Connecting Tech Startups to Users: An Explorative Case Study of Dubble on Social Media Through the Duration of an Accelerator Program

 ​

   ​ Connecting Tech Startups to Users:  ​ An Explorative Case  Study of Dubble on Social Media Through the Duration of an 

Accelerator Program 

Master’s Programme in Social Sciences: Digital Media and Society   May 2015 

Hekla Goodman 

Advisor: Florencia Enghel  

Department of Informatics and Media 

Abstract  

Tech startups use social media in an idiosyncratic way. Dubble, a tech startup, inducted into an        accelerator program to grow their company, and potentially acquire investment. In a short period        of time, Dubble grew their social media following exponentially. The engagement on Dubble        social media channels helped to expand its brand community to a global audience of potential        users. The concepts of social media, engagement, and brand communities enlighten the study.       

Through interviews, observation of the two­way engagement on social media, and document        analysis, this explorative study seeks to investigate what expression tech startups and users create        on social media. The findings include engagement strategies, as well as the sources of growth        through the duration of an accelerator program. In a practical manner, this research answers        questions many startups are seeking regarding their engagement on social media, and how to        grow their brand community. 

Social Media, Engagement, Brand Community, Tech Startup, Users, Accelerator Program, Tech                      Ecosystem 

Contents  

Figures​………...4 

Preface​………...5 

1. Introduction​………6 

1.1 Definitions………..8 

2. Background​………....9 

2.1 Case Study on Dubble: A Tech Startup That Successfully Completed Ignite100  Accelerator Program………....9 

2.1.1 Dubble App Growth During the Accelerator Program…....………...10 

2.1.2 Dubble as a Social Media Platform………..11 

2.1.3 Dubble Sharing to Social Media Platforms………..13 

2.1.4 Dubble as a Subject of Study………..………..15 

3. Literature Review and Conceptual Framework​………...16 

3.1 What is Social Media………...16 

3.2 What is Engagement………....17 

3.3 Understanding Brands on Social media………...18 

3.3.1 Brand Marketing Through Social Media………..19 

3.3.2 Building Brand Communities………...20 

3.4 Summary of Literature Review………....21 

3.5 Conceptual Framework………....21 

3.5.1 Levels of Engagement via Social Media………...22 

3.5.3 Nurturing Brand­User Relationships Online………...24 

3.6 Breaking Down the Framework………..26 

3.7 Summary………..27 

4. Methods​………...28  

4.1 Methodological Basis of the Case Study……….28 

4.2 Data Collection and Analytical Process………...30 

4.2.1 Interviewees………..31 

4.3 Epistemological and Ontological Viewpoint………...…32 

4.4 Reliability and Validity of the Research………..33 

4.5 Ethical Considerations………...33 

4.6 Limitations of Methodological Approach………....34 

4.7 Summary………..34 

5. Analysis and Results​………36 

5.1 How is Social Media Useful To Tech Startups………....36 

5.1.1 Social Media Engagement Strategy………..38 

5.1.2 Sources of Growth On Social Media………41 

5.2 How Users Connect With Tech Startups on Social Media………..45 

5.3 Results………..47 

6. Conclusion​………...….49 

6.1 Study Relevance………...49 

6.2 Limitations………...50 

6.3 Further Research………..50 

Bibliography​……….51 

Appendices​………....60 

Appendix A: Interview Guide…………...………....60 

Appendix B: Information Sheet and Consent Form……..………63 

Appendix C: Thematic Analysis………....………65 

Appendix D: Online Observation…..………....67   

Figures 

Figure 1 ­ ​User Profile​………...11 

Figure 2 ­ ​Icons and Re­Dubble Options​………....12 

Figure 3 ­ ​Dubble Stream and Activity​………..13 

Figure 4 ­ ​Sharing to Other Social Media Platforms………...​14 

Figure 5 ­ ​‘Levels of Engagement’ Adapted from Delahaye Paine (2011: 80)...​25 

Figure 6 ­​‘Loyalty Ladder’ Adapted from De Pelsmacker et al. (2007: 403)​ ​...​..28  

Figure 7 ­ ​Conceptual Framework​……….26 

Figure 8 ­ ​New Update to App​………...38 

Figure 9 ­ ​Update on Company Journey​………....39 

Figure 10 ­ ​Tutorial Content​……….40 

Figure 11 ­ ​Sharing User­Generated Content​………...40 

Figure 12 ­ ​Feature for Publicity with 1.1K Shares​………..43 

Figure 13 ­ ​Publication of Dubble Online (Lomas, 2015)​………44 

Figure 14 ­ ​Customer Service Content​………..45 

Figure 15 ­ ​User Feedback Content​………..46 

Figure 16 ­ ​User Appreciation Content​………46   

Preface  

While in Sweden I was working remotely for a technology (tech) startup based in London, UK.       

In an attempt to find funding we applied for an accelerator program funded by the United        Kingdom Trade and Investment (UKTI). Coming to Ignite100, and after working for several tech        startups as a Marketing Specialist, inspiration began to form for a case study on this interesting        phenomenon. Founders would give up their comfortable livelihood for the pursuit of an unknown        future of success or failure. Their passion became the building blocks for their potential of a        sustainable company in an industry full of competition. Social media practices for the tech        startups was unique to its own culture. This tech social bubble created a set of rules for        negotiating digital media practices. The experience captivated my attention and fueled this thesis.       

First and foremost I must thank the Ignite100 and Dubble staff for paving the way for my        research. I would also like to thank Professor Jakob Svensson for his many selfless hours as the        Digital Media and Society Program Director. A special thanks to my advisor, Florencia Enghel,        for her direction and wisdom through the rigorous process of thesis writing. Finally, my greatest        appreciation goes out to my family for listening to me ramble and encouraging me to achieve        what seemed impossible at times. I could not have completed this thesis without each of these        individual people, for them I am eternally grateful. I have been challenged but endlessly enriched        by this experience.   

