Post on 04-Jun-2018
transcript
8/13/2019 JNCR-IV.2009 Corporations on Facebook
1/21
8/13/2019 JNCR-IV.2009 Corporations on Facebook
2/21
JOURNAL OF NEW COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH | Vol. IV Issue 1 - Spring/Summer 2009 | 67
Perceptions of Corporations on Facebook:
An Analysis of Facebook Social Norms
by Dr. Mihaela Vorvoreanu, Ph.D., Purdue University and Society for New
Communications Research Fellow
Overview
In the past couple of years, Facebook has been undergoing an evolution
from an exclusive social network for college students to a social network
open for all, including businesses. With the opening of Facebook to
populations other than college students and to businesses, we begin to
see public relations, marketing, and advertising on Facebook. Facebook
natives, the college students who rst used the network, have collectively
created a set of social norms and expectations, Facebook culture. This paper
explores the question of how corporations can practice public relations on
Facebook while being sensitive to Facebook culture and help to preserve it.
The paper presents original empirical research with college students about
their social norms and their perceptions of corporations on Facebook.
Public Relations and Social Norms on Facebook
While Facebook has existed since February 2004 (Phillips, 2007), it
wasnt until late 2007 that it really opened for business. Facebook has been
partly supported by advertising since its early days, but in November 2007
Facebook began to focus on encouraging companies to engage in this popular
and growing social network, which counts more than 150 million active users
as of early 2009 (Facebook, 2009). In November 2007, Facebook introducedthe highly controversial Beacon advertising system. The controversy over
Beacon overshadowed the launch of Facebook pages, which are distinct,
customized proles designed for businesses, bands, celebrities and more to
represent themselves on Facebook (Pearlman, 2007).
By November 2007, Facebook natives, the college students who had
used Facebook since its inception, had developed a culture around the use of
Facebook and social norms that guide online interaction. Companies wishing
to engage in public relations and marketing efforts on Facebook have tobe mindful of Facebook culture, and their communication with the public
must conform to Facebook social norms. Failure to adapt communication
efforts to the local social norms presents the risks of failed communication
efforts, being labelled as spam, and, in the long run, damaging Facebook
culture. But, what are Facebook social norms? How does Facebook culture
8/13/2019 JNCR-IV.2009 Corporations on Facebook
3/21
68 | JOURNAL OF NEW COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH | Vol. IV/Issue 1 - Spring/Summer 2009
relate to corporate presence and public relations efforts? What is considered
appropriate and inappropriate engagement between organizations and the
public in the culture of Facebook natives? This research project set out to
explore these questions.
The questions about Facebook social norms are explored in thetheoretical context of relationship building. Relationship management, one
of the major theoretical approaches to public relations (Ledingham, 2006),
focuses on building and maintaining relationships between organizations and
the public. The relationship management literature discusses the desirability
of mutually benecial organization-public relationships, and suggests
relationship cultivation strategies, but so far has not considered the questions
of timing and context. Is relationship cultivation an activity organizations
and the public should engage in all the time, across all contexts? Are allrelationship cultivation strategies appropriate at all times and in all contexts?
This research project begins investigating these issues in the cultural context
of Facebook.
To provide the necessary background, the next sections provide
information on the state of Facebook usage by both individuals and
companies and reviews literature about relationship management and online
public relations.
Facebook Usage
Facebook is the worlds top social network (Arrington, 2009a) with
150 million users in February 2009 (Facebook, 2009). In the United States,
Facebook is not quite as popular as MySpace, although growth rates indicate
that Facebook is likely to overtake MySpace among United States Internet
users as well (Arrington, 2009b).
Although it is clear that Facebook has enough users in the United Statesand worldwide to make it a social phenomenon worthy of scholarly attention,
its popularity is not the only or the main reason why this research project
focuses on Facebook. Facebooks history presents a unique situation that has
led to the emergence of a well-dened Facebook college culture. For the rst
year and a half of its existence, Facebook was a social network exclusive
to college students (Phillips, 2007). Facebooks popularity among college
students has been extremely high, with an 85% penetration rate as early as
September 2005 (Arrington, 2005), and with college students still being the
largest Facebook user demographic (Pew Internet and American Life Project,
2009).
The existence of a well-dened Facebook culture with specic norms
for social interaction makes Facebook an interesting example to study
for several reasons. First, Facebook culture raises the issue of culturally
8/13/2019 JNCR-IV.2009 Corporations on Facebook
4/21
JOURNAL OF NEW COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH | Vol. IV Issue 1 - Spring/Summer 2009 | 69
appropriate online public relations. With more than half of the 100 leading
U.S. retailers having Facebook pages as of September 2008 (Rosetta, 2009),
it becomes important to nd out how those pages affect Facebook culture,
how they t in, whether these public relations efforts are appropriate and
effective. Second, Facebook presents a fascinating example of local, speciccultures, and social norms that develop around the use of social media tools.
If the emergence of different social norms around different social media is
indeed a trend, the practice of public relations online will have to include
ethnographic approaches and extremely high cultural sensitivity, even when
dealing with the same public. It is possible that members of the same public
have different social norms for interaction on Facebook than Twitter or blogs.
