You are on page 1of 33

The best way to optimise your own advertising strategy is to see how others have used Facebook Adverts

as an effective marketing solution. Whether it's a product, event, local business or service, these advertisers have had success in: y y y Using our targeting to reach their exact audience Developing efficient, cost-effective strategies to maximise their budgets Building a community of supporters and customers

Successful targeting

People treat Facebook as an authentic part of their lives, so you can be sure you are connecting with real people with real interest in your products. Facebook Adverts provided CM Photographic with the ability to target its exact demographic: 24-30-year-old women whose relationship status on Facebook indicated that they were engaged. Over 12 months, CM Photographics generated nearly $40,000 in revenue directly from a $600 advertising investment on Facebook. Of the Facebook users who were directed to CM Photographics website from the adverts, 60% became qualified leads and actively expressed interest in more information. Increased ROI

Facebook Adverts makes it easy and cost-effective to quickly set up and manage your campaign. G5 found success setting up a series of Facebook Advert campaigns for StorQuest self-service storage facilities targeted towards university students at 21 campuses prior to the summer break. Real-time suggested bids for our auction-based system provided guidance that enabled G5 to hone advert effectiveness based on their various targeting filters (age, university level and location). The results from StorQuest's Facebook advert campaign were one of their highest performing online advertising efforts: y Over 50% increase in total rentals versus prior year at the same store. y 10% conversion rate from visits originating from Facebook Adverts. y On par with Google AdWords on a cost-per-lead and cost-per-customer basis.

y $1.25 CPC delivered $10.25 cost-per-lead. y $100 average rentals; $600 average life time value per customer. Facebook pages and adverts

When you advertiseFacebook Pages or Facebook Events , you can turn your advertising message into a trusted referral by including content from a user s friends who are already affiliated with your products. ANA took this approach by creating a Facebook Page to acquire interested users for ongoing messaging opportunities and developing a compelling advertising campaign. ANA used a creative grouping of keywords to target advertising to users specifically interested in travelling and Japanese culture and developed a creative advert that resonated with their audience. Average campaigns for ANA result in a CTR of 8 - 12%. Facebook Ads resulted in a 25% CTR. Conversions resulted in positive ROI which is unique for ANA considering their product is not an impulse purchase for most people and Japan is not traditionally seen as a leisure destination.
Need assistance? Visit our additional help section or contact our Sales Team

Major Factors Influencing Consumer Behavior
Consumers do not make their decisions in a vacuum. Their purchases are highly influenced by cultural social, personal, and psychological factors. For the most part, they are ³non controllable´ by the marketer but must be taken in to account. We want to examine the influence of each factor on a buyer¶s behavior.

Cultural Factors In a diversified country like India cultural factors exert the broadest and deepest influence on consumer behavior; we will look at the role played by the buyer¶s culture, subculture, and social class. Culture: Culture is the most fundamental determinant of a person¶s wants and behavior. Whereas lower creatures are governed by instinct, human behavior is largely learned. The child growing up in a society leans a basic set of values, perceptions, preferences and behaviors through a process of socialization involving the family and other key institution .Thus a child growing up in America is exposed to the following values: Achievement and success, activity , efficiency and practicality, progress, material comfort, individualism, freedom, external comfort, humanitarianism, and youthfulness. Subculture:

Each culture contain smaller group of subculture that provide more specific identification and socialization for its members. Four types of subculture can be distinguished .Nationality groups such as the Irish, polish, Italians, and Puerto Ricans are found with in large communities and exhibits distinct ethnic tastes and Jews represent subculture with specific culture preference and taboos. Social Class: Virtually all human societies exhibit social stratification. Stratification sometimes takes the form of a caste system where the member of different caste are reared for certain roles and cannot change their caste membership .More frequently, stratification takes the form of social classes . Social Classes have several characteristics. First, Person with in each social class tend to behave more alike than persons from two different social classes. Second, persons are perceived as occupying inferior or superior positions according to their social class. Third, a person¶s social class is indicated by a number of variables, such as occupation, income, wealth, education , and value orientation, rather than by any single variable , fourth, individuals are able to move from one social class to another up or down during their lifetime. The Extent of this mobility varies according to the rigidity of social stratification a given society. Social Factors: A consumer¶s behavior is also influenced by social factors, such as the consumer¶s reference group, family, and social roles and statuses. Reference Group : A person¶s behavior is strongly influenced by many group .A persons reference group are those groups that have a direct (face to face) or indirect influence on the person¶s attitudes or behavior. Group having a direct influence on a person are called membership group. These are group to which the person belongs and interacts. Some are primary groups. With which there is fairly continuous interaction, such as family, friends, neighbors, and co-workers. Primary group tend to be informal. The person also belong to secondary group, which tend to be more formal and where there is less continuous interaction: they include religious organizations, professional associations, and trade unions. Family Group: Members of the buyer¶s family can exercise a strong influence on the buyer¶s behavior. we can distinguish between two families in the buyer¶s life . The family of orientation consists of one¶s parents. From parents a persons acquires an orientation towards religious, politics, and economics and a sense of personal ambitions, self ±worth, and love. Even if the buyer no longer interacts very much with his or her parents, the parents influence on the unconscious behavior of the buyer can be significant. In countries where parents continue to live with their children, their influence can be substantial. In case of expensive products and services, husband and wives engage in more joint decision making. The market needs to determine which member normally has the greater influence in the purchase of a particular products or services. either the husband or the wife , or they have equal influence . The following products and services fall under such: Husband ± dominant: life insurance, automobiles, television Wife ± dominant: washing machines, carpeting, non ±living ± room furniture, kitchenware Equal: Living ± room furniture, vacation, Housing, outside entertainment. How to succeed: Companies like Nokia, Reebok, Coke, PepsiCo and major automobile giants like Toyota, Suzuki, Ford,

but others help strangers connect based on shared interests. with various technological affordances. discussing key changes and developments. or nationality-based identities. While their key technological features are fairly consistent. Today Ford is enjoying a huge market in India.Chevrolet. http://onlinelibrary. Cyworld. while others attract people based on common language or shared racial.2007.1083-6101. The social and economic conditions were analyzed. sexual. social network sites (SNSs) such as MySpace. how they identify an effective product and what makes them get attracted towards a product. supporting a wide range of interests and practices.wiley. The general economy of India was also researched on. How did they achieve this? Adapting to social conditions play the most important role in establishing your brand in the market. they engaged in a lot of researches. so do their tastes and preferences. Mercedes etc.1111/j. In this introductory article. Most sites support the maintenance of pre-existing social networks.. there are hundreds of SNSs. People are changing from time to time.00393. It¶s just that they want the product to be flexible and adaptable to their needs and preferences. Before establishing their base in India. This special theme section of the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication brings together scholarship on these emergent phenomena. After briefly summarizing existing scholarship concerning SNSs. If an automobile company from a different country can make wonders why cannot our own manufacturers adapt to these A customer¶s want has to be identified and his expectations must be matched with the other economic and social factors so that their product is receptive. They had modified their product to suit the Indian conditions. such as mobile connectivity. As of this writing. Introduction Since their introduction. and photo/video-sharing. Identifying those is the first step towards achieving success and the rest depends on the performance of the product. . This also means that customers are open to new and different products from time to time.x/full Social network sites (SNSs) are increasingly attracting the attention of academic and industry researchers intrigued by their affordances and reach. Sites also vary in the extent to which they incorporate new information and communication tools. the cultures that emerge around SNSs are varied. blogging. we describe features of SNSs and propose a comprehensive definition. Their researches were made on the Indian people¶s social life. personal tastes and preferences. Indians are generally prone to be rough and tough customers and especially taking into account the road conditions and other social factors they designed the product in such a way that it¶s best suited to the conditions and it¶s received by the target customers. many of whom have integrated these sites into their daily practices. Some sites cater to diverse audiences. How did they establish their own individual market in a country like India which is prone to diverse cultures? Let¶s take the example of Ford. We then present one perspective on the history of such sites. way of life. we discuss the articles in this special section and conclude with considerations for future research. or activities. This can be related to any product. Their technology had to be adjusted and suited to such an extent that their car is adaptable to Indian conditions. Reebok today is enjoying a huge market in India even though they have hired a company which is phoenix to manufacture shoes and operate under Reebok. has made a market for themselves in India. religious. and Bebo have attracted millions of users. political views. Facebook.

³Networking´ emphasizes relationship initiation. and the two terms are often used interchangeably. but that is often not the goal. We begin by defining what constitutes a social network site and then present one perspective on the historical development of SNSs. We chose not to employ the term ³networking´ for two reasons: emphasis and scope. we review recent scholarship on SNSs and attempt to contextualize and highlight key works. and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. as well as users¶ engagement with them. The profile is generated using the answers to these questions. and scholarly context for the articles in this collection. but rather that they enable users to articulate and make visible their social networks. By collecting these articles in this issue. Most sites also encourage users to upload a profile . and analytic approaches. Profiles are unique pages where one can ³type 1 oneself into being´ (Sundén. 3). historical. We conclude with a description of the articles included in this special section and suggestions for future research. After joining an SNS. The purpose of this introduction is to provide a conceptual. location. it is not the primary practice on many of them. Following this. they are primarily communicating with people who are already a part of their extended social network. While we use the term ³social network site´ to describe this phenomenon. an individual is asked to fill out forms containing a series of questions. Social Network Sites: A Definition We define social network sites as web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system. What makes social network sites unique is not that they allow individuals to meet strangers. the term ³social networking sites´ also appears in public discourse. interests. drawing from personal interviews and public accounts of sites and their changes over time. often between strangers. which typically include descriptors such as age. On many of the large SNSs.Scholars from disparate fields have examined SNSs in order to understand the practices. and an ³about me´ section. To emphasize this articulated social network as a critical organizing feature of these sites. This can result in connections between individuals that would not otherwise be made. culture. (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection. we label them ³social network sites. 2003. instead. While networking is possible on these sites.´ While SNSs have implemented a wide variety of technical features. This special theme section of the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication brings together a unique collection of articles that analyze a wide spectrum of social network sites using various methodological techniques. nor is it what differentiates them from other forms of computer-mediated communication (CMC). their backbone consists of visible profiles that display an articulated list of Friends who are also users of the system. our goal is to showcase some of the interdisciplinary scholarship around these sites. The nature and nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site. participants are not necessarily ³networking´ or looking to meet new people. implications. and meaning of the sites. theoretical traditions. 2005) who share some offline connection. and these meetings are frequently between ³latent ties´ (Haythornthwaite. p.

