Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Previous research suggests sport-for-development organizations strategically aim to engage people through social media in hopes of generating increased offline support (Thorpe & Rinehart, 2013). Using the framework set forth by Lovejoy and Saxton (2012), the purpose of this study was to explore how nonprofit organizations use Twitter to disseminate information, build engagement, and facilitate action. A content analysis of 3,233 tweets revealed a larger proportion of interactive communication, yet one-way communication was the most common function. Overall, the use of social media to facilitate action among stakeholders was scarce, but the way organizations used Twitter to provide information, interact with followers, and create a call for action varied considerably among them. Interestingly, these differences were not associated with annual revenue, organizational age, targeted social issues, or number of countries of operation. This study has important theoretical and practical implications, and provides a first look at how sport-for-development organizations use Twitter.

Keywords

sport-for-development sport for development and peace organizational communication Twitter social media

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Auger

G. A.

(2013). Fostering democracy through social media: Evaluating diametrically opposed nonprofit advocacy organizations’ use of Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. Public Relations Review, 39, 369-376.

Balser

McClusky

(2005). Managing stakeholder relationships and nonprofit organization effectiveness. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 15, 295-315.

Berthon

P. R.

Pitt

L. F.

Plangger

Shapiro

(2012). Marketing meets Web 2.0, social media, and creative consumers: Implications for international marketing strategy. Business Horizons, 55, 261-271.

Beutler

(2006). Sport for a better world: Report in the International Year of Sport and Physical Education 2005. New York, NY: United Nations.

Beyond Sport. (n.d.). About beyond sport world. Retrieved from http://www.beyondsportworld.org/about/

Blackwood

Roeger

K. L.

Pettijohn

S. L.

(2012). The nonprofit sector in brief: Public charities, giving and volunteering. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/publications/412674.html

Bortree

D. S.

Seltzer

(2009). Dialogic strategies and outcomes: An analysis of environmental advocacy groups’ Facebook profiles. Public Relations Review, 35, 317-319.

Briones

R. L.

Kuch

Liu

B. F.

Jin

(2011). Keeping up with the digital age: How the American Red Cross uses social media to build relationships. Public Relations Review, 37, 37-43.

Burnett

(2009). Engaging sport-for-development for social impact in the South African context. Sport in Society, 12, 1192-1205.

10.

Cho

Schweickart

Haase

(2014). Public engagement with nonprofit organizations on Facebook. Public Relations Review, 40, 565-567.

11.

Chouliaraki

(2011). “Improper distance”: Towards a critical account of solidarity as irony. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 14, 363-381.

12.

Coalter

(2010). The politics of sport-for-development: Limited focus programmes and broad gauge problems? International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 45, 295-314.

13.

Cottle

Nolan

(2007). Global humanitarianism and the changing aid-media field: “Everyone was dying for footage.” Journalism Studies, 8, 862-878.

14.

Eimhjellen

Wollebæk

Strømsnes

(2014). Associations online: Barriers for using web-based communication in voluntary associations. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25, 730-753.

15.

Giulianotti

(2011). Sport, transnational peacemaking, and global civil society: Exploring the reflective discourses of “sport, development, and peace” project officials. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 35, 50-71.

16.

Guo

Saxton

G. D.

(2014). Tweeting social change: How social media are changing nonprofit advocacy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43, 57-79.

17.

Hanna

Rohm

Crittenden

V. L.

(2011). We’re all connected: The power of the social media ecosystem. Business Horizons, 54, 265-273.

18.

Hausmann

(2012). Creating “buzz”: Opportunities and limitations of social media for arts institutions and their viral marketing. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 17, 173-182.

19.

Kaplan

A. M.

Haenlein

(2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53, 59-68.

20.

Kaplan

A. M.

Haenlein

(2011). The early bird catches the news: Nine things you should know about micro-blogging. Business Horizons, 54, 105-113.

21.

Kay

Spaaij

(2012). The mediating effects of family on sport in international development contexts. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 47, 77-94.

22.

Kent

M. L.

(2008). Critical analysis of blogging in public relations. Public Relations Review, 34, 32-40.

23.

Kidd

(2008). A new social movement: Sport for development and peace. Sport in Society, 11, 370-380.

24.

