.*6&23*48/'".*&(/ .*6&23*48/'".*&(/
*(*4", *(*4",
*33&24"4*/.3 )&3&3".%*33&24"4*/.3
%6/$"$8/."$&#//+/.4&.4.",83*3/'/7-",,/3%6/$"$8/."$&#//+/.4&.4.",83*3/'/7-",,/3
.(&,&3"3&%3 3&/$*",&%*"4/.("(&5%*&.$&3.(&,&3"3&%3 3&/$*",&%*"4/.("(&5%*&.$&3
!&.)&.&.1
7%&.13".%*&(/&%5
/,,/74)*3".%"%%*4*/.",7/2+3"4)4403%*(*4",3".%*&(/&%5%*33&24"4*/.3
"24/'4)&/.02/:4%-*.*342"4*/.".%"."(&-&.4/--/.3/.02/:445%*&3/--/.3".%
4)&/$*",&%*"/--/.3
*(*4", *4"4*/.*(*4", *4"4*/.
&.1!&.)&.%6/$"$8/."$&#//+/.4&.4.",83*3/'/7-",,/3.(&,&3"3&%3
3&/$*",&%*"4/.("(&5%*&.$&3
*33&24"4*/.3
)4403%*(*4",3".%*&(/&%5%*33&24"4*/.3
)*3*33&24"4*/.0&.$$&33*3#2/5()44/8/5'/2'2&&".%/0&."$$&33#84)&)&3&3".%*33&24"4*/.3"4
*(*4", 4)"3#&&."$$&04&%'/2*.$,53*/.*.*33&24"4*/.3#8"."54)/2*9&%"%-*.*342"4/2/'*(*4", /2
-/2&*.'/2-"4*/.0,&"3&$/.4"$4%*(*4",3".%*&(/&%5
ADVOCACY ON FACEBOOK: A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF HOW SMALL LOS
ANGELES-BASED NPOs USE SOCIAL MEDIA TO ENGAGE AUDIENCES
by
Wen chen Denq
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
August 2023
Dissertation Committee
Hans Peter Schmitz, PhD, Chair
Lea Hubbard, PhD, Member
Marie Lockton, EdD, Member
University of San Diego
© Copyright by Wen chen Denq
All Rights Reserved 2023
UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO
School of Leadership and Education Sciences
CANDIDATE’S NAME: Wen chen Denq
TITLE OF DISSERTATION: ADVOCACY ON FACEBOOK: A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF
HOW SMALL LOS ANGELES-BASED NPOS USE SOCIAL MEDIA TO ENGAGE
AUDIENCES
APPROVAL:
, Chair
Hans Peter Schmitz, PhD
, Member
Lea Hubbard, PhD
, Member
Marie Lockton, EdD
DATE: July 17, 2023
ABSTRACT
This dissertation examined the Facebook activities of seven small nonprofits in Los Angeles to
understand their social media use and audience responses. Prior research has distinguished three
broader engagement strategies used by Nonprofit Organizations (NPOs), including information
provision (awareness-raising), action-related messaging (mobilizing), and community-building
efforts (organizing). These strategies can play essential roles in drawing in audiences, but also in
moving individual supporters toward greater levels of engagement by increasing donations or
becoming more engaged champions for the cause. A qualitative and quantitative analysis of
organizational Facebook messages and audience responses was conducted over 3 months. The
NPOs included in this study were 20/20 Mom, Citizens for Los Angeles Wildlife, Community
Trust Foundation, Invisible People TV, NAMI Glendale, NAMI Westside Los Angeles, and NAMI
Urban Los Angeles. Organizational messages were coded for their intended goal (including
information, action, and community) and contents (i.e., event-related, mission-focused, and
advocacy). Audience responses were analyzed to identify the distribution of likes, shares, and
comments. Additionally, a random sample of 76 supporter messages posted was qualitatively
analyzed to identify their core intent with regard to information-sharing, mobilization, and
community-building. The findings revealed that smaller NPOs primarily employed information
and action-related messages, with an emphasis on events, while community-related messaging was
much less frequent. Information-focused messages aimed to educate the audience and reinforce the
NPOs’ perspectives on social issues. The analysis showed a high frequency of incorporating both
information and action elements into messaging. Community-building messages were much less
frequent, they typically consisted of event announcements and recognition of contributions and
directing audiences to other groups and networks. With regard to audience responses, a
combination of information and action-focused organizational messages tended to receive above-
average response rates when compared to other types of messaging. A sentiment analysis of
audience responses revealed a dominance of expressing positive views, but also a significant
presence of negative sentiments. In contrast to organizational messaging, the audience responses
featured a primary focus on community-building. By prioritizing community-related messaging
and fostering a sense of belonging among their supporters, smaller NPOs can cultivate an active
and engaged user community for advocacy purposes.
Keywords: comparative analysis, social media, Facebook, advocacy, (public) audience
engagement, nonprofit or not-for-profit organization, 501(c)(3), philanthropy
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my dissertation committee for their
invaluable guidance and mentorship throughout my academic journey. In particular, I am deeply
thankful to my committee chair, advisor, and mentor, Professor Hans Peter Schmitz, for his
unwavering support and persistent challenges that expanded my intellectual capacity and helped
me grow as a scholar. Since 2020, Dr. Schmitz’s insightful critiques have been instrumental in my
academic journey; including my first academic presentations from this dissertation at a prestigious
conference, The Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action in
2022. His expertise and mentorship have been essential to the successful completion of this
dissertation. I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to Dr. Lea Hubbard for her unwavering
professional and academic support since 2020. Dr. Hubbard’s objective criticism and dedication to
education and professional writing in the academic field have been instrumental in my journey.
Her extensive mentoring experience has helped me navigate through moments of confusion,
providing valuable guidance for my academic pursuits and offering valuable insights into potential
career paths. Additionally, her previous role as a department chair has equipped her with valuable
knowledge in addressing administrative challenges within the school. I am truly thankful for her
mentorship and the positive impact she has had on my academic and professional development. I
owe endless gratitude to Dr. Lockton, my class instructor, and supporter since 2021, for her
extensive knowledge of qualitative study and her exceptional ability to challenge me to think
critically about my academic writing based on her rich publication experience. Lastly, I appreciate
Professor Dozier for illuminating the path of technical integral learning and introducing me to the
latest potential technology resources and methods.
I express my heartfelt appreciation to my family for their instrumental role in my academic
journey. I am deeply grateful to my parents, whose strength, intellect, global mindset, and forward-
vii
thinking perspectives have enabled me to pursue my academic aspirations abroad, despite the
highly competitive environment, both financially and mentally. Despite the obstacles, they have
consistently provided encouragement, support, and motivation, including countless international
calls to maintain our connection. In particular, my remarkable sisters, who are professors in diverse
fields, have been a constant source of inspiration and support. I also extend my appreciation to Dr.
Denq and future generations because their support and technological savvy have broadened my
horizons and provided me with new insights into contemporary issues.