Hekla Goodman  May 2015

1. Introduction 

Technology (tech) startups move at a rapid pace. According to a study by Tech Nation (2015: 6),        tech startups are, ‘disrupting traditional industries, forging new innovative sectors and creating        new ways of doing business.’ Entrepreneurs open and close companies either having left a mark        on the young businesses or failing due to lack of publicity (Stelzner, 2014: 4). Accessibility to        consumers, provided by Web 2.0, has created a competitive network for companies to excel        (Castells, 2002: 64).  

In the early stages, tech startups are creating their brand from scratch and remain as new        entrants in the market. The tech companies, who have not yet acquired monetary investment, rely        on social media to grow their brand. Social media provides a way to engage users and establish a        sustainable relationship between the consumer and the company (Fuchs, 2014: 36; Van Dijck,        2013:4). Tech entrepreneurs thus utilize social media as a platform to build their brand and to        prove value to consumers. 

Furthermore, a two­way engagement with the user on social media (Aitken and

Campelo, 2011; Davis, Piven and Breazeale 2014) enables valuable networks to grow that were        once non­existent (Ballantyne and Aitken, 2007: 365; Brian Solis, 2010: 37; Morgan and Peters,        2009: 14­16). The attempt of tech startups is to build the brand on social media, to create a        community around their product or service. Brand communities carry out specific functions for        the company and user relationship, which provide benefits to both sides (Muniz, Jr. and O’Guinn        2001: 412). Tech startups negotiate their relationship with users in the brand community in a        distinct way. Through the company and users’ engagement, one can understand the role social        media plays for tech startups, as well as for the user.  

This thesis analyzes the social media engagement of Dubble , a tech startup, admitted into        Ignite100 accelerator program to grow their company. Through the three­month intensive        program, Dubble’s social media activity, with their established brand community, provides a        further understanding how social media is plays a role for a tech startup and its users. Few        studies have focused specifically on the the communication social media enables for tech        startups. Therefore, the aim of this explorative case study is to contribute to the development of       

concepts regarding social media, engagement, and brand communities. Starting with the social        media profiles of Dubble and the content they posted within their brand community, the analysis        of content online and the messages between Dubble and the users provided what social media        content was interesting to users by their engagement. The purpose of this case study is to answer        the proposed research questions:  

RQ1: How do tech startups express the company on social media? expression of tech                            startups on social media?  

RQ2: How do users express themselves through engagement with tech startups on social                          media?  

The research questions situate the study within the boundaries of concept building and  development. The research will enhance the academic understanding of the concept of 

engagement but also what brand communities establish for tech startups. This relates the study to  further development of communication studies through social media and technology. It is notable  to see the unique engagement that the users have with the tech startup, as relationships with the  users are what fuel the existence of the company on social media, and potential for the future  growth of brand equity for the company. Without the users, the company would not be able to  exist. Without the company, the users would also not be provided a way to create their meanings  or the specific type of content produced on the Dubble app.  

1.1 Definitions  

Accelerator Program is a fixed­length program (14­weeks for Ignite100) which accelerates the        success or failure of a company. Typically this is an attraction for first­time entrepreneurs who        haven’t raised investment before. The program is to facilitate an increased probability to grow by        providing: coaching and mentoring, workshops, and networking opportunities. 

Brand Community is created when users focus their attention towards brands and interact with        the brand (Arvidsson, 2005: 95; Van Dijck, 2009: 45). 

Engagement can be defined as, “a means for customers or stakeholders to become participants        rather than viewers” (Evans, 2010).  

Social Media can be defined as, “a group of internet­based applications that build on the        ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and exchange        of user­generated content” (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010: 60). 

Technology (tech) Startup​  in this case study, is a business younger than two years who are building a product or service which is primarily based on technology. 

Technology Ecosystem is a buzzword referring to the, “                 ​dynamic, dependent nature of the various        players and resources involved at the local level, such as entrepreneurs, funding, talent,        mentoring and physical space” (Watkins and Motoyama, 2014). 

Users refers to the active contributors who offer creative efforts on platforms without        professional guidance. Can also refer to one who is a consumer or customer of a company or        their content. (Livingstone, 2004; Van Dijck, 2009:41).  

2. Background

2.1 Case Study on Dubble: A Tech Startup That Successfully Completed Ignite100                        Accelerator Program  

Dubble is a tech startup company of professionals who wanted to bring techniques of photo        processing from analog photography to digital applications (apps). The self­named Dubble app        features its own social media platform whereby users, or individuals who download the app, can        mix their uploaded photos with anyone in the world through a method similar to film swapping        of the past. Comparable to Instagram as a social media platform, Dubble has a community of        photography content creators who are inclined to engage with one another through the photos        they produce together. Dubble is active on most popular social media sites: Twitter, Facebook,        Instagram, and Tumblr, and has spread in a viral way among a creative community of app users.       

Dubble, as a tech startup, has grown at an accelerated rate, and its connectivity with a co­creation        of photos has cultivated some uproar from its sub­community of fans online. As a social media        platform in itself, the study of their use of other social media platforms to drive users to their        app, is an interesting phenomenon.  

The founder of Dubble, prior to forming the company, experimented with his own side        projects, mainly smartphone photography. In research for Dubble competitors, the team found        that all of the latest photo editing apps for iPhone such as: VSCO Cam, Afterlight, and other        apps focused on double exposures like Diana Photo and Fuse, which rendered poor quality        photos, lacking what photographers admired about analog photography. The Apple App Store        offered a limited variety of photography apps that allowed one to merely change filters, which        alters the coloring of photos. There was a gap in the market for an app who could amalgamate        both new and old techniques of photo processing.  

The Dubble team’s main interest was film swapping, a more indie hardcore analog style        of photography, which was lost with the digital age. Film swapping is a process whereby one        photographer shoots a layer of film, then sends it to another photographer from another culture or        part of the world. That second photographer would shoot their layer and take it to a film lab to       

develop the film, creating a double exposure. Seeing the results, the second photographer would        send the prints back to the first photographer. Film swapping was an already existing unique        sharing community of photographers without the digital aspect. Dubble jumped at the        opportunity to bring back the element of serendipity and randomness of film swapping to the        social sharing digital world. 

