skip to main content
research-article
Open Access

The Unique Challenges for Creative Small Businesses Seeking Feedback on Social Media

Published:22 April 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Social media can be an effective source of feedback on open-ended work, such as product design. Unlike large businesses with entire teams dedicated to "social," little is understood about how small business owners-constrained both in personnel and resources-leverage the benefits of direct, informal communication channels afforded by social media. Drawing on a series of design workshops and interviews with 26 small business owners at a local feminist makerspace, we report on the unique challenges small business owners experience when seeking feedback on open-ended work via social media. We found participants carefully balanced large-scale access to diverse audiences with attempts to receive reliable feedback, and they often targeted audiences narrowly to reinstate control and build trust. In addition, the small business owners in our workshop idealized building authentic relationships with their social audiences to create collectively. To do so successfully, participants detailed the extensive behind-the-scenes work required of them such as navigating blurred personal and business identities and the self-regulation necessary to continuously stay engaged and not internalize discouraging feedback.

References

  1. [n.d.]. Etys 2017 Impact Report. https://extfiles.etsy.com/Impact/2017EtsyImpactUpdate.pdf. Accessed: 2020-01--23.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. [n.d.]. Etys 2018 Transparency Report. https://extfiles.etsy.com/advocacy/Etsy_2018_Transparency_Report.pdf. Accessed: 2019-10-12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. [n.d.]. Etys 2019 Transparency Report. https://extfiles.etsy.com/advocacy/Etsy_2019_Transparency_Report.pdf. Accessed: 2020-05-12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. [n.d.]. Forever 21's design features a slightly different "I" but is otherwise basically identical to Larson's. https://www.buzzfeed.com/stephaniemcneal/forever-21-design-claims. Accessed: 2019-10-12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. [n.d.]. The Future Of Work In Progress (WIPs). https://web.archive.org/web/20160421001929/https://help.behance.net/hc/en-us/articles/218288227-The-future-of-Work-in-Progress-WIPs-. Accessed: 2019-10-12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. [n.d.]. Impostor Syndrome: A definition. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/impostor_syndrome. Accessed:2019-10-12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. [n.d.]. Survey: Nearly 1 in 3 side hustlers needs the income to stay afloat. https://www.bankrate.com/personalfinance/side-hustles-survey-june-2019/. Accessed: 2020-05-20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. [n.d.]. Treating regular people like influencers is the key to Glossier's success. https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/1/15/18184151/glossier-emily-weiss-marketing-strategy-recode. Accessed: 2020-05-20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Place. Prototype PGH. https://prototypepgh.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Susan J Ashford and Larry L Cummings. 1983. Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strategies of creating information. Organizational behavior and human performance 32, 3 (1983), 370--398.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Seyram Avle, Julie Hui, Silvia Lindtner, and Tawanna Dillahunt. 2019. Additional Labors of the Entrepreneurial Self. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1--24.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Justin M Berg. 2016. Balancing on the creative highwire: Forecasting the success of novel ideas in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 61, 3 (2016), 433--468.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Moira Burke, Robert Kraut, and Cameron Marlow. 2011. Social capital on Facebook: Differentiating uses and users. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 571--580.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Bill Buxton. 2010. Sketching user experiences: getting the design right and the right design. Morgan kaufmann.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Mariko Lin Chang. 2010. Shortchanged: Why women have less wealth and what can be done about it. Oxford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Kathy Charmaz and Linda Liska Belgrave. 2007. Grounded theory. The Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology (2007).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Ruijia Cheng, Ziwen Zeng, Maysnow Liu, and Steven Dow. 2020. Critique Me: Exploring How Creators Publicly Request Feedback in an Online Critique Community. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW2 (2020), 1--24.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Patrick A Crain and Brian P Bailey. 2017. Share Once or Share Often?: Exploring How Designers Approach Iteration in a Large Online Community. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition. ACM, 80--92.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Tawanna R Dillahunt and Joey Chiao-Yin Hsiao. 2020. Positive Feedback and Self-reflection: Features to Support Self-efficacy among Underrepresented Job Seekers. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Brooke Erin Duffy. 2017. (Not) getting paid to do what you love: Gender, social media, and aspirational work. Yale University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Nicole Ellison, Rebecca Gray, Jessica Vitak, Cliff Lampe, and Andrew T Fiore. 2013. Calling all Facebook friends: Exploring requests for help on Facebook. In Seventh international AAAI conference on Weblogs and social media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Brynn M Evans, Sanjay Kairam, and Peter Pirolli. 2010. Do your friends make you smarter?: An analysis of social strategies in online information seeking. Information Processing & Management 46, 6 (2010), 679--692.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Eureka Foong, Steven P Dow, Brian P Bailey, and Elizabeth M Gerber. 2017. Online feedback exchange: A framework for understanding the socio-psychological factors. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 4454--4467.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Sarah Fox, Rachel Rose Ulgado, and Daniela Rosner. 2015. Hacking culture, not devices: Access and recognition in feminist hackerspaces. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing. ACM, 56--68.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Johann Füller, Kurt Matzler, and Melanie Hoppe. 2008. Brand community members as a source of innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management 25, 6 (2008), 608--619.