Social media in online reputation management

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

BACKGROUND

Stakeholders and organisations are constantly interacting within and between local communities and communities worldwide. People, groups and organisations compete for the attention of their target audiences. In information-overloaded environments, attention has become a commodity in deficit. All role players make decisions, execute actions and produce communication content, which are sought after, processed or ignored on digital platforms (Carroll, 2013). According to van Riel and Fombrun (2007), all communication, however, influence to some extent the perceptions of stakeholders about the organisation and its activities, and therefore affect the organisation’s identity, image, brand and reputation. Online reputation monitoring is increasingly regarded as an essential management practice for marketers and public relations officers (Jones, Temperley & Lima, 2009).

The new rules for engagement on the social web are explored in relation to how they contribute to, damage or improve corporate reputation and brand image. Corporate reputation arises from the perceptions of the stakeholders whether they like, admire or trust the organisation, or whether they do not. These perceptions are based on their experiences, corporate messages and conversations taking place on platforms like social media. How an organisation is perceived and the image the audiences has, is not only shaped by the organisation’s communication efforts, it is rather a product of conversations taking place online (Jones et al., 2009). It is evidently important to manage these social media platforms in order to manage the corporate reputation. Stakeholders engaging online can damage or build the reputation of the organisation and through the engagement, they can help to recruit new stakeholders or chase them away. The aim of this study is to develop and test an online reputation management framework, which will evaluate social media conversations for online stakeholder engagement and reputation management of a non-profit organisation (NPO).

PROBLEM STATEMENT

The contribution of this study lies in the impact communication, particularly social media conversations and content, have on stakeholder engagement. It is also essential to determine whether the social media activities and stakeholder engagement improved or damaged the online reputation of the organisation. If this reputation has improved, it will then attract more stakeholders to join the conversations. A previously developed online reputation management framework, as described in section 4.5, “A proposed online reputation management framework and chapter 7 “Online reputation management framework”, was tested during the research. Research indicates how social media content and conversations can be used efficiently in organisations (Chou, 2009; Hawn, 2009; Kaplan, 2010; Safko, 2010; Shirky, 2011), but little is known about the influence it has on keeping stakeholders engaged. In-depth research has been done on corporate reputation and reputation management (Bartlett, 2013; Benoit, 2013; Bromley, 1993; Brønn, 2013; Doorley & Garcia, 2015; Fombrun et al., 2004; Grunig, 2009). There is not much research done about how online stakeholder engagement via social media affects the corporate reputation. There are existing gaps between the effects social media content and conversations have on the reputation of an organisation. Other shortcomings include social media as a communication platform and a tool to create a better reputation, and the impact stakeholder conversations have on reputation.

PRACTICAL VALUE AND CONTRIBUTION OF THE STUDY

This study contributes practically to NPOs. This study indicates that online reputation can be managed by controlling the organisation’s social media platforms and by engaging and monitoring the stakeholders. Content and stakeholder conversations on social media can improve or jeopardise the organisation’s reputation. This study determines the impact of stakeholder conversations on the establishment of an online reputation. This study further proposes an online reputation framework by which management of any NPO can afford greater control of the social web by tracking critical comments and negative publicity and using it to manage the reputation of the organisation. There are also theoretical and methodological contributions. This study will be based on data collected through content analysis of texts and online conversations. Conversations can be monitored and analysed to determine sentiment. This study will advance conceptualisation of online conversations and reputation. The study will draw on and contribute to scholarly works of literature that examine stakeholder engagement on social media and the effects on reputation.

RESEARCH ETHICS

Four ethical guidelines, as explained by Taylor (2005), are considered in the research, namely: consent, harm, privacy and deception. Consent forms were obtained from the interviewees, which were the social media administrators. All the other documents appear in the public domain, i.e. on the internet and on social networking sites (SNSs), which can be accessed by anyone with an account or profile on the SNSs being investigated. When individuals or organisations publish information on websites or disseminate texts through SNSs, such as Facebook, they automatically forfeit some privacy rights. In addition, content published on Facebook allows any person to access the published content, as well as the person’s name and profile picture. Given the above, the researcher did not seek individual consent from all the stakeholders who posted comments on Solidarity’s Facebook account.