After developing the Dubble app, the founders realized they needed more expertise in        business, as well as guidance on how to earn profits from their app. The company runs on the        founders’ own monetary investment as well as a small sum of investment from third parties. For        the founders to continue to build the Dubble app as well as the company, they needed a bigger        sum of investment in order to keep in operation full­time. The team knew how to create a unique        user experience with features that people would share with others, but running a tech startup        came with challenges outside of their skill set. At 272 thousand downloads of the app, it had        plateaued and Dubble needed more resources to carry it to the next level. The founders of        Dubble applied for Ignite100, a 3­month accelerator program in Newcastle, UK, in hopes of        solidifying key partnerships for business, publicity through the media channels, and the ability to        either become a self­sustaining company or secure investment from investors. The accelerator        provides a series of business coaching, mentoring the startup teams, workshops on various        aspects of tech business, and networking opportunities with a group of investors. 

2.1.1 Dubble App Growth During the Accelerator Program 

The Dubble app has been available as a free app in the Apple App Store since       ​October 24, 2013.     

Before the Ignite100 accelerator program, Dubble had 272­thousand downloads with        170­thousand active users of the app.       ​Specifically for the case of Dubble, their goal for entering        the accelerator program was primarily to grow exponentially in the number of users and to either        acquire investment or find a way to monetize their app.       ​After the accelerator program, which          provided them with a three­month time period to focus solely on the company, the number of        downloads increased to 348 thousand downloads. The amount of monthly active users from total        downloads increased from 170­thousand to 223­thousand in merely three months. There have        been over two­million Dubble photos made in 187 countries (Lomas, 2015). 

2.1.2 Dubble as a Social Media Platform 

Each user who downloads the app is prompted to create a        username and profile. When uploading a picture, the        backend development of the app is an algorithm that        calibrates each single photo, then pairs photos together to        create a double exposure (dubble).  

Users create their own content which is posted to their        user profile. Every individual photo the user has        uploaded will be viewable in their singles tab. However,        in the photo mixing process, the app automatically        creates a double exposure that is viewable to the first        photographer’s  profile  as  well  as  the  second  photographer whose photo was sourced for the dubble        (Figure 1).  

  Figure 2 ­ ​Icons and Re­dubble Options  

Underneath the photo is icons representing: the amount of likes, comments, share options        to other platforms, and a re­dubble button. The caption is situated underneath the icons.       ​The  re­dubble process can be done as many times as the user would like, pairing the same picture        with another random picture in the Dubble photo community. Unique to this app, you can choose        to Dubble with 1) random users around world, 2) users on your favorites list, or 3) the pictures        you have uploaded. 

  Figure 3 ​­​ ​Dubble​ ​Stream and Activity 

Created for mass appeal, the intent was to enable a sharing community of creatives to        connect to each other. Similar to Instagram, you can follow other users, who then become your       

“favorites”. The usernames of the photographer sourced for the dubble is posted at the top of the        photo. Your “favorites” dubble’s are viewable on your “stream”, and users can like the picture        by double tapping the picture or leave a comment. In the “activity” tab one can find: what users        have added them to their favorites, what dubbles have been liked on own’s own profile by other        users, and who has commented on one of your dubble. 

2.1.3 Dubble Sharing to Social Media Platforms  

Not only are co­created photos viewable within the Dubble app, but the dubbles are also        exportable. Dubble, photos can be easily shared to your photo library, Instagram, Facebook,        Twitter, Tumblr, and other social sharing platforms. 

Figure 4 ​­​ ​Sharing to Other Social Media Platforms 

By selecting one of the social media platforms available for sharing, immediately that app        is launched on your phone to create a post with the imported dubble created from the Dubble        app. Within the launched app, the picture is automatically signed with links, hashtags and @        mentions which lead one back to Dubble profiles for that social media platform, depicted here as        Instagram. The signature includes, “#dubble by [second photographer username] & [first        photographer username] @dubbleapp #dubbleapp #doubleexposure”. By clicking the one of the        hashtags or @ mentions one is brought to the community of other dubblers on that existing social        media platform. In this instance from Figure 4, one would be taken to the community of dubblers        on Instagram. The same would be for sharing to Twitter, Facebook, and Tumblr, or any other        social media platform.  

Dubble has active company accounts on many social media platforms; however,

Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Tumblr, are the main means of mass social media        communication and also the only platforms linked on their website. As part of the case study of        this case, I will analyze the active profiles of Dubble on: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and        Tumblr, to observe what relevance social media plays for the Dubble to engage with its users and        for the users to engage back with Dubble.  

2.1.4 Dubble as a Subject of Study 

The reason Dubble was used as the subject in this case study was due to their amount of        activity on social media. Within the accelerator program, not all companies are as proficient at        adapting to a strategy on using social media to drive traffic to their website or app. Dubble had        put a lot of time and effort into making sure that their messaging was coherent and engaging for        the user. It is also important to note that many tech startups who come through Ignite100 do not        have as much user engagement in a two­way conversation. While it would provide an interesting        study, including a case study on a failed startup would be too broad for an explorative case study        of this nature. Since there has been few studies on tech startups, I felt it was important to study        one startup company in­depth.   

3. Literature Review and Conceptual Framework

3.1 What is Social Media  

Social networking sites, otherwise known as social media, have attracted greater usage than  search engines (Garnett, 2011). Businesses have had to change the way they interact with  consumers online to appeal to customers. ​Social media has provided users with global  communication channels to share and distribute information by collaborating through social  networking sites and other social platforms ​(Zheng​ et al.​, 2015).​ ​People use platforms such as  Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Tumblr, to connect with the world around them (Garnett,  2011). But what is the definition of this phenomenon which enables user participation with  brands? Social networks have been defined by Boyd and Ellison (2007: 211) as:  

Web-based services that allow individuals to construct a public or semi-public profile  within a bounded system, articulate a list of other users with whom they share a  connection, and view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others  within the system. 

