IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v129y2018icp339-344.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing coverage of disruptive change in social and traditional media: Evidence from the sharing economy

Author

Listed:
  • Laurell, Christofer
  • Sandström, Christian

Abstract

How do social media differ from traditional media in their coverage of disruptive technological change? We explore how two entrants transforming the personal transportation and accommodation sectors are covered in social and traditional media. Using content analysis, we conclude that these two forms of media differ substantially. Traditional media is focused on how the two entrants affect society and their respective sectors at large, whilst social media instead function as accelerators for the entrants as they receive predominantly positive coverage. Therefore, our findings suggest that the rise of social media may accelerate the growth of disruptive innovations which can, in turn, reduce the window for response.

Suggested Citation

  • Laurell, Christofer & Sandström, Christian, 2018. "Comparing coverage of disruptive change in social and traditional media: Evidence from the sharing economy," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 339-344.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:129:y:2018:i:c:p:339-344
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.038
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162517314671
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.038?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sabatier, Valerie & Craig-Kennard, Adrienne & Mangematin, Vincent, 2012. "When technological discontinuities and disruptive business models challenge dominant industry logics: Insights from the drugs industry," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 79(5), pages 949-962.
    2. Gruen, Thomas W. & Osmonbekov, Talai & Czaplewski, Andrew J., 2006. "eWOM: The impact of customer-to-customer online know-how exchange on customer value and loyalty," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(4), pages 449-456, April.
    3. Christofer Pihl, 2013. "When customers create the ad and sell it - a value network approach," Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(2), pages 127-143, March.
    4. Mary J. Benner & Mary Tripsas, 2012. "The influence of prior industry affiliation on framing in nascent industries: the evolution of digital cameras," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(3), pages 277-302, March.
    5. Valérie Sabatier & Adrienne Kennard & Vincent Mangematin, 2012. "When technological discontinuities and disruptive business models challenge dominant industry logics: insights from the drugs industry," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) hal-00658727, HAL.
    6. Dobusch, Leonhard & Schüßler, Elke, 2014. "Copyright reform and business model innovation: Regulatory propaganda at German music industry conferences," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 24-39.
    7. Dosi, Giovanni, 1993. "Technological paradigms and technological trajectories : A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 102-103, April.
    8. Kaplan, Sarah & Tripsas, Mary, 2008. "Thinking about technology: Applying a cognitive lens to technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 790-805, June.
    9. Phelps, Joseph E. & Lewis, Regina & Mobilio, Lynne & Perry, David & Raman, Niranjan, 2004. "Viral Marketing or Electronic Word-of-Mouth Advertising: Examining Consumer Responses and Motivations to Pass Along Email," Journal of Advertising Research, Cambridge University Press, vol. 44(4), pages 333-348, December.
    10. Amankwah-Amoah, Joseph, 2016. "Competing technologies, competing forces: The rise and fall of the floppy disk, 1971–2010," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 121-129.
    11. Christofer Laurell & Christian Sandström, 2014. "Disruption And Social Media — Entrant Firms As Institutional Entrepreneurs," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(03), pages 1-17.
    12. Stefan Stieglitz & Linh Dang-Xuan & Axel Bruns & Christoph Neuberger, 2014. "Social Media Analytics," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 6(2), pages 89-96, April.
    13. Cooper, Arnold C. & Schendel, Dan, 1976. "Strategic responses to technological threats," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 61-69, February.
    14. Lipizzi, Carlo & Iandoli, Luca & Marquez, José Emmanuel Ramirez, 2016. "Combining structure, content and meaning in online social networks: The analysis of public's early reaction in social media to newly launched movies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 35-49.
    15. Christofer Laurell & Christian Sandström, 2016. "Analysing Uber In Social Media — Disruptive Technology Or Institutional Disruption?," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(05), pages 1-19, June.
    16. Kyujin Jung & Kenneth Chilton & Jesus N. Valero, 2017. "Uncovering stakeholders in public–private relations on social media: a case study of the 2015 Volkswagen scandal," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 1113-1131, May.
    17. Kaplan, Andreas M. & Haenlein, Michael, 2010. "Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 59-68, January.
    18. Laurell, Christofer & Sandström, Christian, 2017. "The sharing economy in social media: Analyzing tensions between market and non-market logics," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 58-65.
    19. Mary Tripsas, 1997. "Unraveling The Process Of Creative Destruction: Complementary Assets And Incumbent Survival In The Typesetter Industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(S1), pages 119-142, July.
    20. Daron Acemoglu & James A. Robinson, 2006. "De Facto Political Power and Institutional Persistence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(2), pages 325-330, May.