Public relations practitioners will have to learn what relationship cultivation
strategies work in each online social environment at any given point, aswell as when, and how, to engage in dialogue with publics. The conceptual
starting point for these public relations efforts and issues is relationship
management, explained next.
Relationship Management
The relational approach to public relations has developed in recent
years into a major theoretical perspective (Ledingham, 2008). Relationshipmanagement drew initially upon interpersonal communication to identify and
dene the nature and key attributes of relationships between organizations
and their publics (see, for example, Thomlison, 2000). Once the relationship
approach was explicated and positioned as a viable theory of public relations
(Broom, Casey, & Ritchey, 1997, 2000; Ledingham, 2003, 2006), most
scholarly research focused on identifying and measuring the core attributes of
organization-public relationships such as trust, control mutuality, satisfaction,
commitment, investment, involvement, openness, and others (Broom, et al.,1997; Bruning, 2002; Bruning & Ledingham, 1998, 1999, 2000; Grunig,
2002; Grunig & Huang, 2000; Hon & Grunig, 1999; Huang, 2001; Jo, 2006;
Kim, 2001; Ledingham & Bruning, 1998, 2000). Based on this research,
public relations scholars and practitioners have a shared and agreed upon
understanding of organization-public relationships as multi-dimensional,
measurable concepts.
The existing body of research has also documented the desirability and
positive outcomes of mutually benecial relationships between organizations
and publics (Bruning, 2002; Bruning & Ledingham, 1998, 2000; Grunig &
Huang, 2000; Ledingham & Bruning, 1999) and has identied relationship
maintenance (Grunig & Huang, 2000; Hon & Grunig, 1999), or cultivation
(Grunig, 2006; Ki & Hon, 2009), strategies such as access, positivity,
openness, sharing of tasks, networking, and assurances. In a related line of
8/13/2019 JNCR-IV.2009 Corporations on Facebook
5/21
70 | JOURNAL OF NEW COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH | Vol. IV/Issue 1 - Spring/Summer 2009
work, Kent and Taylor (1998, 2002) have proposed dialogue as a theoretical
framework to guide the creation and maintenance of relationships between
organizations and publics.
Research suggests that the purpose of public relations is relationship
cultivation, and scholars and practitioners alike seem to agree that long-term, mutually benecial relationships between organizations and their
publics are highly desirable. However, one question previous research has
not addressed is that of timing and context. Are public relations supposed
to be engaging with all stakeholder groups, using all available channels, all
of the time? When is relationship cultivation and dialogue appropriate and,
are some relationship cultivation strategies more appropriate than others in
certain contexts? Relationship management as a public relations theory is
quite elegant and parsimonious; as a public relations practice, it presentsmany contingencies and complexities that still need to be explored. This need
provides the rationale and theoretical context for this studys investigation
of how native Facebook culture relates to organizational attempts at public
relations on Facebook. Previous research about online public relations
has mostly focused on Web sites, and there are few, if any, research-based
insights about public relations on social networks. The next section reviews
some of the existing research on online public relations and considers what
insights might be applicable to social networks.
Public Relations Online
Most previous public relations research has studied different types of
Websites: Corporate Websites are the most popular choice of research focus
(Callison, 2003; Esrock & Leichty, 1998, 2000; Gustavsen & Tilley, 2003;
Hachigian & Hallahan, 2003; Huizingh, 2000; Maynard & Tian, 2004;
Robbins & Stylianou, 2003), but researchers have also looked at political,government, and national Websites (Benoit & Benoit, 2000; Brunn & Cottle,
1997; Chadwick, 2001; Curtin & Gaither, 2003; Jackson & Purcell, 1997;
Klotz, 1998; McKeown & Plowman, 1999; Niven & Zilber, 2001; Purcell &
Kodras, 2001; Reavy, 1997), activist Websites (Kent, Taylor, & White, 2003;
Taylor, Kent, & White, 2001), and Websites of nonprot organizations (Kang
& Norton, 2004). Most of the studies mentioned here use content analysis
to examine the types of content and features available on Websites. To
date, there are no similar studies of organizational Facebook pages that can
provide insight into how organizations use these tools to build relationships
with publics.
Several studies (Kent, et al., 2003; Taylor & Kent, 2004; Taylor, et
al., 2001) have used Kent & Taylors (1998) framework to investigate the
presence and use of dialogic features on various Websites and found that
8/13/2019 JNCR-IV.2009 Corporations on Facebook
6/21
JOURNAL OF NEW COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH | Vol. IV Issue 1 - Spring/Summer 2009 | 71
organizational Websites fall short of their dialogic potential. These studies
authors urge organizations to engage in more dialogue with publics.
Another research framework for investigating online relationship building
is Website Experience Analysis (Vorvoreanu, 2007, 2008). This framework
maps out the experience of interacting with public relations Websites andenables researchers to evaluate a publics experience with a given Website.
However, given fundamental differences between organizational
Websites and social networking sites, there is no basis for assuming that
the ndings about public relations on Websites would apply to Facebook.