My academic pursuits have been profoundly inspired and empowered by the unwavering
dedication of volunteers and leaders in various nonprofit organizations, including the Tzu Chi
Medical Foundation. I hope that the contributions I have made to their collective narrative through
this work will prove practical and will serve to strengthen the support available to communities not
only in the United States but also across the globe.
viii
ORDER OF PAGES
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vi
ORDER OF PAGES viii
LIST OF TABLES xii
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1
Social Media and Nonprofit Organizations 2
Social Media and Audience Engagement 3
The State of Research 4
Why This Study Is Needed 8
Overview of Study 9
Findings of Study 10
Organization of the Dissertation 15
CHAPTER TWO NONPROFITS AND SOCIAL MEDIA-THE STATE OF RESEARCH 17
Why Do NPOs Use Social Media? 18
Information-related Messaging 19
Action-related Messaging 20
Community-Related Messaging 21
How Social Media Has Been Used in NPOs 22
Length and Online Presence 24
Organizational Governance 25
The Size of Organizations 26
Different Forms of Social Media for Information 28
The Impact of Social Media Communication Characteristics (Engagements) 31
Interests (Or Needs) of Potential Audience 32
ix
To What Effect NPOs Use Social Media 33
Increase NPOs Effectiveness in Awareness, Community Engagement, and
Fundraising 34
Enhance Effectiveness of Social Change by Complement Offline Engagement
35
Increase The Importance of Audience Engagement 36
Staff-Led And Supporter-Led Activism 36
Measurement of Effective Social Media Use 37
Measurement of Engagement Level in Likes, Shares, and Comments 39
Correlation of Audience Responses to Message Functions 41
Effectiveness of Emotion in NPOs’ Audience Response 42
Conclusions 43
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 45
Operating Definitions 45
The Conceptual Framework for Dissertation 46
Research Questions 49
Design of Research 50
The Pilot Studies 50
Organizational Sampling 51
Message Sampling 55
Data Analysis and Coding Procedures 57
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ORGANIZATIONAL MESSAGING 60
x
Messages Frequency and Core Contents 60
Information-Focused Messaging 66
Action-Focused Messaging (Mobilizing) 69
Community-related Messaging 71
Conclusions 74
CHAPTER FIVE RESULTS AND FINDINGS AUDIENCES RESPONSES 76
Descriptive Analysis of Audience Responses (Likes, Share, and Comments) 76
Qualitative Analysis of Content Comments 82
Information-Related User Comments 83
Action-Related User Comments 84
Community- Related User Comments 85
Sentiment Analysis of Audience Responses 86
Conclusion 88
CHAPTER SIX DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS OF CHAPTER FOUR AND
CHAPTER FIVE 91
Organizational Messages: One-way Communication 91
Audience Responses: A Community Focus 93
Limitation 95
Future Research 96
REFERENCES 97
APPENDIX A Eight Levels of Ladder Engagement 114
APPENDIX B Six Types of Social Media 115
APPENDIX C Reaction in Facebook Behaviors 116
xi
APPENDIX D Types of Advocacy Activities 117
APPENDIX E The Sample List of 10 NPOs 118
APPENDIX F Facebook Codebook with Frequencies and Percentages 119
APPENDIX G Content Comments Codebook with Frequencies and Percentages 120
xii
LISTS OF TABLES
Table 1. Sharing Information 19
Table 2. Calling for Action 20
Table 3. Community building 21
Table 4. Internal Factors-Explaining Difference in NPOs’ Social Media Use 23
Table 5. External Factors 27
Table 6. The Effective Social Media Use in NPOs 34
Table 7. Measurement of Effective Social Media Use for Advocacy in NPOs 37
Table 8. Types of Engagement Efforts 47
Table 9. The Major Findings of Two Pilot Tests 50
Table 10. Inclusion Criteria for NPOs Chosen 53
Table 11. Mission and Classification of Sampled NPO 54
Table 12. Comparison of the Percentage of Total Posts Per NPO in the Original Data Set
vs the Sampled Seven NPOs 57
Table 13. Lovejoy and Saxton’s (2012)’s 11 Subcategories 57
Table 14. Frequency of Facebook Messaging for Seven NPOs 60
Table 15. Frequency of Facebook Messaging Across Sample 61
Table 16. Distribution of Sampled Posts Across Three Core Categories 61
Table 17. Sampled Posts Across Three Core Categories by Each Organization 62
Table 18. Single and Multiple Codes Pattern 64
Table 19. Subcategories of Information-Focused Messages 66
Table 20. Distribution of Subcategories in Action-Related and Information-Focused Posts
68
xiii
Table 21. Subcategories of Action-related posts 69
Table 22. Subcategories of Community-related Posts 71
Table 23. Descriptive Analysis of Likes, Shares, and Comments Across All Posts 77
Table 24. Descriptive Analysis of Likes, Shares, and Comments Across Sampled Posts
78
Table 25. Likes, Shares, and Comments Distribution Across Five Categories 79
Table 26. Comparing Organizational and Supporter-Generated Foci (With Single or
Multiple Codes 82
Table 27. Content Comments Across Information Subcategories 83
Table 28. Content Comments Across Action Subcategories 84
Table 29. Content Comments Across Community Subcategories 85
Table 30. Positive, Neutral, and Negative In Likes 87
Table 31 Positive, Neutral, and Negative in Posts 87
1
CHAPTER ONE
Los Angeles County features a thriving nonprofit sector that plays a vital role in
addressing a wide range of social, cultural, and environmental challenges facing the city and its
residents. NPOs in Los Angeles serve a variety of purposes, including offering social services,
supporting underserved communities, promoting the arts, and protecting the environment. NPOs
range in size and scope, from grassroots community-based groups to large national organizations
with a presence in the city.
Small NPOs play an essential role in serving LA residents because they can respond to
the specific needs of diverse local communities (Ramirez, 2022). To address the different needs
of many distinct cultural and religious communities living in LA County, the nonprofit sector has
to maintain a wide range of services and requires extensive resources. For example, the LA
metro area has some of the highest poverty rates statewide (Danielson et al., 2022). The ever-
changing turbulent economic environment due to the COVID-19 pandemic requires NPOs to
remain flexible and constantly acquire resources to address demands for their services.
With the emergence of social media platforms, NPOs have found the Internet to be a
major fundraising and engagement site to promote their missions. Many NPOs have developed a
social media presence as an essential part of their identity and as a means to appeal to a wider
audience (Campbell et al., 2014; Guo & Saxton, 2014; Y. Zhang et al., 2022). Small NPOs can
be particularly reliant on a social media presence to attract more resources and attention with
relatively limited investments in time and money.
2
Social Media and Nonprofit Organizations
Nonprofit Organizations (NPOs) rely on a range of social media platforms to advance
their missions, including YouTube (94% of respondents), Facebook (94% of respondents),
Instagram (88% of respondents), Tiktok (86% of respondents), and Twitter (84% of the
respondent; Statista Global Consumer Survey, 2022). Social media have transformed how NPOs
interact with their audiences and have provided NPOs of all sizes new opportunities to deepen
and broaden their engagement with their membership (Schmitz et al., 2020). Compared to letter
writing or email, social media can reach more people, more easily create one-way
communication, and spread messages at much lower costs. As a result, social media is an
especially important tool for smaller NPOs with limited resources and a lack of broad brand-
name recognition.
