Social Media and the Social Good: How Nonprofits Use Facebook to Communicate with the Public

Transcription

1 China Third Sector Research, vol. 1, pp , 2011 Social Media and the Social Good: How Nonprofits Use Facebook to Communicate with the Public Gregory D. Saxton; Chao Guo; I-Hsuan Chiu; Bo Feng Saxton, G.D., Guo, C., Chiu, I., & Feng, B. (2011). Social Media and the Social Good: How Nonprofits Use Facebook to Communicate with the Public [translated]. China Third Sector Research, 1,

2 Gregory D. Saxton COM615: Cybermetrics

3 100

4 e.g., Kent, Taylor, & White, 2003; Saxton, Guo, & Brown, 2007 Facebook Twitter 100

5 Young and Salamon, 2002; Waters, e.g., Hackler & Saxton, 2007; Kang & Norton, 2004; Saxton, Guo, & Brown, 2007 e.g., Saxton, Guo, & Brown, 2007; Taylor, Kent, White, 2001; Waters, 2007 Saxton & Guo, 2011; Waters, 2007 Gordon, Knock, & Neeley, 2009; Spencer, 2002 Saxton, Guo, & Brown, stakeholders e.g., Ingenhoff & Koelling, 2009; Kang & Norton, 2004 e.g., Sargeant, Douglas, West, & Jay, 2007; Yeon, Choi, & Kiousis, 2005 e.g., Kenix, 2007 e.g., Nah, 2009

6 2.0 blogs MySpace Twitter Facebook Greenberg & MacAulay, 2009 Bortree & Seltzer, 2009; Lovejoy, Waters, & Saxton, forthcoming Seltzer & Mitrook Lovejoy & Saxton Briones, Kuch, Liu, & Jin Bortree & Seltzer Waters, Burnett, Lamm& Lucas

7 Greenberg & MacAulay status updates

8 % Python Python , ,036 content analysis % inter-coder agreement a Cohen s kappa score of.89 1,036

9 The Wall Status fans Facebook

10 % e.g., Kenix, 2007; Kent et al., 2003; Saxton et al., 2007; Waters, 2007

11 e.g., Spencer, 2002; Waters, 2009 Spencer communities/aceh, Indonesia, Five Years Latercrs.org 15.72% e.g., Kent et al., 2003; Ingenhoff & Koelling, 2009; Kang & Norton, 2004

12 % Onlineeservices.goodwill.org

13 2.88%

14 Java et al. (2007)

15 e.g., Bortree & Seltzer, 2009; Waters et al.,

16 100 Greenberg MacAulay 2009 Waters et al., 2009 e.g., Bortree & Seltzer,

17 private messages /

18

19 References Bortree, D. S., & Seltzer, T. (2009). Dialogic strategies and outcomes: An analysis of environmental advocacy groups Facebook profiles. Public Relations Review, 35(3), Briones, R. L., Kuch, B., Liu, B., & Jin, Y. (2011). Keeping up with the digital age: How the American Red Cross uses social media to build relationships. Public Relations Review, 37(1), Gordon, T. P., Knock, C. L. and Neely, D.G. (2009). The role of rating agencies in the market for charitable contributions: An empirical test, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 28, Greenberg, J., & MacAulay, M. (2009). NPO 2.0? Exploring the web presence of environmental nonprofit organizations in Canada. Global Media Journal -- Canadian Edition, 2(1), Hackler, D., & Saxton, G.D. (2007). The strategic use of information technology by nonprofit organizations: Increasing capacity and untapped potential. Public Administration Review, 67(3), Ingenhoff, D., & Koelling, A. M. (2009). The potential of Web sites as a relationship building tool for charitable fundraising NPOs. Public Relations Review, 35, Java, A., Finin, T., Song, X., & Tseng, B. (2007). Why We Twitter: Understanding Microblogging Usage and Communities. Paper presented at the Joint 9 th WEBKDD and 1 st SNA-KDD Workshop 07, San Jose, CA. Kang, S., & Norton, H. E. (2004). Nonprofit organizations use of the World Wide Web: Are they sufficiently fulfilling organizational goals? Public Relations Review, 30, Kenix, L. J. (2007). In search of Utopia: An analysis of non-profit web pages. Information, Communication & Society, 10(1), Kent, M. L., Taylor, M., & White, W. J. (2003). The relationship between website design and organizational responsiveness to stakeholders. Public Relations Review, 29,

20 Lovejoy, K., & Saxton, G. D. (In press). Information, Community, and Action: How Nonprofit Organizations Use Social Media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. Lovejoy, K., Waters, R. D., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Engaging Stakeholders through Twitter: How Nonprofit Organizations are Getting More Out of 140 Characters or Less. Public Relations Review, 38(2), Nah, S. (2009). Building social capital through nonprofit organizations websites: Organizational features and e-social capital. Association for Education in Journalism & Mass Communication, Boston, MA, Aug. 5-8, Sargeant, A., West, D. C., & Jay, E. (2007). The relational determinants of nonprofit Web site fundraising effectiveness: An exploratory study. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 18(2), Saxton, G. D., Guo, C., & Brown, W. (2007). New dimensions of nonprofit responsiveness: The application and promise of Internet-based technologies. Public Performance and Management Review, 31(2), Saxton, G. D., & Guo, C. (2011). Accountability online: Understanding the Web-based accountability practices of nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(2), Seltzer, T., & Mitrook, M. A. (2007). The dialogic potential of weblogs in relationship building. Public Relations Review, 33, Spencer, T. (2002). The potential of the Internet for non-profit organizations. First Monday [Online], 7(8), 5 August, Taylor, M., Kent, M. L., & White, W. J. (2001). How activist organizations are using the Internet to build relationships. Public Relations Review, 27(3), Waters, R. D. (2007). Nonprofit organizations' use of the Internet: A content analysis of communication trends on the Internet sites of the Philanthropy 400. Nonprofit management & Leadership, 18(1), Waters, R. D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A., & Lucas, J. (2009). Engaging stakeholders through social networking: How nonprofit organizations are using Facebook. Public Relations Review, 35, Yeon, H., Choi, Y., & Kiousis, S. (2005). Interactive communication features on

21 nonprofit organizations webpages for the practice of excellence in public relations. Journal of Website Promotion, 1(4), Young, D. R., & Salamon, L. M. (2002). Commercialization, social ventures, and forprofit competition. In L. M. Salamon (Ed.), The State of Nonprofit America (pp ). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

22 (Category) (Frequency) (Percent) (Informational ) (Promotional/Mobilizational) (Dialogic & Community-Building) (Miscellaneous) (Total) 1, %

23 1

24 2