2006a). making them visible to anyone. Dodgeball). and Cyworld).´ and ³Fans. Beyond profiles. Friends. others have built-in blogging and instant messaging technology. In addition. users are prompted to identify others in the system with whom they have a relationship.´ but many sites call these Friends as well. and the reasons people connect are varied (boyd. MySpace. Most SNSs also provide a mechanism for users to leave messages on their Friends¶ profiles. Others. The label for these relationships differs depending on the site²popular terms include ³Friends. and LinkedIn allows users to opt out of displaying their network. and private messaging. Not all social network sites began as such. the list of Friends is visible to anyone who is permitted to view the profile. they are not universally available. although there are exceptions.g. The visibility of a profile varies by site and according to user discretion.´ Facebook takes a different approach²by default. By default.´ Most SNSs require bi-directional confirmation for Friendship. There are mobile-specific SNSs (e. This feature typically involves leaving ³comments. and Skyrock (formerly Skyblog) was a French blogging service before adding SNS features. QQ started as a Chinese instant messaging service. Sites like MySpace allow users to choose whether they want their profile to be public or ³Friends only. SNSs often have a private messaging feature similar to webmail. allow users to add modules (³Applications´) that enhance their profile. Cyworld as a Korean discussion forum tool. began supporting articulated lists of Friends after SNSs became popular. While both private messages and comments are popular on most of the major SNSs. AsianAvenue.´³Contacts. but some do are crawled by search engines. Some sites allow users to enhance their profiles by adding multimedia content or modifying their profile¶s look and feel. The Friends list contains links to each Friend¶s profile. but some web-based SNSs also support limited mobile interactions (e. LinkedIn controls what a viewer may see based on whether she or he has a paid account. Some have photo-sharing or video-sharing because the connection does not necessarily mean friendship in the everyday vernacular sense. LunarStorm as a community site. enabling viewers to traverse the network graph by clicking through the Friends lists. users who are part of the same ³network´ can view each other¶s profiles.´ although sites employ various labels for this feature.. and BlackPlanet were early popular ethnic community sites with limited Friends functionality before re-launching in 2005±2006 with SNS features and structure. unless a profile owner has decided to deny permission to those in their network.. a directory of school affiliates launched in 1995. some MySpace users have hacked their profiles to hide the Friends display. Structural variations around visibility and access are one of the primary ways that SNSs differentiate themselves from each other. such as Facebook. On most regardless of whether or not the viewer has an account. MiGente. The term ³Friends´ can be misleading. These one-directional ties are sometimes labeled as ³Fans´ or ³Followers. For instance. comments. SNSs vary greatly in their features and user base. The public display of connections is a crucial component of SNSs.g. After joining a social network site.Classmates. Alternatively. Many SNSs target people from specific geographical regions . profiles on Friendster and Tribe. Facebook.

June 15. many attract homogeneous populations initially. SixDegrees promoted itself as a tool to help people connect with and send messages to others. religious. From 1997 to 2001. personal communication. AsianAvenue. and diary pages (D. the first recognizable social network site launched in 1997.or linguistic groups. SixDegrees was the first to combine these features. so it is not uncommon to find groups using sites to segregate themselves by nationality. in 2000. a number of community tools began supporting various combinations of profiles and publicly articulated Friends. Likewise. was launched in the United States with an English-only interface. There are even SNSs for dogs (Dogster) and cats (Catster). or other factors that typically segment society (Hargittai. educational level. personal communication. 2007)²on LiveJournal. Looking back. Fitzpatrick. age. and most users were not interested in meeting strangers. personal communication. September 24. AIM and ICQ buddy lists supported lists of allowed users to create profiles. While SNSs are often designed to be widely accessible. beginning in 1998. Weinreich. this issue). when the Swedish web community LunarStorm refashioned itself as an SNS in 2000. even if that was not the intention of the designers. allowed people to affiliate with their high school or college and surf the network for others who were also affiliated. Orkut. shortly after its launch in 1999. of course. people mark others as Friends to follow their journals and manage privacy settings. and MiGente allowed users to create personal. but users could not create profiles or list Friends until years later. guestbooks. surf the Friends lists. independent of these other sites (see Kim & Yun. August 16. Likewise. Classmates. Skog. political. A History of Social Network Sites The Early Years According to the definition above. July 11. While SixDegrees attracted millions of users. the service closed. list their Friends and. While people were already flocking to the Internet. Early adopters complained that there was little to do after accepting Friend requests. Profiles existed on most major dating sites and many community sites. but Portuguese-speaking Brazilians quickly became the dominant user group (Kopytoff. or other identity-driven categories in mind. . personal communication. BlackPlanet. SixDegrees. Some sites are designed with specific ethnic. although those Friends were not visible to others. most did not have extended networks of friends who were online. 2007). LiveJournal¶s creator suspects that he fashioned these Friends after instant messaging buddy lists (B. it failed to become a sustainable business and. 2007). 2007). Wasow. Each of these features existed in some form before SixDegrees. although their owners must manage their profiles. although this does not always determine the site¶s constituency. its founder believes that SixDegrees was simply ahead of its time (A. it contained Friends lists. LiveJournal listed one-directional connections on user pages. sexual orientation. and dating profiles²users could identify Friends on their personal profiles without seeking approval for those connections (O. for example. The Korean virtual worlds site Cyworld was started in 1999 and added SNS features in 2001. 2004). this issue).

³Brown University´) to find people they grew to attract a passionate niche user base. They believed that they could support each other without competing (Festa. cultural. Furthermore. While few people actually created Fakesters. As Friendster¶s popularity surged. attendees of the Burning Man arts festival. June 14. LinkedIn. based on the assumption that friends-offriends would make better romantic partners than would strangers (J. many more enjoyed surfing Fakesters for entertainment or using functional Fakesters (e. 2007). It was designed to compete with Match. in press-b). Friendster gained traction among three groups of early adopters who shaped the site²bloggers. exponential growth meant a collapse in social contexts: Users had to face their bosses and former classmates alongside their close friends. p.. LinkedIn became a powerful business service.000 users through word of mouth before traditional press coverage began in May 2003 (O¶Shea. Tribe. and other such entities. 2004)²and grew to 300. In particular. Many early adopters left because of the combination of technical difficulties. Scott. 2003). 2003). the onslaught of new users who learned about the site from media coverage upset the cultural balance. Like any brief history of a major phenomenon. Friendster¶s servers and databases were ill-equipped to handle its rapid growth. The ultimate collectors were fake profiles representing iconic fictional characters: celebrities. an activity that was implicitly encouraged through a ³most popular´ feature. March a profitable online dating site (Cohen. Because organic growth had been critical to creating a coherent community. and research landscape. 1). frustrating users who replaced email with Friendster. These ³Fakesters´ outraged the company. In order to view additional profiles. Ryze¶s founder reports that he first introduced the site to his friends²primarily members of the San Francisco business and technology community.The next wave of SNSs began when Ryze. Some began massively collecting personal communication. the people behind Ryze. and Facebook. who banished fake profiles and eliminated the ³most popular´ feature (boyd. Tribe. In the following section we discuss Friendster. ours is necessarily incomplete. In the end. Friendster began restricting the activities of its most passionate was launched in 2001 to help people leverage their business networks. MySpace. and Friendster became the most significant. concepts. 2003). The active deletion of Fakesters (and genuine users who chose non-realistic photos) signaled to some that the company did not share users¶ interests. and gay men (boyd. the site encountered technical and social difficulties (boyd. 2007. and Friendster were tightly entwined personally and professionally. Friendster was designed to help friends-of-friends meet. and the site faltered regularly. if only as ³one of the biggest disappointments in Internet history´ (Chafkin. Abrams.g. users began adding acquaintances and interesting-looking strangers to expand their reach. personal communication. While most dating sites focused on introducing people to strangers with similar interests. . 2003). The initial design of Friendster restricted users from viewing profiles of people who were more than four degrees away (friends-of-friends-of-friends-of-friends). three key SNSs that shaped the business. including the entrepreneurs and investors behind many future SNSs (A. Ryze never acquired mass popularity. 2006b). To complicate matters. The Rise (and Fall) of Friendster Friendster launched in 2002 as a social complement to Ryze.

2007) help strangers connect based on shared interests. and Xing (formerly openBC) focus on business people. personal communication. as the social media and user-generated content phenomena grew. Google¶s Orkut failed to build a sustainable U. Indie-rock bands from the Los Angeles region began creating profiles. personal communication. The bands-and-fans dynamic was mutually beneficial: Bands wanted to be able to contact fans. 2006). 2007).net and MySpace (T. 2006b). and Indonesia (Goldberg. . Anderson. Examples include Flickr (photo sharing). hundreds of miles from Silicon Valley. SNSs Hit the Mainstream From 2003 onward. One particularly notable group that encouraged others to switch were indie-rock bands who were expelled from Friendster for failing to comply with profile regulations. Visible Path.S. Anderson. while fans desired attention from their favorite bands and used Friend connections to signal identity and affiliation. websites focused on media sharing began implementing SNS features and becoming SNSs themselves. users posted Friendster messages encouraging people to join alternate SNSs. After rumors emerged that Friendster would adopt a fee-based system. September 28. ³Passion-centric´ SNSs like Dogster (T. MySpace contacted local musicians to see how they could support them (T. While socially-organized SNSs solicit broad audiences. and MyChurch joins Christian churches and their members. and YouTube (video sharing).´ Most took the form of profile-centric sites. even those built by major corporations. Because of this. MySpace was begun in 2003 to compete with sites like Friendster.a. MSN Spaces) also launched to lukewarm U. trying to replicate the early success of Friendster or target specific demographics. While MySpace was not launched with bands in mind. Couchsurfing connects travelers to people with couches. reception but became extremely popular elsewhere. Last. at the same time that it was fading in the U. its popularity skyrocketed in the Philippines. including Tribe. many new SNSs were launched. August 2. but the symbiotic relationship between bands and fans helped MySpace expand beyond former Friendster users. 2007). Furthermore.k.FM (music listening habits). prompting social software analyst Clay Shirky (2003) to coin the term YASNS: ³Yet Another Social Networking Service. and AsianAvenue. and local promoters used MySpace to advertise VIP passes for popular clubs. 2006). August 2. Care2 helps activists meet. and a rupture of trust between users and the site (boyd. personal communication. according to co-founder Tom Anderson (personal communication. Bands were not the sole source of MySpace growth. Few analysts or journalists noticed when MySpace launched in Santa Monica.S.. California. For example. August 2. Anderson. Intrigued.S. few people paid attention to SNSs that gained popularity elsewhere. 2006) made Orkut the national SNS of Brazil. but a ³Brazilian invasion´ ( collisions. February 2. Microsoft¶s Windows Live Spaces (a. personal communication. However. the founders wanted to attract estranged Friendster users (T. Malaysia. they were welcomed. Rheingold. With the plethora of venture-backed startups launching in Silicon Valley. 2007). user base. professional sites such as LinkedIn. Xanga. Singapore. MySpace was able to grow rapidly by capitalizing on Friendster¶s alienation of its early adopters.