One area of NPO activity on social media is advocacy for mission goals. Such advocacy
is often designed to bring about change by engaging audiences through messages focused on
information distribution (awareness raising), calls for action (mobilization), and community-
building (organizing; (Lovejoy et al., 2012; Lovejoy & Saxton, 2012). Advocacy messages can
also serve to move individual audience members along a “ladder of engagement” (Arnstein,
1969) to successively increase their commitment to a given cause. This requires NPOs to not
only rely on a one-way form of communication but invest in distinct social media strategies
designed to regularly engage their audiences and create a community of dedicated members
acting on behalf of the nonprofit.
Social media platforms have ushered in an unprecedented paradigm shift in NPO
communication in the United States and around the world. The interactive and decentralized
structure of social media provides NPOs the opportunity to instantly communicate with members
3
and the public (Bürger, 2015; Saxton & Wang, 2014). An NPOs’ social media presence can
generate an engagement experience between the users (the public audience) and facilitate two-
way communication between the organization and its audiences (Seelig et al., 2019).
Consequently, social media can transform the process of audience engagement (how people
interact with one another), organizations, and organizational tasks of employees or volunteers in
NPOs.
Social Media and Audience Engagement
In 2019, 99% of NPOs in the United States and Canada maintained a Facebook page
(Nonprofit Tech for Good, 2019) indicating the widespread adoption of social media in the
nonprofit sector. Over the past 2 decades, social media has been used by NPOs for multiple
goals, such as raising awareness, building a brand, connecting with stakeholders and potential
donors, recruiting volunteers, and educating audiences on the organizations’ missions and
programs for advocacy and fundraising. In 2021, about 12% of total giving in the United States
was transacted online, and smaller NPOs raised more of their funding (17.8%) from online
sources than larger organizations (Blackbaud, 2022). Research has also shown that 55% of
people who engage with NPOs on social media end up taking some form of action (NP Source,
2022).
The whole point of social media for NPOs is engagement, as social media allows them to
communicate and respond to their audience who share an interest in the organizational mission.
Engagement is defined as “a dynamic multidimensional relational concept including
psychological and behavioral features of involvement, connection, interaction, and participation
designed in a way to enable the achievement of goals at an individual, organization, or social
level” (Olinski & Szamrowski, 2021, p. 4). On social media, evidence of engagement entails the
4
audience liking, sharing, commenting, or replying to NPO messages (Guo & Saxton, 2014). For
example, NPOs can use Facebook to track the level of engagement of their audiences. This
includes two forms of interaction: active interaction (liking, sharing, commenting, and reacting)
and passive interaction (clicking, watching, and viewing; (Ekström & Östman, 2015).
Although social media offers various promising opportunities for nonprofits to engage
with their audiences, many NPOs struggle to fully take advantage of these online opportunities.
These barriers can be particularly challenging for smaller NPOs (Hou & Lampe, 2015). Smaller
NPOs are constrained by time, expertise, and resource scarcity. Smaller NPOs also do not have
the same brand recognition as larger ones, and cannot maintain an adequate social media
presence to compete for top talent.
Social Media and Nonprofits: The State of Research
The extensive use of social media in practice by NPOs across the world has stimulated a
body of research aimed at understanding social media adoption in these entities. The theoretical
basis for this dissertation involves reviewing distinct research on why, how, and to what effect
NPOs use social media. NPOs leverage social media platforms for various strategic objectives,
and the effectiveness of these efforts depends on the extent of audience engagement with their
messages. Consequently, measuring the level of audience engagement with an organization’s
social media content is critical in assessing its effectiveness (Saxton & Wang, 2014). Existing
research has developed assessments of audience engagement in NPOs’ social media use. This
includes measurements beyond simple “vanity metrics” such as follower counts (Rogers, 2018).
Analyzing the level of engagement in audience responses can help NPOs gain insights
into which content resonates with their audience and how to communicate more effectively with
them for social media success.
5
Why NPOs Use Social Media
The literature has developed analytical frameworks to categorize NPO social media posts
according to their underlying purpose. One such framework distinguished between messages
focused on information sharing, instigating action, and building community (Guo/Saxton 2012).
These three different content emphases correspond with how NPOs can use social media in the
advancement of their missions. Information sharing represents a basic form of audience
engagement focused on raising public awareness of the organization’s mission or promoting
public education on specific social issues. It also represented a critical way of shaping the
perceptions of NPOs’ success and purpose. Action messages on social media deliver specific
‘asks’ to audiences, including fundraising appeals and calls for specific other actions. Finally,
community-building messages are designed to create and maintain connections between the NPO
and its audience as well as between audience members. For example, Greenpeace and other
NPOs have created dedicated volunteer platforms to create a community supporting their
causes(“Greenpeace Volunteer Platform,” n.d.). Such platforms can draw in individuals to do
more than just donate or post likes.
The mission-driven logic of social media use suggests a progressive development of
messaging from basic one-way communication of information to more sophisticated two-way
forms of communication between NPO and audiences. Information sharing plays an important
role for many NPOs, calls for action and community-building play an essential part in scaling up
the impact by enlisting audiences into the mission, strategies, and tactics. For example, calls for
action may include writing messages to politicians, and community building creates greater
personal identification of audience members with an NPO and its mission. NPOs with limited
resources must rely on others to promote their messages and goals. Social media mobilizes
6
audiences, transforming passive onlookers into active supporters who contribute to collective
actions. By fostering conversations, social media enhance NPOs’ interactive communication
capacity, reinforcing community-building efforts. This empowerment and engagement move
beyond one-way information provision to develop sustainable communities. A robust level of
audience engagement in social media enables NPOs to address organizational needs and add
supporters as an external resource to complement their limited capacity.
How NPOs Use Social Media
Research has demonstrated that NPOs differ greatly in their social media usage and
scholars have identified internal (see Table 4) and external factors (see Table 5) to explain
differences in NPO social media use. Internal factors are characteristics of the NPO or other
issues the NPO leadership has control over. For internal factors, the size of the organization,
organizational governance, and leadership have been identified as relevant factors in shaping
social media use. For example, NPOs with tech-savvy leadership are more likely to invest in
social media and develop a strong online presence. Studies have demonstrated that leadership
plays an essential role in shaping an NPO’s social media presence (Nah & Saxton, 2013; Saxton
& Wang, 2014). In addition, the size of NPO may shape the social media presence, due to the
availability of resources and a larger number of stakeholders.
External factors cover issues outside of the control of NPOs that may affect an NPO’s
social media use. For external factors, different forms of social media with pertinent unique
features affect NPOs’ usage patterns. By understanding the different types of social media (for
example, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube) and how they contribute to building
relationships and promoting content, NPOs can engage in diverse social media strategies. For
7
example, Instagram and Facebook allow for more visual types of engagement strategies, while
Twitter requires short messaging.
In addition, since social media allow NPOs to engage with different audiences, their
online presence can be shaped by the distinct needs of key stakeholders, including donors,
volunteers, and employees. For example, NPOs relying more on private funding (vs. government
grants), will likely rely on more extensive outreach, stakeholder engagement, and public
relations (McCaskill & Harrington, 2017). Also, external stakeholders’ pressures can push NPOs
to employ new technology.
