‘The use of corporate blogs in stakeholder dialogue’
An Airbnb case study
Final Thesis
MSc. Business Administration – Entrepreneurship and Innovation
Name: Jantine Derksen
Student number: 10444777
Date: August 31, 2015
First supervisor: W. van der Aa
Second supervisor: T. Vinig
Name of the institution: UvA
Statement of originality
This document is written by Student Jantine Derksen who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
INTRODUCTION
5
1.1 Research purpose and research question 6
1.3 Thesis outline 7 2. Literature review 8 2.1 Open innovation 8 2.2 Stakeholder theory 9 2.3 Corporate blogs 13
3. THEORETICAL MODEL
16
4. STRUCTURE OF THE ANALYSIS. / RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
18
4.1 Research strategy 18
4.2 Data 18
4.3 Methods 19
4.4 Limitations 20
5. CASE STUDY: AIRBNB
21
5.1 Introduction Airbnb 21
5.2 Airbnb’s involvement in Open innovation 22
5.2.1 Open source and Airbnb 23
5.3 General overview Airbnb’s blogs 25
5.4 Analysis stakeholder dialogue 27
5.4.1. Two-‐way dynamism 28
5.4.2. Appropriate feedback 29
5.5 Analysis Information flows 30
5.5.1 Methodology used 30
6. GENERAL DISCUSSION
32
7. CONCLUSION
34
REFERENCES
36
Abstract
This exploratory research of the structure and postings of Airbnb’s online blogs and its comments is based on a framework concerning stakeholder dialogue, which is improved and adapted to combine theories of open innovation and the corporate blogging phenomenon. Results demonstrate that the usage of features such as a possibility to comment and the facilitation of a two-‐way communication stream are not balanced and reflects that the company did not engage deliberately in the effective use of stakeholder dialogue.
Technically, the research showed that the structures delivered by web 2.0 features, enable companies to reach out towards external stakeholders without geographical and social boundaries. However, more research is needed in order to construct guidelines concerning the implementation of a beneficial stakeholder dialogue through the use of corporate blogging.
Introduction
In innovation research there has been a rising interest towards the environment in which a company resides. This resulted in the creation of more open innovation processes, extending from product, technology, service and business model innovation. The open innovation approach was suggested by Henry Chesbrough (2003) and has transformed to a number of approaches, that all share the key concept of open innovation that firms can and should use external ideas as well as internal ideas, and internal and external paths to market to advance their technology. The basic premise of open innovation lays the notion that knowledge both inside as outside the firm is exchangeable. Organizations need to leverage the opportunities external knowledge may bring by developing linkages with external parties. In this view, research and development takes place in an open system where valuable ideas can come from both inside as outside the company. External ideas and external paths to market are placed on the same level as internal ideas and paths to market. Since the open innovation approach is looking further than a firm’s boundaries, this new innovation paradigm can potentially benefit from insights developed in stakeholder theory. Since the 1980’s stakeholder theory developed within strategic management and has as its research subject the so-‐called stakeholders of a firm. Stakeholders are all parties that in someway are affected by a company’s action, which can be both direct as indirect. The environment of a company consists of multiple stakeholders, which gained attention in research since Edward Freedman’s book Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (1984). In this book he defines stakeholders as “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives.”
While there is a need for companies to increasingly opening up their processes, many external stakeholders can influence the innovation activities. Therefore interactions among and between the company and the stakeholders are increasingly becoming critical to an innovation’s success and should be supported by corporate communications. When companies first started creating websites on the Internet in the late 1990s, it was expected that their webpages would facilitate a more open communication with external stakeholders. Most corporate websites however have been primarily used as a platform to push advertising messages (Salam et al., 1998; Young and Benamati, 2000). In the past years, with the development of social network components on the Internet, corporations and organizations have constructed corporate blogs on their web pages in order to facilitate interaction with their customers, suppliers, and other stakeholders to facilitate a more
symmetric two-‐way model (Liang et al. 2009; Tsai et al. 2007). Both companies as well as individuals are more visible online thanks to these recent Internet developments. The nature of Web 2.0 facilitates a two-‐way engagement on a large scale with external parties with direct communication options no matter the geographical distances (O'Reilly, 2007). One of the tools of Web 2.0 offers is the weblog, or blog. A blog is a digital page consisting of short online publications which are usually arranged in reverse chronological order. One of the most important and characterizing features of the blog is the built-‐in possibility of leaving a commentary on a blog post (Kolbitsch and Maurer, 2006; Rosenbloom, 2004; Shi et al., 2007). The commentary function enables a two-‐way communication and therefore fosters dialogue between blog authors and readers.
