THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT’S PRESENCE ON FACEBOOK1
CG86653
The European Parliament’s Presence on Facebook: An Exploratory Case Study
Cristina Gavrila
Aarhus School of Business and Social Sciences
Professor supervisor
Tomasz A. Fediuk
Abstract
Internet and the evolution of social media offer public relations practitioners the opportunity to listen and interact with consumers. Organizations can now use social networks such as Facebook to build strategic relationships with publics and achieve organizational goals. The use of Facebook pages is gaining in popularity for both private and public organizations.
This report is investigating the way the European Parliament is addressing its stakeholder through their official Facebook page. The European Parliament is the only directly elected European Union’s institution which makes it directly accountable towards the citizens and it is also one of the most active institutionson Facebook. This makes the European Parliament an appropriate subject of analysis.
Firstly, the overall Facebook page is analyzed in relation to concepts as engagement and relationships. Secondly, the report identifies which of Grunig and Hunt (1984) four models of public relations are predominant in the chosen three month period of status updates. Lastly, it looks at the informality of these status updates and the “About” section by applying Flech’s Readability Formula.
The overall findings reveal intense activity on the platform, interpreted as efforts of a bureaucratic institution to adapt to the social media landscape. However, the most predominant model of public relations is the public information model. Furthermore, the readability score shows a high level of formality of the text.
In conclusion, this report is complementary for the public relations research field concerning the use of social media by public institutions and encourages research within this direction.
Contents
Introduction
Problem Statement
Purpose
Structure
Literature Review
Organizations and the systems theory
Public relations and relationships
Public relations in public institutions
Stakeholders
Social media and engagement
Hermeneutics as Theory of Science
Methodology
Case study research method
Materials
Grunig and Hunt’s four models
Readability
A case study of the European Parliament
The European Parliament as part of the European Union
A European communication strategy
The European Parliament
Analysis
The European Parliament’s Facebook page
Relationships and engagement through social objects
Four models of PR
Readability
Discussion
Delimitations
References
Appendices
Total number of characters: 54 519
Introduction
In today’s highly interconnected world, information tends to find its target users through social networks rather than waiting to be looked for it. This is due to the fact that both individuals and organizations are actively and eagerly spending more and more time online engaging in conversations (International Data Group, 2009; Internet World Stats, 2011). As a consequence, new types of social interactions and new ways to communicate online emerge almost daily(Davies, 2009; Solis & Breakenridge, 2009; Eloqua, 2011). This increasing diffusion of the use of social media channels for conversations offers both opportunities and challenges, especially for the public organizations. Public organizations are obliged to inform the media and the public about policies, decision making and issues affecting society.
A valuable opportunity from social media can be the strengthening of the relationships with stakeholders, the engage in conversations or the immediate feedback from them. This was happening slowly and in a more controlled manner through traditional media such as newspapers and television. However, this opportunity can also be a challenge in managing or influencing the communication process and, more specifically, the relation with the stakeholders.
With its 49 active Facebook pages and many other social media platforms belonging to its institutions (Twitter, Flickr, MySpace), it is safe to say that the European Union is embracing social media practices. The European Parliament is one of the European Union’s most active institutions on the Facebook social network, with approximately 372000 followers.
Problem Statement
While communication is important for both individuals and organizations, it can be argued that the former group has always found it easier to communicate and adapt to new channels and tools than an organization. When it comes to the latter, adopting new tools and strategies is a more complicated process, mainly due to the high number of stakeholders that need to be considered.Therefore, on a general level, this paper aims to describe how the public sector is adapting to this paradigm shift. Otherwise put, it sets out to analyze how is the European Parliament addressing its stakeholders through Facebook?
Purpose
Despite the prevalence and importance of social media, little known research has analyzed the way it is used by the public sector. This is especially predominant in supranational organizations as the European Parliament, who is accountable to the second largest democratic electorate in the world (Farell, 2007). As such, the goal of this paper is to explore how an institution like the European Parliament is addressing its stakeholders through social media, more specifically its Facebook page. This will expand on the existing knowledge surrounding social media and the strategies used by major public institutions.
The paper will identify the organization’s way of approaching its stakeholders through social media, what is the strategy implemented by the European Parliament on Facebook and how is the audience addressed. In order to gain a round answer and an in depth perspective, the analysis will search for public relations models used by the European Parliament for its Facebook page based on Grunig and Hunt (1984)’ four models of public relations and how the organization’s image is constructed on this platform. Lastly, what are the social media objects used for representation and how dothey relate to the audience.
Structure
In order to illustrate the way each element of the paper connects with the general analysis and the findings, the content of the paper is structured into several chapters. The first part consists of the Introductionwhich elaborates on the problem statement and purpose of this paper. The second chapter will present a literature review of the field of public relations, and concepts of engagement, relationships, stakeholders, and social media.