How Effective Is Social Media Use by Nonprofits?
The key goals of NPOs engaging online include raising resources, advancing their
missions, connecting with the audience, building brand awareness, or gathering feedback. As
NPOs are often resource-poor and social media investments could be viewed as unnecessary
‘overhead’ spending (Gneezy et al., 2014; Lecy & Searing, 2015), it is essential to establish if
and how social media efforts pay off.
Scholars have identified a number of social media strategies that may increase the
effectiveness of NPOs. For example, studies have shown that social media can increase public
awareness (Lovejoy et al., 2012), community engagement (J. N. Smith, 2018), and fundraising
(Milde & Yawson, 2017). Social media can also complement offline engagement efforts and
increase offline support. Furthermore, social media can play an important role in gaining the trust
of stakeholders, as audience responses become more significant. Social media have played a
major role in many recent popular uprisings, including the Arab Spring case, where hashtags
were widely used to disseminate information (Bruns et al., 2014). Especially for advocacy, such
digital affordances are essential. Social media facilitates the increase of the audiences’
8
engagement in advocacy campaigns and can create a “major reservoir of civic energy” (Schmitz
et al., 2020, p. 4). Frequent action among a large number of supporters increases audiences’
commitment to civic and political issues.
Measurement of Effective Social Media Use
If scholars and NPOs want to better understand how to best use social media for
advancing missions, it is essential to develop valid measures of online engagement. For example,
the number of likes may not be a very useful indicator of the quality of messaging with regard to
community-building. To evaluate the effectiveness of social media use, several measurement
methods have been suggested. These include using A/B testing to better understand what topics
or messages resonate more with audiences (Hall et al., 2020; Karpf, 2016)Furthermore,
sentiment analysis can be employed to categorize audience responses as positive, neutral, or
negative, providing insights for optimizing brand recognition and understanding audience
feedback (Poecze et al., 2018). The literature about social media measurement focuses on
questions of quantity and quality of usage across audiences. Quantity measures focused on
‘likes’ or ‘retweets’ provide initial insights into social media success, but such “vanity metrics”
(Rogers, 2018) do not provide strong insights into the depth of audience engagement. To get at
more meaningful measurements, NPOs have to develop more complex analytical instruments
focused on long-term donation patterns or on “supporter journeys” (Schmitz et al., 2020).
Meaningful and reliable measurements are an essential part of understanding the effectiveness of
social media use by NPOs.
Why This Study Is Needed
Social media use by nonprofits is an important research topic attracting the attention of
scholars across a wide range of academic fields. The study contributes to a rapidly expanding
9
field of research focused on social media use among NPOs. The specific contributions of the
study are threefold. First, this study provides detailed qualitative and quantitative insights about
NPO social media use, complementing a majority of existing studies relying on quantitative
methodologies (Guo & Saxton, 2014). My analysis provides an intimate view of audience
engagement and its impact on other users in a social media network community. Second, this
study focuses specific attention on smaller NPOs in a large metropolitan area, engaged in human
services, environmental, and health-related activities. Small NPOs play an essential role in
addressing the needs of urban communities (Mitlin, 2016). Research addressing these NPOs’
community engagement matters because they often serve urban and underprivileged residents.
Third, this study focuses on Facebook, rather than Twitter, which offers more space for content
and analysis of stakeholder or follower engagement (Huang et al., 2016). In addition, many
existing studies have relied on Twitter data, which has generally been more available for
researchers.
Overview of the Study
This study investigated 3 months (July 1 to September 30, 2022) of organizational
messages and audience responses in the Facebook accounts of seven NPOs in the Los Angeles
area. The NPOs were identified based on the Nonprofit Explorer database (Schwencke et al.,
2013). From this database, I identified a pool of eligible nonprofits based on a number of criteria,
including their annual revenue (below U.S. $500,000), mission focus on advocacy, and use of
Facebook as a primary communication tool. I then randomly sampled seven nonprofits from this
pool to include in my study. The seven NPOs included in this study are 2020 Mom, Citizens for
Los Angeles Wildlife Inc., Community Trust Foundation, Invisible People TV, NAMI Glendale,
NAMI Westside Los Angeles, and NAME Urban Los Angeles.
10
To establish the dataset of Facebook messages, 150 posts out of 505 organizational posts
were randomly sampled. Among 149 user word (content) comments, 76 were randomly sampled
for analysis. My code analysis relied on deductive and inductive approaches and unfolded in two
steps for organizational messages. For the deductive analysis (Chapter Four), all Facebook
messages were first categorized into three broad areas informational, action-, or community-
focused. In addition, 11 predefined subcategories (Lovejoy & Saxton, 2012) were used for
coding. These included: information; action-promote events, action-donation appeal, action-
selling a product, action-call for volunteers and employees, action-lobbying and advocacy,
action-join another site or vote for organization, action-learn how to help; community-giving
recognition and thanks, community-acknowledgement of current & local events, community-
responses to reply messages and community-response solicitation. During the analysis, four new
categories or subcategories emerged and were added to the existing conceptual framework.
These four new categories in the information category are event-related, mission-related,
advocacy-related, and organizational information.
In the second part of the analysis, the focus shifted to audience responses (Chapter Five).
First, I adopted an inductive content analysis for content comments because no previous
frameworks for content analysis existed. Second, after completing the inductive coding process, I
conducted an additional analysis of the Facebook content by counting the number of likes,
comments, and number of shares, and “replies.” Finally, I performed a sentiment analysis of
audience responses leading to a deeper understanding of audience reactions.
Findings of the Study
The findings of the study are summarized in two sections here. The first one summarizes
the content analysis of the organizational Facebook messages sent by the seven LA nonprofits.
11
The second part summarizes the content analysis of audience responses to organizational
messages.
The Contents of Organizational Messages
The analysis began with coding 150 organizational posts according to their contents
across the information, action, and community-building categories
1
. Results of the analysis
showed that information and action-related content dominated the Facebook messages of the
sampled NPOs. A total of 138 (92%) contained information-relevant content, 107 (71.3%)
action-focused content, and 37 (24.7%) community-focused content. This baseline result shows
a dominance of one-way messaging focused on sharing of information and calls for action.
However, a closer investigation of the message contents reveals a number of interesting
conclusions.
First, there was a strong overlap between information-related messages and action-related
messages, indicating that the NPOs seek to support their calls for action through specific
information that will be interesting and emotionally resonant for their audiences. When only
considering the 72 posts with information and action-related contents, almost half combined the
subcategories “information-events related” and “action-promote event.” These co-occurrence
patterns suggest a dominance of the event-related messaging followed by messaging focused on
enlisting audiences in advocacy and direct action for the mission.
Second, although community-related messaging was much less frequent across the
overall sample posts, NPOs made much more extensive use of it than others based on 150
1
Each message could receive multiple codes based on the presence of categories and
subcategories found.
12
sampled posts. Third, information-focused messaging was dominated by mission-focused
content which is designed to reinforce the NPOs’ perspectives on the social issues they address.
This included targeting the audience for continued education by suggesting checking links or
watching videos.