Because of the lack of mainstream press coverage during 2004.S. and English-speaking media. other SNSs launched to support niche demographics before expanding to a broader audience. New Zealand. attracted broad audiences. 2006). and Live Spaces are just as large as. Facebook began in early 2004 as a Harvard-only SNS (Cassidy. Orkut became the premier SNS in Brazil before growing rapidly in India (Madhavan. others were introduced to the site through older family members. Hi5 was adopted in smaller countries in Latin America. As Facebook began supporting other schools. and Bebo became very popular in the United Kingdom. As the site grew. In the U. a copy/paste code culture emerged on the web to support users in generating unique MySpace backgrounds and layouts (Perkel. 2006). 2006). and Europe. and Windows Live Spaces dominates numerous markets worldwide. a user had to have a harvard. and email address. The Chinese QQ instant messaging service instantly became the largest SNS worldwide when it added profiles and made friends visible (McLeod. 2006). As teens began signing up. blogging tools with SNS features.S. The site was implicated in a series of sexual interactions between adults and minors. they encouraged their friends to join. previously popular communication and community services began implementing SNS features. few others noticed the site¶s growing popularity. prompting legal action (Consumer Affairs. the latter two groups did not interact with one another except through bands. Then. Rather than rejecting underage users. To join. those users were also required to have university email addresses . South America. although research suggests that the concerns were exaggerated. 2 A Global Phenomenon While MySpace attracted the majority of media attention in the U. SNSs were proliferating and growing in popularity worldwide. Blogging services with complete SNS features also became popular. in July 2005. LunarStorm took off in Sweden. This ³feature´ emerged because MySpace did not restrict users from adding HTML into the forms that framed their profiles. they receive little coverage in U. A moral panic concerning sexual predators quickly spread (Bahney. and Australia. 2007). Orkut. Friendster gained traction in the Pacific Islands. Mixi attained widespread adoption in Japan. Italy. Unlike previous SNSs. while the forum tool Cyworld cornered the Korean market by introducing homepages and buddies (Ewers. LiveJournal. MySpace. Grono captured Poland. such as Xanga. attracting massive media attention.. Additionally. most teens were never on Friendster² some joined because they wanted to connect with their favorite bands. Although SNSs like QQ.Futhermore. Facebook was designed to support distinct college networks only. By and large. if not larger than. making it difficult to track their trajectories. three distinct populations began to form: musicians/artists. and abroad. 2005). Afterwards. and the post-college urban social crowd. Dutch users embraced Hyves. safety issues plagued MySpace. MySpace differentiated itself by regularly adding features based on user demand (boyd.S. News Corporation purchased MySpace for $580 million (BBC. Unlike older users. and Spain. MySpace changed its user policy to allow minors. teenagers. in press). Teenagers began joining MySpace en masse in 2004. Expanding Niche Communities Alongside these open services. Skyrock reigns in France. including in Mexico. 2006b) and by allowing users to personalize their pages. 2006).

Facebook users are unable to make their full profiles public to all users. not groups´ (Wellman.associated with those institutions. The change to open signup did not mean that new users could easily access users in closed networks²gaining access to corporate networks still required the appropriate . 1988. other companies are blocking their employees from accessing the sites. Finally. 2007). with the individual at the center of their own community. and advertising SNSs. and affiliation-focused sites like MyChurch²are limited by their target demographic and thus tend to be smaller. 2007). To date. addresses a range of topics. The goal of this section is to survey research that is directly concerned with social network sites. 2007) and the Canadian government prohibited employees from Facebook (Benzie.S. while gaining access to high school networks required administrator approval. Early public online communities such as Usenet and public discussion forums were structured by topics or according to topical address. Beginning in September 2005. but social network sites are structured as personal (or ³egocentric´) networks. 37). although marketing research indicates that SNSs are growing in popularity worldwide (comScore. and. eventually. (As of this writing.) Unlike other SNSs. private community. to set the stage for the articles in this special issue. like aSmallWorld and BeautifulPeople. Some. others explicitly seek narrower audiences. S. a requirement that kept the site relatively closed and contributed to users¶ perceptions of the site as an intimate. the U. This growth has prompted many corporations to invest time and money in creating. where ³the world is composed of networks. The introduction of SNS features has introduced a new organizational framework for online communities. Currently. Another feature that differentiates Facebook is the ability for outside developers to build ³Applications´ which allow users to personalize their profiles and perform other tasks.R. 2006. identity-driven sites like BlackPlanet. intentionally restrict access to appear selective and elite. promoting. While websites dedicated to communities of interest still exist and prosper. The rise of SNSs indicates a shift in the organization of online communities. Others²activity-centered sites like Couchsurfing. a platform and hosting service that encourages users to create their own SNSs. While most SNSs focus on growing broadly and exponentially. 5319.S. and with it. professionals inside corporate networks. military banned soldiers from accessing MySpace (Frosch. such as compare movie preferences and chart travel histories. anyone who wishes to create a niche social network site can do so on Ning. Congress has proposed legislation to ban youth from accessing SNSs in schools and libraries (H. purchasing. there are no reliable data regarding how many people use SNSs. Additionally. 49. p. and builds on a large body of CMC research. a vibrant new research context. 2007). not interests. Previous Scholarship Scholarship concerning SNSs is emerging from diverse disciplinary and methodological traditions. Facebook expanded to include high school students. while the U. SNSs are primarily organized around people. the . everyone. only membership in regional networks requires no permission. and in so doing. This more accurately mirrors unmediated social structures. At the same time.

2006) and the extent to which the attractiveness of one¶s Friends (as indicated by Facebook¶s ³Wall´ feature) impacts impression formation (Walther.. 2004). Networks and Network Structure Social network sites also provide rich sources of naturalistic behavioral data. usage. Kim. instead.boyd (2006a) points out that ³Friends´ on SNSs are not the same as ³friends´ in the everyday sense.´Fono and Raynes-Goldie (2006) described users¶ understandings regarding public displays of connections and how the Friending function can operate as a catalyst for social drama. in that an extended network may serve to validate identity information presented in profiles. & Westerman. Impression management is one of the reasons given by Friendster users for choosing particular friends (Donath & boyd. self-presentation. sending messages) and indicators of authenticity (e. which serve as identity markers for the profile owner. and Huberman (2007) examined an anonymized dataset consisting of 362 million messages exchanged by over four million Facebook users for insight into Friending and messaging .´ The extent to which portraits are authentic or playful varies across sites. Friends provide context by offering users an imagined audience to guide behavioral norms. Van Der Heide.Zinman and Donath (2007) noted that MySpace spammers leverage people¶s willingness to connect to interesting people to find targets for their spam. both social and technological forces shape user practices. enabling network analysis researchers to explore large-scale patterns of friending. boyd (2004) examined Friendster as a locus of publicly articulated social networks that allowed users to negotiate presentations of self and connect with others. Other work in this area has examined the use of Friendster Testimonials as self-presentational devices (boyd & Heer. Golder. participants do this to varying degrees. Skog (2005) found that the status feature on LunarStorm strongly influenced how people behaved and what they choose to reveal²profiles there indicate one¶s status as measured by activity (e. In listing user motivations for Friending. Recognizing this. In their examination of LiveJournal ³friendship. and continuing an analysis trend that started with examinations of blogs and other websites. In one of the earliest academic articles on SNSs.bulk of SNS research has focused on impression management and friendship performance. and other visible indicators (Hogan. in press).g.. in press). While most sites encourage users to construct accurate representations of themselves. Marwick (2005) found that users on three different SNSs had complex strategies for negotiating the rigidity of a prescribed ³authentic´ profile. networks and network structure. Another aspect of self-presentation is the articulation of friendship links. and privacy issues. using a ³real´ photo instead of a drawing). For instance. online/offline connections. Donath and boyd (2004) extended this to suggest that ³public displays of connection´ serve as important identity signals that help people navigate the networked social world. whileboyd (in press-b) examined the phenomenon of ³Fakesters´ and argued that profiles could never be ³real. Impression Management and Friendship Performance Like other online contexts in which individuals are consciously able to construct an online representation of self² such as online dating profiles and MUDS²SNSs constitute an important research context for scholars investigating processes of impression management.g. Wilkinson. Profile and linkage data from SNSs can be gathered either through the use of automated collection techniques or through datasets provided directly from the company. and friendship performance.