Following the above two is the methodology section which argues for the use of the case study as the appropriate research method, presents the framework for the analysis, as well as draws the case study description of the institutions of the European Parliament. Consequently, the analysis of the chosen materials will be provided in the fifth section. Finally, the sixth and concluding section will discuss the findings and relate them to previous research.
Literature Review
Organizations and the systems theory
In order to define concepts such as public relations, stakeholders, social media, and engagement it is worthwhile to see the way organizations are perceived within their environment. One perspective would be that ofsystems theory. This theory is based on the idea that an organization consists of different parts that influence each other and together interact with the environment (Theaker, 2008). According to Cutlip, Center and Broom (2006) a system is “a set of interacting units which endures through time within an established boundary by responding and adjusting to change pressures from the environment to achieve and maintain goal states” (p. 229).
Within this framework, public relations is perceived as a strategic activity needed for the organization to operate and interact with its environment and stakeholders, a perspective adopted by many public relations scholars and practitioners (Cutlip et al. 2000; Grunig & Hunt, 1984). This means that an organization’s success depends on the environment’s resources, while the environment needs organizations for their products and services (Grunig, J.,Grunig, L.Dozier, 2006). Furthermore, the systems theory also emphasizes the importance of the connection and relationships between the stakeholders and the whole of the organization.
One way to manage the organization’s environment is through relationships. Relationship management is a central concept of both organizational management and public relations (Grunig, J., Grunig, L. & Dozier, 2006). Freeman and Gilbert (1992) define organizations as “a connected set of relationships among stakeholders where the emphasis is on the connectedness” (p. 12) and public relations definitions highlight the same concepts.Wright (1983) points out that public relations, through open communication, guarantees “the organization’s ability to respond and adjust to change as required by societal and environment conditions” (p. 3).
Furthermore, with the evolution of different communication models and stakeholder theories, two-way communication is mostly encouraged towards relationship building with different publics.Grunig and Hunt (1984) argue that organizations “must set up structured systems, processes, and rules for two-way symmetrical public relations” (p. 316) with the end result of dialogue and building relationships.
Public relations and relationships
When it comes to defining and describing public relations (PR) there is an abundance of definitions that evolved in time. However, there are certain elements that all have definitions have in common.
One definition visibly influenced by the systems theory is the one of Long and Hazleton (1987): “Public relations is a communication function of management through which organizations adapt to, alter, or maintain their environment for the purpose of achieving organizational goals” (p.6). Another definition is offered by Grunig and Hunt (1984) who define public relations as “the management of communication between an organization and its publics” (Grunig & Hunt, 1984, p. 6). Wilcox et al. (2003) emphasized that there should be “communication, understanding, acceptance and cooperation between organization and its publics” (p. 7) and that organizations should be responsive and “serve the public interest” (Wilcox et al., 2003). Moreover, Cutlip, Center and Broom (2006) defined public relations as “the management function that identifies, establishes, and maintains mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and its various publics on whom its success or failure depends” (p.6).All these definitions have in common the emphasis on the management of relationships with the environment or with stakeholders. This isa fundamental element in the successful functioning of the organization and achieving organizational goals.
Effectively managed relationships with stakeholders improve organizational performanceand save costs by preventing different crises and bad publicity (Grunig, J.,Grunig, L. & Dozier, 2006). Moreover, Ledingham and Bruning (1998) perceive relationship management as an organizational goal which is achieved by using communication as a strategic tool to create quality relationships between organizations and publics. Hon and Grunig (1999) suggest six ways of measuring relationships and their result: control mutuality, trust, relationship commitment, relationships satisfaction, communal relationships, and exchange relationships.
However, not all types of communication or public relations models are oriented toward relationship-building. Grunig and Hunt (1984) proposed four models of public relations: publicity, public information, two-way asymmetric and two-way symmetric, but only the last one encourages dialogue and relationships building.
The publicity model is one way communication with emphasis on the sender of the message. The information is sent with the main goal of promoting the organization and gain press coverage or attention. Despite its use mainly within the celebrities industry, it is one of the main communication strategies associated with public relations (Grunig & Hunt, 1984).
The public information model is similar to the previous one in the sense that is also one-way communication, but the main purpose here is to send relevant information to those who need it and not necessarily to promote the sender (Grunig & Hunt, 1984). It is usually the main strategy used by local governments and state organizations in order to be more transparent towards their publics.
The third model or communication strategy that Grunig and Hunt (1984) presented is the two-way asymmetric public relations. In contrast to the previous two, it encourages feedback and two-way communication to the extent that there is no change of the organization (Grunig & Hunt, 1984). This is also the reason why it is called “asymmetric”, despite the fact that feed-back is encouraged, behavioral change is expected from the receiver rather than having any organizational change. As a consequence, it makes use primary of persuasion techniques.