Fourth, with regard to action-related messaging, the study found a prevalence of event-
and supported-focused actions around advocacy and learning. Notably, NPOs do not excessively
use action-related messaging for fundraising or volunteer drives. Instead, these NPOs are using
calls for action in a more community-building effort than previously recognized in the literature.
For example, advocacy-related messaging in this realm focuses on giving supporters the tools to
contact local politicians or to connect to other organizations with similar missions.
Fifth, community-related messaging is dominated by two types of content: announcing
events organized by others and acknowledging the contributions of employees, volunteers, and
others. Messages are designed to keep supporters active on the platform by hashtag and @ and
to retain and recruit supporters. The low frequency of community-based messaging is likely a
result of the limited resources of these smaller NPOs. Community-based messaging as a form of
two-way communication requires significant human resources to maintain an extensive social
media presence.
The Contents of Audience Responses
The results are presented in three separate parts. The first covers frequency counts of
likes, shares, and comments. The second and third parts present a sentiment analysis and a more
in-depth qualitative analysis of the sampled contents of audience comments.
13
Likes, Shares, and Comments
Across all the 505 organizational messages posted during the study period, a total of 439
(86.9%) received any audience responses. All of the 150 sampled messages received responses.
The word count of these responses ranged from one to 200 words. The analysis of audience
responses on the Facebook pages of NPOs provides several important findings and insights. The
descriptive analysis at the beginning of this chapter revealed that audience members used likes
most frequently, followed by shares and comments. However, there was great variability across
NPOs, indicating that some maintained a relatively active user base, while others did not. In
other words, likes, shares, and comments also represent different levels of engagement, ranging
from a low level. Further, the high standard deviation of likes (SD= 6.51) compared with shares
(SD= 1.73) and comments (SD= 1.19) suggested that the shares and comments seemed to
maintain a similar pattern along the mean as the audience attitudes to posts would be more
consistent no matter what level of engagement they exhibited (shares or comments).
Furthermore, based on the analysis of likes, shares, and comments distribution across five
categories (information only, information and action, information and community, action and
community, and triple codes), information-only messages are engaging, especially when
combined with other action and community-related messages. Information combined with
action-related messages is the only category above average across all three categories (likes,
shares, and comments), so the combination of information and action appears to be the most
engaging, as it provides engaging content while mobilizing the audience.
However, community-building messages were not strongly supported, as their substantive
content was identified as more aligned with personal engagement support rather than fostering a
14
cohesive community. These findings emphasize the importance of a strategic blend of
information and action to maximize audience engagement.
Sentiment Analysis
The sentiment analysis revealed that 147 (98%) posts contained positive sentiments, 51
(34%) negative sentiments, and 10 (6.7%) posts neutral sentiments. The majority of audience
responses on the Facebook pages of NPOs are positive, as demonstrated by the use of emojis and
natural language in posts. Posts with positive or negative emotions received more audience
responses than neutral posts. In addition to negative posts (e.g., anger) being more likely to
attract arguments and debates, this disparity can be attributed to the fact that negative reactions
serve as an expressing agreement with such posts in a negative sentimental manner.
Content Analysis of Audience Comments
Among 505 total posts, a total of 439 (87%) received responses (in the form of likes,
shares, or comments), but a total of 149 (33.9%) received audience text comments. A sample of
76 content comments was analyzed and revealed that 62 (81.6%) were community-focused, 44
(57.9%) were action-focused, and 37 (48.7%) were information-focused (detail see Appendix G).
The qualitative analysis of sampled user comments revealed the most interesting results of this
chapter. The findings indicated that content comments as a form of high-level engagement reveal
a distribution pattern dominated by a community focus. This result stands in contrast to the
distribution pattern for organizational messages which are dominated by information-focused
messaging. Audience members were much more likely to focus on community-building issues
when using the comment function. Community-building posts received the highest percentage of
comments, compared with action-and information-related messages.
15
Regarding the subcategories of information-focused messaging, it is notable that the vast
majority of user comments are mission-focused. The majority of action-focused messages are
also focused on advancing the mission, while the community-focused messages emphasize in
what ways users engage either with NPO messaging, give recognition, or demonstrate support.
Even when the NPOs themselves do little to create an online community, the users often step in
to do so. This indicates that NPOs can increase engagement with their audiences by relying more
on community-related messaging.
Organization of the Dissertation
The dissertation is organized around a total of six chapters. In Chapter Two, relevant
theories and conceptual frameworks from the literature are introduced. These frameworks
elaborate on the different ways in which NPOs and audiences can engage online. The chapter
emphasizes the development of research focused on why, how, and to what effect NPOs use
social media. It also reviews research on the appropriate measurement of social media
engagement. This literature then serves as a basis for developing the study’s conceptual
frameworks, including identifying different categories for social media engagement (including
information sharing, action calls, and community building).
In Chapter Three, the methodology of this study is presented including research design,
sampling, and data analysis procedures. The study relied on both deductive and inductive
analytical procedures and developed a descriptive analysis focused on NPO organizational
messaging and audience responses. The chapter elaborates on the selection of seven small NPOs
in the LA area. It identifies the study period (7/1-9/30/2022) and introduces the key areas of
interest.
16
Chapter four summarizes the analysis of the sampled organization-generated messages
posted by the seven NPOs on Facebook. This analysis covered 150 sampled messages from a
total of 505 posts.
The results summarize how NPO posts were distributed across three major categories
(information, action, and community). It also offers insights into the distribution of message
contents across subcategories and reports the results of sentiment analysis of the posts.
Chapter Five summarizes the analysis of audience responses. The presentation here is
divided into two parts. The first covers a frequency analysis of likes, shares, and comments
posted by supporters to 150 organizational Facebook posts. The second part then focuses on the
contents analysis of a sample of 76 audience comments out of 147 organizational messages
receiving comments. The results provide insight into how audiences respond to NPOs’ posts,
including a comparison of engagement levels in the form of likes, shares, and comments. The
findings of code analysis in audience content comments also offer what audiences’ attitudes
about three major topics including advocacy or mission NPOs would direct.
Chapter Six summarizes the key findings of the study, elaborates on the importance of
these results in the context of past research, and suggests future research. First, the results from
Chapters Four and Five are summarized and interpreted. Second, these results are discussed in
the context of existing empirical research about the use of social media by NPOs. Third, the
chapter outlines the practical implications of this research as well as suggested future research.
17
CHAPTER TWO
NONPROFITS AND SOCIAL MEDIA: THE STATE OF RESEARCH
This chapter provides the theoretical basis for the dissertation. The core concepts
informing the dissertation research were developed by scholars focused on why, how and to what
effect NPOs use social media. In addition, the chapter will review research concerning the
measurement of social media engagement and its effects across NPOs. The first part of the
chapter will review literature focused on why social media is used by NPOs. I synthesize extant
literature to identify three goals for social media by NPOs: disseminating information, calling for
action, and organizing communities. Information sharing is a basic and common purpose of
social media use by NPOs, but it alone does not necessarily promote action. Mobilizing
audiences for collective action involves using social media to engage supporters and move them
from passive bystanders to active participants who contribute to causes. Finally, community
organizing via social media involves improving engagement to empower participants to act on
their own and leveraging their efforts for social change in the long term.