Websites, as well as blogs (Catalano, 2007) are the online equivalent of an
organizations headquarters. Organizations are expected to use their online
headquarters to represent themselves and to engage in relationship building
with stakeholders. A visitor to an organizations Website or blog expects tointeract with the organization. Social networking sites such as Facebook
are very different in both structure and purpose. Social networking sites
are not any one organizations or individuals turf. They enable individuals
and organizations to create their online homes or proles, but with the
purpose of interacting with others and of creating and displaying connections
among users (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). Individuals use Facebook to maintain
relationships within their social network (Ellison, Steineld, & Lampe, 2007;
Stern & Taylor, 2007) and to create and express their identities online (Stern& Taylor, 2007; Zhao, Grasmuck, & Martin, 2008). As opposed to a visitor to
an organizations Website, a Facebook user does not log in to Facebook with
the expectation to interact with an organization. So, although the technology
makes it possible for organizations to interact with publics on Facebook, the
social norms and expectations of Facebook culture create a context radically
different from Web sites and blogs.
No scholarly research about public relations or marketing on Facebook
or other social networks could be identied. Existing publications such as thebookFacebook Marketing(Holzner, 2009) or the self-published e-book The
Facebook Marketing Bible(Smith, 2008) offer step-by-step advice on how
to set up a Facebook presence, and they rely on knowledge of the Facebook
interface and on personal experience, not on empirical research. The present
study represents one of the rst steps to understand the complexities of
organization-public relationship building on Facebook and it does so by
addressing the following research questions: How does Facebook culture
relate to corporate presence and public relations efforts? What is considered
appropriate and inappropriate engagement between corporations and publics
in the culture of Facebook natives?
8/13/2019 JNCR-IV.2009 Corporations on Facebook
7/21
72 | JOURNAL OF NEW COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH | Vol. IV/Issue 1 - Spring/Summer 2009
Methodology
To collect data that would help answer the research questions, six focus
groups were conducted over a span of 3 months during the fall of 2008
with a total of 35 college students enrolled at a southeastern university. Thestudents were recruited through iers posted on campus and were awarded a
monetary reward for their participation. After seeing the iers, participants
who contacted the researcher were asked to complete an online survey with
demographic and Facebook usage data, and to provide contact information
so a focus group could be scheduled. Out of 53 students who completed
the online survey, 35 were able to participate in the focus groups. Of the 35
participants, 21 were female and 14 were male, with ages ranging between
18 and 28 years old. The mean age of the participants was 20 years old. Nine
participants were African American and 26 were Caucasian. Four participants
were freshmen, 10 were sophomores, 13 were juniors, 6 were seniors and 2
were graduate students pursuing Masters degrees. The students represented
several majors, although almost half of the participants were communication
majors. All but one participant were current Facebook users. The participants
frequency of Facebook use ranged from 3 to 5 times a week to 10 times a
day, with most participants reporting they checked Facebook several times a
day. Of the 34 participants who used Facebook, 20 said they enjoyed using it
very much, 13 somewhat enjoyed using it, and 1 had neutral feelings.
Each focus group lasted about 75 minutes, and consisted of discussion of
eleven questions about students perceptions of corporations using Facebook.
The focus groups were audio-recorded and a professional service was used
for transcribing the conversations. The researcher read the transcripts several
times until several major themes emerged. The themes, presented next,
provide valuable insights into the social norms of Facebook as they relate
to public relations and reveal what types of interactions Facebook natives
perceive as appropriate and useful, or not.
Results and Interpretation
Seven major themes that pertain to the question of appropriate
engagement between organizations and individuals on Facebook were
identied in the focus group answers. The themes are weaved here into a
narrative that progresses from perceptions of corporations being on Facebook
to perceptions of engagement, relationships, and conversations betweencorporations and individuals on Facebook.
8/13/2019 JNCR-IV.2009 Corporations on Facebook
8/21
JOURNAL OF NEW COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH | Vol. IV Issue 1 - Spring/Summer 2009 | 73
Exclusivity Lost
A major theme that emerged early on in all focus group discussions was
a sense of sadness, annoyance, and nostalgia over lost exclusivity. Students
perceive Facebook as a college network, and they have negative feelingstoward Facebook being open to high-school students and then to everyone
with an email address. At the same time, there is a sense of inevitability, so
students put up with the presence of corporations on Facebook just as they
tolerate the presence of high school students, younger siblings, and parents:
When Facebook started, it was just college students and
a way to get to know other college students in their area.
Ive been on it for ve years now and that was before highschool students could get on to it and I got angry when high
schools were allowed on to it but there was nothing we could
do. When they opened Facebook up to everybody obviously
corporations came aboard
Purpose: To Digitally Hang Out
The reason why students use Facebook was brought up frequently in thefocus groups as an argument why there is little, if any, interest in interacting
with organizations on Facebook. Students use Facebook mainly to keep in
touch with friends and acquaintances they have met previously as one
participant put it, to digitally hang out. This nding is consistent with
previous research on Facebook usage (Ellison, et al., 2007; Stern & Taylor,
2007). Shopping, customer service, or engagement in any interactions other
than personal communication with friends are not part of the students usual
Facebook routine. This participants comment illustrates the perception thatcorporations presence on Facebook is somewhat inappropriate because it is
not aligned with the purpose of using Facebook:
It seems weird to me that corporations are on there. When
I think of Facebook I think of a social network and keeping
up with your friends and things like that. I dont think that is
what Facebook is for; They should do that on another venue.
