Writing Project 1

Dalia Marquez

Writing 2

Allison Bocchino

May 1, 2014
 For this writing project I was assigned to analyze two scholarly methods of addressing

my chosen topic, which is social media. Before I had chosen my topic I had to come up with two

disciplines that both address social media in some form. The two disciplines I chose were

advertising and communications because I have interest in the material that they both have to

offer. The two sources I will be analyzing for this project are, The commercialization of social

media: a literature review and conceptual framework on the strategic use of social media

influencers, which covers my discipline of advertising, and the other source being,

Understanding Self-Effects in Social Media, which corresponds to my other discipline of

communications. With these two sources being from different disciplines, I have been able to

point out certain evidence, arguments, and conventions that each of them use. The different

material embedded in both of my scholarly articles showcases the differences between

advertising and communications as well as creating scholarly communities with the certain

information offered in both writing pieces.

In the article The commercialization of social media stars: a literature review and

conceptual framework on the strategic use of social media influencers, the scholars l main

argument is how the research used in this article was done in the past three years, which means

that the topic of influencer marketing it still emerging and will continue to expand in the future.

Because research on this topic was made several years ago today, this article only offers

information into the first wave of influencer marketing, which will keep expanding as time goes

on. In addition to the scholars main argument, there are also sub arguments included in a couple

of the summary sections, which are placed after the paragraphs below the headings. An example

of this would be on page 342 where it mentions how the studies conducted, “..revealed that

influencers could set standards and change public opinions (Hudders 2020, 342),” and went on to
say that the analysis displayed that unhealthy food products were more endorsed than healthy

products. To make the overall argument of this article the scholar mentions that, “A clear

conceptualization of both social media influencers and influencer marketing is provided based on

insights from past research, taking into account recent evolutions in the field (Hudders 2020,

328).” This means that not only is this article using past research to provide insight into this

topic, but it's also gathering new information that solely focuses on the topic of influencer

marketing. In the past, the majority of the research conducted only focussed on, “..the use of

influencers as a commercial marketing tactic (Hudders 2020, 327),” which is why newer

research is more focused around the idea of influencer marketing. I find this argument revolving

around social media influencers to be convincing because of the wide variety of evidence that is

displayed throughout this piece of writing. This argument also adds a new way of understanding

influencer marketing to our collective body of knowledge, by showcasing past information and

relating it to newer research.

While I've been focusing on the advertising side of social media, I will now turn to the

mental side by diving into the article, Understanding Self-Effects in Social Media. In this piece

of writing, the scholar is arguing why self-effects in social media may be stronger online than

offline. To make this argument the scholar introduces a model, “..that may help explain how self

and reception effects coalesce in online environments (Valkenburg 2017, 478).” In addition to

using this model, the scholar also mentioned four theories that revolve around self-persuasion,

self-concept, writing paradigm, and political deliberation. At first I did think that the argument

made was convincing, but after reading that, “.. when the effect sizes found in studies of online

self-effects are compared with those of offline self-effects, online self-effects do not seem to be

more sizable than offline ones,” this changed the way I perceived this article. Like the first article
I talked about, this one also adds a new way of understanding social media in regards to self

effects, but the reasoning behind this article is different because instead of making the whole

article about how influencer marketing is evolving, Valkenburg makes it a point for the audience

to better understand the cognitions, emotions, attitudes, and behaviors, which are all factors of

the main idea, self-effects.

In the advertising article The commercialization of social media stars: a literature review

and conceptual framework on the strategic use of social media influencers, Hudder uses sources

from many researchers that have conducted work related to the topic of social media by

including a brief description of what they found and including the researchers last names and the

year it was done. An example of this would be on page 328 where it mentions, (De Veirman,

Cauberghe, and Hudders 2017). Throughout the article Hudder presents their evidence by using

the researchers name and explaining what it is they worked on. For example, “To collect a

sample of publications that cover this topic, the following steps were applied as suggested by

Paul and Criado (2020) (Hudders 2020, 330).” The scholar goes on to elaborate on how the

sample of publications were collected. The presentation of the evidence used in this article is

seemingly clear and convincing due to how well Hudder elaborates on evidence used making it

easy to understand and abide by. Hudders also mentions in this article the benefits of using these

sources and how they “...obtain clear insight into the general tendencies in the research on

influencer marketing…(Hudders 2020, 328).