The second part of the chapter reviews literature focused on explaining variation in social
media use across NPOs. There are significant differences in social media usage and scholars
have identified both internal and external factors. Internal factors are characteristics of the NPO
or issues the NPO leadership has control over and include size, sector, leadership, or
organizational governance. External factors such as the type of social media platform,
communication characteristics, needs of potential audiences, and funding sources or external
stakeholder pressures also impact NPOs’ social media practices.
18
The third part then reviews research on the effectiveness of social media use among
NPOs. This research focuses on the effects of social media on raising funding and contributing to
mission goals. As NPOs are typically resource-poor and social media investments could be
viewed as unnecessary ‘overhead’ spending, it is essential to establish if and how social media
efforts pay off.
The final part of this chapter focuses on questions of measurement of NPOs’ social media
strategies. For example, researchers have explored the correlation between organization-
generated messages and audience responses displayed in the form of likes, comments, and shares
on Facebook. This focus on so-called “vanity metrics” provides very limited insights into the
effectiveness of social media strategies because it doesn’t reveal anything about the long-term
engagement of audiences. To better understand social media strategies, tools such as A/B testing
(Karpf, 2016) or sentiment analysis can be used to measure audience responses. The goal for
NPOs here is to better understand how audience members can be motivated to increase their
commitment to the mission and take increasingly significant actions along a “ladder of
engagement” (Arnstein, 1969).
Why Do NPOs Use Social Media
The widespread social media use worldwide has inspired scholars to study why and how
the nonprofit sector uses social media for advocacy and fundraising. NPOs use social media for
key organizational goals, such as fundraising, mission accomplishment, or social change. For the
dissertation, I will focus on the mission-related goals of social media use and specifically how
NPOs can use social media to share information, mobilize audiences, and organize communities.
19
Information-Related Messaging
The sharing information function is primarily used to raise public awareness of
organizational missions and recruit potential supporters. Social media can be used to initiate
relationships with new supporters (such as clients, donors, and volunteers). Such supporters can
then enhance the NPOs’ efforts in multiple organizational activities including advocacy (Kanter
& Paine, 2012). Table 1 provides an overview of information-related messaging as it relates to
social media use by NPOs.
Table 1
Sharing Information
Sharing Information
Summary
Sharing information is a communication tool to raise awareness of the
organizational mission in the form of a one-way interaction
Key Activities
Announcing organizational events and activities; broadcasting & advertising;
posting updates; educational posts; sharing advocacy-related information.
Representative
Sources
Goldkind, 2015; Guidry et al., 2014; Huang et al., (2016); J. Young (2012); Kanter
& Paine, 2012; Lovejoy & Saxton (2012); Namisango et al., 2019; Scott &
Mayman, 2016; Smith, 2018
Sharing information is the most basic and common purpose that nonprofit organizations
(NPOs) use social media sharing information aims at increasing public awareness and
maintenance of public attention to the issue (Lovejoy & Saxton, 2012), but sharing information
involves one-way communication from the NPO to the audience (Lovejoy & Saxton, 2012; Scott
& Maryman, 2016). A robust digital network increases the capacity for sharing information and
expands the outreach for an NPO (Guo & Saxton, 2014). Examples of information sharing
include messages about the mission designed to raise public awareness, announcements,
20
promoting public education, or organizational leadership news (Goldkind, 2015; Huang et al.,
2016; Namisango et al., 2019; Scott & Maryman, 2016; J. Young, 2012)
Action-Related Messaging
Action-related messaging represents a second important goal for social media use in
NPOs. Social media can be used by NPOs to mobilize audiences, rather than only share
information. Mobilization turns online followers from passive bystanders to active supporters
(Scott & Maryman, 2016). Such actions may include making donations, participating in a rally,
or recruiting others to the cause. Table 2 provides an overview of action-related messaging as it
relates to social media use by NPOs.
Table 2
Calling for Action
Calling for Action
Summary
Turn the audience from passive bystanders to more active supporters of
organizational causes.
Key Activities
Those actions can include donations, organizational activities, or independent
activities by supporters, recruiting for public events; call for volunteers; letter-
writing; fundraising
Representative
Sources
Anagnostopoulos et al., 2017; Conroy et al., 2012; Huang et al., 2016; J. Guidry et
al., 2014; J. Guidry et al., 2014; Namisango et al., 2019; Rainie et al., 2012;
Scott & Maryman, 2016;
Social media can help NPOs mobilize audiences to advance higher levels of engagement
for collective action (Anagnostopoulos et al., 2017; Huang et al., 2016). Such actions can be
beneficial for the organization in various ways: financial support such as donations and
fundraising campaigns, human resources (like attracting more volunteers and employees), and
21
support for social change efforts such as advocacy or policy to change legislation (Namisango et
al., 2019).
Community-related messaging
Community-related messaging represents a third important goal for social media use in
NPOs. Social media can be used by NPOs to organize audiences into communities, rather than
only share information or mobilize supporters. Community organizing is essential for an NPO’s
mission because it increases the commitment of supporters by increasing their commitment to
the cause and links their personal lives to the NPO. Community-building may entail creating an
online platform for supporters to interact with the NPO staff or other supporters. Table 3
provides an overview of community-related messaging as it relates to social media use by NPOs.
Table 3
Community-Building
Community-Building
Summary
Community building moves from a one-way form of communication to a dialogue-
focused engagement.
Audiences (or participants) are encouraged to develop their activities independent
of the organization and develop decentralized networks in support of the mission.
NPOs start organizing this community, as an ultimate goal, by developing a sense of
community for leveraging social change in the long term.
Key Activities
Activities include creating interactive communication channels; building
rapport; fostering a sense of community; organizing communities and
recognizing their contributions; advancing leadership development
Representative
Sources
Ang, 2022; Bürger, 2015; Dimond et al., 2013; Gálvez-Rodríguez et al., 2014;
Goldkind, 2015; Guo & Saxton 2014; J. A. Young, 2017; Lovejoy & Saxton,
2012; Namisango et al., 2019; Olinski & Szamrowski, 2021; Rathi et al., 2014;
Smith 2018
22
The functions of a community comprise two essential aspects: dialogue and community-
building (Lovejoy & Saxton, 2012). In terms of dialogue, social interaction and conversation in
NPOs have been shown to promote organizational socialization (Namisango et al., 2019).
Scholars have noted that social media can facilitate socialization, enabling NPOs to increase the
level of personal identification of supporters with the mission. Social media platforms can help
NPOs to make linkages between their mission and the personal identity of supporters (Olinski &
Szamrowski, 2021). Consequently, social media has the potential to enhance interactive and two-
way communication, thereby reinforcing engagement and facilitating action (Guo & Saxton,
2014; Lovejoy & Saxton, 2012).
Community building is aimed at more directly empowering supporters and generating
decentralized networks independent of the NPO, but serving its mission (Dimond et al., 2013).
Social media can also foster a sense of community by promoting shared values, norms, and
visions (Zhou, 2011). This sense of community can strengthen identification with the NPOs and
encourage social support between members to bolster engagement and confidence in working
together to influence social changes (Goldkind, 2015). The goal is to not just raise awareness or
prompt specific actions, but to develop and expand like-minded communities advancing the
mission on their own (Goldkind, 2015) .