The second factor, harm, was also addressed. According to Taylor (2005), subjects participating in research should be assured that no harm will come to them because of the participation in the research. This is the case with interviewees, but since the individuals on the SNSs were not approached with individual consent, the researcher withholds their names in the thesis. Lastly, as this research is based on ethical principles, no form of deception was employed to misrepresent findings. NPOs are non-profit organisations independent of the state and international governmental organisations, are usually funded by donations and may rely on volunteers for their operation. Diverse, NPOs are engaged in a wide range of activities and take on different forms globally (Juckes, 2014).

NPOs play a significant role in society, typically picking up government’s deficits in services and social protection for citizens via the philanthropy of donors and the socially aware. They also play a critical part in trying to resolve the challenges prevalent in South African society, but they are facing a future with increasingly limited funding and support within a fragile economy (Juckes, 2014, Mail and Guardian, 2014). At present, South Africa (SA) has an extensive and lively non-governmental sector which boasts roughly 100 000 registered NPOs and an estimated 50 000 unregistered NPOs (Coetzer, 2013). SA’s large non-profit sector is the product of a diverse society including a variety of ethnic groups and a history that has informed the way in which South African society operates, as well as the way in which the non-profit sector conducts its operations (Stuart, 2013). Stuart (2013) further states that the South African NPO sector is characterised by two types of organisations, namely service-driven organisations, and secondly, organisations which focus on human rights, advocacy and monitoring. The former fulfils the role of providing much needed social services to underprivileged communities, and the latter performs the role of a social ‘watchdog’.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ABSTRACT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
1. CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
- 1.1 BACKGROUND
- 1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT
- 1.3 PURPOSE STATEMENT
- 1.4 PRACTICAL VALUE AND CONTRIBUTION OF THE STUDY
- 1.5 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
- 1.6 PROPOSITIONS
- 1.7 DELIMINATIONS
- 1.8 DEFINTION OF KEY TERMS
- 1.9 RESEARCH PARADIGM
- 1.9.1 The Three Worlds Framework
  - 1.9.1.1 World 1: The world of everyday life and lay knowledge
  - 1.9.1.2 World 2: The world of science and scientific research
  - 1.9.1.3 World 3: The world of meta-science
- 1.10 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH DESIGN
- 1.11 DATA ANALYSIS
- 1.11.1 Units of analysis
- 1.11.2 Methods
- 1.11.2.1 Qualitative analysis
- 1.11.2.2 Individual interviews
- 1.12 QUALITATIVE SAMPLING
- 1.12.1 Simple random sampling for content analysis on Facebook
- 1.12.2 Available subjects for interviews
- 1.13 DATA COLLECTION
- 1.14 RESEARCH ETHICS
- 1.15 THESIS OUTLINE
2. CHAPTER 2: SOLIDARITY – AN NPO’S REPUTATION MANAGEMENT
- 2.1 INTRODUCTION
- 2.2 NON-PROFIT ORGANISATIONS DEFINED
- 2.3 NPOs IN SOUTH AFRICA
