## 2 Trends and Gaps in Digital Activism Research
### Characteristics of Digital Activism That Condition Industry Responses  
If distinctions between industries and individual firms provide a starting point for hypothesizing on when and how industries respond to digital activism, then the differences between digital and traditional activism provide a further foundation for hypothesis building. Indeed, the question of how digital activism differs from 'traditional' activism is at the core of the digital activism research agenda. Key distinctions between the two types of activism are outlined in Table 1. If digital activism is activism mediated by digital technologies, then traditional activism can be defined as groups of people coming together in a primarily offline setting to act for a common interest or shared beliefs [5; 34]. Both are forms of social activism wherein groups of people voice concerns and take action in response to pressing social issues [5]. However, significant differences distinguish traditional and digital activism. The first distinction concerns who participates. Extant research finds that digital activism can be orchestrated by a smaller group of people using fewer resources, tends to engage a younger demographic, and affords a greater opportunity for marginalized groups to be involved [5; 35]. The second distinction between traditional and digital activism concerns the nature of the linkages between activists. The differences are encapsulated in the distinction between the concepts of _collective_ action and _connective_ action [9]. Traditional activism involves _collective_ action insofar as it requires individuals to overcome personal hesitance and sacrifice their time and energy in service of a common cause [9]. Collective action depends, in some part, on formal mobilizing organizations that convene activists and disseminate information and frames (i.e., slogans or imagery). For example, one might decide to spend a weekend day attending a protest organized by an environmental group where there are common signs, chants, and demands for change. By contrast, _connective_ action replaces formal mobilizing organizations with decentralized, large-scale, and fluid social networks facilitated by social media [9]. In connective action, activists are united less by a common cause and shared identity and more by their need for personal expression on an issue. In lieu of centralized sources of knowledge, knowledge is co-produced and co-disseminated through social media [23]. One might, for example, include a hashtag in a social media post without having a firm idea of who else is using the same hashtag and, in doing so, change the context in which the hashtag is being used. Under the logic of connective action, the nature of who participates in digital activism is also different. Social media reduce the transaction cost of participating in activism, which can lower barriers to participation, allowing for varying levels of commitment and broadening the reach of activism [5; 9]. It is worth noting that not all digital activism follows the logic of connective action. [PERSON] [36] distinguishes between 'internet-supported' activism, which is essentially an extension of offline tactics (i.e., using Facebook to organize an in-person demonstration), and 'internet-based' activism which expands the tactical repertoire by using online tools. Amongst these novel tools is \"hashtag activism\" in which actors use a common hashtagged term with a social claim [23; 37]. Thus, responses to digital activism may vary depending on whether social media is used as a medium for traditional activism or as its own instruments of protest.