1.1 Research purpose and research question
Research suggests that external stakeholders are a potential source of knowledge that can contribute towards the innovative capability of the firm. Stakeholder dialogue is being seen as the approach in which firms and stakeholders can engage in mutual beneficial relationships. Dialogues between stakeholder and company should not be considered as just relational, but as being part of the strategy of engagement and external knowledge integration (Christensen, 2002). Often corporations that are using weblogs claim that their blogs are there for the purpose of having an open dialogue with their customers and stakeholders. However, scholars have raised questions whether or not companies are really interested in mutual relationships and to what extend open dialogues and a fair two-‐way communication between a company and stakeholders are actually possible (Christensen, 2002; Christensen and Cheney, 2000). Blogs however can be a possible tool in order to establish a fair two-‐way communication and are widely considered to be helpful for companies in order to listen to customers, humanize the company and actively engage with stakeholders (Constantinides et al., 2008; Singh et al., 2008; Weil, 2010). There is however still a shortage of academic research concerning the full potential of usage of blogs for companies (Hsu & Tsou, 2011).
Since stakeholder dialogue is an effective tool in order to engage stakeholders and with the development of web 2.0, the use of blogs seems a promising tool to facilitate it, we formulated the following research question for this thesis:
Central research question:
How can the use of corporate blogs facilitate stakeholder dialogue?
Within this outline, we will try to combine the strategic approach of stakeholder dialogue with open views concerning the innovation process, since stakeholder dialogue is based upon the openness of knowledge streams. However, stakeholder theory and innovation management are not often combined in innovation research. In order to explore the potential relationship between the two fields, it will be beneficial to gain knowledge about the added value of stakeholder theory towards the management of innovation. Research on corporate blogs can provide useful insights for companies to be able to live up to real the value that a corporate blog could obtain.
1.3 Thesis outline
To investigate the central research question and generate a basis from which we will develop a model, this study will firstly conduct a literature review, which discusses the main characteristics of open innovation, stakeholder theory and corporate blogs. We will analyze in what ways stakeholder dialogue can be beneficial to the firm and develop a framework. Secondly, we will briefly introduce our case Airbnb and analyze whether Airbnb is using a closed or an open innovation approach. Third, in order to examine the theoretical findings and test our framework we will use both a qualitative and a quantitative approach towards our study of Airbnb’s blogs. The obtained data will be analyzed and the framework will be discussed and elaborated on. Finally, the study will conclude its findings and the managerial implications will be reviewed.
2. Literature review
2.1 Open innovation
In the past several years, the widened approach towards innovation gained increased recognition in the field of innovation research. Recent research suggests that in today’s highly dynamic and competitive world, it is highly unlikely that a single company would be able to control all the necessary competencies needed in order to deliver successfully their solutions to the market place. Consequently, it is urged that companies involve a larger group of stakeholders in their innovation processes (e.g. Chesbrough 2007, Miles et al. 2005). Chesbrough (2004) proposed that with an open innovation approach firms can use external as well as internal ideas. The internal ideas can be taken to market through external channels that lay outside a firm’s current business in order to generate value. A later definition by Chesbrough, Vanhaverbeke, and West (2006) upon open innovation expands the notion of ideas into knowledge. They define open innovation as the inflows and outflows of knowledge used to create value. According to the authors, this can be embodied among others in ideas, technology and products.
