of the newspaper on Facebook. Where the Washington Post, a more reputable national newspaper, allows users to do their own gatekeeping by liking and sharing stories themselves, The Centre Daily Times essentially requests that users become fans of the editorial staff of the paper. These two similar Facebook applications represent two very distinct and ambiguous conceptualizations of source. Most university presses allow individuals to follow the press on Twitter or become fans on Facebook, but few mimic the Washington Post by allowing individuals to develop profiles and network with one another based solely on their consumption of the press’ product. Granted, the audiences of the Penn State Press are extremely transient, it is highly unlikely that fans of one book will be fans of any other, and no research has experimentally confirmed the superiority of the Post’s approach. But, because the Penn State press is affiliated with a particular university and state, it could have a sufficient base readership highly motivated to display its knowledge on a wide range of subjects and, in the true sense of social media, virally transmit that knowledge. While unpredictable, the result may just be valuable and consistent exposure for the Penn State Press.