Social Media and Strategic Communication: Notes (Bullet-Point Summary)

Overview: Social Media and Strategic Communication

• Social media has transformed how people connect and participate in society, serving as instant one- and two-way communication among individuals, communities, and organizations.
• Major platforms include Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Pinterest, Google+, LinkedIn, etc., and usage has grown with mobile access.
• Key statistics (contextual, from the sources in the transcript):
  • Facebook had more than $1.1 imes 10^9$ users in spring 2013. (Facebook, 2013)
  • Twitter was the fastest growing social media site, with nearly $0.21$ (21%) of the world’s internet population using it monthly. (Smith, 2013)
  • YouTube visitors watched $6 imes 10^9$ hours of video every month. (Bullas, 2013)
• Regional studies (Europe, Australia) show common platform types used by organizations: social networks (e.g., Facebook), microblogging (e.g., Twitter), video sharing (e.g., YouTube). (Macnamara & Zerfass, 2012)
• Growing ubiquity of mobile access means social media presence will continue to strengthen as users access networks via smartphones and tablets. (Macnamara & Zerfass, 2012)
• Social media usage extends beyond information and interpersonal communication to participation in society activities (e.g., watching TV, sports events, concerts) through social media.
• Nielsen’s 2012 State of the Media reports on mobile viewing:
  • 88 ext{%} of the $70 ext{ million}$ tablet owners in the USA use their devices while watching TV at least once a month.
  • 86 ext{%} of the $100 ext{ million}$ smartphone owners in the USA do the same.
  • Roughly half of both tablet and smartphone groups use their devices’ second screen to express opinions about what they’re watching on a daily basis. (Nielsen, 2012; Turner, 2013)
• The growing tide of social media has spurred scholarly and practical exploration of its uses and impacts, including theory development and application in strategic communication.

Theoretical perspectives in social media research

• In the 436 articles examined by Khang, Ki, and Ye (2012), the most frequently applied theories were:
  • Social Information Processing Theory (SIP)
  • Uses and Gratifications Theory (UGT)
  • Relationship Management Theory
  • Agenda Setting or Framing Theory
  • Diffusion of Innovation Theory
• These frameworks are used to explain how users interact with social media, how messages are formed, and how behaviors and norms emerge online.

Social Information Processing Theory (SIP)

• Introduced to explain how online interpersonal relationships develop without nonverbal cues of face-to-face interaction. (Walther, 1992)
• Core idea: online relationships can reach the same standards and values as face-to-face through the interpretation of textual/verbal cues; impressions build over time via sender, receiver, and channel feedback. The process can lead to faster relationship formation when impressions are positive (hyperpersonal model). (Walther, 1992)
• Applications: online relational intimacy (Ellison, Heino, & Gibbs, 2006); marketing on social media (Lin & Peña, 2011); age-group interactions (Valkenburg & Peter, 2007).
• Criticisms: lack of visual cues can hinder solid, real relationships; may be less applicable in collectivist contexts. (Tokunaga, 2009)
• Relevance to strategic communication: explains how brands and individuals create socio-emotional connections online, aiding attachment to products or services via blogs, Facebook, Twitter, etc.

Uses and Gratifications Theory (UGT)

• Focuses on why individuals actively seek out media and what they get from it (information, entertainment, mood management). (Blumler & Katz, 1974)
• Key tenets: users’ needs drive media use; media attributes (timeliness, involvement, interactivity) and use context influence engagement; social media enables content creation and gratification (self-expression, status, socializing, entertainment, information).
• Common needs addressed: information, companionship, relaxation, diversion, escape, self-expression, self-actualization. (Park, Kee & Valenzuela, 2009; Raacke & Bonds-Raacke, 2008)
• Critics: may lack depth in psychological antecedents; difficult data collection; sometimes users do not select their media, raising questions about control. (Straubhaar, LaRose, & Davenport, 2011)
• In social media, UGT helps explain rapid adoption and why individuals feel gratification from user-generated content and control of messages, though it also raises privacy concerns when controversial opinions are expressed or backlash occurs. (Debatin, Lovejoy, Horn, & Hughes, 2009)

