Decoding the interaction
Click here to load reader
-
Upload
georgette-dumont -
Category
Technology
-
view
367 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Decoding the interaction
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