& Lan. & Adar. inviters. 2007).S. Likewise. 2007). These relationships may be weak ties. research into the importance of geography in Friending (Liben-Nowell. Sahami. Privacy Popular press coverage of SNSs has emphasized potential privacy concerns. 2005). This is one of the chief dimensions that differentiate SNSs from earlier forms of public CMC such as newsgroups (Ellison et al. it is not surprising that they have become deeply embedded in user¶s lives. and Lampe (2007) suggest that Facebook is used to maintain existing offline relationships or solidify offline connections. Ellison. Finally. which they call a ³taste fabric. they suggest that sites can use this to recommend additional communities of interest to users. 2006. Pew research found that 91% of U.. For instance. film. and Davenport (2006)argued that Friend connections are not the only network structure worth investigating. Based on Orkut data. 181). They examined the ways in which the performance of tastes (favorite music. 2006). 2007).activities. In Korea. Gross and Acquisti . Research in this vein has investigated how online interactions interface with offline ones. Analyzing the roles people played in the growth of Flickr and Yahoo! 360¶s networks. 2003. Lampe. Steinfield. Spertus. Buyukkokten. Kornblum & Marklein. books. Cyworld has become an integral part of everyday life²Choi (2006) found that 85% of that study¶s respondents ³listed the maintenance and reinforcement of pre-existing social networks as their main motive for Cyworld use´ (p. Kumar. 2005). Given that SNSs enable individuals to connect with one another. Novak. and linkers ³who fully participate in the social evolution of the network´ (p. teens who use SNSs do so to connect with friends (Lenhart & Madden. Heer & boyd. the available research suggests that most SNSs primarily support pre-existing social relations. Lancaster. Ellison.S. These kinds of data also lend themselves well to analysis through network visualization (Adamic. an analysis of the role of language in the topology of Friendship (Herring et al. and studies on what motivates people to join particular communities (Backstrom. 1). youth to socialize with their friends even when they are unable to gather in unmediated situations. Paradesi. Raghavan. Paolillo & Wright. Huttenlocher. and Buyukkokten (2005) identified a topology of users through their membership in certain communities. SNS researchers have also studied the network structure of Friendship. just as unmediated public spaces do.´ Bridging Online and Offline Social Networks Although exceptions exist. finding that profile fields that reduce transaction costs and are harder to falsify are most likely to be associated with larger number of friendship links. 2007). and Steinfield (2007) explored the relationship between profile elements and number of Facebook friends. and Steinfield (2006) found that Facebook users engage in ³searching´ for people with whom they have an offline connection more than they ³browse´ for complete strangers to meet. Lampe. etc. she argues that SNSs are ³networked publics´ that support sociability. primarily concerning the safety of younger users (George. Ellison.) constitutes an alternate network structure. Kumar. Maes. such as a shared class at school. as opposed to meeting new people. Liu. and Tomkins. 2005. & Weniger.. Scholarship concerning LiveJournal¶s network has included a Friendship classification scheme (Hsu. Likewise. boyd (2008)argues that MySpace and Facebook enable U. Kleinberg. Novak. 2006). In one of the first academic studies of privacy and SNSs. but typically there is some common offline element among individuals who friend one another. and Tomkins (2006) argued that there are passive members. Researchers have investigated the potential threats to privacy associated with SNSs.

and the practices they enable. Gürses. . Fragoso (2006) examined the role of national identity in SNS use through an investigation into the ³Brazilian invasion´ of Orkut and the resulting culture clash between Brazilians and Americans on the site. Hodge (2006) argued that the fourth amendment to the U. For example. 2007. Boyd (in pressa) asserted that Facebook¶s introduction of the ³News Feed´ feature disrupted students¶ sense of control. Other scholars are beginning to do cross-cultural comparisons of SNS use²Hjorth and Yuji (in press) compare Japanese usage of Mixi and Korean usage of Cyworld. Hjorth & Kim. even though data exposed through the feed were previously accessible. their targets were much more likely to give away information to this ³friend´ than to a perceived stranger. they suggest a framework for privacy in SNSs that they believe would help resolve these conflicts. 2007). and sexuality connect to. suggesting that teens are aware of potential privacy threats online and that many are proactive about taking steps to minimize certain potential risks. do police officers have the right to access content posted to Facebook without a warrant? The legality of this hinges on users¶ expectation of privacy and whether or not Facebook profiles are considered public or private. Survey data offer a more optimistic perspective on the issue. Gajjala. and are enacted in social network sites raise interesting questions about how identity is shaped within these sites. Privacy is also implicated in users¶ ability to control impressions and manage social contexts.000 Carnegie Mellon University Facebook profiles and outlined the potential threats to privacy contained in the personal information included on the site by students. For example. gender (Geidner. Hoser. 66% of whom report that their profile is not visible to all Internet users (Lenhart & Madden. 2007). in press. and Berendt (2007) argued that the privacy options offered by SNSs do not provide users with the flexibility they need to handle conflicts with Friends who have different conceptions of privacy. religion (Nyland & Near. In another study examining security issues and SNSs. Acquisti and Gross (2006) argue that there is often a disconnect between students¶ desire to protect privacy and their behaviors. Johnson. such as hometown and date of birth. Hiltz. Preibusch. are affected by. 2007). Jakobsson. Jagatic. scholarship on the ways in which race and ethnicity (Byrne. & Bell. while Herring et al. In analyzing trust on social network sites. (2007) examine the practices of users who bridge different languages on LiveJournal²but more work in this area is needed. and Passerini (2007)argued that trust and usage goals may affect what people are willing to share²Facebook users expressed greater trust in Facebook than MySpace users did in MySpace and thus were more willing to share information on the site. Of the teens with completely open profiles. Dwyer. 2005). Pew found that 55% of online teens have profiles.S. Constitution and legal decisions concerning privacy are not equipped to address social network sites. SNSs are also challenging legal conceptions of privacy. their users.(2005) analyzed 4. Other Research In addition to the themes identified above. 46% reported including at least some false information. such as the potential ability to reconstruct users¶ social security numbers using information often found in profiles. a growing body of scholarship addresses other aspects of SNSs. a theme that is also explored in Stutzman¶s (2006) survey of Facebook users and Barnes¶s (2006) description of the ³privacy paradox´ that occurs when teens are not aware of the public nature of the Internet. Flook. and Menczer (2007) used freely accessible profile data from SNSs to craft a ³phishing´ scheme that appeared to originate from a friend on the network.

They trace the subtle ways in which deeply engrained cultural beliefs and activities are integrated into online communication and behaviors on Cyworld²the online context reinforces certain aspects of users¶ cultural expectations about relationship maintenance (e. Charnigo and Barnett-Ellis (2007) found that librarians are overwhelmingly aware of Facebook and are against proposed U. legislation that would ban minors from accessing SNSs at libraries.Dara Byrne uses content analysis to examine civic engagement in forums on BlackPlanet and finds that online discussions are still plagued with the problems offline activists have long encountered. and libraries. Existing theory is deployed. due to our own linguistic limitations. This overview is not comprehensive due to space limitations and because much work on SNSs is still in the process of being published. Facebook. challenged. and YouTube²from multiple theoretical and methodological angles. She argues that the construction and maintenance of relations on SNSs is akin to . She looks at the ways in which networked communication is reshaping offline social geography. For instance. Other articles in this collection illustrate how innovative research methods can elucidate patterns of behavior that would be indistinguishable otherwise. resulting in unique ³taste maps. but that most see SNSs as outside the purview of librarianship. self-presentation. Murphy. Hugo Liu examines participants¶ performance of tastes and interests by analyzing and modeling the preferences listed on over 127. Overview of This Special Theme Section The articles in this section address a variety of social network sites²BlackPlanet. Recuero. privacy. & Simonds.S. Eszter Hargittai illuminates usage patterns that would otherwise be masked. and civic engagement..g.. Lee Humphreysinvestigates early adopters¶ practices involving Dodgeball.000 MySpace profiles. For example. Dodgeball. performance. 2005 on social capital and Orkut). scholarship has examined how students feel about having professors on Facebook (Hewitt & Forte. challenging the view that there is nothing educational about SNSs. Cyworld. building on previous studies of SNSs and broader theoretical traditions within CMC research. the concept of reciprocity). Kyung-Hee Kim and Haejin Yun analyze how Cyworld supports both interpersonal relations and self-relation for Korean users.S. Using a relational dialectics approach. while the unique affordances of Cyworld enable participants to overcome offline constraints. and extended by the approaches adopted in the articles in this section. These pieces collectively provide insight into some of the ways in which online and offline experiences are deeply entwined.Scholars are documenting the implications of SNS use with respect to schools. we have not included literature in languages other than English (e. including relationship maintenance and issues of identity. Judith Donath extends signaling theory to explain different tactics SNS users adopt to reduce social costs while managing trust and identity. Finally. a mobile social network service. 2006) and how faculty participation affects student-professor relations (Mazer. 2007). Perkel (in press)analyzed copy/paste practices on MySpace as a form of literacy involving social and technical skills. She finds that adoption of particular services correlates with individuals¶ race and parental education level.g. Additionally. universities. MySpace. through survey data collected at a college with diverse students in the U. Drawing on interview and observation data..´ Likewise.

S. SNS researchers¶ ability to make causal claims is limited by a lack of experimental or longitudinal studies. Although the situation is rapidly changing. . resulting in work that helps explain practices online and offline. whose patience and support appeared infinite. Research suggests that popular narratives around sexual predators on SNSs are misleading²cases of unsuspecting teens being lured by sexual predators are rare (Finkelhor. Furthermore. 2007). both for practitioners and researchers. Such questions will require large-scale quantitative and qualitative research. only 9% came from people over the age of 25 (Wolak. 2006). Methodologically. Notes y 1 To differentiate the articulated list of Friends on SNSs from the colloquial term ³friends. especially outside the U.´Patricia Lange complicates traditional dichotomies between ³public´ and ³private´ by analyzing how YouTube participants blur these lines in their video-sharing practices. Lenhart. Collectively. only . y 2 Although one out of seven teenagers received unwanted sexual solicitations online. uncharted waters still remain to be explored. and alter known everyday practices. as well as those that blend the two environments. The fact that participation on social network sites leaves online traces offers unprecedented opportunities for researchers. scholars still have a limited understanding of who is and who is not using these sites. Thank you also to Susan Herring. why. support. We hope that the work described here and included in this collection will help build a foundation for future investigations of these and other important issues surrounding social network sites. they show how networked practices mirror. especially with respect to how people present (and hide) aspects of themselves and connect with others. ethnographic research on populations more difficult to access (including non-users) would further aid scholars¶ ability to understand the long-term implications of these tools. The articles in this collection highlight the significance of social network sites in the lives of users and as a topic of research. & Lordan.´ we capitalize the former.³social grooming. Mitchell. & Finkelhor. Future Research The work described above and included in this special theme section contributes to an on-going dialogue about the importance of social network sites. Richer.08% of students surveyed by the National School Boards Association (2007) met someone in person from an online encounter without permission from a parent. and for what purposes. Ybarra. The scholarship in this special theme section takes advantage of this affordance. Acknowledgments We are grateful to the external reviewers who volunteered their time and expertise to review papers and contribute valuable feedback and to those practitioners and analysts who provided information to help shape the history section. boyd. Vast.

