2010 - Public Relations Society of America

Several studies, however, suggest that organizations are not adequately utilizing
Web-based tools to generate dialogic communication, and that there are gaps between
relationship-building goals, implementation of online strategies, and actual dialogic
engagement (Bortree & Seltzer, 2009; Seltzter & Mitrook, 2007; Waters, Burnett, Lamm
& Lucas, 2009).
For example, a content analysis of Facebook Profiles of 50 environmental
advocacy groups conducted by Bortree and Seltzer (2009) suggests that advocacy groups
are not taking advantage of the dialogic strategies afforded by social networking. These
findings are particularly troubling because the results suggest that dialogic strategy use
appears to be closely related to dialogic outcomes, including networking activity,
network extensiveness, network growth, user responsiveness, and organization
responsiveness (Bortree & Seltzer, 2009, p. 318).
Waters et al. (2009) content analyzed 275 nonprofit organizations for the presence
of items representing organizational disclosure, information dissemination, and
involvement to find that, although nonprofit organizations understood the importance of
disclosure in their profiles, they did not use the Facebook profiles to distribute
organizational news. Very few took advantage of the multimedia capabilities, and they
did not provide many methods for their supporters to become involved. The study found
that nonprofits have not incorporated the vast majority of the Facebook applications
available to them into their social networking presence (Waters et al., 2009).
As social media tools gain strategic momentum, practitioners are developing
skills related to this online technology (Eyrich, Padman & Sweetzer, 2008). Several
researchers have also explored practitioners’ assessments of how they adapt traditional
public relations practices to the new technologies (Curtis, Edwards, Fraser, Gudelsky,
Thornton & Sweetser, 2010; Diga & Kelleher, 2009; Eyrich et al., 2008; McAllister-
Spooner & Taylor, in press; Newland Hill & White, 2000; Porter, Chung & Sweetser,
2009; Wright & Hinson, 2009). The next section will briefly review those studies.
Practitioner Perceptions
Ten years ago, Newland Hill and White (2000) found that public relations
practitioners did not get enough training, have enough time, or obtain enough
organizational resources to maximize the potential of the Web in media relations. The
authors also found that the Web site has become one more job added to a long list of
tasks including marketing, advertising, employee relations, government relations and
publication design (Newland Hill & White, 2000).
Seo, Kim, and Yang (2009) surveyed communication representatives at 75
transnational nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to find that promoting the
organization’s image and fundraising were the two most important functions of new
media tools, and that organizational capacity and main objective of the organization were
significant predictors of NGOs’ new media use in their public relations.
Eyrich, Padman and Sweetser (2008) surveyed 283 public relations practitioners
about their adoption of 18 social media tools and their perceptions on the growth of social
media trends in public relations practice. The data shows that although the practitioners
have adopted the more established and institutional tools (e-mail, Intranet) and seem
comfortable with blogs and podcasts, they are slower to integrate more technologically
complicated tools that caters to a niche audience such as text messaging, social networks,
and virtual worlds (Eyrich et al., 2008).
161