Studies, however, suggest that the majority of firms still are using a closed innovation process, which could fail to capture potential benefits (Chesbrough, 2003; Van de Vrande et al., 2009). This closed innovation process can be visualized by a closed ‘Innovation Funnel’. In this funnel the closed innovation system are visualized by the boundaries of the funnel being the boundaries of the firm. The funnel visualizes how most innovative ideas will not become a commercial success; as new ideas flow through this pipeline, they drop in number dramatically (Chesbrough (2003). A study performed by Stevens and Burley (1997) found that of 3,000 Raw Ideas, 125 exploratory projects will be conducted from which nine will results in well-‐developed projects, from there four will have a full-‐fledged product launch, resulting in one successful product. Shortly said, 3,000 raw ideas lead to one commercial success. Furthermore, a firm does not always explore the full economic potential of a successful innovation. For example, reportedly multinational Procter & Gamble only uses 10 percent of its technologies (Huston and Sakkab, 2006) and the potential of licensing out for Motorola is estimated at $10 billion annually (Lichtenthaler, 2007). Fear of diffusing key knowledge and giving away corporate competitive assets among others, are holding companies back from opening their assets towards third parties. However, firms are trying to open up their innovation process more and more in order not to end up in a myopia of protectiveness. Linkages with third parties expand the knowledge base of a firm, which is
key to the innovative capacity of the firm since knowledge is a key resource in today’s post-‐ industrial society (Bell, 1973).
In previous research focusing on external stakeholders in the open innovation paradigm, scholars identified a multitude of external sources that a company can use in order to leverage their innovative capacity, with among others: universities, the public sector, competitors, customers, other industries and suppliers (Jarvenpaa and Wernick, 2011; Maehler, et al., 2011). The open innovation approach, however, does not only pay attention to the external parties in the innovation process, but also explores how to best use internal R&D capabilities of the firm by looking further than – just -‐ internally commercializing the innovation. Nevertheless, because this thesis will focus on the dialogic aspect between firm and stakeholders, it will take a partial view on open innovation focusing on the knowledge flows between the company and third parties. More insight in the fields is of how to develop external linkages and leverage the opportunities to access these parties is needed, since this still brings challenges towards management.
Gould (2012) points out that the practice-‐based origins of the open innovation concept highlight a structural tension between the desire to reap the benefits of open collaboration and the concern that the inherent lack of control can misappropriate those benefits. In other words, there is a tension between the benefits of opening the innovation process up and the fear of knowledge leakage (Laursen and Salter, 2006). Opposing points of view of open and close innovation can however balance inside organizations. Even so, both approaches are in need of different organizational capabilities. Therefore, adopting an open innovation approach inside a company requires a paradigm shift that demands a large effort from the firm (Chesbrough, 2003). Gould (2012) remarked that in order to construct a beneficial relation with external stakeholders, the open innovation approach could benefit from insights derived in stakeholder theory. Therefore, in the following section we will continue our literature review looking at the insights that are derived in stakeholder theory concerning external stakeholders.
2.2 Stakeholder theory
Stakeholder theory is originally detailed by R. Edward Freeman (1984) and contests the view that for a business its shareholders are the only stakeholders who are important. Freeman (1984) argued that effectively shareholder value will decrease when stakeholders
are ignored since businesses operate with the consent of society. Winning the consent of stakeholders will give a company the license to operate. Stakeholder theory is gaining more attention, since embedding an organization in society has become more and more a condition for continuity and growth. Furthermore, engagement with stakeholders has increasingly become a moral obligation for firms since the 1970s (Carroll, 1991). It is argued that this is a direct response to the increasing pressures from NGOs, international organizations, pressure groups and governments upon companies (Murphy and Bendell, 1999). However, regarding the innovative capacity of the firm, it is argued that the active management of stakeholders can also create opportunities for innovation (Hall and Vredenburg, 2003; Hart and Sharma, 2004). Developing stakeholder relationships can bring additional resources such as financial, intellectual, human capital (Dyer and Singh, 1998) and involvement in value co-‐creation (Andriof & Waddock, 2002).