MA: MIT Press. Friendsters. The Star. o y CrossRef Bahney. 11(9). UK: Robinson College. (2004). R. Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Knowledge Discovery in Data Mining (pp. Profiles as conversation: Networked identity performance on Friendster. R. New York Times. d.References y Acquisti. 14(1). July 19). y boyd.Youth.). Büyükkökten. Retrieved July 21.stm y Benzie. d. A. 2007 fromhttp://news. & Lan. d. Group formation in large social networks: Membership. New York: ACM Press. Friendster and publicly articulated social networks. A social network caught in the Web. First Monday. Imagined communities: Awareness. & Heer. Kleinberg. J.danah. o y CrossRef boyd. In D. 36±58).. . (2006). J. o y CrossRef Adamic. In P. and evolution.Buckingham (Ed. Friendster lost steam.thestar. First Monday. growth. None of this is real.firstmonday. d. 2007 from y BBC. Proceedings of 6th Workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (pp.firstmonday. A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United y boyd. Convergence. y boyd. Retrieved July 30. Proceedings of ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2007 from and MySpace Top 8: Writing community into being on social network sites. March 21). 2007 from http://www. Cambridge. A. (2003). and social convergence. L.. Facebook¶s privacy trainwreck: y (2005. O. (2006b. News Corp in $580m Internet buy. (2006). Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life. d.Golle &G.html y Barnes. d. (2006). CA: IEEE Press. and Digital Media (pp. Retrieved September 8. A. (Ed.). (2006.html y Backstrom. X. (2007. (in press-a).html y boyd. 2007 fromhttp://www. Identity. (2006).). Facebook banned for Ontario staffers. Retrieved July 21. S. In J. y boyd. d. May 3). information sharing. Cambridge. New York: Social Science Research Council. Structures of Participation. 2007 fromhttp://www. Don¶t talk to invisible strangers. 1279±1282). & Gross. invasion.Danezis (Eds. 8(6). Huttenlocher. Retrieved July 21. First Monday. Retrieved July 21. (2006a). New York: ACM Press.. Los Alamitos. 119±142).org/papers/FriendsterMySpaceEssay. D. Retrieved July 21. 2007 fromhttp://www. Proceedings of Thirty-Ninth Hawai¶i International Conference on System Sciences. & Adar. (in press-b). (2008).. March 9). Is MySpace just a fad? Apophenia Blog. and privacy on the Facebook.11(12). 44±54).firstmonday..

Checking out The impact of a digital trend on academic libraries. Me media: How hanging out on the Internet became big business. J. 26(1). (2007). T. Keystone.. & Lampe. (2007. Just the facts about online youth victimization: Researchers present the facts and debunk myths. 2003 fromhttp://asia. y Cohen. Retrieved July 21. N. (2007). In A. 50. Magazine. Retrieved July 5. Ybarra. (2007). 22(4). Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication.pdf . Retrieved July 30.comscore. 12(3). Investors snub Friendster in patent grab. Lenhart.). (2003. (2004).S. 173±186). R.. May 3).asp?press=1555 y Consumer Affairs.html y o o y Donath. Connecticut opens Information Technology and Libraries.reuters. CrossRef. Retrieved August 26. Livewire: Web sites try to make internet dating less creepy. Reuters. Retrieved July 30.. d. (2006. November 9). 71±82.. P. C.). J. L.. CNet News.Jacobs (Eds. C. M. D. June).html y Finkelhor. & Lordan. Trust and privacy concern within social networking sites: A comparison of Facebook and MySpace..jhtml?type=internetNews&storyID=3041934 y comScore. News & World Report. 2007 fromhttp://www. & Barnett-Ellis. y Cassidy. (2003. article BT Technology Journal. & boyd. Living in Cyworld: Contextualising Cy-Ties in South Korea..netcaucus. y Chafkin. 2007 from Use of Blogs (Digital Formations) (pp. boyd.consumeraffairs. 2007 from LexisNexis . 2007 from Web of Science® Times Cited: 90 Dwyer. The benefits of Facebook ³friends´: Exploring the relationship between college students¶ use of online social networks and social capital. The New Yorker. (2006. Internet Caucus Advisory Committee Event. Social networking goes Consumer Affairs. How to kill a great idea! Inc. 2007 fromhttp://news. Retrieved September Cambridge. New York: Peter Lang. C. A. Retrieved August 27.. May 15). M. discourse and the rise of computer-mediated public probe. 2007 fromhttp://www. 23. 82(13). November 11). K.Bruns & J.html y Charnigo. 15±38). Hiltz. y Ewers. VA. February 5). Reston. D.Everett (Ed. Cyworld: Bigger than YouTube? U. 2007 from http://jcmc. Proceedings of AMCIS 2007. The future of (the) µrace¶: Identity.indiana. & Passerini. Retrieved September 21. MA: MIT Press.y Byrne. (2006. (2006). (2007. CO. o y Web of Science® Times Cited: 11 Choi.pdf y S. J. y Festa. July 5). 2007 fromhttp://www. Retrieved July 21. R.. Public displays of connection. In A. P. H. (2007).MacArthur Foundation Book Series on Digital Learning: Race and Ethnicity Volume (pp. (in press).

Proceedings of WPES¶05 (pp. Hyperfriendship and beyond: Friends and social norms on LiveJournal. 2569. J. B. A... Retrieved July 21. S. (2007. A. 125±147. & Acquisti. (2007. M. y Gross... May 15). I. Retrieved August 29. & Society. Proceedings of Symposium on Information Visualization (pp. Proceedings of CATaC 2006 (pp. In F. Social networks and Internet connectivity effects. (2007. (2006).). (2006. and intercultural communication in online social networking and virtual work. Rhythms of social interaction: Messaging within a massive online network. (2005). C. Minneapolis. (2006). 257±276). y George.). K. o y Web of Science® Times Cited: 68 Haythornthwaite. B. A. Banff.nytimes. y Hewitt. Vizster: Visualizing online social networks. Language networks on LiveJournal. New York: Peter Lang. WTF a crazy Brazilian invasion.Sudweeks & H. Information revelation and privacy in online social networks..newscientist. Kouper.Pentland. Crossing boundaries: Identity management and student/faculty relationships on the Facebook. ethnicity. D.. 255±274). Communication. (2007). 41±66). Wilkinson. .Hrachovec (Eds. London: Proceedings of Third International Conference on Communities and Technologies (pp. y Frosch. & Forte. (2006. Retrieved July New York y Golder. & boyd. I. Analysis: Friendster is doing just fine. W. Shifting frames: Race. MN: IEEE Press. 91±103). 8(2).html y Goldberg. y Fragoso. N. Alexandria. B. Murdoch. & N. (2007. In C. Ramos Vielba. Poster presented at CSCW. April). May 13). R. & Bell. S. R. Australia: Murdoch University. L. November).Contractor (Eds. C. y Geidner.. S. o o y CrossRef.). (2005). VA: ACM. Masculinity and online social networks: Male selfidentification onFacebook.. y Herring.Steinfield.dmwmedia. Providence. Digital Media Wire. CA: IEEE Press. A. & Huberman. Alberta. & Clark.. 2007 fromhttp://www.Hinner (Ed. In M. d. W. A. Pentagon blocks 13 web sites from military computers. Los Alamitos. S. (2005). D.y Fono. (2007). & Raynes-Goldie. C. Scheidt. C.700-living-online-the-end-ofprivacy. Wright..html y Gajjala. Internet Research Annual Volume 4: Selected Papers from the AOIR Conference (pp.). S.. B. Information.. Living online: The end of privacy? New Scientist. Paolillo. New York: Peter Lang. In M.. Flook. PubMed Heer. 71±80). A. September 18). RI. Proceedings of the Fortieth Hawai¶i International Conference on System Paper presented at Eastern Communication Association 98th Annual Meeting.Ackerman. E.Consalvo &C. June). The Role of Communication in Business Transactions and Relationships (pp.. A. 2007 fromhttp://www. D. M.Haythornthwaite (Eds.33±40). 2007 fromhttp://www. Stoerger. J. A.

. 31. 49±55. Youth and Media in the Asia Pacific. 109th Congress. 167±170). 5319. UK: Cambridge University Press. Being there and being here: Gendered customising of mobile 3G practices through a case study in Seoul. A.. & Marklein. J. & Steinfeld. N. J. H. Convergence.R. & Steinfield. (2006). May 9). F. L. Social o y Web of Science® Times Cited: 2 Jagatic. New York: ACM Press. Ellison. 75±80).sfgate. Retrieved July 21.Smaill (Ed. o CrossRef .govtrack. o y CrossRef Kopytoff. T. (2007). (2006.DTL y Kornblum.Fielding. Structure and evolution of online social networks. Sage Handbook of Online Research Methods. Boulder. H. (2006). Jakobsson.Lee. S. Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Knowledge Discovery in Data Mining (pp. Paradesi.. 5319. y Hjorth. N.xpd?bill=h109-5319 y Hsu. V.usatoday. A Face(book) in the crowd: Social searching vs. y H. & Yuji.. & Weninger. Retrieved August 29. W. 611±617). R.htm y Kumar. The Fourth Amendment and privacy issues on the ³new´ Internet: Facebook. Google¶s orkut puzzles experts. L. 95± M. B. USA Today.. o y CrossRef Lampe. March 8).... (2007). y Hodge. Structural link analysis from user profiles and friends networks: A feature construction approach. T. R. & Tomkins. Logging on locality: A cross-cultural case study of virtual communities Mixi (Japan) and Mini-hompy (Korea). (in press). M. In N. Ellison. B.. (2005). y Hogan. Proceedings of CSCW-2006 (pp. R. In B. & Kim.). Johnson. Proceedings of ICWSM-2007 (pp. social browsing. ( C. C.. Lancaster. (2007). 2007 fromhttp://www. What you say online could haunt you. November 29). 5(10). 94±100.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/11/29/BUGU9A0BH441. CO. Analyzing social networks via the Internet. N. & G. Southern Illinois University Law Journal. M. C. 11(2). C. & Menczer.y Hjorth. 2007 fromhttp://www. 435±444).. Retrieved July 30. CA: Sage.... (2004. Communications of the ACM. (in press). J. (2006). Thousand Oaks.). M. Novak.Blank (Eds.Proceedings of Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. R. New York: ACM Press. o y CrossRef Lampe. San Francisco Chronicle. Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006. M. H. New York: ACM Press. 2007 fromhttp://www. A familiar Face(book): Profile elements as signals in an online social and MySpace.. Cambridge.