- 2.3.1 Structures and governance for NPOs in South Africa
  - 2.3.1.1 The Policy Governance Model
  - 2.3.1.2 The Constituent/Representative Board Model
  - 2.3.1.3 The Entrepreneurial Board Model
  - 2.3.1.4 The Emergent Cellular (Networking) Model
- 2.3.2 Legislation, regulation and policy of NPOs in South Africa
- 2.4 OVERVIEW OF SOLIDARITY AS NPO
- 2.4.1 Background and history of Solidarity
- 2.4.1.1 The militant beginnings (1902 -1929)
- 2.4.1.2 The struggle to control the MWU (1929-1948)
- 2.4.1.3 “The current government will take care of the workers.” The MWU in symbiosis with the National Government (1948–1963)
- 2.4.1.4 Internal struggles, rehabilitation and the “attack on the colour line,”
- 2.4.1.5 “The National Government is no longer the same as the National Party in1948.” The Wiehahn-report and its consequences,
- 2.4.1.6 From MWU to Solidarity. The reform of a trade union, 1987–
- 2.4.2 Solidarity today
- 2.5 SOLIDARITY’S REPUTATION – WHAT MAKES THIS NPO UNIQUE?
- 2.5.1 Christian foundation
- 2.5.2 Collective bargaining
- 2.5.3 Committed to South Africa and the Constitution
- 2.5.4 Independent of party politics
- 2.5.5 Protection of minorities and democracy
- 2.5.6 Affirmative Action
- 2.5.7 Afrikaans
- 2.5.8 Free Market Economy – responsible labour relations
- 2.5.9 Self-help and sustainable development
- 2.6 SOCIAL MEDIA AS PUBLIC RELATIONS INSTRUMENT IN SOLIDARITY
- 2.7 CONCLUDING REMARKS
3. CHAPTER 3: REPUTATION AS THE “CINDERELLA ASSET”
- 3.1 INTRODUCTION: REPUTATION
- 3.2 A CONTEXTUAL DEFINITION OF REPUTATION
- 3.3 THE ACID REPUTATION FRAMEWORK
- 3.3.1 Reputation as feedback or noise
- 3.4 COMMUNICATION AND CORPORATE REPUTATION
- 3.4.1 Stakeholder opinions, corporate communications and public relations in reputation management
  - 3.4.1.1 Corporate reputation and stakeholder opinion
  - 3.4.1.2 Corporate reputation and corporate communication
  - 3.4.1.3 Corporate reputation and public relations
- 3.5 ARENA MODEL OF CORPORATE REPUTATION
- 3.6 THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON REPUTATION
- 3.6.1 Agenda-setting and agenda-building theory
- 3.7 CONCLUDING REMARKS
4. CHAPTER 4: ONLINE REPUTATION MANAGEMENT
- 4.1 INTRODUCTION
- 4.2 ONLINE REPUTATION AND REPUTATION MANAGEMENT: A DEFINITION
- 4.2.1 Online reputation
- 4.2.2 Reputation management
- 4.2.3 Online reputation management
- 4.3 REPUTATION MANAGEMENT AND MEASUREMENT
- 4.3.1 Monitoring and listening to stakeholders – perceptions, loyalty and relationships
- 4.3.2 Promoting the organisation brand through online actions
- 4.3.3 Reputation risk management in the reputation management model
- 4.4 REPUTATION MEASUREMENT
- 4.5 A PROPOSED ONLINE REPUTATION MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
- 4.6 CONCLUDING REMARKS
5. CHAPTER 5: STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT AND ONLINE
- REPUTATION
- 5.1 INTRODUCTION
- 5.2 A CONTEXTUAL DEFINITION
- 5.3 FREEMAN’S STAKEHOLDER THEORY
- 5.3.1 Stakeholder salience
- 5.3.2 Stakeholder actions and responses
- 5.3.3 Organisation’s actions and responses
- 5.3.4 Capability and performance
- 5.4 STAKEHOLDER CLASSIFICATION AND STAKEHOLDER RELATIONSHIPS
- 5.5 CORPORATE COMMUNICATION AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
- 5.5.1 Public relations
- 5.5.2 Dialogue and relationships
- 5.5.3 Persuasion