It doesnt make me angry but I think it is just strange that
they are on there because they are not personally networking
with their friends, they are just trying to sell and they have
other motives.
8/13/2019 JNCR-IV.2009 Corporations on Facebook
9/21
74 | JOURNAL OF NEW COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH | Vol. IV/Issue 1 - Spring/Summer 2009
Although, as other themes also show, students seem uninterested to
interact directly with corporations on Facebook, there is room for corporate
presence if it helps them accomplish the purpose of keeping in touch with
friends through gifts and applications. An over-abundance of applications
and gifts on ones prole is considered really lame. They take up space andpeople who like apps are usually annoying. However, students embrace
certain applications that can deliver witty or funny messages, such as
the bumper sticker application. When further prompted, students start to
remember the presence of brands, products, or corporate messages on such
applications. However, they are not perceived as inappropriate, because they
help Facebook users accomplish the purpose of interacting with their friends.
Closely related to the main purpose of using Facebook is another important
Facebook activity, illustrated in the next theme.
Self-presentation
An important part of online social networking is the creation of a
personal prole, an online representation of ones self. Consistent with
previous research (Zhao, et al., 2008), participants in this research study
indicated that they sometimes become fans of products or organizations
because their likes and dislikes are important parts of their identity:If I like something, Ill become a fan of something and then
I want to publicly articulate it on Facebook, said one focus
group participant. Similarly, Facebook can be a way to
show off what you have its part of who you are. I like to
show off my game collection.
The interweaving of corporate presence or discourse was not perceived
as inappropriate if it was part of ones self-presentation efforts. However, it
should be noted that quite a few participants stated they never become fans of
corporations, and were not even aware of the existence of corporate pages on
Facebook.
Facebook is Personal
Another major theme that follows closely from students descriptions
of their purpose for using Facebook is that all interaction on Facebook is,
and should be, personal. Students perceive Facebook as their personal fun
space and wish to keep it separate from the professional, business, and other
aspects of their lives. This is the reason why students are extremely disturbed
8/13/2019 JNCR-IV.2009 Corporations on Facebook
10/21
JOURNAL OF NEW COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH | Vol. IV Issue 1 - Spring/Summer 2009 | 75
by instances of potential employers evaluating them based on their Facebook
proles and activity:
Its almost an invasion of privacy type thing. Like, I have
a private Facebook account solely for the purpose that Idont want people I dont know looking at my information
or looking at my pictures, especially when it comes
to corporations. My personal life is different from my
professional life; you know what I mean? So if they saw
pictures of me that they would think that were incriminating
- I dont have anything really incriminating on it - but if they
saw a picture that was inappropriate, thats not how I would
conduct myself in a professional setting, you know what I
mean? So I dont think it is necessarily relevant.
Because Facebook is a space for personal interactions, students do not
perceive it as an appropriate medium to communicate with organizations
about commercial or business transactions. They prefer using telephone,
email, or forms on ofcial organizational Websites to interact with
corporations. Any communication that does not come from an individual
and is not personal is considered inappropriate. Students are open to thepossibility of interacting with employees of corporations, but only if these
interactions are personal and authentic, not scripted. At the same time, they
believe it is not feasible for a large corporation to engage with each member
of their public on an individual basis. Even when accepting the scenario of
interacting with individual employees, students insist that they should be
the ones initiating the conversation. Having a representative of a company,
or even worse a faceless corporation write on your wall, or, in student
parlance, being Facebooked by a faceless corporation would be freaky,and perceived as inappropriate, or downright spam. Overall, students
are quite suspicious of interacting with large corporations, but have very
different attitudes towards small businesses and non-prot organizations.
Small Businesses Can Keep it Personal
In stark contrast with the focus group participants aversion towards
interacting with large corporations on Facebook is their embracement of
small businesses and non-prots. Several students reported friending small
business owners and interacting with them on a regular basis, whether it was
checking their pages for inventories, sending greeting cards on holidays,
writing on their wall, or conversing about products. When it came to small
8/13/2019 JNCR-IV.2009 Corporations on Facebook
11/21
76 | JOURNAL OF NEW COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH | Vol. IV/Issue 1 - Spring/Summer 2009
businesses, students did not manifest suspicion towards their motivation to
make a prot, and several stated that they actually enjoyed supporting them:
But Id friend small shops because they have a face. If its
Sony I couldnt care less but a small indy company, I supportthat; but something big and obnoxious like Microsoft, I dont
care, not at all. I like to help small companies get their name
out because you know you have an effect on them.
However, the students made it clear that they felt they had a personal
relationship with the small business owner, not the business itself, and felt
they knew them and sometimes their families personally: they blog pictures
of their kids, said one focus group participant when explaining why heengages with the owners of a small independent company.
