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
Top Related