S

TT

Ra

b

a

ARRA

KNSTO

1

ctl

zatUkc

2

es

T

0d

Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 321– 324

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Public Relations Review

hort communication

weet, tweet, tweet: A content analysis of nonprofit organizations’witter updates

ichard D. Watersa,∗, Jia Y. Jamalb

Department of Communication, College of Humanities and Social Sciences, North Carolina State University, United StatesDepartment of Communication, College of Humanities and Social Sciences, North Carolina State University, United States

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 26 June 2010eceived in revised form 2 February 2011ccepted 2 March 2011

eywords:onprofit organizationsocial mediawitterrganizational communication

a b s t r a c t

Many of the relationship cultivation strategies and the dialogic principles assume sym-metrical communication is taking place. However, significant amounts of information areshared in a one-way manner. Although they have fallen out of favor with many academics,the four models of public relations can provide significant insights into how organizationscommunicate. Using the models as the guiding framework, this brief study examines hownonprofit organizations from the Philanthropy 200 communicate on Twitter. The findingsreveal that the organizations are more likely to use one-way models despite the potentialfor dialogue and community building on the social networking site.

© 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

. Introduction

Twitter is a micro-blogging service that has quickly become the social media service that is most often used in strategicommunication campaigns (Stelzner, 2009). Similar to blogging, Twitter is a real-time network that allows users from acrosshe globe to share information through private and public messages capped at 140 characters. The site-imposed characterimit allows users’ updates, or tweets, to be sent to cellular phones and other mobile devises as a text message.

The ability to communicate in real-time short messages has garnered significant attention from individuals and organi-ations. In May 2010, the site had more than 19 million users though outside analytics estimate that only 25% of the usersctively use the service. Although no official numbers exist to confirm nonprofit organization participation on the service,he Twitter account, @nonprofitorgs, was created to serve as an unofficial tally by only following nonprofit organizations.sing this account as a guide, there are slightly more than 25,300 nonprofits on Twitter in June 2010. However, little isnown about how nonprofit organizations are using the service. The purpose of this study is to explore how nonprofits areommunicating on the micro-blogging service.

. Literature review

As the relationship management paradigm continues to grow in public relations scholarship, researchers continue toxplore a variety of online and offline strategies used by organizations to develop relationships with stakeholders. Thesetrategies, however, rarely examine the specific content of communicated messages. While Kent and Taylor’s (1998) dialogic

∗ Corresponding author at: North Carolina State University, Communication, 201 Winston Hall, Box 8104, Raleigh, NC 27615, United States.el.: +1 352 359 6837; fax: +1 919 515 9456.

E-mail address: rdwaters@ncsu.edu (R.D. Waters).

363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.oi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.03.002

322 R.D. Waters, J.Y. Jamal / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 321– 324

principles and Hon and Grunig’s (1999) relationship cultivation strategies discuss openness, neither really get at the natureof what is being said in these conversations. They also fail to consider one-sided communication, which continues to playa significant role in organizational communication and public relations writing (e.g., newsletters, brochures, websites).While legitimate conversation is certainly needed for the organization–public relations, it may be helpful to consider publicrelations’ traditional models of public relations proposed by Grunig and Hunt (1984) to truly understand how organizationalcommunication contributes to relationship growth.

Although the models have fallen out of favor with public relations scholars in recent years (e.g., Laskin, 2009; Sha, 2007),they continue to be featured prominently in the discipline’s leading textbooks. Using direction, purpose, and nature ofcommunication, strategic communication is subdivided into press agentry, public information, two-way asymmetry, andtwo-way symmetry. Press agentry is a one-sided model that rarely uses research to disseminate emotional messages thatmay be used manipulatively; public information takes a similar one-way approach, but relies on the conveyance of truthfulmessages. Reflecting the two-way side of the continuum, two-way asymmetry reflects market research in that a faux dialogueis created with stakeholders for the sole reason of obtaining information that can be used for organizational benefit laterwhile two-way symmetry consists of legitimate conversations taking place between an organization and stakeholder withthe end goal being mutual understanding.

Until the mid-1990s, the four models of public relations were widely researched in a variety of professional settings(e.g., agencies, corporations, government agencies), public relations specializations (e.g., fund raising, public diplomacy),and countries around the globe. Research on the models helped fuel the development of the field’s Excellence Theory andis referenced as a precursor for many of the organization–public relationship studies filling the discipline’s journals today(Cameron, Cropp, & Reber, 2001; Grunig & Grunig, 2008). Scholars have taken particular models and expanded their scope asstudies on source credibility, information subsidies, and corporate social responsibility touch on the underlying principlesof the four models. Sha (2007) proposed the four models be broken into seven strategic and tactical dimensions of publicrelations; however, beneath the explanation of these dimensions rested four distinct message styles. As theory developmentgrew in public relations and the descriptive nature of the models fell out of favor with scholars, little research was ever doneto explore how the models were incorporated into web communication.