Several participants had very positive feelings towards engaging with
small business owners on Facebook and perceived those interactions as
appropriate and within the scope of Facebook.
Students also had quite positive feelings towards non-prot
organizations, with whom they became familiar through the causes
application. However, the acceptance of non-prot organizations seemed
to reect a social-desirability bias: I feel bad not clicking I support breastcancer [research]. Students said they regularly express support for a good
cause, but not go as far as interacting with the non-prot organization or
donating money, partly because they did not think Facebook was a safe
medium for credit card transactions.
So far, the major themes that have emerged from focus group discussions
revealed the students purpose for using Facebook, the types of interactions
they nd appropriate (personal), and their attitudes toward small businesses
and non-prots. The last two themes address engagement in conversationswith large corporations and perceptions of large corporations on Facebook.
Large Corporations: Engagement, Relationships, Conversation
Overall, the focus group participants agreed that they had no interest in
engaging in conversations or relationships with large faceless corporations
on Facebook. They perceived Facebook relationships between themselves
and large corporations as neither possible nor desirable. Their understanding
of relationships between organizations and individuals was that corporations
wish to maintain loyal customers. They did not necessarily mind this prot-
making purpose, but did not see a place for it on Facebook and preferred to
be left alone:
8/13/2019 JNCR-IV.2009 Corporations on Facebook
12/21
JOURNAL OF NEW COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH | Vol. IV Issue 1 - Spring/Summer 2009 | 77
As far as someone calling me or sending me a Facebook
message, I would prefer to go into the store, get my stuff
and thats it. There is a point where you are building a
relationship and then it gets annoying. So I wouldnt be
interested in talking to a corporation unless I had a problem.
Beyond customer service, students expressed no interest in engaging
with large corporations on Facebook. However, their feelings of aversion and
annoyance quickly shifted to enthusiasm whenever a focus group participant
mentioned monetary incentives. Given the nancial situation of most college
students, the no engagement with corporations rule would be gladly broken
in exchange for special discounts and coupons. Students unanimously agreed
that discounts and coupons, especially if they were exclusive to Facebook
users, would motivate them to join groups and become fans of corporate
Facebook pages. Special deals for Facebook users appeared to be one way to
regain that lost sense of exclusivity discussed in the rst theme.
An important aspect of engagement with corporations was the presence
of advertisements on the right-hand side of the screen. Focus groups
participants were ambivalent about the advertisements. On the one hand, they
understood why they were there, and preferred that advertising rather than
user fees nance Facebook. On the other hand, many students reported being
blind to advertisements, and ignoring that part of the screen altogether.
The students who did notice the advertisements were also split into two
opinion camps. One camp found the advertisements irrelevant and labelled
them as scams or the equivalent of late-night infomercials. Some said
they would not click the ads for fear of being taken to a site that would infect
their computer with a virus. In the other camp were Facebook users who had
been served targeted advertisements that they found relevant to their interests
on more than one occasion. These students were perplexed and confusedabout how the process worked, but said they did look at the ads because they
had been relevant or useful in the past.
Overall, even students who found advertising an inevitable annoyance
considered this form of communication between corporations and
publics more appropriate than other, more dialogic forms of interaction.
This preference could be explained by the fact that advertising is a well
established form of corporate communication, one that students are
familiar with and can easily separate from other, more engaged forms ofinteraction that tend to blur the boundaries between personal and commercial
discourse. Students hung on with passion to the idea of separating the
personal, professional, commercial, and family aspects of their lives, and
advertisements allow them to do that in the context of Facebook. The clear
delimitation of advertising as a genre as well as the visual separation of
8/13/2019 JNCR-IV.2009 Corporations on Facebook
13/21
78 | JOURNAL OF NEW COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH | Vol. IV/Issue 1 - Spring/Summer 2009
advertisements from the stream of Facebook content made advertising a
much more acceptable form of communication than conversations with
corporations.
Students attitudes towards engagement with corporations are closely
related to the last major theme of the focus groups, that of perceptions towardcorporate presence on Facebook.
Perceptions of Corporate Presence on Facebook
There are certain social media such as Twitter that are perceived as the
desirable, cutting-edge place to be. The positive perceptions associated with
the medium often spill over onto its users. Focus group participants reasoned
that many corporations join Facebook in an attempt to be cool andcutting-edge, but they did not think this was a successful strategy and were
turned off by corporations trying too hard to be cool:
I think another reason why corporations are on Facebook is
because it is the new and upcoming thing that students are
getting involved in and corporations are thinking they should
be getting involved in it, too. I dont know how old Twitter
is and that kind of thing but everyone is becoming more
knowledgeable with technology and that kind of thing andFacebook is the newest cutting edge thing.
Students unanimously understood that because Facebook has a very large
number of users corporations were attracted to join in for marketing and
advertising purposes. Whenever they tried to think from the corporations
point of view, they agreed that it made business sense for corporations
to be on Facebook. However, when they looked at corporate presence on
Facebook from their own point of view, they did not nd Facebook presence
an appropriate strategy: Why would you be on there if youre not going to
socialize?