To return to the mental aspect of communications, in the article, Understanding

Self-Effects in Social Media, the sources Valkenburg uses are similar to how the sources were

displayed in the previous article. An example of how Valkenburg uses their sources is,

“Self-persuasion can be defined as a phenomenon in which individuals are motivated to persuade

themselves to change their own beliefs, attitudes, or behavior (Aronson, 1999).” Throughout this

article Valkenburg mentions many different researchers and explains what they found and how it

relates to the point they are trying to get across, which is how self-effects are more present online

than offline. The presentation of the evidence used is clear because of the fact that the last names

of the researchers are in parenthesis, which makes it easy to point out. Although I mentioned

earlier how the argument made by Valkenburg is not convincing, I do not think that about the

evidence because of the way Valkenburg analyzes the sources used in this text. Compared to the

benefits displayed in Hudders article, Valkenburg talks a lot about the drawbacks of the sources

used, mentioning that, “.. none of the available communication studies have tested to what extent

online self-effects differ from offline self-effects (Valkenburg 2017, 485).”

On the topic of audience, the first article, The commercialization of social media stars: a

literature review and conceptual framework on the strategic use of social media influencers,

Hudder seems to have in mind people who work in the advertising department. This isn’t just

because the article is from the International Journal of Advertising, but because the main idea of

the article revolves around influencer marketing and the details that go into this topic. This

article seems to fall under advertising, marketing and communications. Advertising and

marketing go hand in hand and are very clear in pointing out in this article. Communication also

is an important factor in this realm of work because in social media it involves an influencer

connecting with his or her audience through the content that they put out for many to see. The

author of this article assumes that the audience already has certain knowledge about advertising

because of the use of words related to this subject. For example on page 332 it is said that, “As

such, we distinguished between studies that took an influencer perspective and studies that

captured the views of sponsors and intermediaries on influencer marketing (Hudder 2020, 332).”
The words sponsors, intermediaries, and marketing display that this piece of writing is for people

who are familiar with this type of work. In some parts of this article Hudder mentioned multiple

times how the topic of influencer marketing is time-bound and is also expected to further expand

in the future, which displays that Hudder is contributing to the ongoing discussion of this topic.

Now focusing on the article, Understanding Self-Effects in Social Media, the audience

Valkenburg seems to have in mind are fellow scholars in communications, but also makes the

content easily digestible by a wide range of audiences. The way that Valkenburg explains the

content being said makes it easy for anyone to be able to understand the importance of the

evidence displayed. The disciplines used in this article are communications as well as

psychology. This is shown when Valkenburg mentions how, “Most of the extant studies into

online self-effects discussed in this article appeared to have “imported” theories from

neighboring disciplines, predominantly social psychology (Valkenburg 2017, 487).” I believe

that Valkenburg does not assume that the audience has certain knowledge because she explains

the reasoning why she added something into the article. An example of this would be when it's

mentioned that, “In this article, I prefer to use the term “self-effects” because this term best

denoted the effects on the message creator/sender him- or herself (Valkenburg, 478).”

Valkenburg explaining why she uses this term illustrates that she wants people who aren't

familiar with communications or psychology to be able to understand her article's main idea.

Given that Valkenburg mentions how this article is a first attempt to integrate self-effects into the

three communication subdisciplines, this leaves room for future researchers to further investigate

more evidence to back up why self-effects are stronger online than offline.

In this academic paper, I have analyzed two sources corresponding with advertising and

communications which both address my chosen topic of social media. Throughout this paper I
have pointed out what both articles are trying to argue as well as what audience the scholars

seem to have in mind with the given information displayed in both writings. The article, The

commercialization of social media stars: a literature review and conceptual framework on the

strategic use of social media influencers, which corresponds to advertising has a specific

audience whom are familiar with marketing and how it works in terms of what goes on when

influencers are asked to display a product from a certain brand. On the other hand, my

communications article, Understanding Self-Effects in Social Media, seems to have in mind a

more diverse audience that doesn't seem to belong to a particular group like advertising does.

This article includes a use of language that makes it easy for anyone to understand as the central

idea of the writing involves anyone who uses social media. While the format of both articles are

similar, the use of language and what both authors are trying to argue are very different. This is

displayed in the argument of Hudders, which is that influencer marketing is time-bound and will

continue to grow, whereas Valkenburgs argument is that self-effects in social media are stronger

online than offline. The use of language and the different scholarly communities used to illustrate

what either of the arguments add to our collective body of knowledge, depict the differences both

articles display through the two disciplines of advertising and communications.

Hudders, Liselot, Steffi De Jans, and Marijke De Veirman. “The Commercialization of Social Media Stars:
A Literature Review and Conceptual Framework on the Strategic Use of Social Media Influencers.”
International journal of advertising 40, no. 3 (2021): 327–375.

Valkenburg, Patti M. “Understanding Self‐Effects in Social Media.” Human communication research 43,
no. 4 (2017): 477–490.