This is a practical definition of what is included on social networks, and how they work. Users in  this definition by Boyd and Ellison (2007: 211) refers to, “active contributors who offer creative  efforts on platforms without professional guidance” (Livingstone, 2004; Van Dijck, 2009: 41). 

However, users can also refer to a consumer or customer of a company. Users connect to their  friends, family, or brands they support.  

Social media was created based around the capabilities available through Web 2.0. 

Originally conceptualized by O’Reilly (2005),  Web 2.0 describes how the online world  transformed into a people­centric and participative platform (Aghaei, 2012: 3). Users were  empowered to interact with other users in their networks, as well as businesses, and create  relevant content. Focused more on the content creation and technology side of social media,  Kaplan and Haenlein (2010: 60) define social media as:  

...a group of internet­based applications that build on the ideological and technological  foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and exchange of user­generated  content. 

This definition explains the capabilities of exchange of content, which is more closely related to  the focus of social networks and what it offers to the user. However, due to the relational nature  of social media, it is important to provide a definition that focuses on the use of social media to  build community. Morgan and Peters (2009: 14­16), explains social media as:  

...anything that allows for the sharing of information online between two or more 

people.[...]The goal of social media is inevitably to build relationships with a community. 

The reference to a community in the above definition reflects how social media is a facilitator in  building relationships between users. Similar to Morgan and Peters definition, Brian Solis (2010: 

37) also expounded the concept of social media as:  

...the democratization of information, transforming content readers into publishers. It is  the shift from a broadcast mechanism, one­to­many to a many­to­many model, rooted in  conversations between authors, people and peers. 

This choice of definitions from communications focused academic literature provides the a  well­rounded scope of what social media is, provides, and how it continues to advance. Social  media has unlocked the capability for messages to be sent to a many­to­many audience. Solis’ 

(2010: 37) perspective of the many­to­many model of  mass communication involves those  within a network, giving a voice to everyone.  

Together the definitions emphasize a community of individuals who are exchanging  information without a hierarchy, for users who want to connect with other users, and content  creators as well. All are passing information from one to the next as a collective. Brands, through  the adaptations of Web 2.0, can communicate with customers in a personalized way.  

3.2 What is Engagement 

Engagement on social media has created a forum for businesses to interact with users. According        to Evans (2010), engagement can be defined as, “a means for customers or stakeholders to        become participants rather than viewers”. Participation with the brand, allows them to gather the        wants and needs of the consumer. Users becoming more confident in their engagement with        brands are willing to take the time to communicate in a two­way conversation. Consumers not       

only communicate with the brand but also share the brand with their networks. This type of        activity, which is capable through social media, directly impacts the business.  

User­generated content (UGC) is a type of engagement in which, “users express        themselves and communicate with others online” (Boyd and Ellison, 2007). Broadening the        definition of UGC, according to  Moens, Li and Chua (2014: 7) user­generated content is, 

...​any form of content such as blogs, wikis, discussion forums, posts, chats, tweets,        podcasting, pins, digital images, video, audio files, and other forms of media that was        created by users of an online system or service, often made available on social media        websites.  

Another type of engagement that is pertinent to this study is co­creation. In collaboration        with the brand, co­creators are users who engage by actively: uploading, tagging, organizing and        categorizing photos, videos, or some type of weblog (Banks and Humphreys 2008; Jenkins,        Ford, and Green, 2013: 49; Van Dijck, 2009: 44). The creators are those who are producing the        content and posting it on social media. Their activity is labeled user­generated content (      ​Moens,  Li, and Chua, 2014: 7)        ​. It would be naive to think that accessibility to technology equals the        engagement of interested users. Many feel comfortable consuming what is readily available and        already created by those on social media. Though there are differing levels of engagement to be        deciphered on social media.  

3.3 Understanding Brands on Social media  

Social media and how online engagement is changing has become an essential part of brand’s  evolving and connecting with the customer (Hollebeek, Glynn and Brodie, 2014). Ballantyne and  Aitken (2007: 365) define a brand as, “a shared reality, dynamically constructed through social  interaction”, and branding as, “a form of communicative interaction” (​ibid.​, 2007: 366). Whether  a consumer or a brand, every action is viewable by others. According to Hallam in ‘The Social  Media Manifesto’ (2013),  the increase of consumer contact to a brand has drastically changed its  meaning created on social media, and the meaning research can draw from messages between the  brand and the customer. Every action performed by a brand on social media is a reflection of the  messages it is sending to consumers. The brand profile, the pictures uploaded, likes and 

comments, engagement with users, and groups joined, is all public information for users to see. 

What the brand is can be depicted through all of these activities representing the brand (Ginman,  2011: 11; Solis and Breckenridge, 2009: 165).  

The brand itself builds a relationship with the consumer by communicating through the  brand on social media in a two­way dialog (Aaker, 2004; Aitken and Campelo, 2011; Kotler,  2002). This two­way communication between the brand and the user brings multiple 

perspectives into creation processes, and replicates and recreates the  meaning of the brand  (Aitken and Campelo, 2011; Davis, Piven and Breazeale 2014). This has resulted in an increased  complexity of meaning a business can draw from social media. Furthermore, tech startups are  unique in that they are creating the brand from scratch, without a user's perception already  formulated. Thus their meaning and potential market value is created with the user. This is has  been defined by Prahalad (2004) as co­creation. Essentially, co­creation is a process of 

integrating users around a shared identity or image (Aitken and Campelo, 2011). Consumers are  enabled an element of control over the brand expression (Brodie and de Chernatony, 2009; 

Fisher and Smith, 2011). Creating a brand as a company is easy; however maintaining the values  of the brand with users in the picture is a harder task. Co­creators seek experience and a certain  level of interactivity (Davis, Piven and Breazeale 2014). Once available to communities on  social media, where users can actively contribute, or view how the startup engages online, the  real test of marketing the brand begins. Brands need engagement to be beneficial for them, or  their brand marketing efforts on social media are a waste of time and effort (​ibid​., 2014).  

