JNCR-IV.2009 Corporations on Facebook

8/13/2019 JNCR-IV.2009 Corporations on Facebook

1/21


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


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


4/21


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


5/21


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


6/21


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?


7/21


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.


8/21


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.


9/21


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


10/21


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


11/21


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:


12/21


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


13/21


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


14/21


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


15/21


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


16/21


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


17/21


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.


18/21


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.


19/21


20/21


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.


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.

Date post:	04-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	bianca-florentina-ilie
View:	224 times
Download:	0 times

JNCR-IV.2009 Corporations on Facebook

Documents