Relationship Management Theory

• Focuses on organization–public relationships as central to strategic communication; defines a management function with four steps: research, action planning, implementation, evaluation. (Ledingham, 2003)
• Emphasizes identifying public attitudes, knowledge, behavior, and relationships; and building mutually beneficial relationships through strategies such as openness, networking, dual concern, and avoidance. (Bruning & Ledingham, 2000)
• With social media, relationship management requires careful planning and ongoing adaptation to maintain trust and engagement across publics. (Diga & Kelleher, 2009; Waters et al., 2009)

Agenda Setting or Framing Theory

• Classic idea: media frames influence the public agenda; media do not reflect reality but filter and frame it; public focus on issues highlighted by media. (McCombs & Shaw, 1968; McCombs & Shaw, 1993)
• Media act as gatekeepers; issue accessibility and frequency influence public conversation and public policy.
• Critics: overgeneralized assumptions about passive publics; difficulty in predicting effects across diverse groups. (Rogers, Hart & Dearing, 1997)
• In social media, agenda setting can be enacted via owned media (Facebook, blogs, Twitter) combined with earned and paid media to generate buzz; social platforms can also reverse roles (public setting the agenda). HARO exemplifies changing agenda setting dynamics. (Ragas & Roberts, 2009; Waters et al., 2010)

Diffusion of Innovation (DOI)

• Explains how innovations spread through social systems over time; adoption categories and a five-step adoption process.
• Five adopter categories: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, laggards. (Rogers, 2003)
• Five-stage adoption process: Awareness, Interest, Evaluation, Trial, Adoption. (Rogers, 2003)
• Critics: adoption does not always follow a linear pattern; populations vary in receptivity; assumes one-way communication, which is imperfect in social media contexts. (Rogers, 2003)
• In social media research, DOI highlights factors such as innovativeness, ease/complexity, relative advantage, and peer adoption as determinants of adoption. (Chang, Lee, & Kim, 2006; Peslak, Ceccucci, & Sendall, 2010; Gulati & Williams, 2011)

Other Theoretical Frameworks Noted

• Knowledge gap, cultivation, social identity, polymedia, social feedback loop, socialgraphics theory, McLuhan’s media theory, and communities of practice (CoP) have all been employed to explain social media phenomena. (Effing et al., 2011; Stefanone et al., 2010; Barker, 2009; Madianou & Miller, 2013; Owyang, 2010; Pan & Crotts, 2012; Yukawa, 2010; Lewis & Nichols, 2012a, 2012b)

Social Media in Practice: Cross-Disciplinary Implications

• Social media’s rapid growth has implications across government, business, education, medicine, religion, etc. It is transformative for the public sphere (Habermas) and for strategic communication. (Nielsen, 2012; Habermas, 1989; Macnamara & Zerfass, 2012)
• Strategic communication is a management function, not merely a technical one, and should be integrated with organizational leadership and decision-making. (Hallahan et al., 2007; Coombs & Holladay, 2009)
• Social media enables dialogic communication with stakeholders and transnational audiences; it can extend authenticity and real-time engagement in museums, healthcare, and other sectors. (Meredith, 2012; Avery et al., 2010; Samuel, 2012; Russo et al., 2008)
• Multi-method studies (e.g., Linke & Zerfass, 2012) show a trend from experimentation to governance of social media, with guidelines and ownership discussions; debate persists about who should manage social media within organizations. (Delphi study; 2012)
• In practice, the six disciplines of strategic communication (management, marketing, public relations, technical communication, political communication, social marketing) all engage with social media; governance and ownership remain points of debate. (Hallahan et al., 2007)
• The Altimeter Group’s five social business models describe organizational structures for social media across the enterprise:
  • Organic (decentralized): ~10%
  • Centralized: ~29%
  • Hub and Spoke: ~36%
  • Dandelion (multiple hub-and-spoke): ~24%
  • Holistic: ~2.4%
  • Most firms use the centralized or hub-and-spoke models; holistic adoption is rare. (Owyang, 2013)
• Key practical implications:
  • Social media should be used to foster positive communication and brand advocacy among fans, not just to broadcast messages.
  • Relinquishing message control requires a clear strategy and training; fan-driven campaigns can amplify reach with minimal cost (e.g., World Nutella Day case). Nutella’s parent Ferrero SpA issued a cease-and-desist in 2013 after fan-driven promotion, illustrating risks of misaligned control vs. fan-driven value. (Crick, 2013)
  • Zappos demonstrates a customer-centric approach with high employee autonomy; nothing is scripted, and employees engage directly with customers via social channels. (Fernandez, 2010)
  • Education level within organizations matters: training employees in social media strategy improves outcomes beyond relying on digital natives alone. (Huhman, 2013; Lewis & Nichols, 2012a, 2012b)