3.3.1 Brand Marketing Through Social Media 

A global market of consumers and the ability to connect with them for free has incentivized tech  startups to use social media as a marketing channel. A survey conducted by Stelzner (2014: 4) of  over 2800 marketers revealed that 97 percent of businesses participate on social media. Of that  figure, 92 percent of those marketers found social media as an important part of growing their  brand. Attributed to this growth is the way social media provides access to businesses to find out: 

what is trending on a global scale, an education of what their competition is offering, a discovery  of what consumers want, and access to expert or consumer opinions (Garrigos­Simon ​et al.​, 

2012; Morgan and Peters, 2009: 15). This access can be what separates one company from the  next in a saturated market of tech companies who may provide a similar product or service  online Furthermore, Tech startups have realized their need to be on social media in order to  connect to larger networks of users. Once connected to the user, social media then operates as a  discovery tool to find what the user like about your brand, but also to find what could be changed  about the brand (Morgan and Peters, 2009: 15). By engaging with the users, businesses are able  to find what consumers are interested in and formulate their marketing efforts in that manner, to  build even larger brand communities.  

3.3.2 Building Brand Communities 

Social media driven communities, where users feel a sense of belonging, can refer to groups of        users who congregate around specific meaning creation activities. When users focus their        attention towards brands and interact with the brand, that is known as a “brand community”       

(Arvidsson, 2005: 95; Van Dijck, 2009: 45). If meaningful engagement is the currency of social        media, it would be in the best interest of a tech startup to accommodate the needs of the user        within the brand community. Especially, due to the need for a tech startup to make a good first        impression on the user. Every user counts. According to Muniz and O’Guinn: 

Brand communities carry out important functions on the behalf of the brand, such as        sharing information, perpetuating the history and culture of the brand, and providing        assistance. They provide social structure to the relationship between marketers and        consumer (Muniz, Jr. and O’Guinn 2001: 412).  

The function of the brand community on social media is multi­faceted. Brand communities  improve the relationship between users and the brand (Meister, 2012: 139; Pletikosa Cvijikj ​et  al​., 2013), and can affect users’ perception and actions within the collective of members (Muniz,  Jr. and O’Guinn 2001: 419). When users engage with the brand on social media It allows a  further extension of  the brand to each user’s network, which enables even more users to connect  with the brand. Thus if users can build a strong relationship with the brand, then the primary aim 

of a brand should be to focus on nurturing relationships with users rather than focusing on the  monetary value of creating a customer (Carlsson 2010: 35; Pletikosa Cvijikj ​et al​., 2012). 

Building a sense of trust through engagement is more important than the sale for the company, as  it is easier to get a customer to buy a product before they become a fan or follower via social  media, initiating their satisfaction with the brand (Pletikosa Cvijikj ​et al​., 2012; Renfrow, 2010).  

3.4 Summary of Literature Review 

Summing up the literature review, social media, engagement, and brand communities are key  concepts to guiding this study. Social media provides the platform for brands to connect and  engage with the user. A brand’s aim is to build customer trust and loyalty over time, which in  return would make them a brand advocate providing a two­way connection needed to further  maintain the relationship. Brand communities facilitate this relationship, and can support its  growth. By reviewing the levels of engagement, a greater meaning can be drawn from actions  users perform on social media.  Without the engagement of users or a two­way communication  between tech startup and user, there would be no incentive for both to utilize social media for  marketing purposes.  

3.5 Conceptual Framework 

On social media, the basic elements that a tech startup needs to focus on is their engagement, and  furthering their reach through the brand community. For this study, social media for tech startups  can be defined as similar to Morgan and Peters (2009: 14­16) explanation: 

...anything that allows for the sharing of information online between two or more 

people.[...]The goal of social media is inevitably to build relationships with a community. 

However, I would offer an addendum that community, for this study, is in actuality the brand        community. Through social media, the messages sent by the tech startup are seen by many in the        network (Solis, 2010: 37). This extends as far as the user’s reach of each social media following        and beyond. When they perform activities such as commenting, liking, and sharing content, this        enables the tech startup’s content to be shared amongst a thriving network of individuals. If        Dubble’s engagement with users creates two­way communication, their network will grow.  

3.5.1 Levels of Engagement via Social Media 

Greenberg (2010: 217) has observed a 90­9­1 rule in terms of user        engagement online. The 90 percent group are those who lurk, 9        percent of users will occasionally respond on posts or like them, and        1 percent are those who contribute the most activity on social media.       

According to Delahaye Paine (2011: 80) engagement on social        media lends itself to five distinct levels: lurkers, casual, active,        committed, and loyalist.  

“Lurkers”, who exemplify the first level of engagement, are        those, “who read or watch but choose to remain invisible” (Ginman,        2011: 21; Greenberg, 2010: 216). Some establishment of        relationship occurs at this level. However, lurkers remain relatively        inactive in terms of engaging with the brand in meaningful content,        and without any loyalty to the brand. The assumption in a       

participation culture, with the advances of social media platforms, is that many would be        engaging in activities of content creation. This is not always the case.  

The next level, “casual”, is one who has a desire for further connection (De Pelsmacker et        al., 2007). These users are those who, “watch or download content distributed by others”, or        engage with content by “clicking” (Jenkins, Ford, and Green, 2013: 154; Van Dijck, 2009: 46).       

They may perform activities such as following the brand on Twitter, or liking them on Facebook.       

Though seemingly insignificant, this casual level of engagement, deemed as clicking users, is        well sought after by advertisers and website owners (Jenkins, Ford, and Green, 2013: 154). The        only deterrent is that these users may become passive, moving back down to the functions of a        lurker, by just observing what the brand does on social media. This is where most        business­to­consumer relationships end. 

“Active” users build a communicative relationship with the brand (De Pelsmacker et al.,        2007). This user is willing to provide marketing benefits even when receiving nothing in return.       