Not all scholars agree management is the right word for a company’s relationship with stakeholders, as companies cannot simply ‘manage’ stakeholders. In this line of though it is argued that the emphasis rather should be put on the ongoing interactions with the stakeholders (Andriof & Waddock, 2002). According to this view, stakeholder management is realized with an attempt to organize, structure and thus even manipulate the relationships with external stakeholders, with the idea in mind that this will best serve the needs of the firm. With this approach companies tend to make decisions unilaterally and then inform stakeholders of that decision via a variety of monologues (Foster and Jonker, 2005). Several scholars (e.g. Bendell, 2000; Crane and Livesey, 2003) suggested that instead of a solely informing or top-‐down approach towards stakeholders, the essential building block for stakeholder relationships is fair communication. However, the approaches, methods and responsibilities that stakeholder communication entails are often not well understood and are in need of further research. One of the most recognized tools in stakeholder theory concerning the communication towards stakeholders the use of stakeholder dialogue.
Stakeholder dialogue
The basic premise of stakeholder dialogue involves a two-‐way dynamism between company and stakeholder. In stakeholder theory it is argued that a company can benefit in several ways from stakeholder dialogue. Dialogue building is being regarded in stakeholder theory as a key element in the knowledge exploration process regarding third parties. However, not all two-‐way communication streams are dialogues. Chapman et al. (2005) distinguish ‘dialogue’ from that of ‘discussion’. Discussion, they argue, focuses upon
“members stating positions, advocating their convictions, convincing others” (2005, 221). Where the focus in discussion is to convince other parties of the validity of a particular point of view, dialogue has by contrast a more open role, involving the breaking down of entrenched positions and the loosening of assumptions. This level of openness is central to many of the conceptions of dialogue, and is what primarily distinguishes the process from debate, mediation or negotiation (Burchell et al., 2006). Another central concept in literature on stakeholder dialogue is the aspect of mutual learning in stakeholder dialogue. For example Payne and Calton (2002), argue that through stakeholder dialogue “preconceived relationships between self and others changes as new learning occurs” (Payne and Calton, 2002; p. 133). McNamee and Gergen (1999) identify multi-‐stakeholder dialogues as a step towards improved collective learning, which is developed by uncovering shared meanings and relational responsibilities. Also Lawrence (2002) identifies learning as an elementary element in stakeholder dialogue. Upon her analysis of Royal Dutch Shell’s stakeholder dialogue processes she concludes that successful dialogues: “encourage both companies and stakeholder organizations to engage more often in the difficult, but productive, task of listening to and learning from one another” (Lawrence, 2002; 199).
Concluding, a successful exploration of useful knowledge through stakeholder dialogue in previous research is facilitated through a two-‐way communication which is not solely informative but is defined by its openness and a mutual learning process of both company and stakeholder. Ayuso et al. (2006), however, define a set of parameters towards a successful stakeholder dialogue that differ slightly. In order to create an effective stakeholder dialogue according to the model of Ayuso et al. (2006) a stakeholder dialogue has to meet three requirements order to be effective: The dialogue has to be a two-‐way communication, it has to be based upon accurate and transparent information and the organization has to deliver appropriate feedback. Furthermore, key to the effectiveness of stakeholder dialogue according to Ayuso et al. (2006) is stakeholder knowledge integration. Stakeholder knowledge integration refers to the capacity to assimilate the insights gained from stakeholder dialogue and to transform them into innovative products and operations. Without the will to integrate stakeholders’ views or include them in decision-‐making moments, stakeholder dialogues will not render results.