How Social Media Has Been Used in NPOs
NPOs display significant differences in social media usage and scholars have illustrated
internal (see Table 4) and external factors (see Table 5) to explain differences in NPO social
media use. Based on the Global NGO Technology Report 2019, the most used social platforms
in the United States and Canada were Facebook (95% of all NPOs), Twitter (64% of all NPOs),
Instagram (56% of all NPOs), and LinkedIn (37% of all NPOs). For updated data consideration
23
in 2022, the most popular platforms become YouTube (94% of respondents), Facebook (94% of
respondents), Instagram (88% of respondents), TikTok (86% of respondents), and Twitter (84%
of respondents; (Statista Global Consumer Survey, 2022).
Internal factors are characteristics of the NPO or issues the NPO leadership has control
over. External factors cover issues outside of the control of NPOs that may affect NPO’ social
media use. Internal factors identified in the search include the size of the organization,
organizational governance, sectoral differences, or the age of the organization. External factors
include differences in social media platforms, the interests (or needs) of audiences and
communities, or feedback from social media communications and engagement. In research, these
internal and external factors serve as explanatory variables identifying specific enablers and
inhibitors of social media use. Researchers have identified a range of enablers and inhibitors of
social media use. Enablers include leadership support, adequate resourcing, relative size of the
organization, or strength of community ties. Inhibitors include the absence of many enabling
conditions, a lack of trust in social media, an absence of measurement systems to understand
social media impact, or an inability to connect to audiences (Namisango et al., 2019). Table 4
summarizes the three most frequently mentioned internal factors (capacity and size, and
organizational leadership and governance) and studies exploring their role.
Table 4
Internal Factors: Explaining Differences in NPOs’ Use of Social Media
Explaining differences in NPOs’ use of social media
Capacity and size
Size of organization: availability of resources for social media investment and a
larger number of stakeholders
24
Explaining differences in NPOs’ use of social media
Representative
sources (2013-
2018)
Guo & Saxton, 2018; Nah & Saxton, 2013; Panic et al., 2016; Reddick &
Ponomariov, 2013; Saxton & Waters 2014; Bhati & McDonnell, 2020; Guo
& Saxton, 2018; Nah& Saxton, 2013; Saxton & Wang, 2014; Shier & Handy,
2012; Svensson et al., 2015; Zhou & Pan, 2016; Zorn et al., 2011
Organizational
leadership and
governance
Organizational governance related to leadership, including board membership
or staff
Representative
sources (2011-
2019)
Alonso-Cañadas et al., 2019; Gálvez-Rodríguez et al., 2014; Gruber, 2015;
Goldkind, 2014; Hou & Lampe, 2015; Nah & Saxton, 2013; Saxton & Guo,
2011; Seo & Vu, 2020; Shin & Chen, 2016
Length and Extent of Online Presence
The factor shaping social media adoption is related to the extent of an organization’s
online presence. If an organization has a history of being online using websites and email (Web
1.0), it can be expected to adopt social media more rapidly.
Organizational website capacities and social media presence, particularly for Facebook
and Twitter, showed positive relationships with social media utilization (Nah & Saxton, 2013;
Saxton & Waters, 2014). A larger online presence is associated with an increase in the quality
and quantity of supporter engagement. However, research has also shown that a higher frequency
of internet and social media use (without additional offline engagement) did not have a
significant influence on the general propensity to donate (Reddick & Ponomariov, 2013).
Research also showed that membership-serving NPOs were much less likely to engage in
dialogic outreach than other NPOs, probably because they have a clearly defined primary
audience already connected to the organization (Nah & Saxton, 2013). Overall, organizational
factors have been shown to substantially shape social media efforts.
25
Organizational Governance
Organizational governance was shown to affect the virtual use of social media because
the characteristic of governance is critical in ensuring effective resources and proper strategies
regarding the adoption of information technologies. Research has shown that larger executive
boards in NPOs are more likely to have a social media champion present, leading to the adoption
of social media practices (Nah & Saxton, 2013). Furthermore, board members in NPOs are
responsible for resources to the organization, which includes building valuable external
relationships with key stakeholders. Research has shown a strong relationship between the social
media literacy of board members and the capacities of the organization to use web technologies
and to accomplish effective public relations online (Gálvez-Rodríguez et al., 2014; Gruber et al.,
2015).
Organizational governance is affected by board performance and management’s level of
support for social media usage (Goldkind, 2014; Seo & Vu, 2020). For instance, Chief Executive
Officers’ messages were critical to social media use because they emphasized the organization’s
campaign and operations (Shin & Chen, 2016). Also, NPOs’ leadership and leaders’ vision,
orientation, and commitment to advocacy are key factors in online advocacy engagement
(Goldkind, 2014). Another factor researchers examined was board size (e.g., the number of board
members). Some studies found that board size was positively correlated to an increased
likelihood of adopting Twitter (Nah & Saxton, 2013) or social media (Alonso-Cañadas et al.,
2019; Hou & Lampe, 2015; Seo & Vu, 2020). This illustrates that board size can affect
stakeholder communication (Alonso-Cañadas et al., 2019). However, one study was unable to
26
generate conclusive results regarding the effect of board size on the use of Twitter among NPOs
(Gálvez-Rodríguez et al., 2014).
Size of Organization
The size of nonprofit organizations matters for the adoption of social media. The
availability of resources is generally associated with an organization’s capacity to invest in new
technologies (Zorn et al., 2011). First, larger organizations have more resources to strategically
invest and access technology (Nah & Saxton, 2013). Second, larger organizations have a larger
social media presence because they engage with a greater number of stakeholders and attract
greater scrutiny due to visibility and size (Shier & Handy, 2012). However, some scholars have
argued the influence of social media-related factors (on fundraising) is not primarily driven by
organizational budget size (Bhati & McDonnell, 2020; Saxton & Wang, 2014; Svensson et al.,
2015). Instead, they argue nonprofit organizations of all sizes use social media as a useful tool
for different purposes.
Findings were mixed regarding the effects of organizational size. Some studies found that
organizational size was positively related to the adoption of technology or social media (Shier &
Handy, 2012; J. Young, 2012; Zorn et al., 2011) and that organizational budget size affects the
acquisition of new technology (J. Young, 2012; Zorn et al., 2011). Scholars argued that small
and medium-sized NPOs were less likely to adopt communication technologies due to a lack of
human and financial resources (Seo & Vu, 2020). However, other studies have argued that the
size of assets does not affect adoption patterns of social media, such as access to technology and
the general IT capacity. Given social media’s lower costs and technology requirements, social
media has become a “democratizing technology” (Wallace & Rutherford, 2020, p. 629). These
findings suggest that the Facebook network size (number of likes), activity (number of posts),
27
and audience engagement (number of shares is positively associated with fundraising success
(Bhati & McDonnell, 2020). A study of Columbian NPOs found that many groups have yet to
take full advantage of social media in developing stakeholder relationships, although required
technologies are widely available (Gálvez-Rodríguez et al., 2014).