Active ​users will be inclined to: be more forgiving of company mistakes, contribute to helping       

with the product, recommend the product or service to their friends, and even pay for the product        (Delahaye Paine, 2011: 82). This can exemplified as a user contributing on Facebook posts, or        retweeting brand messages on Twitter. Thus active users connect others to the company through        their activity on their social media feeds.  

At the “committed”     ​level of engagement, the user is satisfied with the brand from        positive interactions, which incentivizes them to register with the company, provide email details        for a membership, or buy the product or service. In the perspective of the user the benefits        outweigh the costs in the relationship (      ​ibid.​, 2007). The user is still active       ​through their    contribution on social media.  

The top level, “loyalists”, are those who go even a step further than the committed       ​group  of users, in that they are interested in the growth of the brand (      ​ibid.​, 2007). They either donate          their time or are a proponent by referring their friends to the product or service. All of this whilst        their activity on social media is still active by contributing to posts, co­creating content, and        sharing it to their network.  

The foundational blocks to increase engagement from users is a process including: 

consumption, curation, creation, and collaboration​.​ Consumption is the idea that the users remain  as lurkers or casual users. Curation is the phase where the users begin to share, like, or comment  on the content posted by the brand, related more to the active users from the levels of 

engagement model in Figure 6 (Delahaye Paine, 2011: 80). Creation is the part of the phase  where users begin to co­create with the brand, or produce user­generated content, following the  behaviour of actives and loyalists. Collaboration is similar to creation, however differs in that  collaboration does not have to be in direct relationship with the brand. Collaborators can perform  these engagement activities with other users on social media and not solely with the brand, which  is the highest level of engagement.  

Levels of engagement are essential in figuring out: what is relevant to a tech startup’s  user base, how to communicate with them, how to continue to nurture the brand community, and  build it over time. More practically this is a way tech startups can measure the type of users who  engage with them online. The idea here is to progress all users to loyalists​ ​to further promote the  brand outside of the it’s network; hence, all social media engagement should be regarded as 

valuable tool for the business. These terms used in the tech ecosystem help the startup qualify  how a user is differentiated from the next. Startups aim to encourage users through their social  media content to consistently move up the ladder until they reach the level of loyalist. But what  does a brand engagement on social media look like? Understanding a brand on social media and  their connection with users to build a brand community is important to grasp why tech startups  focus their efforts on these channels of communication.  

Covering social media, next is to determine what engagement on social media means. 

Engagement for this research is a means for customers or stakeholders to become participants  rather than viewers”. Practical ways to increase engagement are determined through 

consumption, curation, creation, and collaboration​.​ With the levels of engagement analyzed by  Delahaye Paine (2011: 80), five distinct categories exist to define the users: lurkers, casual,  active, committed, and loyalist. Through the practical ways of engagement, this case study  uncovers the ways Dubble converts lurkers to loyalists through their engagement. When the  company can perform this task, their brand loyalty comes into play.  

3.5.3 Nurturing Brand­User Relationships Online  Connection to consumers through social media provides 

valuable information to marketers on how to get the attention of  specific groups and create a sense of trust and loyalty for 

businesses (Garrigos­Simon ​et al.​, 2012; Taylor, 2011;  “Web  3.0 Technology”, 2013). Groups of users engage with each  other as well as with companies about their: interests, 

knowledge, vision, and behaviors (Jenkins, 2006: 222). Those  who are engaging with the brand are more likely to become  loyal followers. Brand loyalty is defined by Aaker (2009) as  the, “measure of attachment that a customer has to a brand”. 

This can be seen at different levels which are closely related to  accumulating brand equity.  

Brand equity is the perceived value of a brand, which can be qualified by five 

characteristics: how well known the brand is in the community, its reputation with customers, its  differentiation from the competition, its relevance in the current market, and lastly its loyalty to  customers (McLoughlin and Aaker, 2010: 276).  

Concentrating on brand loyalty, the Loyalty Ladder conceptualized by De Pelsmacker et  al. (2007: 403) categorizes the user’s relationship with a brand. The brand’s goal is to build  enough brand loyalty with customers to move a “prospect”, who is a potential customer, from the  bottom of the ladder to the top as an “advocate”​. ​The advocates, represented at the top of the  ladder, are the​ ​customers who actively support and tell others of the brand. Each person who  engages with a brand’s content is further promoting the brand to their network, or social media  following. Furthermore, a brand’s engagement within the brand community has a direct 

correlation to their reputation among users (Weinburg, 2009: 26).When a user becomes an  advocate, they are more likely to be the committed to the brand and help drive brand growth  through their activity on social media (Ginman, 2011; Greenberg, 2010: 566), adding even  greater economic value of this type of follower (Jenkins, Ford, and Green, 2013:123). Thus it is  the objective of a brand to create a loyal following of advocates on social media, if they want to  grow the brand in a sustainable way. But how does this become possible? Brand loyalty cannot  exist without the user first experiencing the brand or product first­hand. 

According to Pletikosa Cvijikj (​et al.​, 2012), people who are members of the brand  community become more interested in connecting to the brand and receiving brand updates. 

Users who feel like an active contributor will be more inclined to share, like, and comment on  brands social media profiles (​ibid.​, 2012). The company’s response to comments, likes and  dislikes, in turn, hold more weight. Responding and engaging with users show them that the  company values its customers,​ further moving them up the loyalty ladder, and rooting them into  the brand community (​De Pelsmacker et al., 2007). This bottom­up process, of listening to the  users and engaging with them,  is the most important resource for a tech startup (Weinburg,  2009: 23). ​Furthermore, user engagement helps offer an understanding of the wants and needs of  the community for marketing purposes (Davis, Piven and Breazeale, 2014; ​Morgan and Peters,  2009​).​ The insights of consumers who are directly interested in the company are valuable. 

Through establishing an engagement­based relationship with these users, the company promotes  loyalty. The users who are loyal to the brand then have incentive to further endorse the brand to  others (Weinburg, 2009: 24).  