Stakeholder Analysis
When conducting stakeholder analysis, traditionally all relevant stakeholders are identified and mapped. External stakeholders are all groups and individuals outside the firm who are in
some way effected by a firm’s action (Freeman, 1984). Usually however, research concerning external parties is focused on a few stakeholders involved. Because innovation will only be successful if the customers perceive its value, consumers are heavily researched upon in innovation and stakeholder research. Furthermore, there are several frameworks in the literature where innovation is approached from a customer driven perspective or where the consumer being targeted as potential co-‐creator. In this thesis however, we would like to look further than the relationship between company and consumer. We agree with Mitchell et al.’s (1997) that relevant stakeholders are those who possess power, legitimacy, and urgency. We however also agree with Hart and Sharma (2004) that these stakeholders may not be the only ones who are relevant for a company. Hart and Sharma argue that in a more and more connected world “remote groups at the fringe of a firm's operations can find common cause, exerting increasing pressure and calling into question the firm's legitimacy and right to operate” (2004, p.7). Furthermore as being argued by both researchers, these ‘fringed stakeholders’ can be a potential source of innovation for the management of competitive imagination and disruptive change. Fringed stakeholders can contribute knowledge and a view which lays outside the boundaries and networks of the firm. Most companies, however, still focus on known, salient, or powerful actors. Hart and Sharma (2004) emphasize however that there are business opportunities in recognizing and integrating the views of ‘fringed’ stakeholders. They however can be hard to identify beforehand, which is known as ‘stakeholder ambiguity’ (Hall and Vredenburg, 2012). Especially external stakeholders who are not in direct relationship to the firm, called secondary stakeholders are hard to identify. These indirect stakeholders are usually becoming visible when they pressure companies to reach more sustainable, economical or social goals, but may not be willing or able to engage, negotiate, compromise or clearly articulate their positions (Eesley and Lenox, 2005).
The identification of relevant stakeholders in stakeholder research often relies upon the managerial perception of recognizing relevant stakeholders (Mitchell et al, 1997 p. 871). For example, Mitchell et al. define stakeholder salience as ‘‘the degree to which managers give priority to competing stakeholder claims’’ (1997, p. 854). Harvey and Schaefer (2001, p. 254) commented upon this that the possibility of a manager’s objective measurement is ‘‘very difficult and also perhaps unnecessary, given that managers will respond to their perceptions of stakeholder influence, not any objective measurement outside this perception.’’ Therefore in this thesis, we will follow the approach of Eesley and Lenox (2005), which argues that a firm’s action and communication leads to a better identification
of a stakeholder’s salience than a stated preference by managers. Especially in the case of complex and large companies, it is doubtful whether managers are able to identify all relevant stakeholders.
In conclusion, the realization that not all relevant stakeholders can be identified in terms of power, legitimacy, and urgency is important for the character and design of the innovation process. Following the theory, it is implied that in order for a company to reach out towards all stakeholders, it cannot solely rely upon pre-‐identified stakeholders and should thus not close its innovation process from unexpected stakeholders. This notion is in line with the open innovation approach, which emphasizes to reach out towards “locations in the landscape that it may never have reached had it been in charge of all choices” (Almirall and Casadesus-‐Masanell, 2010, p. 44).
2.3 Corporate blogs
Thanks to the recent development of Information technology, companies can more efficiently and effectively engage with their stakeholders. The development of social structures on the Internet, sometimes referred to as web 2.0 has significant potential for engaging stakeholders in a dialogue. Web 2.0 is the most commonly heard term in the social software trend, but among experts there is no agreement on the exact definition. The term Web 2.0 was first coined by O'Reilly (O'Reilly, 2007) during the first conference about web 2.0 in Silicon Valley in 2004. In a later paper written by O’Reilly and Musser, they define web 2.0 as: “a set of economic, social, and technology trend that collectively form basis for the next generation of the internet, a more mature distinctive medium characterized by user participation, openness and network effect” (O 'Reilly and Musser 2006 p.4). Some people argue that web 2.0 is just a buzzword, especially because many have started using ‘2.0’ on the end of anything that they wish to express as exciting, new or cutting edge (Burkhard and Roldan, 2009). Technically, there are no truly fundamental differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. However, web 2.0 recombined and repackaged technologies that have been around for quite some time. Web 1.0 was mostly a read-‐only, whether Web 2.0 is ‘read-‐ write’ (Shuen, 2008). The tools of Web 2.0 are easy to use and therefore enable everyone, not only experts, to use them. This encourages users to generate content online. Blogs are regarded as being part of Web 2.0 because they enable common users to publish their thoughts without the need to know how to program (Burkhard and Roldan, 2009). A blog in its simplest form is a website with dated entries, presented in reverse chronological order and published on the Internet. The act of posting to a blog is called blogging and the
distributed world of blogging is the blogosphere (Duffy and Bruns, 2006). O’Reilly (2007) even considers blogs as “one of the most highly touted features of the Web 2.0 era” (2007, 24). According to him this was mainly because of their capacity to harness collective intelligence or the wisdom of crowds.