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Pascalle CM Govers and Ruth Mugge. 2004. I love my Jeep, because its tough like me: The effect of product-personality congruence on product attachment. In Proceedings of the fourth international conference on design and emotion, Ankara, Turkey. 12--14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Mary L Gray and Siddharth Suri. 2019. Ghost Work: How to Stop Silicon Valley from Building a New Global Underclass. Eamon Dolan Books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Kathryn Greene, Valerian J Derlega, and Alicia Mathews. 2006. Self-disclosure in personal relationships. The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (2006), 409--427.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. F Maxwell Harper, Daphne Raban, Sheizaf Rafaeli, and Joseph A Konstan. 2008. Predictors of answer quality in online Q&A sites. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 865--874.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Christina N Harrington, Katya Borgos-Rodriguez, and Anne Marie Piper. 2019. Engaging Low-Income African American Older Adults in Health Discussions through Community-based Design Workshops. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 593.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. John Hattie and Helen Timperley. 2007. The power of feedback. Review of educational research 77, 1 (2007), 81--112.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Arlie Russell Hochschild. 2012. The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Univ of California Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Julie Hui, Nefer Ra Barber, Wendy Casey, Suzanne Cleage, Danny C Dolley, Frances Worthy, Kentaro Toyama, and Tawanna R Dillahunt. 2020. Community Collectives: Low-tech Social Support for Digitally-Engaged Entrepreneurship. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--15.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Julie Hui, Amos Glenn, Rachel Jue, Elizabeth Gerber, and Steven Dow. 2015. Using anonymity and communal efforts to improve quality of crowdsourced feedback. In Third AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Julie Hui, Kentaro Toyama, Joyojeet Pal, and Tawanna Dillahunt. 2018. Making a Living My Way: Necessity-driven Entrepreneurship in Resource-Constrained Communities. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2, CSCW (2018), 71.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Julie S Hui, Elizabeth M Gerber, and Steven P Dow. 2014. Crowd-based design activities: helping students connect with users online. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Designing interactive systems. ACM, 875--884.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Hyeonsu B Kang, Gabriel Amoako, Neil Sengupta, and Steven P Dow. 2018. Paragon: An online gallery for enhancing design feedback with visual examples. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Tom Kelley and David Kelley. 2013. Creative confidence: Unleashing the creative potential within us all. Currency.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Joy Kim, Maneesh Agrawala, and Michael S Bernstein. 2017. Mosaic: designing online creative communities for sharing works-in-progress. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. ACM, 246--258.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Avraham N Kluger and Angelo DeNisi. 1996. The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological bulletin 119, 2 (1996), 254.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Yasmine Kotturi and McKayla Kingston. 2019. Why do Designers in the ?Wild" Wait to Seek Feedback Until Later in their Design Process?. In Proceedings of the 2019 on Creativity and Cognition. ACM, 541--546.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Markus Krause, Tom Garncarz, JiaoJiao Song, Elizabeth M Gerber, Brian P Bailey, and Steven P Dow. 2017. Critique style guide: Improving crowdsourced design feedback with a natural language model. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 4627--4639.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Robert E Kraut and Paul Resnick. 2012. Building successful onlin communities: Evidence-based social design. Mit Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Chinmay Kulkarni, Koh Pang Wei, Huy Le, Daniel Chia, Kathryn Papadopoulos, Justin Cheng, Daphne Koller, and Scott R Klemmer. 2013. Peer and self assessment in massive online classes. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 20, 6 (2013), 33.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Chinmay E Kulkarni, Michael S Bernstein, and Scott R Klemmer. 2015. PeerStudio: rapid peer feedback emphasizes revision and improves performance. In Proceedings of the second (2015) ACM conference on learning@ scale. ACM, 75--84.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Stacey Kuznetsov and Eric Paulos. 2010. Rise of the expert amateur: DIY projects, communities, and cultures. In Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries. ACM, 295--304.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Lan Li, Xiongyi Liu, and Allen L Steckelberg. 2010. Assessor or assessee: How student learning improves by giving and receiving peer feedback. British journal of educational technology 41, 3 (2010), 525--536.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Kurt Luther, Amy Pavel, Wei Wu, Jari-lee Tolentino, Maneesh Agrawala, Björn Hartmann, and Steven P Dow. 2014. CrowdCrit: crowdsourcing and aggregating visual design critique. In Proceedings of the companion publication of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing. 21--24.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Kurt Luther, Jari-Lee Tolentino, Wei Wu, Amy Pavel, Brian P Bailey, Maneesh Agrawala, Björn Hartmann, and Steven P Dow. 2015. Structuring, aggregating, and evaluating crowdsourced design critique. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. ACM, 473--485.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Frank Lyman. 1987. Think-pair-share: An expanding teaching technique. Maa-Cie Cooperative News 1, 1 (1987), 1--2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Xiao Ma, Justin Cheng, Shankar Iyer, and Mor Naaman. 2019. When Do People Trust Their Social Groups?. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 67.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Lena Mamykina, Bella Manoim, Manas Mittal, George Hripcsak, and Björn Hartmann. 2011. Design lessons from the fastest q&a site in the west. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, 2857--2866.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Jennifer Marlow and Laura Dabbish. 2014. From rookie to all-star: professional development in a graphic design social networking site. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing. ACM, 922--933.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Alice E Marwick and Danah Boyd. 2011. I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New media & society 13, 1 (2011), 114--133.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Meredith Ringel Morris, Jaime Teevan, and Katrina Panovich. 2010. What do people ask their social networks, and why?: a survey study of status message q&a behavior. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, 1739--1748.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Gina Neff. 2012. Venture labor: Work and the burden of risk in innovative industries. MIT press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Thi Thao Duyen T Nguyen, Thomas Garncarz, Felicia Ng, Laura A Dabbish, and Steven P Dow. 2017. Fruitful Feedback: Positive affective language and source anonymity improve critique reception and work outcomes. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. ACM, 1024--1034.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. David J Nicol and Debra Macfarlane-Dick. 2006. Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in higher education 31, 2 (2006), 199--218.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Anne Oeldorf-Hirsch and Darren Gergle. 2020. 'Who Knows What' Audience Targeting for Question Asking on Facebook. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, GROUP (2020), 1--20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Frank T Piller, Alexander Vossen, and Christoph Ihl. 2012. From social media to social product development: the impact of social media on co-creation of innovation. Die Unternehmung 65, 1 (2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Ayala Malach Pines, Miri Lerner, and Dafna Schwartz. 2010. Gender differences in entrepreneurship. Equality, diversity and inclusion: An International journal 29, 2 (2010), 186--198.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Daniela K Rosner, Saba Kawas, Wenqi Li, Nicole Tilly, and Yi-Chen Sung. 2016. Out of time, out of place: Reflections on design workshops as a research method. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. ACM, 1131--1141.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. Ari Schlesinger, W Keith Edwards, and Rebecca E Grinter. 2017. Intersectional HCI: Engaging identity through gender, race, and class. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 5412--5427.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Donald Schön. 1983. The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. London: Temple Smith (1983).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Clay Spinuzzi. 2005. The methodology of participatory design. Technical communication 52, 2 (2005), 163--174.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Anselm Strauss. 1985. Work and the division of labor. Sociological quarterly 26, 1 (1985), 1--19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Maryam Tohidi, William Buxton, Ronald Baecker, and Abigail Sellen. 2006. Getting the right design and the design right. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems. ACM, 1243--1252.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. Cristen Torrey, Elizabeth F Churchill, and David W McDonald. 2009. Learning how: the search for craft knowledge on the internet. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1371--1380.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  69. Helen Wauck, Yu-Chun Yen, Wai-Tat Fu, Elizabeth Gerber, Steven P Dow, and Brian P Bailey. 2017. From in the class or in the wild? Peers provide better design feedback than external crowds. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 5580--5591.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  70. Anbang Xu and Brian Bailey. 2012. What do you think?: a case study of benefit, expectation, and interaction in a large online critique community. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. ACM, 295--304.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  71. Anbang Xu, Shih-Wen Huang, and Brian Bailey. 2014. Voyant: generating structured feedback on visual designs using a crowd of non-experts. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing. 1433--1444.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  72. Anbang Xu, Huaming Rao, Steven P Dow, and Brian P Bailey. 2015. A classroom study of using crowd feedback in the iterative design process. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing. ACM, 1637--1648.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  73. David Scott Yeager, Valerie Purdie-Vaughns, Julio Garcia, Nancy Apfel, Patti Brzustoski, Allison Master, William T Hessert, Matthew E Williams, and Geoffrey L Cohen. 2014. Breaking the cycle of mistrust: Wise interventions to provide critical feedback across the racial divide. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 143, 2 (2014), 804.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  74. Yu-Chun Yen. 2017. Enhancing the Usage of Crowd Feedback for Iterative Design. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition. 513--517.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  75. Yu-Chun Grace Yen, Steven P Dow, Elizabeth Gerber, and Brian P Bailey. 2016. Social Network, Web Forum, or Task Market?: Comparing Different Crowd Genres for Design Feedback Exchange. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. ACM, 773--784.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  76. Yu-Chun Grace Yen, Steven P Dow, Elizabeth Gerber, and Brian P Bailey. 2017. Listen to others, listen to yourself: Combining feedback review and reflection to improve iterative design. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition. 158--170.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  77. Haiyi Zhu, Robert Kraut, and Aniket Kittur. 2012. Effectiveness of shared leadership in online communities. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. 407--416.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  78. Haiyi Zhu, Amy Zhang, Jiping He, Robert E Kraut, and Aniket Kittur. 2013. Effects of peer feedback on contribution: a field experiment in Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2253--2262.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  79. Barry J Zimmerman. 2000. Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In Handbook of self-regulation. Elsevier, 13--39.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  80. John Zimmerman. 2009. Designing for the self: making products that help people become the person they desire to be. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 395--404.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. The Unique Challenges for Creative Small Businesses Seeking Feedback on Social Media

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!