Kietzmann

J. H.

Hermkens

McCarthy

I. P.

Silvestre

B. S.

(2011). Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business Horizons, 54, 241-251.

25.

Kim

Chun

Kwak

Nam

(2014). The employment of dialogic principles in website, Facebook, and Twitter platforms of environmental nonprofit organizations. Social Science Computer Review, 32, 590-605.

26.

Lindsey

(2013). Community collaboration in development work with young people: Perspectives from Zambian communities. Development in Practice, 23, 481-495.

27.

Lombard

Snyder-Duch

Bracken

C. C.

(2002). Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research, 28, 587-604.

28.

Lovejoy

Saxton

G. D.

(2012). Information, community, and action: How nonprofit organizations use social media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 337-353.

29.

Lovejoy

Waters

R. D.

Saxton

G. D.

(2012). Engaging stakeholders through Twitter: How nonprofit organizations are getting more out of 140 characters or less. Public Relations Review, 38, 313-318.

30.

Macnamara

Zerfass

(2012). Social media communication in organizations: The challenges of balancing openness, strategy, and management. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 6, 287-308.

31.

Nah

Saxton

G. D.

(2013). Modeling the adoption and use of social media by nonprofit organizations. New Media & Society, 15, 294-313.

32.

Ospina

Diaz

O’Sullivan

J. F.

(2002). Negotiating accountability: Managerial lessons from identity-based nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31, 5-31.

33.

Quinton

Fennemore

(2013). Missing a strategic marketing trick? The use of online social networks by UK charities. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 18, 36-51.

34.

Rupp

Kern

Helmig

(2014). Segmenting nonprofit stakeholders to enable successful relationship marketing: A review. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 19, 76-91.

35.

Saffer

A. J.

Sommerfeldt

E. J.

Taylor

(2013). The effects of organizational Twitter interactivity on organization–public relationships. Public Relations Review, 39, 213-215.

36.

Stevens

J. P.

(2009). Applied multivariate for the social sciences (5th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

37.

Sundar

S. S.

Kalyanaraman

Brown

(2003). Explicating web site interactivity impression formation effects in political campaign sites. Communication Research, 30, 30-59.

38.

Thorpe

Rinehart

(2013). Action sport NGOs in a neo-liberal context: The cases of Skateistan and Surf Aid International. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 37, 115-141.

39.

Vestergaard

(2008). Humanitarian branding and the media: The case of Amnesty International. Journal of Language and Politics, 7, 471-493.

40.

Waldorf

(2012). White noise: Hearing the disaster. Journal of Human Rights Practice, 4, 469-474.

41.

Waters

R. D.

Burnett

Lamm

Lucas

(2009). Engaging stakeholders through social networking: How nonprofit organizations are using Facebook. Public Relations Review, 35, 102-106.

42.

Waters

R. D.

Canfield

R. R.

Foster

J. M.

Hardy

E. E.

(2011). Applying the dialogic theory to social networking sites: Examining how university health centers convey health messages on Facebook. Journal of Social Marketing, 1, 211-227.

43.

Waters

R. D.

Feneley

K. L.

(2013). Virtual stewardship in the age of new media: Have nonprofit organizations’ moved beyond Web 1.0 strategies? International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 18, 216-230.

44.

Waters

R. D.

Jamal

J. Y.

(2011). Tweet, tweet, tweet: A content analysis of nonprofit organizations’ Twitter updates. Public Relations Review, 37, 321-324.

45.

Waters

R. D.

K. D.

(2012). Exploring the impact of culture in the social media sphere: A content analysis of nonprofit organizations’ use of Facebook. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 41, 297-319.

46.

Wellens

Jegers

(2014). Effective governance in nonprofit organizations: A literature based multiple stakeholder approach. European Management Journal, 32, 223-243.

47.

Zorn

T. E.

Flanagin

A. J.

Shoham

M. D.

(2011). Institutional and noninstitutional influences on information and communication technology adoption and use among nonprofit organizations. Human Communication Research, 37, 1-33.

48.

Zorn

T. E.

Grant

Henderson

(2013). Strengthening resource mobilization chains: Developing the social media competencies of community and voluntary organizations in New Zealand. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 24, 666-687.

Twitter as a Communication Tool for Nonprofits

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References