Not all corporate blogs are constructed to serve the same goal. Lee et al. (2006) developed five types of corporate blogs that can be categorized based on the characteristics of authors and contents as shown in Figure 1. This classification will serves in our analysis as a rationale in order to distinguish the different typologies of corporate blogs.
Blog types Characteristics
1. Employee Maintained by a rank-‐and-‐file employee.
Varies in content and format.
2. Group Operated by a group of rank-‐and-‐file
employees. Focuses on a specific topic.
3. Executive Featuring the writings of high-‐ranking
executives 4. Promotion
Promoting products and events
5. Newsletter
Covering company news
Figure 1. Types of corporate blogs and their characteristics
The fives types Lee et al. (2006) have distinguished are based on a literature review and an evaluation of around 50 corporate blogs. They have the following characteristics:
1. The Employee blog is a personal blog that is maintained by a single rank and file employee. Originally employee blogs were hosted on commercial sites, but are increasingly being hosted on company-‐owned domains as companies are increasingly officially sponsoring employee blogging.
2. The Group Blog or collaborative blog is a blog that is operated by several people. Most of the group’s blogs focus on a certain topic, which is often a technical one. The authors are usual experts on the topic. The blogs are company-‐owned, commercially owned or self-‐hosted by employees.
3. The Executive blog is made by a high ranked executive. As people have become more interested in top executives than in the companies themselves (Gaines-‐Ross, 2000) the blogs generate instant traffic and can be used to make a direct connection with stakeholders.
4. The Promotional blog is to generate attention about products or event, but is not without controversy. This is primary due to the fact it is mainly used as a marketing
tool with the lack of an authentic human voice. People critizise the deceptive character of it.
5. The Newsletter blog is a blog that represents the positions of the company itself. The blog tends to be filled with ‘well-‐polished’ messages.
3. Theoretical model
Combining the insights from our literature review we constructed the following model:
Figure 2. Theoretical model
We will shortly explain our theoretical model and how we arrived at its form.
In the model, the company is being visualized using an open innovation funnel, which implies an open innovation approach. When we refer to open innovation we focus on the inflow and outflow of knowledge used to create value. As being stated in earlier research, in order for a company to reap the benefits of obtaining knowledge through stakeholder dialogue, the company also has to contribute information in an open way. According to Andersén (2012) openness is a key element in order to receive and embed information from the stakeholder. He argues that the level of openness of a firm towards its own activities is correlated with the absorptive capacity towards external knowledge.
The arrows represent the flow of knowledge between stakeholder and company that is being mediated by the corporate blog in the middle. The corporate blog contains two conditions which are derived from the model constructed by Ayuso et. al. (2006) which are
considered essential for constructing a mutual beneficial stakeholder dialogue. The third condition, ‘transparent and accurate information’ is not included in our model. This was not decided upon the believe this condition was not valid, since research concerning stakeholder dialogue, as earlier mentioned, supports the need for transparency and openness. However, openness is a better measurable indicator than transparency since there is no agreed definition in research available nor a procedure or guideline for its measurement or identification. Furthermore, with the open innovation approach in our model, transparency and accurateness are secured since the open innovation approach demands accurate information and openness in order for a company and its stakeholders to mutually benefit from the exchanged information.
In our analysis we will address each of these variables in order to test our assumption of the model and gain more insight in the usage of corporate blogs as a tool for stakeholder dialogue. The model therefore contributes towards knowledge on the management of knowledge flows between stakeholder and company through the use of stakeholder dialogue. This is relevant, since although there is much written about why managing knowledge is important to organizations, there is considerably less research on how it is managed (Ipe, 2003).
4. Structure of the analysis. / Research Methodology
4.1 Research strategy
By means of the case study we will analyze how Airbnb and its stakeholders are engaging with each other through the blogs. The chosen research method that will be used in this thesis is that of a single case study. Following Yin (2009), case studies are preferred particularly when “how” or “why” questions are being asked, the researcher has little or no control over the behavioral events and where contemporary set of events are the focus. The choice for a case study is well suited for the examination of Airbnb’s blogs according to this classification, since the blogs leave no room for behavioral control and corporate blogs are a contemporary phenomenon. Furthermore, according to Darke et al. (1997) a case study is well suited to understanding the interactions between information technology-‐related innovations and organization contexts.