3.6 Breaking Down the Framework 

Users in the brand community grow in their inclination to connect to the brand and receive brand        updates (Pletikosa Cvijikj       ​et al.​, 2012). This brand loyalty, which is the measure of attachment        one has to a brand (Aaker, 2009), can be seen through the loyalty ladder (De Pelsmacker et al.,        2007: 403). The conceptual lens of the loyalty ladder aids in assessing the relationship between        the tech startup and the user. I observed Dubble aim to convert the brand prospect to a brand        advocate, by their social media engagement strategy. Therefore, a model to illustrate the        relationship between social media, engagement, and brand communities for this study is        necessary. 

In Figure 7, this model shows that all communication begins and flows from the facilitation of        social media. The model explains how messages from the tech startup are passed from social        media, engagement between the users and the company occurs, then the brand community is        built. When the content is engaging, first from the tech startup, the brand community is more       

likely to engage with the company. This then enables the brand community to grow, as well as        brand loyalty. This negotiation provides benefits for both sides of the relationship.  

3.7 Summary 

This conceptual framework discusses the lens I will use to explore the expression of tech startups        on social media. With the engagement between Dubble and their users, I gained a further        understanding of what social media provides for the brand. I also determined a more clearer role        social media plays for the users through their expressions on social media channels.  

4. Methodology  

The approach to research and collection of empirical data for the case study is qualitative        (Boeije, 2010:11; Bryman, 2008:36). The aim of this study is to qualitatively explore the        phenomenon of how tech startups are using social media, and what is occurring in the        engagement between tech startup and user, finding an empirical pattern of behavior (Boeiji,        2010:5). The chapter will discuss the methodological basis for the case study.  

4.1 Methodological Basis of the Case Study 

Primary to the qualitative approach is inductive reasoning, which entails the exploration of a        social phenomenon to uncover empirical patterns which present the foreground of a theory        (Boeiji, 2010: 5). The exploration of tech startups on social media positions itself as a case study        methodology in how it, “is used to explore a single phenomenon in a natural setting using a        variety of methods to obtain in­depth knowledge” (Bryman, 2012: 52; Collis and Hussey, 2009;       

Yin, 2003). However, the intent of this thesis is not to specifically produce theory in the context        of tech startups on digital media. Rather it is to explore a phenomenon currently taking place on        digital media specifically for the case of tech startups and add to the concepts of social media,        brand communities and engagement. Therefore, inductive reasoning, and utilizing a bottom­up        approach has been applied to this case.  

Adapted to case study design, I have selected Dubble, a tech startup, as a single case to        gain a deeper understanding, thus also noting that the study is dependent upon a particular set of        variables (Bryman, 2012: 52). Since Dubble was in an accelerator program at the time of the        study, this may or may not have influenced the company’s visibility to other: businesses,        investors, marketing channels, and users. 

I followed a semi­structured interview model. Prior to the interviews, I drafted an        interview guide which included a series of core thematic standardized questions and interviewee        specific questions to gain more depth of understanding (Corbetta, 2003: 284). Questions were        focused around pulling from their past social media experiences for tech startup companies, as        well as instances through the accelerator program on social media (see Appendix A) This        enabled me to focus the interviewees around the study but also provide room for broader       

discussion and language to come forth (Boeije, 2010: 8). Due to my involvement with the        company in an office setting, the questions may have unintended leading questions. In a small        environment it is difficult to remain completely un­biased. Interviewees were simply briefed that        their information would be used for research and they would be contacted if their responses        would be used in any future publications. Stated in the information sheet was the freedom to        discontinue the interview and participation in the study at any time (see Appendix B). 

The online observation was utilized as a way to notice what was said between Dubble        and the users, as well as to recognize the context in which both were using this means of        communication. This type of method offers a powerful approach to exploring human interactions        and the recorded experiences or instances that occur online. I used this method to gain        understanding by recording fieldnote data of the social media sites that Dubble uses on a regular        basis. This method allows the researcher to be conscious of reflexivity, and to gather the data        without being obtrusive to the online community (Hooley, Wellens and Marriott, 2012: 86­89). 

Due to the online nature of the tech industry, document analysis namely publications        from online editorials or publicity online involving Dubble was observed. This method of        research is necessary because it provides two clear advantages for the case study. First, it is        outside of the power of the subject or the researcher to distort the information provided. Second,        the publications exist online, which is outside of the capability of researcher manipulation for        the study (Corbetta, 2003: 287­88). Particular messages can inform reasons why users were        willing to connect with Dubble as a company over social media, or resulted in app downloads.       

Furthermore, these documents are easily accessible and act as a good source of background        information on Dubble. Through document analysis the researcher has the ability to observe        what editorials are saying about the company. It is also possible that topics not covered in the        interviews or through online observation are seen in these publications (Bowen, 2009).   

The last method which cannot be discounted is participant observation. Working in close        proximity with the company, I have gained more intimate knowledge of Dubble and their habits,        as well as of the interviewees and their habits (Gregory, 2009). A researcher outside of the        Ignite100 tech ecosystem would not necessarily have the established relationship with the        subjects, and may not have had the same ability to gather as much in­depth information from the       

respondents. Through participant observation I was able to get an inside point­of­view to the        company, how it operates with the users in mind, as well as their thought process when executing        tasks via social media.  

4.2 Data Collection and Analytical Process 

The data was collected in three distinct periods. The first, an online observation of Dubble on        social media, was gathered from the 1st of January to the 19th of February. The selected period        was the last 6­weeks of the accelerator program. This is the stage of the program when the tech        startups are attempting to build their numbers of users or customers on their apps to appeal to        potential investors by the end presentation. The data collection resulted in hours of logging field        notes of Dubble activity on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Tumblr. Messages from both        Dubble and the users were analyzed to observe what was being said in two­way communication        between the company and users. The analytical process began to take shape as conversations        formed the context for themes to analyze throughout the second period of data.   

The second period was the 6th of March when the interviews were conducted.       