- 5.6 STAKEHOLDERS AS PARTNERS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF
- CORPORATE REPUTATION
- 5.7 GRANAROLO’S MODEL OF REPUTATION DEVELOPMENT
- 5.8 REPUTATIONAL RISK OF ONLINE STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
- 5.8.1 Grunig and Hunt’s stakeholder model (1984)
- 5.9 CONCLUDING REMARKS
6. CHAPTER 6: SOCIAL MEDIA IN ONLINE REPUTATION MANAGEMENT
- 6.1 INTRODUCTION
- 6.2 SOCIAL MEDIA: A CONTEXTUAL DEFINITION
- 6.3 HISTORY OF FACEBOOK
- 6.4 IINTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC MOTIVATIONS FOR THE USE OF FACEBOOK
- 6.5 SOCIAL MEDIA AND PUBLIC RELATIONS
- 6.5.1 The value of word-of-mouth to public relations
- 6.6 SOCIAL MEDIA CONTENT AND CONVERSATIONS IN CORPORATE COMMUNICATION AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
- 6.6.1 Social media content
- 6.6.2 Social media conversations
- 6.7 SOCIAL MEDIA AND ITS INFLUENCE ON REPUTATION MANAGEMENT
- 6.7.1 Stakeholder trust
- 6.7.2 Stakeholder trust: Disclosure and transparency
- 6.7.3 Stakeholder engagement
- 6.8 SOCIAL MEDIA IN CRISIS COMMUNICATION
- 6.9 CONCLUDING REMARKS
7. CHAPTER 7: ONLINE REPUTATION MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
- 7.1 INTRODUCTION
- 7.2 ONLINE REPUTATION MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK DEFINED
- 7.3 BACKGROUND FROM MASTER’S DEGREE
- 7.4 HOW THE PIECES OF THE FRAMEWORK FIT TOGETHER
- 7.4.1 The organisation
- 7.4.2 Social media content
- 7.4.3 Corporate communication
- 7.4.4 Online stakeholders
- 7.4.5 Social media conversations and feedback
- 7.4.6 Reputation measurement
- 7.5 CONCLUDING REMARKS
8. CHAPTER 8: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
- 8.1 INTRODUCTION
- 8.2 THE THREE WORLDS FRAMEWORK
- 8.2.1 World 1: The world of everyday life and lay knowledge
- 8.2.2 World 2: The world of science and scientific research
- 8.2.3 World 3: The world of meta-science
- 8.3 RESEARCH PARADIGM
- 8.4 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH DESIGN
- 8.5 DATA ANALYSIS
- 8.5.1 Units of analysis
- 8.5.2 Methods
- 8.5.2.1 Qualitative analysis of content and conversations
- 8.5.2.2 Personal interviews
- 8.6 QUALITATIVE SAMPLING
- 8.6.1 Simple random sampling of online stakeholders
- 8.6.2 Available subjects for interviews
- 8.7 BRIEF RESTATEMENT OF PROBLEM AND PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
- 8.8 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
- 8.9 DATA COLLECTION
- 8.9.1 The website
- 8.9.2 The Newspaper advertisement
- 8.9.3 The facebook cover
- 8.9.4 #OnsBou /#Letsbuild campaign
- 8.9.5 To build a trade union
- 8.9.5.1 Article 1: If you doubt the future – build it
- 8.9.5.2 Article 2 and video: This is how your membership fees build a future
- 8.9.5.3 Article 3: Solidarity takes the lead in trade unionism
- 8.9.5.4 Article 4: Where has Solidarity recently been involved?
- 8.9.6 To build a private university
- 8.9.6.1 Article 5: This is how you can help to get Afrikaans universities to rise again
- 8.9.6.2 Article 6: New BCom degree places Akademia in class of its own
- 8.9.6.3 Article 7: Akademia: foundation for the African Harvard
- 8.9.6.4 Article 8: Akademia gives out bursaries to the value of R1.25 million in
- 8.9.7 To build a private technical college
  - 8.9.7.1 Article 9: Sol-Tech boasts a new brand
  - 8.9.7.2 Article 10: 95% of Sol-Tech craftsmen gets a job – research