Simply being on Facebook did not lend a corporation any advantage
in terms of perceptions. Students did not feel they could trust corporations
more because they were on Facebook, or that corporations with Facebook
presences were more open than others. They did not consider themselves
more likely to engage, purchase, or interact with a corporation simply
because it had a Facebook presence. When asked about perceptions related
to the organization-public relationship dimensions of trust, openness,
involvement, investment, and dialogue, students did not report being
impressed by corporations Facebook presence. On the contrary, students
were suspicious of corporations motives and felt corporations were intruding
8/13/2019 JNCR-IV.2009 Corporations on Facebook
14/21
JOURNAL OF NEW COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH | Vol. IV Issue 1 - Spring/Summer 2009 | 79
on their territory. Many students did not believe in the possibility of having
an open and honest dialogue with a corporation on Facebook, and they
believed that any negative comments would be deleted. Students did not
express interest in too much openness or dialogue on Facebook, as this
statement illustrates:
It may be more open but I wouldnt want it on Facebook.
I dont want that much information from a company
that I didnt want to look at. I want to be able to get that
information if I want it but I dont want it on the Facebook
page.
In summary, the seven major themes that emerged from the focus groupdiscussions present a complex picture of the ways in which Facebook
culture relates to corporations on Facebook. The dominant feeling is that
corporations, just as other non-college populations, are not welcome on
Facebook, and students regret losing the sense of exclusivity on Facebook.
Corporate presence is acceptable on Facebook if it helps users accomplish
their main purposes for using Facebook in the rst place: digitally hanging
out and self-presentation. The only accepted communication tone on
Facebook is the personal one, and organizations that are able to engagein personal communication, such as small business owners, are embraced
on Facebook. Although students understand the business reasons for
large corporations presence on Facebook, they do not nd this medium
appropriate for engaging with corporations, have little, if any interest in
doing so, and the mere presence of corporations on Facebook does not
contribute to positive perceptions of organization-public relationship
dimensions. There are however, inherent contradictions in students answers
that provide important clues about appropriate and inappropriate corporatecommunication on Facebook. The implications of these ndings for public
relations practice and theory are discussed next.
Discussion and Limitations
Though it may seem that the Facebook college culture is an unfriendly
context for corporate public relations, this studys ndings offer several
insights into ways of practicing culturally appropriate public relations and
marketing on Facebook. The students main concerns were against aggressive
and invasive corporate communication efforts that would invade their
personal communication space and pollute it with spam. The students
talked about several opportunities for engagement with corporations, but the
dominant agreement was that they wanted to engage on their own terms and
8/13/2019 JNCR-IV.2009 Corporations on Facebook
15/21
80 | JOURNAL OF NEW COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH | Vol. IV/Issue 1 - Spring/Summer 2009
expected corporations to be available and accessible, but not in your face.
One major opportunity for corporations on Facebook is to help users
represent themselves to others online. In a consumerist society, people
often dene themselves by their likes, dislikes, and ownership of material
possessions. Corporations that make it easy and attractive for users to expresstheir tastes and afliations can become a visible part of Facebook users
proles.
Another opportunity for corporations is to enable users to accomplish
their main purpose for using Facebook, that of keeping in touch with
friends and acquaintances. Through the subtle but creative use of gifts
and applications, corporations can be a part of the communication among
Facebook friends. Facebook also presents direct marketing opportunities
for engaging the college-age market. Providing deals and discounts whilecreating a sense of exclusivity for Facebook users is a tactic that all students
were enthusiastic about.
Finally, although students prefer a personal tone for Facebook
communication, their expectations for interactions with large corporations
are somewhat different. Students questioned the feasibility of personal
engagement with members of a large corporations public and expressed
tolerance and even interest toward more traditional modes of corporate
communication, such as advertising. As far as engaged interaction goes,whether for customer service purposes or for discussing policies and issues,
the participants agreed that other communication channels, such as the
ofcial corporate Website, email, and telephone, are more appropriate than
Facebook.
In terms of relationship management and dialogic approaches to public
relations, these research ndings translate into the conclusion that within
the Facebook college culture, Facebook is not regarded as an appropriate
context for in-depth, engaged dialogue between organizations and theirpublics. The focus group results present Facebook as an appropriate medium
for marketing and advertising, and specically for increasing awareness of a
company, product, or brand. The results suggest that relationship cultivation
strategies and dialogue are not always appropriate, and that organizations
need to choose wisely the contexts and channels for engaging with publics.
Organizations also need to be aware that in some contexts it is more
benecial to the relationship with a certain public to respect the conversation
space by staying out of it.
Before translating this studys implications into practice, it is important
to be aware of its limitations. First, this study attempted to gain an
understanding of the Facebook college culture. However, the small sample of
students from the same university might not be representative of Facebook
college culture. Further research is needed to establish whether these insights
8/13/2019 JNCR-IV.2009 Corporations on Facebook
16/21
JOURNAL OF NEW COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH | Vol. IV Issue 1 - Spring/Summer 2009 | 81
are applicable at a wider scale to the culture of all students in the United
States who use Facebook.