Given the discipline’s continued findings that all organizations – corporations, nonprofits, and government agencies – failto capitalize on the interactive nature of the web, perhaps describing their communication patterns using the four modelsmight reveal insights that are not being conveyed through the dialogic principles or relationship cultivation strategies. Thisstudy attempts to explore how nonprofit organizations use Twitter by answering the following research question:

RQ: To what extent are nonprofit organizations following the models of public relations on Twitter?

3. Method

To understand how nonprofit organizations use Twitter, a content analysis of their tweets were conducted. To createa sample, the researcher first reviewed the Philanthropy 200 published by the Chronicle of Philanthropy. Of the top 200fund raising nonprofits in the United States, it was found that 81 organizations actively used Twitter. One-third of theseorganizations (n = 27) were randomly selected, and their tweets for March 2010, were coded using a schema developed tomeasure the four models of public relations. Additional data, such as number of people following the account and numberof tweets, was recorded to help provide additional information on nonprofit organizations’ Twitter usage.

After a 90-min training session, two-coders coded five organizations’ tweets for the month of February 2010. UsingCronbach’s alpha, the intercoders met intercoder reliability for press agentry ( ̨ = 0.88), public information ( ̨ = 0.91), two-way asymmetry ( ̨ = 0.92), and two-way symmetry ( ̨ = 0.85). The coders were also reliable in recording data concerning theaccount ( ̨ = 0.94).

4. Results

The 27 randomly sampled nonprofit organizations represented the broad spectrum of nonprofit organizations: pub-lic/society benefit (n = 12, 44.4%), health (n = 7, 25.9%), human services (n = 4, 14.8%), religion (n = 2, 7.4%), arts and culture(n = 1, 3.7%), and education (n = 1, 3.7%). At the time of coding, these nonprofits had an average of 4514.6 people followingtheir accounts (sd = 4869.3), which ranged from a minimum of 91 followers to a high of 19,522 followers. The nonprofitsfollowed 2462.7 other Twitter users (sd = 4369.4), which ranged from only following one other account to a high of following19,162. The sampled nonprofits had an average of 421.9 publicly shared updates (sd = 721.7), which ranged from a minimumof 32 to a maximum of 4007.

During the month of March 2010, the nonprofit Twitter accounts had an average of 28.63 tweets (sd = 9.92) during themonth of March, 2010. Of the total (n = 773) tweets coded, 36 (4.7%) updates were deemed off topic and discussed itemsclearly unassociated with the nonprofit organizations, such as the NCAA Final Four basketball tournament. The vast majority

of tweets (n = 608, 78.7%) provided a hyperlink that took users non-Twitter Websites. Nearly one-fifth (n = 135, 17.5%) ofthe tweets were retweets that shared other users’ updates, and a similar proportion (n = 170, 21.9%) included a hash tag toindicate the tweet was a part of an organized searchable topic.

To answer the study’s research question, frequencies were run on the four models of public relations. In regards tothe one-way models, nonprofit organizations were more likely to use public information than press agentry. For tweets

tu(1Nant(b

nodzoonbsio

5

tt(vOsh

ctnna

ltToi

ctwioh

tcppat

R.D. Waters, J.Y. Jamal / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 321– 324 323

hat used press agentry, nonprofits rarely used emoticons to express emotions (n = 11, 1.4%); however, they were likely tose words that expressed excitement (n = 193, 24.9%), such as amazing, incredible, or “Wow,’ and expressions of emotionn = 424, 54.9%). The most commonly expressed emotions were happiness (n = 217, 51.2%), fear (n = 103, 24.3%), hope (n = 51,2%), humor (n = 44, 10.3%), and sadness (n = 9, 2.1%). Public information was the most widely used model of all four models.onprofit organizations provided a variety of unidirectional updates and announcements, including sharing upcoming datesnd deadlines (n = 184, 23.8%) and providing information and reports from outside organizations (n = 185, 23.9%). However,onprofit organizations largely shared their own information over Twitter (n = 423, 54.7%). This information was sharedhrough a variety of different tactics, including links to the nonprofits’ website (n = 103, 24.3%), blog (n = 86, 20.3%), newslettern = 56, 13.2%), news releases (n = 42, 9.9%), research findings (n = 39, 9.2%), shared pictures (n = 39, 9.2%), videos (n = 28, 6.6%),rochures (n = 17, 4.0%), position papers (n = 10, 2.3%), and annual reports (n = 3, 0.7%).