- 8.9.8 Article 11: Two deaf students from Sol-Tech create hope
  - 8.9.8.1 Article 12: What is the future for Afrikaans as language in 2016?
- 8.9.9 To build own cultural institutions
  - 8.9.9.1 Article 13: FAK gives life to history
  - 8.9.9.2 Article 14: Afrikaans crosses international borders with FAK schools expo
- 8.9.9.3 Article 15: Afrikaans in barrage, FAK creates hope
  - 8.9.10 To build own media institutions
  - 8.9.10.1 Article 16: More than a million read Maroela Media
  - 8.9.10.2 Article 17: Eight things you did not know about Maroela Media
  - 8.9.10.3 Article 18: Show that your heart beats Afrikaans with Maroela Media’s e shop
- 8.9.11 Building a strong legal fund
- 8.9.11.1 Article 19: Solidarity makes legal action against state pension fund known
  - 8.9.11.2 Article 20: Speech by Dr. Dirk Hermann on the Renate Barnard case
  - 8.9.11.3 Article 21: Solidarity wants to build a legal fund for 34 legal cases
  - 8.9.11.4 Article 22: Building – and legal fund’s importance for Solidarity’s plans for
- 8.9.12 Building a strong building fund
  - 8.9.12.1 Article 23: Your contribution speeds up hope creating plan
  - 8.9.12.2 Article 24: What does the building fund do?
  - 8.9.12.3 Article 25: Letter to young Afrikaans people, the future is Afrikaans!
  - 8.9.12.4 Article 26: Channel Afrikaans capital
- 8.9.13 Building a study fund
- 8.9.13.1 Article 27: Apply at the study fund centre for study assistance
- 8.9.13.2 Article 28: More than 4000 dreams come true through Helping Hand student loans
- 8.9.13.3 Article 29: The future of our children in 15 points
- 8.9.14 Building strong institutions in the bigger Solidarity Movement
  - 8.9.14.1 Article 30: A “small past” on this continent?
  - 8.9.14.2 Article 31: The Afrikaner’s choices under the spotlight in new book
  - 8.9.14.3 Article 32: The Solidarity movement – A powerful, modern-day helping movement
- 8.9.14.4 Article 33: AfriForum gives people courage and hope for the future
- 8.9.15 The NPO, Solidarity
- 8.9.16 Content planning
- 8.9.17 Content and reputation
- 8.9.18 Communication content
- 8.9.19 Engagement and reputation
- 8.9.20 Conversation and reputation (response and feedback)
- 8.9.21 Interviews (semi structured open-ended questions) with the administrators
- 8.10 DATA COLLECTION
- 8.10.1 Data collection instruments
  - 8.10.1.1 Sproutsocial
  - 8.10.1.2 Hootsuite
  - 8.10.1.3 Sumall
  - 8.10.1.4 Ornico and Meltwater
  - 8.10.1.5 Worditout
9. CHAPTER 9: FINDINGS
- 9.1 INTRODUCTION
- 9.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
- 9.3 THE SOLIDARITY CAMPAIGN
- 9.4 CONTRASTING CAMPAIGNS #FEESMUSTFALL CAMPAIGN AND #LETSBUILD
- 9.5 THE ONLINE REPUTATION MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
- 9.5.1 The organisation
- 9.5.2 Content planning for the campaign
  - 9.5.2.1 Content on: “To build a trade union”
  - 9.5.2.2 To build a private university
  - 9.5.2.3 To build a private technical college
  - 9.5.2.4 To build own cultural institutions
  - 9.5.2.5 To build own media institutions
  - 9.5.2.6 Building a strong legal fund
  - 9.5.2.7 Building a strong building fund
  - 9.5.2.8 Building a study fund
  - 9.5.2.9 Building strong institutions in the bigger Solidarity Movement
- 9.6 COMMUNICATION
- 9.6.1 Findings
- 9.6.2 Stakeholders