Since there is a lack of academic literature upon stakeholder dialogue in the light of corporate blogging, this research is mainly of explorative nature. However, a literature review concerning open innovation, stakeholder theory and corporate blogging was used as a starting point in order to construct a theoretical model and survey the prevalent as a theoretical lens for the empirical part of the research: the case study. Saunders et al. (2009) argue that a single case study can be selected when a case is typical, extreme or revelatory or when it enables the researcher to research a phenomenon that few have considered before. Airbnb can be regarded as an extreme case concerning corporate blogging does not facilitate the usual single blog at its web page, but a total of four web blogs. Second, as mentioned earlier, there is no extensive research concerning corporate blogging in the light of stakeholder dialogue.
4.2 Data
The analyzed data consist of the written blog posts of the four weblogs at the website of Airbnb and the written comments which are situated underneath the blogs’ posts. This consists of a total of 624 blog posts, of which the oldest blog post dates from November 7, 2010 and the most recent from August 3, 2015. The gathered data includes all existing blog posts present at the Airbnb’s blogs at August 05, 2015, the date all blog posts have been copied an organized for the purposes of our analysis.
In the later, qualitative phase of our analysis, the total amount of blog posts for analysis were reduced to a total of 283 blog posts, since the other blog posts did not facilitate the possibility to comment.
In a single case study it is important not to rely on one source of information (Yin, 2009). Since different employees construct the weblogs and the four web logs belong to four different departments, it was clear that this data was not coming from one source inside Airbnb. Furthermore, external stakeholders provide the majority of the delivered comments, which also ensures a multitude of sources. However an important side note to this, which should be held into account was, that the posts were subject to moderation of Airbnb.
4.3 Methods
The blog posts and its comments have been analyzed using a mixed methods approach; a quantitative and qualitative approach. The approaches will also be shortly introduced before each analysis, in order for the reader to comprehend how we reached our results and to ensure a clear, step-‐by-‐step, structure of the research findings which is essential for reaching test-‐retest reliability.
Before starting our analysis we first introduce the company. Thereafter, we will perform a short analysis whether Airbnb already is implementing an open innovation approach concerning the inflow and outflow of knowledge. Then we will first generate an understanding of Airbnb’s blogs guided by the model of Lee et al. (2006). And subsequently we continue our analysis, which will be made based on our empirical data, the content of the blogs and comments.
We will use a mixed methods analysis, resulting for the quantitative part in the count of blogs, comments and technical features as notification methods. Furthermore, we will count whether questions are answered or not in order to generate a general overview of Airbnb’s response towards its stakeholders. From there on, we will try to gain a more in-‐ depth understanding of the nature of the dialogue, by using a qualitative approach towards the comments. Using a content analysis, the collected comments have manually coded and classified according to the most recurring themes in the comments. Due to the exploratory nature of the research, the qualitative approach is appropriate (Creswell, 2012).
Finally we will use a pattern matching approach towards the gathered data, which enables us to compare the patterns found with the predictions in our initial theoretical
model. This will contribute to the internal validity of the case study. Pattern matching is considered to be the most desirable technique for researchers to analyze their data (Yin, 2009).
4.4 Limitations
One limitation of the research method is that conclusions drawn based on results of a single case study are difficult to expand into generalized theory (Myers, 2013). The generated conclusion may be only applicable to the company in this research. Therefore, in order to reach generalization, a follow-‐up multiple-‐case study is necessary (Eisenhardt, 1989) which was beyond the scope of this research due to resource-‐ and time limitations. Therefore, reaching generalizability about our findings which can be implicated directly by other companies than Airbnb, will be difficult. Although we hope we will be able to gather some first insights on the question how corporate blogs can facilitate a stakeholder dialogue, on which a follow-‐up research can base its structure.
