IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/irpnmk/v18y2021i2d10.1007_s12208-020-00273-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Engagement in social networks: a multi-method study in non-profits organizations

Author

Listed:
  • Renata V. Klafke

    (Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR))

  • Paulo M. Gomes

    (Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR))

  • Demétrio Mendonça Junior

    (Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR))

  • Simone R. Didonet

    (Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR))

  • Ana M. Toaldo

    (Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR))

Abstract

This study discusses aspects of online communication that influence in relational interaction between online users and organizations. The objective is to consider the use of communication of organizations in social media as determinants for the engagement of society, through the analysis of the interactions between online users and the publications made on Facebook. For the development of this research, Brazilian Non-Profit Organizations (NPOs) were considered as the unit of analysis. Content analysis and linear regression were used for the data analysis. The ranking of “most liked” NPOs was utilized as selection criteria, as this ranking categorizes organizations according to the number of “likes”. Five NPOs operating in Brazil were selected for analysis of their publications. A total of 1246 posts were analyzed and classified. For the content analysis, the posts were categorized according to the typology of Lovejoy and Saxton (Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(3), 337–353, 2012). The type of post that generates the greater engagement on the analyzed NPOs is that has information content. The type of post that generates the least attention to followers is that has as a central goal to commercialize some product in favor of a cause. The total of posts of each NPO were then regressed in the form of an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with the number of likes, comments and shares of each post aimed at verifying whether any differences in the groupings of posts could be demonstrated and accounted for. This study contributes to the literature in the field by identifying which types of information provided by firms inserted in the digital context generate more engagement. This research extend the scope of engagement beyond the firm and customer (general physical) dyad relationship to other individuals, like online users.