In regards to two-way communication, nonprofit organizations were more likely to engage in asymmetrical commu-ication than symmetrical dialogue on Twitter. While the organizations did use Twitter to ask for specific feedback fromthers (n = 133, 17.2%), they most often asked users to participate in a survey or poll (n = 191, 24.7%). The next most commonemonstration of two-way asymmetrical communication was asking Twitter users to become involved with the organi-ation (n = 186, 24.1%). Nonprofit organizations wanted to learn more about their followers by meeting them offline at anrganized TweetUp (n = 72, 38.7%), following the organization on other social media accounts (n = 40, 21.5%), participating innline forums (n = 38, 20.4%), and signing online petitions (n = 36, 19.4%). To engage in legitimate conversations on Twitter,onprofit organizations had to address others specifically. This is most often done using at replies indicated by the “@” sym-ol followed by users account name. Nonprofits used this method of public conversation more than any other symmetricaltrategy (n = 197, 25.5%). Nonprofit organizations more often tried to resolve conflict (n = 64, 8.3%) on Twitter than engagingn on-going conversations (n = 62, 8.0%). However, when organizations did engage in conversation, it was with an averagef 1.38 Twitter users (sd = 0.77), ranging from 1 to 5 users.

. Discussion

This study found that nonprofit organizations are primarily using Twitter to convey one-way messages. Based onhe overall means for the four models of communication, public information (m = 34.13, sd = 17.81) and press agen-ry (m = 27.07, sd = 26.82) were used more often than two-way asymmetry (m = 22.0, sd = 4.17) and two-way symmetrym = 13.93, sd = 10.02). Rather than capitalizing on the interactive nature and dialogic capabilities of the social media ser-ice, nonprofit organizations are primarily using Twitter as a means of sharing information instead of relationship building.verall, their Twitter updates sent messages that directed their followers to a variety of information subsidies on their web-

ites. The provision of information certainly could help the nonprofits’ followers feel that they could trust the organization;owever, the one-sided approach of the tweets certainly results in a lopsided relationship.

The prevalence of one-way messages in the sample present runs counter to consultants’ advice that stresses theommunity-building strength of social media. Kanter and Fine (2010) suggest that nonprofits have the ability to strengthenheir organizational support and brand by tapping into social technologies; however, despite the suggestions, it appears thatonprofits are not using social media to its full potential (Eyrich, Padman, & Sweetser (2008). The latter study found thatonprofits are on par with government agencies and public affairs communicators but trail corporate communicators andgencies in their rates of adoption and communication practices.

Given the increasing focus of relationship management in public relations, the results are somewhat discouraging that soittle conversations are being attempted in this medium. Pure symmetry was the least used model by the organizations. Whilehe provision of information demonstrates a willingness to share information, a follower of these nonprofit organizations’witter accounts might sense an unwillingness to answer questions or respond to others’ comments. Despite the use ofne-way information, users may be more satisfied that organizations’ are soliciting feedback and attempting to get themnvolved in both online and offline activities.

This study does have limitations that need to be acknowledged. The first concerns the coding of the tweets. Given theoding schema, it is possible that a tweet could be coded as multiple models of communication. The code sheet did not askhe coders to choose a dominant model for each tweet. Requiring this selection would have made it more precise in sayinghich models were used the most and least. Additionally, it should be noted that the conversation strategy using “at replies”

ncludes both legitimate conversations as well as retweets. While some of these tweets contained the retweeted informationnly, others contained the shared information and a brief comment from the nonprofit. In retrospect, it would have beenelpful to code these separately as to be able to more accurately reflect the nature of the conversations.

This study does, however, introduce a variety new research ideas for public relations and organizational communica-ion scholars. As Twitter continues to be the social media application used most often in marketing and public relations

ampaigns, understanding how a diverse range of organizations use the service is valuable for educational and professionalurposes. Given that the one-way models dominated, it would be helpful to use surveys or qualitative measures to determineractitioners’ views towards Twitter. It would be helpful to know whether they felt it could be used to engage in dialoguend foster relationship growth or whether they felt that the application was most helpful in sharing information and drivingraffic back to the organizational websites.

324 R.D. Waters, J.Y. Jamal / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 321– 324

References

Cameron, G. T., Cropp, F., & Reber, B. R. (2001). Getting past platitudes: Factors limiting accommodation in public relations. Journal of CommunicationManagement, 5(3), 242–261.

Eyrich, N., Padman, M. L., & Sweetser, K. D. (2008). PR practitioners’ use of social media tools and communication technology. Public Relations Review, 34,412–414.

Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (2008). Excellence theory in public relations: Past, present, and future. In A. Zerfass, B. van Ruler, & K. Sriramesh (Eds.), Publicrelations research: European and international perspectives and innovations (pp. 327–347). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag.

Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. Gainesville, FL: Institute for Public Relations.

Kanter, B., & Fine, A. (2010). The networked nonprofit: Connecting with social media to drive change. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the World Wide Web. Public Relations Review, 24(3), 321–324.Laskin, A. V. (2009). The evolution of models of public relations: An outsider’s perspective. Journal of Communication Management, 13(1), 37–54.Sha, B. (2007). Dimensions of public relations: Moving beyond traditional public relations models. In S. Duhé (Ed.), New media and public relations (pp.

3–26). New York: Peter Lang.Stelzner, M.A. (2009). Social media marketing industry report. Retrieved online February 26, 2010 from http://www.socialmediasummit09.com/.