A second limitation is, that even if these insights could be generalized
to the Facebook college culture, there are other age and interest groups on
Facebook who might use it differently and might have created their ownculture, with different social norms. Their expectations and perceptions of
corporate communication on Facebook might be very different from those of
college students. Further research is needed to identify the various Facebook
cultures and gain in-depth understanding of their social norms. Third, culture
is a dynamic, living system that changes and evolves over time. As time
passes and new groups of people join Facebook they will not, for example,
experience the sense of lost exclusivity, because they were not aware of a
time when Facebook was an exclusive college network. The results of thisstudy represent a snap shot of where Facebook college culture might be at
the time of the research. The social norms and expectations of this group of
users are likely to carry on and inuence others who become assimilated in
Facebook culture, so they carry some relevance for the future. However, new
groups of users, time, and new experiences, will change Facebook culture. It
is important for communication researchers and professionals to stay aware
of these cultural shifts and continue the effort to understand the culture and
social norms each public develops on Facebook, as well as other socialmedia.
Conclusion
This studys goal was to gain an understanding of Facebook college
culture as it relates to public relations, and to grasp the social norms that
determine expectations of appropriate and inappropriate communication
between organizations and publics on Facebook. Focus group researchprovided insights into these research questions. Although students who
participated in this research were suspicious of large corporations on
Facebook and did not manifest interest in engaging in dialogue with
them, they did talk about several opportunities for appropriate corporate
communication on Facebook. As opposed to large corporations, students
were much more welcoming of small businesses on Facebook and perceived
that communication with small business owners can t in well with the
personal tone of Facebook communication.
The studys results have direct implications for public relations,
marketing, and advertising professionals who seek to reach the college-
age audience on Facebook. The results also suggest important issues for
public relations research, namely the need to explore the question of when
relationship cultivation strategies and dialogue are appropriate, and when the
8/13/2019 JNCR-IV.2009 Corporations on Facebook
17/21
82 | JOURNAL OF NEW COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH | Vol. IV/Issue 1 - Spring/Summer 2009
relationship between an organization and a public might benet from lack of
engagement.
Much more research is needed to explore these theoretical questions
as well as the various cultures that develop around different social media.
The most important insight to take away from this study is the awarenessof the social norms publics develop in social media and the importance for
communication practitioners to understand them before deciding whether and
how to engage with publics online.
8/13/2019 JNCR-IV.2009 Corporations on Facebook
18/21
JOURNAL OF NEW COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH | Vol. IV Issue 1 - Spring/Summer 2009 | 83
References
Arrington, M. (2005). 85% of College Students Use Facebook. Techcrunch. Retrieved
09/15/2008, from http://www.techcrunch.com/2005/09/07/85-of-college-students-use-
facebook/
Arrington, M. (2009a). Facebook now nearly twice the size of MySpace worldwide.Techcrunch. Retrieved 2/06/2009, from http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/01/22/
facebook-now-nearly-twice-the-size-of-myspace-worldwide/
Arrington, M. (2009b). Social networking: Will Facebook overtake MySpace in the U.S. in
2009? Techcrunch. Retrieved 02/06/2009, from http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/01/13/
social-networking-will-facebook-overtake-myspace-in-the-us-in-2009/
Benoit, W. L., & Benoit, P. J. (2000). The virtual campaign: Presidential primary Websites in
Campaign 2000. American Communication Journal, 3(3). Retrieved Date Accessed| from
http://acjournal.org/holdings/vol3/Iss3/rogue4/benoit.html
boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Denition, History, and
Scholarship. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (1997). Toward a concept and theory of organization-
public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9(2), 83-98.
Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (2000). Concept and theory of organization-public
relationships. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship
management. A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp.
3-22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bruning, S. D. (2002). Relationship building as retention strategy: Linking relationship
attitudes and satisfaction evaluations to behavioral outcomes. Public Relations Review,
28(1), 39-48.
Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (1998). Organization-public relationships and consumersatisfaction: The role of relationships in the satisfaction mix. Communication Research
Reports, 15(2), 198-208.
Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (1999). Relationships between organizations and publics:
Development of a multi-dimensional organization-public relationship scale. Public
Relations Review, 25(2), 157-170.
Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (2000). Perceptions of relationships and evaluations of
satisfaction: An exploration of interaction. Public Relations Review, 26(1), 85-95.
Brunn, S. D., & Cottle, C. D. (1997). Small states and cyberboosterism. Geographical Review,
87(2), 240-258.
Callison, C. (2003). Media relations and the Internet: How Fortune 500 company Web sitesassist journalists in news gathering. Public Relations Review, 29(1), 29-41.
Catalano, C. C. (2007). Megaphones to the Internet and the world: The role of blogs in
corporate communications. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 1(4), 247-
262.
Chadwick, A. (2001). The electronic age of government in the Internet age. Information,
Communication and Society, 4(3), 435-457.
Curtin, P. A., & Gaither, T. K. (2003). International agenda-building in cyberspace: A study
of Middle East government English-language Websites. Public Relations Review, 30(1),
25-36.
