Decoding the Interaction: Nonprofits and Stakeholder

Relationships on Social Media

Georgette Dumont, Ph.D.University of North Florida

Q1: How are nonprofits in Jacksonville FL using social media?

Q2: Is social media being used to network with other local nonprofits?

Q3: What are these organizations doing with the feedback provided through these channels?

Research Questions

Snowball Sampling of Twitter and Facebook Sample

◦ 464 accounts, 348 nonprofits◦ E-Survey – sent to 278 nonprofits

22 no email 48 no phone 20 bounced Responses: 111 (43%)

◦ Interviews (N=8)

Data Collection

Type No Budget

<$100k $100k-$500k

$500k - $2m

$2m -$10m >$10m Total Interview

Arts and Culture 4 3 5 2 8 0 22 2*

Education 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

Env. /Animal Welfare 1 2 2 0 5 1 11 2*

Health 0 4 2 2 1 4 13

Human Services 1 5 5 4 12 1 28 2

International 0 2 0 0 0 0 2

Societal Benefit 0 1 6 8 2 0 17 2

Religious 1 0 0 0 2 0 3

Membership 3 8 1 1 2 0 15

Unknown 1 0 0 1 0 0 2

Non- (c)(3) 0 1 1 2 0 1 5 2

TOTAL 11 26 22 21 32 7 119 10

Interviewed 2 4 1

Q1: Usage◦ Surveys (N=111)◦ One month of coded tweets and posts (N=5)◦ Correlations; Anova

Q2: Networks◦ Snowball sample (N=464)

Correlations Q3: Feedback

◦ Interviews (N=8)

Methodology

Initial reason for SM adoption◦ Health less likely to start using FB for marketing &

donations◦ A&C less like to use TW for marketing◦ HS more like to start using FB for donations

Findings - Usage

Reason why nonprofit started using SM

Arts and Culture

Env. Or Animal Welfare

Health Human Services

Societal Benefit

Member Benefit

Non-501(c)(3)

REASON

FB (N=20) (N=10) (N=13) (N=27) (N=22) (N=13) (N=4)

TW (N=15) (N=9) (N=8) (N=25) (N=21) (N=7) (N=4)

MarketingFB 19 10 9** 26 21 12 4

TW 8** 8 7 21 21 7 4

FeedbackFB 9 4 4 12 10 7 3

TW 7 4 2 7 6 3 2

DonationsFB 7 4 3 15** 3* 1 0

TW 0* 3 2 7 2 1 0

LegitimacyFB 8 3 3 6 7 2 0

TW 2 4 1 6 7 2 1

Transparency/ Accountability

FB 3 4 4 7 8 2 2

TW 2 4 0 6 7 1 2

VolunteersFB 3* 6 3 12 7 6 0

TW 1 3 1 9 4 2 0

Raise AwarenessFB 17 10 11 24 20 13 4

TW 10* 8 8 22 18 7 4

*p<.05; ** p<.01

Purpose/type of tweet and posts differed significantly between nonprofits in different service areas.◦ Call for action, general Information, org’s event,

other org’s event, org’s program, other org’s program, reciprocity

◦ A&C posted fewer general info posts than non-(c)(3)s, SB, and HS

◦ SB and HS posted more general info than E/A◦ No different in tweeting about other org’s events◦ A&C tweet more about their programs than SB and

E/A◦ HS more likely to use reciprocal tweets than E/A

Findings – Usage, cont.

Impact of social media on constituents◦ Human service nonprofits influence volunteering

through FB◦ Environment/Animal Welfare note TW gets more

people to donate, but do say TW and FB gets people to become clients

◦ Arts & Culture note TW does not get people to become members, but both FB and TW gets people to become clients

Findings – Usage, cont.

Change in constituents attributed to SM

Arts and Culture

Env. and Animal Welfare

Health Human Services

Societal Benefit

Member Benefit

Non-501(c)(3)

CHANGE

FB (N=21) (N=11) (N=13) (N=28) (N=22) (N=14) (N=5)

TW (N=15) (N=9) (N=10) (N=25) (N=21) (N=7) (N=4)

VolunteerFB 4 6 5 15* 7 4 0

TW 0 3 2 2 2 1 0

DonateFB 5 4 3 9 4 2 0

TW 0 3* 0 3 1 1 0

Become MemberFB 5 6 1* 8 11 9* 3

TW 0* 4* 1 4 5 1 1

Become a ClientFB 8** 6** 0 0** 3 3 0

TW 5* 4** 1 0* 1 1 0

Attend eventsFB 16 11* 4** 15 16 9 3

TW 9 6 5 7* 12 3 2

*p<.05; ** p<.01

Benefits derived from SM differs by service area and medium.◦ Environment and Animal Welfare’s use of TW

attracts people to Web sites, while Arts and Culture’s use of TW Does not

◦ Environment and Animal Welfare’s use of FB increases donations and their use of FB and TW moves people to action

Findings – Usage, cont.

Benefits derived from social media use

Arts and Culture

Env. or Animal Welfare

Health Human Service

Societal Benefit

Member Benefit

Non-501(c)(3) Total

BENEFIT

FB (N=22) (N=11) (N=13) (N=28) (N=22) (N=14) (N=5) 115

TW (N=15) (N=9) (N=8) (N=25) (N=21) (N=7) (N=4) 89

Increased Traffic to Web site

FB 13 10 6 15 18 11 3 78

TW 0* 6** 1 7 6 1 2 23

Moved people to action

FB 13 10* 6 13* 16 11 3 72

TW 0** 5* 4 6 6 1 2 24

Increased e-mail listFB 5 5 2 8 7 4 1 32

TW 0* 4* 0 4 5 1 2 16

Increased donationsFB 10 10** 4 16 11 8 1 60

TW 0 0 2 3 2 1 1 9

Spread info widelyFB 18 11 9 21 17 13 4 93

TW 2** 7 4 11 13 3 4* 44*

Enhanced existing relationships

FB 15 11* 7 22 15 12 4 86

TW 2* 5 3 10 8 2 4** 34

Increased understanding of constituents

FB 13 7 4 12 10 10 4 60

TW 2 1 1 4 6 1 3** 18

Fostered discussionFB 12 9* 4 12 13 10 4 64

TW 2 4 0 4 10** 2 3* 25

Built active online community

FB 12 9 6 15 14 12* 3 71

TW 2 5 3 7 7 2 4** 30

Enhanced our online presence

FB 17 11 10 17** 21* 13 4 93

TW 2** 6 5 10 13 4 4* 44*

Increased awareness of org.

FB 18 11 10 20 20 13 4 96

TW 0** 7 5 10 14 4 4* 44**

*p<.05; ** p<.01

Total number of following/org likes Total number of followers/ likes No significant findings, other than non-

501(c)(3) have more followers and likes

Findings -Networks

All feedback answered. Negative posts not removed (although one

would like to). All interviewees see it as a great push

medium. Only two use feedback for planning for

programs/services. ◦ One includes it to bring more people to table for

governing.◦ One sees building an online community to reflect

offline community

Findings - Feedback

Preliminary findings demonstrate diverse relationships between nonprofits and social media, by service area and type.

Future studies will delve into these differences.

Longitudinal study to measure change.

Conclusion