Suggested Citation

  • Renata V. Klafke & Paulo M. Gomes & Demétrio Mendonça Junior & Simone R. Didonet & Ana M. Toaldo, 2021. "Engagement in social networks: a multi-method study in non-profits organizations," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 18(2), pages 295-315, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:irpnmk:v:18:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s12208-020-00273-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s12208-020-00273-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12208-020-00273-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s12208-020-00273-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bernard J. Jansen & Mimi Zhang & Kate Sobel & Abdur Chowdury, 2009. "Twitter power: Tweets as electronic word of mouth," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(11), pages 2169-2188, November.
    2. Edith Archambault, 2001. "Historical Roots of the Nonprofit sector in France," Post-Print halshs-00118626, HAL.
    3. Bruno S. Frey & Stephan Meier, 2004. "Social Comparisons and Pro-social Behavior: Testing "Conditional Cooperation" in a Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(5), pages 1717-1722, December.
    4. Hayley Jang & Young Hoon Lee, 2016. "A Business Analysis of Asian Baseball Leagues," Asian Economic Policy Review, Japan Center for Economic Research, vol. 11(1), pages 95-112, January.
    5. Araceli Galiano-Coronil & Juan José MierTerán-Franco, 2019. "The Use of Social Digital Networks by NGDO from a Social Marketing Perspective," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-23, June.
    6. Okten, Cagla & Weisbrod, Burton A., 2000. "Determinants of donations in private nonprofit markets," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 255-272, February.
    7. David Reinstein & Gerhard Riener, 2012. "Reputation and influence in charitable giving: an experiment," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 72(2), pages 221-243, February.
    8. Malthouse, Edward C. & Haenlein, Michael & Skiera, Bernd & Wege, Egbert & Zhang, Michael, 2013. "Managing Customer Relationships in the Social Media Era: Introducing the Social CRM House," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 270-280.
    9. Edith Archambault, 2001. "Historical Roots of the Nonprofit sector in France," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00118626, HAL.
    10. Stijn Van Puyvelde & Ralf Caers & Cind Du Bois & Marc Jegers, 2016. "Managerial Objectives and the Governance of Public and Non-Profit Organizations," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(2), pages 221-237, February.
    11. Alves, Helena & Fernandes, Cristina & Raposo, Mário, 2016. "Value co-creation: Concept and contexts of application and study," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1626-1633.
    12. Valentinov, Vladislav & Hielscher, Stefan & Pies, Ingo, 2015. "Nonprofit organizations, institutional economics, and systems thinking," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 491-501.
    13. Ricarda Bouncken & Johanna Gast & Sascha Kraus & Marcel Bogers, 2015. "Coopetition: a systematic review, synthesis, and future research directions," Post-Print hal-02018068, HAL.
    14. Bruno Frey & Stephan Meier, 2004. "In a field experiment," Natural Field Experiments 00243, The Field Experiments Website.
    15. Rita Ferreira Gomes & Beatriz Casais, 2018. "Feelings generated by threat appeals in social marketing: text and emoji analysis of user reactions to anorexia nervosa campaigns in social media," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 15(4), pages 591-607, December.
    16. Ricarda Bouncken & Johanna Gast & Sascha Kraus & Marcel Bogers, 2015. "Coopetition: a systematic review, synthesis, and future research directions," Post-Print hal-02945341, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Noelia Salido-Andres & Marta Rey-Garcia & Luis Ignacio Alvarez-Gonzalez & Rodolfo Vazquez-Casielles, 2022. "When the winner takes it all: online campaign factors influencing the success of donation-based crowdfunding for charitable causes," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 19(4), pages 763-780, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daniel Jones & Sera Linardi, 2014. "Wallflowers: Experimental Evidence of an Aversion to Standing Out," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(7), pages 1757-1771, July.
    2. Drouvelis, Michalis & Marx, Benjamin M., 2022. "Can charitable appeals identify and exploit belief heterogeneity?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 631-649.
    3. Renata Klafke & André Torres Urdan & Simone R. Didonet & Maik Arnold, 2021. "Institutional theory, culture and value co-creation: how do they stick together in donation?," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 18(3), pages 447-466, September.
    4. Reyniers, Diane & Bhalla, Richa, 2013. "Reluctant altruism and peer pressure in charitable giving," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 48779, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Mayo, Jennifer, 2021. "How do big gifts affect rival charities and their donors?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 575-597.
    6. Wojciech Hardy & Michal Krawczyk & Joanna Tyrowicz, 2015. ""Thou shalt not leech" Are digital pirates conditional cooperators?," Working Papers 2015-26, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    7. Nikolova, Milena & Roman, Monica & Zimmermann, Klaus F., 2017. "Left behind but doing good? Civic engagement in two post-socialist countries," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 658-684.
    8. Laure Kuhfuss & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer & Nick Hanley & Philippe Le Coent & Mathieu Désolé, 2016. "Nudges, Social Norms, and Permanence in Agri-environmental Schemes," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 92(4), pages 641-655.
    9. Carolina Rojas-Córdova & Amanda J. Williamson & Julio A. Pertuze & Gustavo Calvo, 2023. "Why one strategy does not fit all: a systematic review on exploration–exploitation in different organizational archetypes," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 17(7), pages 2251-2295, October.
    10. Best, Bernadette & Miller, Kristel & McAdam, Rodney & Maalaoui, Adnane, 2022. "Business model innovation within SPOs: Exploring the antecedents and mechanisms facilitating multi-level value co-creation within a value-network," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 475-494.
    11. Schnellenbach, Jan & Schubert, Christian, 2015. "Behavioral political economy: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 395-417.
    12. Dean Karlan & John A. List, 2007. "Does Price Matter in Charitable Giving? Evidence from a Large-Scale Natural Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1774-1793, December.
    13. Bruno S. Frey & Alois Stutzer, 2006. "Environmental Morale and Motivation," CREMA Working Paper Series 2006-17, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    14. Deck, Cary & Murphy, James J., 2019. "Donors change both their level and pattern of giving in response to contests among charities," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 91-106.
    15. Kimbrough, E.O. & Vostroknutov, A., 2012. "Rules, rule-following and cooperation," Research Memorandum 053, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    16. Leibbrandt, Andreas & Lynham, John, 2018. "Does the allocation of property rights matter in the commons?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 201-217.
    17. Urs Fischbacher & Simon Gachter, 2010. "Social Preferences, Beliefs, and the Dynamics of Free Riding in Public Goods Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 541-556, March.
    18. Simon Gächter & Daniele Nosenzo & Martin Sefton, 2013. "Peer Effects In Pro-Social Behavior: Social Norms Or Social Preferences?," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 11(3), pages 548-573, June.
    19. Markussen, Thomas & Sharma, Smriti & Singhal, Saurabh & Tarp, Finn, 2021. "Inequality, institutions and cooperation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    20. Cattaneo, Cristina & D’Adda, Giovanna & Tavoni, Massimo & Bonan, Jacopo, 2019. "Can We Make Social Information Programs More Effective? The Role of Identity and Values," RFF Working Paper Series 19-21, Resources for the Future.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:irpnmk:v:18:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s12208-020-00273-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.