5. Case study: Airbnb
5.1 Introduction Airbnb
Airbnb was founded in 2008 and defines itself as “a community marketplace where guests can book spaces from hosts, connecting people who have space to spare with those who are looking for a place to stay.”(Airbnb, 2015). Nowadays, the company has an estimated $10 billion valuation and reaches a market of 34,000 cities in 190 countries.
Airbnb decided to target all hosts with an underused private accommodation. By targeting this group, Airbnb opened up a new market previously dominated by professionals such as hotels, hostels and bed and breakfast owners. The company generates its income though its service by charging a commission of 5% from hosts for the contracted accommodation and from guests ranging from 6 up to 12 %. When a reservation request gets accepted Airbnb will collect the money and will hold it until 24 hours after check-‐in. If Airbnb does not receive a complaint from the traveler, the money will be transferred to the hosts minus the service fee of 5% that Airbnb charges.
Airbnb’s service operates through a website and a digital application which functions as a two-‐sided platform for hosts and travels to connect. Two-‐sided marketplaces are not a new phenomenon in society; the concept dates back to the time when people were trading goods and assets. However, digital technologies enabled marketplaces to reach a new level, making trading and exchanges on a global scale possible and enabling individuals and small businesses to tap into new markets without having to physically operate there. A platform enables or facilitates the interaction of the two sides, which are the buyers and the sellers (Rochet and Tirole, 2006). Two-‐sided platforms should be distinguished from merchants, such as digital shops as Amazon or physical shops as for example clothing shop Zara. The key difference between two-‐sided platforms and merchants lays in the fact that merchants possess the sellers’ goods and fully control the sale to the customers, while two-‐sided platforms act as intermediaries. These only determine and facilitate the relationship between sellers and buyers with a common marketplace (Hagiu, 2007).
Although Airbnb is a huge commercial success, it is facing opposition from governments, community groups and individual citizens. Airbnb has, just like other companies in the sharing economy, developed itself outside existing regulations. Governments however hold power in regulating innovations, which gives them the possibility to favor incumbent traditional economic models over the new business models.
In some regions Airbnb is now reaching agreement with policy makers, but in other places Airbnb is facing shut down if the company and the legislators cannot reach agreement. Next to regulatory issues, it is argued that Airbnb potentially may have controversial impact on societal third parties. Airbnb is accused of making room for illegal hotels and consequently causing inconveniences in suburban neighborhoods and driving up the rents in cities (Dzieza, 2015). Despite these challenges, Airbnb is still growing at a high rate.
5.2 Airbnb’s involvement in Open innovation
In this phase of our analysis, we will examine whether and to what extent Airbnb is using an open innovation model concerning external knowledge. Soeldner et al., (2012), found in their research that openness for third-‐party innovation manifests itself differently each business case. Since Airbnb is an online platform we will use the categorization Boudreau (2010) made concerning openness in the context of platforms. He proposed that platforms can use two strategies towards openness; granting access to a platform and giving up control over the platform. The first approach intends to spur complementary innovations with the development of additional components. The second approach allows external stakeholder to change the platform itself, which usually is allowed to a certain degree. By giving up partial control over the platform complementary components can be developed which are ensured of interoperability. Boudreau (2010) noted that especially the first approach of granting access, leads to a considerable acceleration of third-‐part innovation. This direct openness towards external stakeholders might sound like it might be cutting into a firm’s profitability since, looking from a Resource Based View (RBV), it is acknowledged that knowledge is a key strategic resource (Kogut and Zander, 1992). However, the open innovation approach emphasizes the need for companies to open up their business model concerning their Intellectual Property (IP). Since we are heading towards a knowledge economy, in which the key component is a greater reliance on intellectual capabilities than on physical inputs or natural resources (Powell and Snellman, 2004), involving knowledge of third party’s into the company’s structure can be key in keeping up with the speed of innovation. When innovations require ongoing innovation an open system may benefit from the input, ideas and knowledge of a broader pool of contributors (Chesbrough 2003; von Hippel 2005). Research showed that in order to receive external knowledge a firm has to share knowledge with third parties (Kale et al., 2000). Also several researches suggest, that the level of recognizing, assimilating, and applying external knowledge is positively related to the level of openness (Gupta and Govindarajan,