Village Voice.aspx?id=f2565bb8-663e-48c1-94eed99567577bdd y Marwick. P. 36. Social network analysis on the semantic web: Techniques and challenges for visualizing FOAF. o y CrossRef McLeod. Alexandria. 2(1). 1±17. 2007 from http://www. and power in social networking services. o o o o y CrossRef. R. (2006). 42±71. InV.y Lenhart. NV. ChemPort. & C.. QQ Attracting eyeballs. (2007. & Simonds. Communication Education. y Mazer. Chicago.. April 18). Retrieved July 30. Kumar. H. Retrieved July 30. E. Visualizing the Semantic Web (pp. R. Retrieved July 21. 2007 from LexisNexis. (2007. J. Raghavan. (2007. J. J. February). July). Jesus is my friend: Religiosity as a mediating factor in Internet social networking use. I¶ll see you on ³Facebook:´ The effects of computermediated teacher self-disclosure on student motivation.. authenticity. & Madden. Maes.. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences. (2007). affective learning.628. Financial Mail (South Africa). M. p. y O¶Shea. Paper presented at Internet Research 6.623±11. & online social networks.pdf y Liben-Nowell. R. Pew Internet and American Life Project Report. 2007 from http://www. Unraveling the taste fabric of social networks. Teens.hindustantimes...). July 4-10). W. J. ( Reno. VA.Chen (Eds. o o y CrossRef.nsba. 44576. and classroom climate.. & Tomkins. Six Degrees of sexual frustration: Connecting the dates with ADS Liu. IL.. 2007 from http://www. A. G. International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems. (2005). 229±242). (2007. C. India gets more Net Cool.pewinternet. privacy. P.. 102(33) 11. October 6). A. D.oshea. (2005) Geographic routing in social networks. E. 2007 fromhttp://www. Paper presented at AEJMC Midwinter Conference. .org/site/docs/41400/41340. Retrieved September 23. & Near. Retrieved July 30. y National School Boards Association. ³I¶m a lot more interesting than a Friendster profile:´ Identity presentation.villagevoice. D. Creating and connecting: Research and guidelines on online social²and educational²networking. Berlin: Springer. & Wright.html y Paolillo. 56(1). Murphy.pdf y Nyland.0.. October). (2006. C.Geroimenko & C. A. N. (2005. 1. Novak. Web of Science® Times Cited: 11 Madhavan. Web of Science® Times Cited: 64. July 6). P. Hindustan Times.

Berkowitz (Eds.. Report from Crimes Against Children Research Center. (2003). January 4).. & Copy and paste literacy? Literacy practices in the production of a MySpace profile. Newcastle. 28.. Structural analysis: From method and metaphor to theory and substance. Mountain (2006). 2007 fromhttp://many. J. C.UM07/Proceedings/05-Preibusch. New York: Peter Lang. y Stutzman. 1(4).. Mitchell. Kim. The role of friends¶ appearance and behavior on evaluations of individuals on Facebook: Are we known by the company we keep? Human Communication Research. B. Hoser. S. S. Van Der Heide. (2006). UK: Cambridge Scholars Press.). B. S. (2005). 49. (2007. Proceedings of Workshop on Data Mining for User Modeling. (1988). D. Y.. 678±684). F. Retrieved July 21. B. E.Wellman & S. S. & Buyukkokten. D. Retrieved July 30.pucrs.wiwi.unh.. 19±61). & Donath. (2003. 10±18. B. 3(1). & Finkelhor. S. May 13). An evaluation of identity-sharing behavior in social network communities. o y Web of Science® Times Cited: 3 Wolak.pdf y Recuero.. August). 49. J. Informal Learning and Digital Media: Constructions.Drotner. Gürses. H. UK: Cambridge University Press. (in press). Material Virtualities. 464±474..huberlin. O. Journal of the International Digital Media and Arts Association. Contexts./temp/~c110dJQpcy:e445: y Shirky.. J. CA.. Online victimization of youth: Five years later. In K.y Perkel. People on page: YASNS« Corante¶s Many-to-Many. (2007. 2007 fromhttp://thomas. &K.Social Structures: A Network Approach (pp. Ubiquitous social networks²opportunities and challenges for privacy-aware user modelling.loc. 88±106. 2007 from http://www. y Wellman. University of New Hampshire. Retrieved September 13. y y Sundén. International Journal of Web Based Communities. M. About the Authors . D. Corfu. Retrieved October 20. Evaluating similarity measures: A large-scale study in the orkut social network.Proceedings of 11th International Conference on Knowledge Discovery in Data Mining (pp. Walther. 2007 from http://www.php y Skog. & Berendt. Greece.. 110th Congress. o y CrossRef Spertus. (2005). (in press). D. Is Britney Spears spam? Paper presented at the Fourth Conference on Email and y Zinman. Cambridge. R. y Preibusch. In B. Social interaction in virtual communities: The significance of technology. Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act. O capital social em redes sociais na Internet.Schroeder (Eds. Consequences. Sahami. Retrieved July 21.pdf y S. B. (2005). (2007.corante.).Jensen. A. J. June). 2007 from http://vasarely. Revista FAMECOS. New York: ACM Press.

India.0.0. 2008 By: Sampad Swain Category: Advertising 2. . Social Networking. candidate in the School of Information at the University of California-Berkeley and a Fellow at the Harvard University Berkman Center for Internet and Society. Trend Spotting So here we are.D. 31st December 2008 and my last post for this year. This will give rise to Indian Global Microbrand. Digital Branding. Rise of ³Social Cocooning´ Year 2009 will see a new trend of ³Social Cocooning´ i. boyd is a December 31. it won¶t be wrong to predict that few top brands will be outpaced by small. It¶s because of the mass appeal generated in few pockets of the society. Although we will see many Indian brands flocking around but gaining enough traction to generate revenue is doubtful. Her research focuses on how people negotiate mediated contexts like social network sites for sociable purposes.e. these are my predictions for Indian Social Media in 2009: 1. Many bloggers have already talked about their own predictions on Indian Social Media. That means most of the social networks will try to engage their users through innovative social apps and few more to monetize. danah m. Berkeley. But twitter won¶t be mainstream in year 2009 for Indian brands to generate ROI. CA 94720&ndash Indian Social Media Predictions 2009 http://sampadswain. But it will become more & more difficult with years to come and much so will prevail in 2009 too. ingenuity and wide appeal at Global stage much due to the fact of cross-pollination between different media outlets. 3. Microblogging. Twitter won¶t be mainstream for Indian Brands to Flock Much have been talked about Twitter and it¶s state of things. Address: 102 South Hall. more and more netizens will try to aggregate content within their own group of friends using few social networks to unclutter the noise. so this one can be considered for what will happen in Indian social media in 2009.1. Though I¶ll just try to pin point few of the predictions which we will see happening in year 2009. Year 2009 will see few Indian brands taking it to the world and getting recognition at a global stage. tiny brands of today which have a stronger presence in the internet. 2.Infact. This is mostly appilicable for burgeoning social networks which areshowing downward trends from last year. Before getting into the predictions. I would bring to the notice that I¶ve alreadyreevaluated my year 2008 predictions and optimistically I haven¶t fared that badly either. Social Media. So keeping the same spirit.Marketing. Online Marketing. Media 2. Though earlier I¶ve posted on what won¶t happen in Indian Social Media in 2009. Social Media will rise to ³India Global Microbrand´ Social Media gives a chance to showcase creativity.

we already know the answer to this one! So these are my predictions for Indian Social Media in 2009. But this trend will much follow for companies who have much presence in web. traditional advertisers won¶t let it go that easily. . 5. their wardrobe composition and preferred destinations for shopping. falling between 10 and 24 years of age. 2010 Tags:Campus Compass Tracking and tapping the youthwear potential Today. To cut short the theatrical illustration. this segment provides vast potential and is a lucrative market for brands and retailers. Continuing with the same point. India is the youngest nation with the youth. Indian traditonal advertising which is at US$ 4 Bn growing at 15% Y-o-Y is mamooth in front of Digital Advertising. thank you for sticking around for 2008 and hope you will be kind enough to so do in 2009 even Campus Compass Images Bureau November 18. Doing some rough calculations. So year 2009 will be the inflection point for both these format of advertisers to do some soul searching. then you might want to look at what other Social Media mavericks have to say: Gaurav Mishra/Gautam Ghosh/Rajesh Lalwani/Nimesh Shah/Daksh Sharma Till then. their average wallet size. But Digital Advertising which stands at US$100 Mn and growing at 50% Y-o-Y will show more positive trend than traditional one. But I guess. Not surprisingly. IMAGES BoF conducted a survey to understand the youth market. it shows that digital advertising will outpace traditional one by year 2022 though I personally believe it¶s going to happen much sooner than that. chief content officer (CCO) etc. Have a Blast & be safe! Lastly. Rise of new breed of CXO¶s Year 2009 will see the rise of new breed of marketers in form of chief community officer (CCO). If you are still not done with these. Traditonal companies will see the need of such marketing technopologists and follow suit in years to come. forming 30 per cent of the total population. In March-May 2010. Fightback is emminet. They are more urbanised.4. Now one who optimizes this rule will win the mindshare of the customers. Switchover to believe ³Content is Advertising´ With reports coming in where traditonal advertising dollars are moving towards more digital ad dollars. traditional advertisers will realize that ³Content is Advertising´ which digital advertisers have realized sometime back but NOT fully. better educated and more exposed to international trends than their predecessors. here¶s wishing you all the joy and happiness for 2009. chief evangelist officer (CEO).