Interviewees were free to select the time, date and location of the interviews to ensure        participants were at ease. Subsequently, they occurred on the same day, and in the same office,        Campus North, where Ignite100 is in operation. One interview was conducted over Skype whilst        I was in a meeting room in Campus North, due to the participants business meetings abroad. The        interviews were recorded and notes taken during the interview. Questions that arose were noted        and asked at the appropriate time. The duration of the interviews was 25­30 minutes in total,        which resulted in 12 pages of transcription. Adding to the online observation themes began to        emerge through the interviews which coincided with the data collected on social media. Notes of        these correlations were recorded. 

The interviews were transcribed in totality. The process of transcribing enabled me to

see the data through a different lens and identify what was important from the point of view of        the tech startups. Through a process of open coding, I deciphered themes in the text as a broad        overview. Subsequently, I went through the texts more in depth and making comments in the        margins, establishing categories from the themes, then amalgamated these into one accessible       

document. Pertinent categories and responses from the participants helped to reveal relevance for        the document analysis as well. Both were able to indicate sources who had published about        Dubble, which would provide more insight to the case.  

The third period, on the 9th of March, was dedicated to document analysis. By        pinpointing where Dubble was featured on press publications, I was able to see what messages        were communicated about the company. Outside of the company’s efforts, these document        sources provided publicity for the company and reveal insight into how their users could connect        to Dubble via social media.  

4.2.1 Interviewees 

When I primarily contacted Ignite100 to inform them of my study, the accelerator program was        still in progress. Since I had been working in the Campus North office prior, where Ignite100        accelerator program is in operation, I had a pre­established rapport with the company. The        mentors suggested a few tech startup companies who would be pertinent to the case study. I        informed the potential candidates of the study and continued contact with them either via email        or the internal communications system used at the Ignite100 campus. A few companies were        interested in participating, but it was necessary to do a preliminary analysis of their social media        activity to determine if the company would provide relevant data, engrossing enough evidence        for the case study. The response from companies was rather intriguing, many were willing to        offer their skills and expertise, according to their availabilities.  

The chosen participants had a fairly diverse backgrounds in the tech industry. They were        chosen based on their knowledge and experience within the industry in their specific fields. One        as a mentor with experience in succeeded and failed startups, and the other as a founder of a tech        company. Interviewee 1 came from a background of a failed and a succeeded startup and is now        the founder and mentor of Ignite100. Interviewee 2 came from a career in photography, who had        an idea for a photography app for the iPhone. Both are from different age brackets, Interviewee 1        between 35­44 years old, and Interviewee 2 between 25­34 years old, residing in different        countries. 

Though the tech community at Ignite100 is small, and a select audience may be able to        gather who the interviewees are, it was still discussed prior to the interviews that their identity        would remain anonymous. The participants were interested in the topic, which leads me to        believe that the study has relevance in the field, by delving into a deeper understanding of social        media use for tech startups. Questions answered provided substantial patterns throughout the        interviews, which meant the interviews rendered sufficient data for the thematic analysis.  

4.3 Epistemological and Ontological Viewpoint 

Within the constructs of epistemology, the knowledge gained through theory, it is often argued        whether research in social sciences should align with the same principles of natural sciences        (Bryman, 2012: 27). However, due to the subjective nature of interpretivist research, a different        logic is required to observe the phenomenon of tech startups on social media. Interpretivism is        the belief that the researcher has been exposed to and influenced by their surroundings, which        enables one to be able to grasp a greater understanding of the phenomenon (Bryman, 2012: 28).       

As I was present with the community of entrepreneurs, it is reasonable to believe that valuable        contextual data collection is possible. The researcher is a part of the knowledge production.       

Meaning that is created by knowledge production is a social and relational construct. Inductive        research begins with real world concepts and forms theory around those observations        (Gummesson, 2000: 63). Therefore, the study lends itself to an inductive, or a concept­building        approach, is utilized.  

The ontology of this study consists of the reality created by tech startups, and the basic        elements it incorporates (Silverman, 2010: 109). The interpretivist epistemology works        hand­in­hand with the ontology by establishing a more well­rounded view of the startups        engagement with their users. The company, Dubble, and the meaning it creates may shift over        time. As the nature of the company is a tech startup, it is reasonable to deduce that their        meanings are continually changing due to the outside social factors which may include: what        customers want, what founders implement, or what Ignite100 suggests throughout the accelerator        program. Social realities in social science research are treated constantly in flux (Silverman,        2010: 289). This position challenges the view that culture and organization is predefined.       

Knowledge must explain the social world around it. Everything created by Dubble is subject to        change, and what they have done throughout the accelerator program may not always define        what they do after the accelerator program.  

4.4 Reliability and Validity of the Research 

By a triangulation of methods, constituting of  primary sources of data, interviews and online  observation, as well as a secondary source of data, document analysis, this research has been  carefully examined. The ‘triangulation of methods’ otherwise known as a ‘triad’, strengthens the  validity and reliability of the case study hence greatly increasing the chances of accuracy for  social scientific research (Wellington and Szczerbiński 2007:113­14). This process reveals an  enhanced description and varied dimensions of a phenomenon being studied (Boeije, 2010: 176). 

Though I am aware of the presented case study relevance to a specific set of variables, it is  reasonable to say that replication of qualitative research is not prevalent within social research  (Boeiji, 2010: 176; Bryman, 2012: 47). It has been proposed that research of qualitative nature  should have a different means of evaluation in terms of validity. The proposed theory verifies  that trustworthiness should be a set of criteria including credibility, transferability, 

dependability, and confirmability (Bryman, 2012: 49; Lincoln and Guba, 2013: 82). The data  collected was a representative sample of the position of many tech startups observed by the  researcher. This research strives to provide as in­depth of a case study as possible through the  analysis of sufficient data collected. 

4.5 Ethical Considerations  

The identities of all participants in the interviews have been be kept confidential, as the        information sheet and consent form clearly stated prior to their involvement with the interviews.       

Consequently, as I was involved with the tech community in Newcastle, United Kingdom, and        many were aware of my study. For this purpose, I changed the names of the participants to        Interviewee 1 and Interviewee 2. However, some may be knowledgeable of the participants used        in the study by connecting the dots (Lincoln and Guba, 2013: 75). All record of their full