  - 9.6.2.1 To build a trade union
  - 9.6.2.2 To build a university
  - 9.6.2.3 To build a private technical college
  - 9.6.2.4 To build own cultural institutions
  - 9.6.2.5 To build own media institutions
  - 9.6.2.6 Building a strong legal fund
  - 9.6.2.7 Building a strong building fund
  - 9.6.2.8 Building a study fund
  - 9.6.2.9 Building strong institutions in the bigger Solidarity Movement
- 9.6.3 Feedback
  - 9.6.3.1 To build a trade union
  - 9.6.3.2 To build a private university
  - 9.6.3.3 To build a private technical college
  - 9.6.3.4 To build own cultural institutions
  - 9.6.3.5 To build own media institutions
  - 9.6.3.6 Building a strong legal fund
  - 9.6.3.7 Building a strong building fund
  - 9.6.3.8 Building a study fund
  - 9.6.3.9 Building strong institutions in the bigger Solidarity Movement
- 9.6.4 Measurement
- 9.6.5 Monitoring, listening and engaging
- 9.6.6 Functioning of the online reputation management framework
10. CHAPTER TEN: CONCLUSIONS
- 10.1 INTRODUCTION
- 10.2 CONCLUSIONS: RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
- 10.2.1 General conclusions
- 10.2.2 Managerial implications and recommendations
- 10.3 CONCLUSIONS: RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
- 10.3.1 General conclusions
- 10.3.2 Managerial implications and recommendations
- 10.4 CONCLUSIONS: RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
- 10.4.1 General conclusions
- 10.4.2 Managerial implications
- 10.5 CONCLUSIONS: RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
- 10.5.1 General conclusions
- 10.5.2 Managerial implications and recommendations
- 10.6 CONCLUSIONS: RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
- 10.6.1 General conclusions
- 10.6.2 Managerial implications and recommendations
- 10.7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING REMARKS
- 11. REFERENCES
- 12. ADDENDUMS
- 12.1 AFRIKAANS ARTICLES/OFFICIAL PRESS RELEASE
- 12.2 Boufonds
- 12.3 Regsfonds
- 12.4 Wat doen Solidariteit?
- 12.5 Dra by tot die Boufonds
- 12.6 Dra by tot die Regsfonds
- 12.7 Sol-Tech
- 12.8 Akademia
- 12.9 Boufonds
- 12.10 Bou aan ’n toekoms
- 12.11 Solidariteit se plan
- 12.12 Doen self
- 12.13 Vryheid deur Afrikaans!
- 12.14 7 toegangskaartjies van Afrikaans
- 12.15 Afrikaanse onderwys en opleiding is jou toegangskaartjie tot studies
- 12.16 Afrikaans is die enigste skans teen afrikanisering
- 12.17 Dis jou kaartjie tot die beste opleiding
- 12.18 Afrikaans is jou kaartjie tot hoë standaarde
- 12.19 Afrikaans is jou “tuisvoel”-kaartjie
- 12.20 Dis ’n winskoop kaartjie, want dit kos minder en jy leer meer!
- 12.21 Afrikaans is jou toekomskaartjie
- 12.22 Waarmee help die Studiefondssentrum indien die studielening goedgekeur word?
- 12.23 Wie mag aansoek doen?
- 12.24 Gaan ek verseker ʼn lening kry indien ek aansoek doen?
- 12.25 Wanneer doen ek aansoek?
- 12.26 Hoe doen ek aansoek?
- 12.27 Die volgende dokumente kan tipies gevra word om opgelaai te word
- 12.28 Die vakbond Solidariteit
- 12.29 Die Solidariteit Boufonds
- 12.30 Die Solidariteit Regsfonds
- 12.31 Solidariteit Helpende Hand
- 12.32 Sol-Tech
- 12.33 Akademia
- 12.34 AfriForum
- 12.35 Kraal Uitgewers
- 12.36 FAK
- 12.37 Maroela Media
- 12.38 Die Solidariteit Navorsingsinstituut (SNI)
- 12.39 Zimbabwe-lesse
- 12.40 Nasionale invloed
- 12.41 Toekoms