but Indian at heart. . The Fashion Market for the Youth Our definition of fashion encompasses apparel. This market is about 40 billion dollars or Rs 1. However. to succeed. Indians (31.000 crore in size. However. jewellery as well as accessories. The remaining market is between a billion and two billion dollars. Also the festival season from October to December experiences an enhanced sales activity among the youth shoppers. design and innovative marketing techniques to be a hit among the youth. They comprise three broad categories: Bharatiyas (67 per cent) who live in rural areas and are the least influenced by globalisation. Looking good and having a great time take up most of their funds. and Inglodians or the creamy layer (1. marketers need to remember the golden rule ² India¶s youth should not be painted with the same colours as their global counterparts. a complete contrast to most developed countries that are facing an aging population. India is growing younger. The Indian youth market is undoubtedly a big and lucrative market for global and local retailers.000 dollars and the size of the apparel market is 20 billion dollars. According to rough estimates. This brings us to conclude that any company that is planning to enter the youth apparel market in the country must concentrate on price. the Indian youth segment. Extensive research has revealed that as the college session starts. With over 60 per cent of its population under 30 years of age.5 per cent) who are affluent. A spurt in sales of apparels among the youth may be observed during the college opening season. Rs 153 for 19-23 years and Rs 145 for 23-27 years. A huge part of it is apparel. it is almost the same size as apparel. the modern-day collegegoing youth paint a different picture than their counterparts few years ago. these youngsters form the driving force behind the booming fashion and lifestyle sector. These large numbers. style and brand (in that order) are the most important parameters for a youth while making purchase. as they form a major chunk of the country¶s total population. because if you look at the per capita income in India today. But jewellery in India is very interesting. with inexhaustible awareness about everything new and upcoming. they are not a homogenous lot.Starry-eyed.00. The business of fashion is surprisingly small. 15-20 per cent increase in sales can be seen in the youthwear segment. we see that it is highest among the following three categories: Rs 178 for 15-19 years. Forming a major part of India¶s populace. Taking a closer look at the average expenditure of the modern-day youth. internet-savvy and influenced by the Western culture. consumer-oriented and no responsibilities to shoulder. make the Indian youth market a big and lucrative one for global and local retailers. more disposable incomes to splurge. between 15 and 25 years of age is around 250 million. it¶s about a 1. Of these.. Value for money. An in-depth study of the youth market and their spending patterns thus becomes essential for both brands and retailers in the country to plan their future course of action. 60 per cent of the spends are by the youth. with a greater risk-bearing capacity and being up-to-date with trends.5 per cent) who are moderately influenced by globalisation.. and is spreading across multiple product categories.

000. while 64 per cent of the female respondents spend 21-40 per cent of their total monthly expenditures on clothes. 3) Spends on Apparel On the basis of responses collected by the respondent sample. 4) Here. The young in India do follow ³trendy´ subcultures. we see that 58 per cent of the male respondents in Delhi spend 41-60 per cent of their total expenses on apparel. indulgence and sky-high aspirations leads to a ³mature. is shed as soon as they are away from parental eyes. ‡ Acceptance: India follows a different system while adopting a global trend. According to the findings of the research. with 80 per cent of men and 79 per cent women respondents spending 21-40 per cent of their pocket money on clothes every month. Confidence levels today. a red charm thread around the neck or wrist and so on.The Indian youth is going through a transition. Risk taking is now encouraged. whereas in Bangalore. spending on apparel seems to be consistent across both the genders. while that of his or her counterpart in Mumbai is Rs 7. we see that men in Delhi spend more on apparel than women. whereas in Mumbai. unlike their yesteryear counterparts.000 a month. Looking at the figures. but ³superficially´. In Mumbai. For example. youth have a dual identity with regard to their families. women are the greater spenders. Levi¶s jeans.000. This mix of fashion. a gold ring on the finger (gifted by grandparents).´ which is seen as a way to differentiate themselves from the masses. In Mumbai. Apart from being influenced by the West. ‡ Being cool: Indian youth¶s penchant for exhibitionism. a look and feel of ³neat. tradition. there are a number of factors influencing their attitudes (Fig. call centres and BPOs encourage Western apparel. meant to please the orthodox parents. they don¶t get sentimentally attached to a brand unlike in the West. Kolhapuri footwear. 1 & 2): ‡ Money: Globalisation has opened up new and lucrative job opportunities for the Indian youth. That is. Youngsters do not simply consume a trend. This explains why bright yellow or khaki were not popular with the Indian youth though they were hot-selling colours worldwide. (Fig. balanced and sophisticated. we see that the average monthly spends of a young individual in Delhi is Rs 5. leading to successful young entrepreneurs and professionals. ‡ Confidence: Current youth are essentially self-centred and materialistic. it seems to be higher. ‡ Duality: Indian youth typically lead a ³dual´ life ± professional and personal.500. Often. The outerwear. sunshine stones. there is tremendous pressure on liberalisation¶s children to ride the first wave of ³becoming rich´ before it eases off. As more and more companies set up shop in India. the survey analysed the youth¶s monthly spends on apparel across different metropolises. Bangalore¶s figures reveal that 39 per cent of men and 77 per cent of women spend 61-100 per cent of their total monthly spends on apparel alone. The majority of respondents in Delhi and Bangalore showed a monthly expenditure in the range of Rs 2. Role of the Brands Brands too are aware of this potential and most brands try to come up with youth-centric promotional schemes and sales . two layers of clothing are worn. Also. There¶s some amount of corporate influence. Youth Wallet Share The respondents in major metros across the country were asked about their total monthly expenditure. and a youth in Bangalore spends much less at Rs 3. where the trends for both the genders have also been taken into account.000 ± Rs 4. yet cool´ styling influence. a Swatch on the wrist. ‡ Tradition: Surveys reveal that young middle-class Indians are amongst the happiest people and much more satisfied with all aspects of their lives compared to those belonging to other nationalities. Their clothing ³mutates´ according to the occasion. This makes Bangalore the city where a majority of the youth spends the maximum amount of their income on clothing. but filter it through a unique osmosis process where it is treated with an Indian flavour and mixed with the finer elements of age-old customs and then ultimately readied for consumption. are on the increase. (Fig. spirituality and family values is typical of the lifestyle of the Indian youth. stemming from a need to project an image of money power. the percentage for men and women are nearly the same. An interesting example of this phenomenon is the way young Indians create a unique ensemble consisting of a kurta with wood or glass beads worn around the neck.

Thus we conclude that unlike Mumbai and Delhi. again. 6) On a metro-wise analysis (Fig. which includes 67 per cent males and 74 per cent females. 62 per cent of the youth change their wardrobes less often. while the remaining 82 per cent chose to sport only branded ones Contrary to the common belief that the college-goers prefer to buy inexpensive unbranded apparel. revamp their wardrobes. the figures for Delhi women changing their wardrobes in this span amount to 40 per cent. who are known to be the most experimental of all age-groups. in Bangalore. 76 per cent of the youth prefer branded. An overall analysis reveals that females seem to change their wardrobe slightly more frequently as compared to males. The coinciding ³sale period´ may also be a contributory factor for enhanced buying activity among the youth during this period. With this research. the survey reveals that broadly. However. the remaining 85 per cent wore branded denims and suits In the category of jackets. college-going students make their apparel purchases from both streets as well as branded stores to get the best value-for-money (Fig.twice a year . while 22 per cent prefer unbranded shirts In the category of T-shirts. 78 per cent of the youth prefer branded shirts. 7). majority of the youth prefer to revamp their wardrobe in a span of 1-3 months. youth in Bangalore don¶t change their wardrobe too frequently. The combined analysis across all the cities surveyed and across all genders reveal that: y y y y y In the category of shirts. .(Fig. while 24 per cent prefer unbranded Branded trousers were preferred by 79 per cent of the respondents over 21 per cent of those who preferred unbranded ones While only 15 per cent of the respondents chose to wear unbranded jeans and suits. IMAGES BoF tried to find out the percentage contribution of unbranded and branded apparel in the wardrobe of the youth. Wardrobe Composition With a fixed pocket money balanced well with awareness of the latest trends in the market. At an average. about 80 per cent of the wardrobe for the younger generation is branded across all categories. only 18 per cent of the respondents preferred unbranded jackets.during the July-August and October-December period as these mark the seasonal change and are also the festival or holiday period. we see that 43 per cent of the youth in Delhi and 70 per cent in Mumbai change their wardrobes once every 2-3 months. 5). Frequency of Revamping the Wardrobe Another objective of the survey was to find out the frequency at which the youth. A further city-wise break-up according to different genders states that while 44 per cent men in Delhi change their wardrobes once every 2-3 months.

´ Preferred Shopping Location and Shopping Destinations When queried about the preferred shopping destination between malls. Among the large number of malls present across each of the metropolitan cities. Ambience Mall. 9). Noida. Also. open markets and neighbourhood stores. where the respondents could select more than one choice. a majority of the respondent youth prefer the other two options ² with 99 per cent vouching for malls and another 100 per cent preferring to visit open markets. The survey shows that in Delhi-NCR. Janpath and Greater Kailash. a majority of the respondents preferred visiting the Central Mall. the research reveals that only 8 per cent of the youth prefer to pay a visit to the standalone stores in their neighbourhood or in vicinity of their houses (Fig. 8). . An overall analysis states that males make slightly more frequent visits to malls or open markets as compared to females. in both male and female respondents. V3S Mall and the popular Select City Walk Mall. MG Road. Forum Mall and Sigma Mall. Youth are going for the sporty and the casual look. Pepe and adidas are some of the favourite popular brands amongst youth. and an ex senior vice president. and skin-fit jeans are in fashion. the most sought-after open markets were Rajouri Garden. Levi¶s. the preferred open markets for shopping were Colaba Market. Even formals are being replaced by semi-casuals. the analysis for Bangalore displays that a majority of the youth in Bangalore (comprising 46 per cent men and 78 per cent women) change their wardrobes less often. in Mumbai. Marathali and Brigade Road. Also. West Gate Mall. while in Bangalore. However.Going by the survey data. High Street Phoenix Mall. marketing and sales. In Bangalore. the popular open markets were Commercial Street. ³Today¶s youth is brand conscious and a majority of the urban youth want to flaunt BRANDS. the average frequency of visiting malls or open markets seems to be once a month. has as much as 75 per cent men and 64 per cent women changing their wardrobes every 2-3 months. we can see that Mumbai. A gender-wise analysis states that 49 per cent men and 56 per cent women prefer to shop in malls and open markets (Fig. adjunct faculty with various management schools. amongst others. The sought-after malls in Mumbai were Atria Mall. Oberoi Mall and Intiniti Mall. frequency of change in wardrobe among females is much less than males in the country¶s IT hub. However. Woodland reveals. Puma. Linking Road and Fashion Street. Ambedkar Road. Nike. Connaught Place. looking at a gender-wise difference. This also shows the reason behind the increase in malls across the country. The survey reveals the trend of casual clothing figuring on top of the priority list of the youth of today. Saket. Garuda Mall. B D Nathani. The respondents were asked the names of the preferred place of shopping in all the three cities. the preferred ones in Delhi-NCR were Great India Place. the fashion capital of the country. with a large number of youth inclined to visit malls.