Organizational frameworks for social media governance and strategy

• Different models of organizing social media in large organizations (Altimeter Group, Owyang, 2013):
  • Organic: bubbling up from edges; no single coordinated department.
  • Centralized: one department manages all social media activities.
  • Hub and Spoke: central team coordinates with input from multiple business units; strategic decisions at the center.
  • Dandelion: multiple hubs/spokes across the organization, somewhat autonomous but under one brand umbrella.
  • Holistic: everyone uses social media consistently and safely; rare in practice, but exemplified by Dell and Zappos.
• Implications: With over 70% of firms using centralized structures, social media is a core component of strategic communication, not a peripheral activity. (Owyang, 2013; Walaski, 2013)

Brand communities, loyalty, and social commerce

• Brand communities: specialized, non-geographically bound communities built around a shared brand identity; online communities enable information sharing, conversations, and brand knowledge exchange. (Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001; Laroche et al., 2012; Kurikko & Tuominen, 2012)
• Social media-based brand communities strengthen customer relationships by increasing trust, brand loyalty, and value creation. (Laroche et al., 2012; Laroche, Habibi & Richard, 2013)
• The concept of social currency and brand equity: social interactions and conversations contribute to brand value and consumer trust, particularly in an age of mobile and second-screen engagement. (Lobschat et al., 2013; Laroche et al., 2013)
• Mobile and second-screen: mobile apps account for a significant share of social networking time; Asia-Pacific shows strong mobile adoption. (Nielsen, 2012)
• Multimedia integration: live events, TV, and social media convergence (second-screen phenomenon); Twitter leads the social TV conversation; global engagement during TV viewing. (Nielsen, 2012; Turner, 2013)

Communities of Practice (CoP) and social learning in organizations

• Social media can act as the missing link to Communities of Practice, linking social learning with organizational strategy. (Annabi & McGann, 2013)
• CoP concepts (Lave & Wenger): communities of practice are informal, pervasive learning communities formed through participation; legitimate peripheral participation leads to belonging and identity development. (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998, 1996, 1999, 2000)
• In organizations, CoP can be internal (management and employees) or external (stakeholders); social media supports knowledge sharing and relationship-building, enabling trust and collaboration. (Annabi & McGann, 2013; Wenger, 1996, 1998)
• Value of social technologies: McKinsey (2012) estimated that a large portion of untapped value from social technologies lies in improved communications and collaboration within and across enterprises (approximately $1.3 ext{ trillion}$ USD). (Barnes, Lescault & Andonian, 2012)
• Implications for practice: to leverage CoP and social learning, organizations must design learning systems that balance alignment with organizational structure and strategy, and empower employees to participate. (Annabi & McGann, 2013)
• Strategic learning in social media contexts aligns with Wenger’s modes of belonging: engagement, imagination, and alignment; organizational leadership should enable these modes to foster meaningful participation. (Wenger, 2000)
• The integration of CoP and social media suggests a shift toward social learning systems that empower both internal and external stakeholders to contribute to knowledge creation and value generation. (Hallahan et al., 2007; Wenger, 1999; Wenger, 2000)