Ellison, N. B., Steineld, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benets of Facebook friends: Socialcapital and college students use of online social networking sites. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143-1168.
Esrock, S. L., & Leichty, G. B. (1998). Social responsibility and corporate Web pages: Self-
presentation or agenda setting? Public Relations Review, 24(3), 305-319.
Esrock, S. L., & Leichty, G. B. (2000). Organization of corporate Web pages: Publics and
functions. Public Relations Review, 26(3), 327-344.
8/13/2019 JNCR-IV.2009 Corporations on Facebook
19/21
8/13/2019 JNCR-IV.2009 Corporations on Facebook
20/21
JOURNAL OF NEW COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH | Vol. IV Issue 1 - Spring/Summer 2009 | 85
Ledingham, J. A. (2008). A chronology or organization-stakeholder relationships with
recommendations concerning practitioner adoption of the relational perspective. Journal
of Promotion Management, 14(3 & 4), 243-262.
Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (1998). Relationship management in public relations:
Dimensions of an organization-public relationship. Public Relations Review, 24(1), 55-
65.
Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (1999). Time as an indicator of the perceptions and
behavior of members of a key public: Monitoring and predicting organization-public
relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 11(2), 167-183.
Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (2000). A longitudial study of organization-public
relationship dimensions: Dening the role of communication in the practice of
relationship management. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations
as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public
relations (pp. 55-69). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Maynard, M., & Tian, Y. (2004). Between global and glocal: content analysis of the Chinese
Web Sites of the 100 top global brands. Public Relations Review, 30(3), 285291.
McKeown, C. A., & Plowman, K. D. (1999). Reaching publics on the Web during the 1996
presidential campaign. Journal of Public Relations Research, 11(4), 321-347.
Niven, D., & Zilber, J. (2001). Do women and men in Congress cultivate different images?
evidence from congressional Web sites. Political Communication, 18(4), 395-405.
Pearlman, L. (2007). Facebook Ads. The Facebook Blog. Retrieved 11/03/2008, from http://
blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=6972252130
Pew Internet and American Life Project. (2009). Social networks grow: Friending mom and
dad. Retrieved 02/06/2009, from http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1079/social-networks-
grow
Phillips, S. (2007). A brief history of Facebook. The Guardian. Retrieved 11/03/2008, from
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/jul/25/media.newmedia
Purcell, D., & Kodras, J. E. (2001). Information technologies and representational spaces at
the outposts of the global political economy: Redrawing the Balkan image of Slovenia.
Information, Communication and Society, 4(3), 341-369.
Reavy, M. (1997). Presidential Web sites as sources of information. Electronic Journal of
Communication, 7(3), online.
Robbins, S. S., & Stylianou, A. C. (2003). Global corporate Web sites: An empirical
investigation of content and design. Information and Management, 40(3), 205-212.
Rosetta. (2009). Social media study shows 59% of retailers now using Facebook. Retrieved
02/06/2009, from http://www.rosetta.com/WhoWeAre/News/Pages/ViewPress.
aspx?itemid=162
Smith, J. (2008). The Facebook marketing Bible: 37+ ways to market your brand, company,
product, or service inside Facebook. Retrieved November 15, 2008, from http://www.
insidefacebook.com
Stern, L. A., & Taylor, K. (2007). Social networking on Facebook. Journal of the
Communication, Speech & Theatre Association of North Dakota, 20, 9-20.
Taylor, M., & Kent, M. L. (2004). Congressional Web sites and their potential for public
dialogue. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 12(2), 59-76.
Taylor, M., Kent, M. L., & White, W. J. (2001). How activist organizations are using the
Internet to build relationships. Public Relations Review, 27(3), 263-284.
Thomlison, T. D. (2000). An interpersonal primer with implications for public relations. In J.
A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A
relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 177-203). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8/13/2019 JNCR-IV.2009 Corporations on Facebook
21/21
Vorvoreanu, M. (2007). Website Experience Analysis: A new research protocol for studying
relationship building on corporate Websites. Journal of Website Promotion, 3(3 & 4),
222-249.
Vorvoreanu, M. (2008). Web site public relations: How corporations build and maintain
relationships online. Youngstown, NY: Cambria Press.
Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S., & Martin, J. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook: Digital
empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 1816-
1836.
Dr. Vorvoreanu is an assistant professor in the College of Technology
at Purdue University. She studies the socio-cultural impact of new
communication technologies. Before joining Purdue, Dr. V was an assistant
professor in the Department of Communication Studies at Clemson
University, SC, and the Department of Communication at the University ofDayton, Ohio. While at Clemson and UD respectively, Dr. V taught various
public relations and communication courses, and did academic research in
the area of public relations and new Web technologies. Dr. V holds a Ph.D.
in Communication from Purdue University. Originally from Romania, Dr.
V now lives with her husband, Krishna Madhavan, and cat, Pooky, in West
Lafayette, IN.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to acknowledge the research support of undergraduate
student Amanda Jernigan and of the Society for New Communications
Research.