11). Mumbai and Bangalore. for ethnicwear. . Lastly. we tried to understand the preferred location of purchasing various apparel categories in the three metropolises of Delhi. the collective responses received from the three cities reveal that for casualwear. ³Malls act as a preferred or the favourite destination amongst the youth and a medium to get acquainted with the latest trends or for window shopping. 66 per cent people preferred visiting malls. 47 per cent of the people visited the malls. But a sizeable chunk of actual shopping happens at high street shops in places such as Janpath or Sarojini Nagar. The study says. Starting with the capital. only 29 per cent men like to shop for ethnicwear from malls. 52 per cent of the people preferred malls over open markets and other places to shop for partywear (Fig. 71 per cent of the total respondents from Delhi favoured malls over other markets. the males of the country prefer open markets over malls particularly for ethnicwear (Fig. Going a step ahead. For casualwear.Preferred Locations to Buy Apparel Categories ± Location-wise When the respondents were asked about the preferred location to purchase different categories of apparel. The results reveal that for casualwear shopping. 35 per cent people preferred malls. and for sportswear. 53 per cent of the males and 42 per cent females prefer shopping from malls. for formalwear. so as to learn the preferences of the respondent sample of the college-going youth specific to each gender. most of the men as well as women favoured malls as their shopping destination. 10) The study went further." As far as the formalwear category is concerned. For formalwear. whereas for ethnicwear merchandise. for sportswear. 42 per cent opted for malls. whereas for ethnicwear. 72 per cent of the respondents preferred malls. we found that the college-goers in Delhi are open to all options of shopping across all the categories almost equally. 66 per cent and for partywear. When we talk about the sportswear category. Lastly. not surprisingly. whereas 42 per cent of women like to shop from malls. Retailers say. discussing about partywear. the study says that more than 50 per cent of the total respondents comprising both males and females opt to shop from malls. 65 per cent of the youth preferred to go to malls versus 35 per cent of those who chose open markets. 63 per cent. the study says that 57 per cent of women like to shop from malls over 48 per cent of men. women took the lead over the men in buying the products from malls.

³The youth are day by day getting brand conscious. 16 per . 12). 43 per cent respondents opted for EBOs. On the other hand. For formalwear. Delhi and Mumbai prefer open markets. 57 per cent of the respondents would like to shop from EBOs. and the remaining 11 per cent do not have any preference as such. 55 per cent. This clearly indicates that the youth in Mumbai are open to all kinds of options presented to them for shopping. the survey analysis did not find much randomness across apparel categories. but at times they still prefer to shop at Janpath and Sarojini Nagar. 25 per cent from MBOs. Mumbai. 64 per cent of the total respondents preferred shopping from EBOs. They like to explore all kind of places. our next question was an effort to know how selective the youth of the country are while choosing apparel for themselves. in general.Moving to the country¶s fashion capital. 56 per cent of the Mumbaikars prefer going to malls. 64 per cent. Cantabil. Deepak Bansal MD. Depicting the highly selective nature of people in Bangalore. Bangalore showcases significantly more inclination towards malls than Delhi and Mumbai. for ethnicwear purchase. only 15 per cent of them would like to buy sportswear and gear from any mall. The answers we found reveal that. Preferred Outlets With various kinds of store formats opening up in country. For ethnicwear. 49 per cent. for formalwear. reveals. we found much varied and random results. Bangalore. for sportswear. the study reveals 97 per cent of the younger generation prefers going to malls when they have to choose casualwear. 61 per cent and for partywear. and are not limited to malls. most of the respondents preferred shopping from exclusive brand outlets (EBOs) across all categories of apparel (Fig. whereas only 15 per cent of them have shown the inclination of going to malls to shop for ethnicwear. As much as 81 per cent of the respondents sample preferred malls when they have to buy formals and 77 per cent opted to visit a mall for purchasing partywear. 23 per cent for MBOs. moving to the IT hub of the country. and 6 per cent had no preference. for ethnicwear. For casualwear.´ Lastly. The survey reveals that for casualwear.

and 13 per cent males and 18 per cent females who can¶t do without Pepe. 15 per cent to MBOs and the last 5 per cent would go to either of the two places. for partywear. 15). 95 per cent of the Mumbaikars voted EBOs followed by 57 per cent people from Delhi and 11 per cent from Bangalore. and the rest of the 22 per cent did not have any particular option to follow. 83 per cent of the respondents from Mumbai preferred EBOs over 63 per cent of their counterparts in Bangalore and 45 per cent of the Delihites (Fig. 96 per cent of the Mumbai respondents chose EBOs followed by 67 per cent of the Delhi respondents and 9 per cent of those in Bangalore. for partywear. . we found out that 23 per cent of the male and 28 per cent of the female respondents like to have a Lee Cooper in their wardrobe. followed by 22 per cent males and 18 per cent females. 13). who like to shop from Reebok. Raymond and Woodland are the favourite brands of the youth of Mumbai. With the formalwear category. Preferred Brands An analysis of the findings of the research reveals that Levi¶s is the most popular brand amongst youth across metros followed by Lee Cooper. 54 per cent of the total respondents would like to go to EBOs to shop. Lee Cooper and Reebok are the three most preferred brands of college-goers in Delhi. 57 per cent of the total respondents would like to go to EBOs to shop. 12 per cent to MBOs. Levi¶s. Reebok and Pepe (Fig. 89 per cent of the responses from Mumbai said that they shop from EBOs followed by 50 per cent of the responses from Delhi and 31 per cent from Bangalore. For sportswear. and 3 per cent didn¶t have any preference. Finally. whereas adidas. 49 per cent of the male respondents and 45 per cent of the female respondents definitely own at least one pair of Levi¶s jeans. 79 per cent of the respondents from Mumbai preferred EBOs as compared to 43 per cent of the respondents from Delhi.cent chose visiting MBOs. Looking up a few more figures. while only 6 per cent of the total respondents from Bangalore preferred shopping from exclusive brand outlets. Finally. According to the figures collected from the survey. Taking a look at the city-wise research outputs. while the respondent sample in Bangalore showed a preference towards Pepe. not limiting themselves to any specific kind of stores. For the sportswear category. For the ethnic category of apparel. Levi¶s and Reebok (Fig. We further found that for the casualwear category. 14).

trousers. the survey explored the most preferred branded outlets of the new-age college-goers. The survey reveals that in Mumbai. purple and green are the hot colours amongst the youth and their popularity is likely to soar in the future. whereas the women are more inclined towards branded ladies suit followed by shirts and T-shirts. Experts also believe the shades of pink.In Delhi. In Delhi. a high preference level for branded jeans. 17). followed by 45 per cent who preferred Pepe. their average wallet size. The men in Delhi have a high inclination towards branded shirts followed by T-shirts. T-shirts and denims. IMAGES BoF studied the youth in the metropolises of Delhi. there were significant levels of preference for branded apparel including jeans. The youth in Mumbai love to buy branded shirts. but as far as other categories of apparel are concerned. followed by 31 per cent who like to go for Lee Cooper. both the genders have a high inclination towards branded jeans (Fig. 72 per cent of the total respondents chose Levi¶s as a must-have. 16). In Bangalore. followed by 22 per cent of total respondents who opted for Raymond. men¶s suits and accessories. blue. The respondents from all three metropolises had shown almost equal enthusiasm for denims. followed by 28 per cent of the youth who selected Reebok as their favourite brand. who are significantly less brand conscious than those in Mumbai and Bangalore. 18). In Mumbai. Research Methodology It was in March-May 2010. T-shirts and shirts amongst the respondents (Fig. The research reveals that in Delhi. The same holds true for Delhi women. followed by 25 per cent of the youngsters who think of Reebok as an essential brand in their wardrobe. men don¶t give much importance to brands in T-shirts and trousers compared to Mumbai and Bangalore. . Delhi is less brand conscious compared to Mumbai and Bangalore. trousers. blue is the preferred colour followed by pink and white (Fig. Product Preference in Branded Outlets Further. that IMAGES BoF conducted a survey to understand the youth market. Mumbai and Bangalore. 50 per cent of the total respondents would love to have a pair of Levi¶s. For this research-based feature on the collegegoing youthwear market in India. their wardrobe composition and preferred destinations for shopping. Preferred Colours The research reveals that across all the three metros. pink stands out to be the favourite colour in Mumbai. whereas in Delhi and Bangalore. followed by 38 per cent respondents who like to have a pair of Lee Cooper in their wardrobe. Going a step ahead. In Bangalore. Bangalore has a high preference level for all kind of branded apparel. T-shirts and shirts among both males and females was observed (Fig. 19). we found that Bangalore showcases an inclination towards branded apparel categories followed by Mumbai. 34 per cent of the total respondents think that the brand adidas is a must-have in their wardrobe.

imagesfashion.The target consumers were the youth studying in colleges. The areas covered in the survey were major malls. their choice of branded versus non-branded apparel. their favourite colours and so on. in the 17-26 years age bracket. the respondent category had visited at least one outlet of branded apparel on that particular day. A structured questionnaire was developed to measure the customer buying behaviour. their favourite places to shop. Also. high streets and regular markets in all the three The questionnaire probed the decision-making process and general information of respondents.aspx?cid=570 . Analysis of the findings sheds light on the wallet share of the youth in different metros of the country. The respondents comprised of 50 per cent men and an equal percentage of young women. their preferred outlets and apparel brands. the frequency at which they revamp their wardrobes. who are active shoppers. who had purchased at least one branded apparel for him/her self in the past 30 days. http://www.