Practical implications for crisis, CSR, and internal communications

• Crisis communications: organizations increasingly use social media to warn, inform, and respond during emergencies; trust and credibility must be built in advance. Example: American Red Cross Digital Operations Center (2012) and the role of social media during emergencies. (American Red Cross, 2013; Walaski, 2013)
• Disaster response: case study of Joplin Tornado—with multidisciplinary teams coordinating social media-based disaster recovery. (Williams, Williams & Burton, 2012)
• CSR communication: social media used to highlight corporate social responsibility efforts (CSR) such as Kraft Foods’ feeding initiative with Facebook; TOMS’ “one for one” shoe donation program via Twitter; CSR communications should be integrated with broader outreach activities. (Kesavan et al., 2013; Ros-Diego & Castelló-Martínez, 2012)
• Organizations use social media for CSR communications to engage customers, highlight responsible actions, and build loyalty; integration with community events and executive outreach enhances impact. (Kesavan et al., 2013; Ros-Diego & Castelló-Martínez, 2012)
• Internal communications: social media supports internal collaboration and consensus-building; a 2009 study found that 64% of 1,700 executives used social media for internal communications; later studies show social media reconfigures organizational rhetoric and engagement. (Culnan et al., 2010; Huang, Baptista & Galliers, 2013)
• Social care: younger customers are more likely to engage via social care channels (e.g., Facebook pages, Twitter handles); organizations need guidelines and trained staff to respond effectively. (Nielsen, 2012)
• Governance and policy: Delphi studies and German communications professionals indicate increasing budget and top-management support for social media; organizations face ongoing questions about who should own and control social media governance. (Linke & Zerfass, 2012)

Conclusion: integrating social media into strategic management

• Social media is no longer an infant technology; it is a mature, transformative force across society and organizational practice. (Nielsen, 2012)
• The most effective use of social media in strategic communication occurs when it is integrated into the organization’s management structure, not treated as a standalone tactic. This requires learning systems, top-down alignment, and a clear, audience-centered strategy.
• From a theoretical perspective, social media research benefits from multiple frameworks (SIP, UGT, Relationship Management, Agenda Setting/Framing, DOI) while also embracing CoP and social learning perspectives to capture organizational knowledge creation and stakeholder engagement.
• The future of social media strategy involves governance models that balance central coordination with local autonomy, ongoing training for employees, and a commitment to building authentic, dialogic relationships with publics.

Key references (selected)

• American Red Cross (2013). American Red Cross Annual Report. (http://www.redcross.org/…)
• Hallahan, Holtzhausen, van Ruler, Verčič, & Sriramesh (2007). Defining strategic communication. Int. J. of Strategic Communication.
• Ledingham (2003); Bruning & Ledingham (2000). Relationship management theory.
• McCombs & Shaw (1968, 1993). Agenda setting theory.
• Rogers (2003). Diffusion of innovations.
• Walther (1992). SIP and online impression formation.
• Wenger (1996, 1998, 1999, 2000). Communities of Practice and social learning systems.
• Khang, Ki, & Ye (2012). Social media research in advertising, communication, marketing, and PR (1997–2010).
• Owyang (2013). Altimeter: Social business spreads across the enterprise.
• Nielsen (2012). State of the media: Cross-platform report.
• Turner (2013). The evolution of the second screen.
• Lewis & Nichols (2012a, 2012b). Attitudes and perceptions about social media among college students and professionals in strategic communication.
• Kesavan, Bernacchi & Mascarenhas (2013). Word of Mouse: CSR communication and social media.
• Annabi & McGann (2013). Social media as the missing link: Connecting communities of practice to business strategy.
• McKinsey (2012). Social technologies value in enterprises.
• Crick (2013). Nutella social media case study.
• Williams, Williams & Burton (2012). The use of social media for disaster recovery.
• Voids in the transcript indicate ongoing debates about governance, ownership, and best practices in social media management across organizations.