The two-way symmetric model is “based on open, honest and adaptive communications, the goal of which is to build mutually beneficial relationships” (Edgar, 2011, p. 192) between the organization and its publics. The two-way symmetric model supports open and honest communication between the organization and publics, and it is considered idealistic, mainly due to its use of only 15% of the organizations, in comparison with 50% that use the publicity model (Fawkes, 2008).The same attitude towards dialogue and engagement is emphasized by Richard Eldelman (2011), the CEO of Edelman PR firm. In one of his recent speeches, he argues that credibility in organizations has decreased and people hardly believe anything if they are not engaged or part of the organization’s processes.
Dialoguewas also described by Buber (as cited in Kent & Taylor, 1998), who defines it as a two-way process in which both parts come to a relationship based on openness and respect. Kent and Taylor (1998) reviewed a large amount of literature which supported the idea that dialogue should not be dominated by one party but should be balanced and include cooperation, and communicative relationship.
Grunig and Hunt (1984) four models were constantly tested by scholars but the most prominent test was the Excellence project (Grunig, et al., 2006). The findings noted that “the four models are both positive and normative and that the two-way symmetrical model still appears to be a normative ideal for public relations practice” (Grunig, et al., 2006, p.47). The study also supported the important role of public relations in building long and quality relationships with strategic publics. Moreover, the authors state that PR practitioners should advocate symmetric communication “because it is good for the organization, just as exercise is good for one’s health” (p. 47).
As an overall conclusion, it can be argued that relationship-building between the organization and its stakeholders or goals achievement is hardly possible without dialogue. In this respect and based on the present environment, Kent and Taylor (1998) argue that “technology itself can neither create nor destroy relationships; rather, it is how the technology is used that influences organization-public relations” (p. 324). This means that analyzing the way an organization uses social media could emphasize the actual way they communicate and not the impact of social media on their communication pattern.
Public relations in public institutions
Public relations and communication strategies can help building a more accessible, transparent and participatory public sphere (Wood & Somerville, 2008), exactly what public institutions hope to achieve.Even though public organizations have so far relied on media for achieving their goals, Hiebert (2005) suggests that this can no longer happen and encourages PR practices in public institutions towards “developing real public relationships in the public sphere” (p. 3). Besides the earlier definitions which support this, it is also strengthened by Fairbanks et al. (2007) who state that public organizations must be proactive in reaching out to their publics and be responsive to their stakeholders. Cutlip et al. (2000) go further and state that “in a very real sense, the purpose of democracy itself closely matches the purpose of public relations. Successful democratic government maintains relationships with constituents based on mutual understanding and two-way communication” (p. 448).
It can be concluded that public relations and communication play an important role for the public institutions in encouraging relationship building, participation, and dissemination of information about policy-making. Any failure in taking these seriously leads to a disappointment of stakeholders towards the political process and public institutions (Wood & Somerville, 2008).
Stakeholders
The stakeholder concept became of interest for the literature when Freeman (1984) published “Strategic Management: A stakeholder Approach” and after that, numerous books and articles extended the subject. He tracks the concept back to 1963, when the word first appeared in an international conference at Stanford. The definition of stakeholders that he provides is: “any individual or group who can affect or is affected by the actions, decisions, policies, practices or goals of the organization” or those who have legitimate moral claims for the fair distribution of benefits and harms the organization’s activities (Moon & Hyun, 2009).
Public relations function is seen as the management of the relationship between an organization and its publics, through communication. However, before launching any communication efforts, it is important to know and prioritize the organization’s stakeholders.
Two key issues within the stakeholder literature are stakeholder identification or mapping and stakeholder classification. Identifying comes as a challenging task since most of the time managers might be unaware of some of the groups that influence the organization’s activity or might choose not to include some stakeholders. There are different methods of stakeholder identification. Preble (2005) suggests adapting Freeman’s stakeholder map to the size and type of the organization. The map, developed by Freeman (1984), includes local community organizations, owners, consumer advocates, customers, competitors, media, employees, special interest groups, environmentalists, suppliers, and governments.
Stakeholders were classified as primary or secondary stakeholders depending on their engagement in the organization’s transactions (Preble, 2005). However, Mitchell et al. (1997) developed a more complex framework to classify stakeholders, detecting stakeholder salience based on three dimensions: power, legitimacy, and urgency (Mitchell et al. 1997).As it can be observed, there is a wide variety of stakeholders and this prioritization is needed in order to allocate resources efficiently.
Despite the fact that the stakeholder map might seem outdated due to the absence of any new media impact on it, scholars have accounted for this subject in various papers. Firstly, Burke (1999) included in his six different communities for corporate involvement “the cyber community – a new emerging community who shares few of the characteristics of other communities” overlapping with the others, who exist offline. Secondly, an additional perspective is offered by theorists who suggest that stakeholders multiplied and gained in urgency, salience and legitimacy due to social media (Sedereviciute & Valentini, 2011).Sedereviciute and Valentini (2011) introduced four new categories of stakeholders based on their connectivity in social media. In turn, this process of mapping also unknown and undiscovered stakeholders offered a more holistic approach and made the stakeholder analysis and categorizing a growingly laborious endeavor.