    21. Mavragani, Amaryllis & Tsagarakis, Konstantinos P., 2016. "YES or NO: Predicting the 2015 GReferendum results using Google Trends," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 1-5.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Majdouline, Ilias & Baz, Jamal El & Jebli, Fedwa, 2022. "Revisiting technological entrepreneurship research: An updated bibliometric analysis of the state of art," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    2. Brougham, David & Haar, Jarrod, 2020. "Technological disruption and employment: The influence on job insecurity and turnover intentions: A multi-country study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    3. Zhenfeng Liu & Ya Xiao & Jian Feng, 2021. "Manufacturer’s Sharing Servitization Transformation and Product Pricing Strategy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-20, February.
    4. Lehmann, Julian & Weber, Florian & Waldkirch, Matthias & Graf-Vlachy, Lorenz & König, Andreas, 2022. "Institutional work battles in the sharing economy: Unveiling actors and discursive strategies in media discourse," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Geissinger, Andrea & Laurell, Christofer & Sandström, Christian & Eriksson, Klas & Nykvist, Rasmus, 2019. "Digital entrepreneurship and field conditions for institutional change– Investigating the enabling role of cities," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 877-886.
    2. Geissinger, Andrea & Laurell, Christofer & Sandström, Christian, 2020. "Digital Disruption beyond Uber and Airbnb—Tracking the long tail of the sharing economy," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    3. Michael G. Jacobides & John Paul MacDuffie & C. Jennifer Tae, 2016. "Agency, structure, and the dominance of OEMs: Change and stability in the automotive sector," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(9), pages 1942-1967, September.
    4. Ernkvist, Mirko, 2015. "The double knot of technology and business-model innovation in the era of ferment of digital exchanges: The case of OM, a pioneer in electronic options exchanges," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 285-299.
    5. Pinar Ozcan & Douglas Hannah, 2020. "Social Origins of Great Strategies Advertising Suppliers to Realize Disruptive Social Media Technology," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(3), pages 193-217, September.
    6. Bart Leten & Rene Belderbos & Bart Van Looy, 2016. "Entry and Technological Performance in New Technology Domains: Technological Opportunities, Technology Competition and Technological Relatedness," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(8), pages 1257-1291, December.
    7. Mary Tripsas, 2008. "Customer preference discontinuities: a trigger for radical technological change," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(2-3), pages 79-97.
    8. Hoppmann, Joern & Anadon, Laura Diaz & Narayanamurti, Venkatesh, 2020. "Why matter matters: How technology characteristics shape the strategic framing of technologies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1).
    9. M. Lourdes Sosa, 2014. "Corporate Structure, Indirect Bankruptcy Costs, and the Advantage of De Novo Firms: The Case of Gene Therapy Research," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(3), pages 850-867, June.
    10. Mary Tripsas, 2009. "Technology, Identity, and Inertia Through the Lens of “The Digital Photography Company”," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 441-460, April.
    11. Joshua S. Gans & Michael Kearney & Erin L. Scott & Scott Stern, 2021. "Choosing Technology: An Entrepreneurial Strategy Approach," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 39-53, March.
    12. Kaplan, Sarah & Tripsas, Mary, 2008. "Thinking about technology: Applying a cognitive lens to technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 790-805, June.
    13. Laurell, Christofer & Sandström, Christian & Suseno, Yuliani, 2019. "Assessing the interplay between crowdfunding and sustainability in social media," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 117-127.
    14. Vecchiato, Riccardo, 2017. "Disruptive innovation, managerial cognition, and technology competition outcomes," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 116-128.
    15. Lo, Jade Y. & Nag, Rajiv & Xu, Lei & Agung, Shanti D., 2020. "Organizational innovation efforts in multiple emerging market categories: Exploring the interplay of opportunity, ambiguity, and socio-cognitive contexts," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(3).
    16. Sanderson, Susan Walsh & Simons, Kenneth L., 2014. "Light emitting diodes and the lighting revolution: The emergence of a solid-state lighting industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(10), pages 1730-1746.
    17. Geissinger, Andrea & Laurell, Christofer & Öberg, Christina & Sandström, Christian, 2023. "Social media analytics for innovation management research: A systematic literature review and future research agenda," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    18. Akbari, Morteza & Foroudi, Pantea & Zaman Fashami, Rahime & Mahavarpour, Nasrin & Khodayari, Maryam, 2022. "Let us talk about something: The evolution of e-WOM from the past to the future," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 663-689.
    19. Sarah Kaplan & Wanda J. Orlikowski, 2013. "Temporal Work in Strategy Making," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 965-995, August.
    20. Dahlin, Kristina B. & Behrens, Dean M., 2005. "When is an invention really radical?: Defining and measuring technological radicalness," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 717-737, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:129:y:2018:i:c:p:339-344. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.