Overall, organizational size matters in terms of resources available, but smaller NPOs
with effective communication strategies can take advantage of social media to level the playing
field. Larger NPOs will likely have more resources and dedicated social media staff, while
smaller NPOs are more likely to face resource constraints affecting social media presence as a
core strategy.
External Factor
Table 5 summarizes the three most frequently mentioned external factors (technology,
stakeholders, audience) and studies exploring their role.
Table 5
External Factors
Explaining Differences in NPOs’ Use of Social Media
Technology
Different platforms of social media (e.g., Facebook or Twitter) with pertinent unique
features (e.g., visual, opportunities for user engagement).
Stakeholders
Funders may shape social media strategies through their donations
Audience
The needs of potential audiences, including donors, volunteers, and employees will
require different social media outreach strategies Namisango et al., 2019; Olinski &
Szamrowski, 2021; Rathi et al., 2014; Smith 2018
28
Different Forms of Social Media For Information
Different types of social media have unique features that allow each platform to serve
different purposes and promote different outcomes (Guo & Saxton, 2018). For example, Twitter
limits messages to 280 characters and is not as visual as Instagram or Facebook. Different
platforms can also target and tailor messages differently to reach an NPO’s audience (Tonetti,
2019). The platform features impact how social problems are discussed across platforms. For
example, Austin et al (2020) found that in response to the Parkland School Shooting in 2018
“gun violence advocacy and risk perception variables were present more frequently on
Instagram, while social ecological model policy-level factors were observed more frequently on
Twitter” (Austin et al., 2020).
Facebook
Facebook is one of the most widely used social media platforms across the globe (J. A.
Young, 2017). Research has explored various topics with regard to how Facebook offers unique
features and is being used by audiences. For example, a study of a Facebook diabetes group
found high levels of user engagement and the effectiveness of the platform in facilitating
community building (Y. Zhang et al., 2013). A study of German foundations from 2015 found
that Facebook was more frequently used than Twitter or YouTube (Bürger, 2015). Compared to
other social media channels, Facebook offers a number of useful features to NPOs, including the
creation of private membership groups or the running of targeted campaigns for specific
audiences (Tonetti, 2019).
Research also shows that Facebook usage varies greatly across NPOs. A study of Polish
organizations found that the vast majority of groups did not take full advantage of the digital
affordances provided by Facebook (Olinski & Szamrowski, 2021). The study also confirmed that
29
larger organizations were more active on Facebook than smaller ones. A study of 110 HIV/AIDS
nonprofit organizations from 2016 showed a similar under-utilization of social media. The
researchers found a dominance of “informational messages as one-way communication with
their audience instead of dialogic interactions” (Huang et al., 2016). A study of U.S.-based youth
development organizations found strong associations between the type of Facebpostspost and
stakeholder engagement. It also found that longer posts increased stakeholder engagement
(Carboni & Maxwell, 2015).
Instagram
Since 2010, Instagram has been recognized as the most important social media for
influencer marketing (GRIN, 2021). Images can be used as supplementary sources of
communication, information, and text messaging. More importantly, this media may further
promote online sharing and organization-public relationships by disseminating information
primarily in a political/professional context (Russmann & Svensson, 2016). Research has
demonstrated that Instagram posts in the aftermath of the 2018 Parkland shooting showed greater
emotion and affectation (e.g., anger and fear) than Twitter messages (Austin et al., 2020). Other
research also confirmed that image-based Instagram receives a higher amount of engagement and
provoked more frequent expressions of social support than Twitter (Guidry et al., 2020).
Infographics (Instagram) also can draw a motivated audience for political issues (or movements)
as a useful introduction (Beard, 2022).
Twitter
The most valuable feature of Twitter is the capacity to deliver short messages called
“tweets” (Guo & Saxton, 2018; Saxton & Waters, 2014). Its retweeting and favoriting functions
can be presented as engagement beyond direct replies to audiences. Twitter was the primary
30
mechanism for providing information and building support with their stakeholders (Banks, 2022)
but less mobilization function (Guo & Saxton, 2014).
Twitter’s utilization practices were examined because of its microblogging style of
communication (Lovejoy et al., 2012). Then, Twitter was used for advocacy (Guo & Saxton,
2014) due to the ongoing relationship-building process, disseminating information, building
engagement, and facilitating action (Svensson et al., 2015; M. P. Taylor, 2021); other NPO
tweets were mainly used to run paid ads for increasing general fanbases and producing high
engagement on topics such as political campaigns (Guidry et al., 2020; Tonetti, 2019). Twitter
also is in handy when urgent needs occur to create awareness (Kaur et al., 2019) and crisis
management (Guidry et al., 2017).
YouTube
The images (e.g., photos and videos) feature of YouTube provides nonprofits with
opportunities to present their stories in a powerful and emotionally connected way (Waters &
Jones, 2011). As such, YouTube serves multiple purposes. In addition to the original purpose of
informing and educating viewers about nonprofits’ missions, YouTube can also produce more
successful public service announcements than television due to creating a lasting image with the
audience. More importantly, YouTube’s connection enables nonprofits to build relationships,
identify with stakeholders (Waters & Jones, 2011), and create an online community for
advocacy, volunteering, and fundraising (Garczynski, 2017). NPOs also were suggested to use
images to empower fanbases by using real-time media updates and by using a channel for
Facebook for cross-collecting data about donors (Tonetti, 2019).
31
The Impact of Social Media Communication Characteristics (Engagements)
The commitment to communication characteristics of social media accelerated its uses as
social media shifted nonprofit organizations’ communication, including advocacy from
traditional mediums (mail or letters) to the online environment; this even helped develop
engagement with their community (J. Young, 2012). Communications are often examined based
on message characteristics and demonstrate how this medium accelerated the development of
online engagements beyond communication (Kennedy & Sommerfeldt, 2015). Engagement is a
process including the public in the organization’s activities so closely associated with
relationship building and dialogue(Watkins, 2017). The more interactive (such as dialogue) and
skilled communications are, the more successful engagements (relationships) will be built with
target audiences (e.g., stakeholders or users). They also have a greater likelihood of reaching
larger potential audiences while remaining cost-effective (Guo & Saxton, 2014). However, one-
way communication can be an engagement function for advocacy purposes as they could build
Twitter networks, advocate for supporters’ claims, and promote public education. There may be
three potential explanations for why one-way communication may be emerging as the most
prevalent function of communication on Twitter for engagement. First, it might be indicative of
branding and communication strategies among NPOs (Svensson et al., 2015). Second, social
media engagement requires less staff and expertise due to limited allocated resources in social
media (Quinton & Fennemore, 2013). Third, users (or audience) of tweets (or retweets) are not
expecting two-way communication because of its features observed in experimental studies
(Watkins, 2017).
One of the most important features of social media platforms is their capacity to create
interactive experiences (Svensson et al., 2015; Waters, 2009) and dialogic communication
32
(Kang, 2014; Watkins, 2017). The interactive capacity (of social media), when used for
advocacy, can help NPOs to develop networks of supporters and improve participation in
decision-making for advocacy (Lovejoy & Saxton, 2012; Obar et al., 2012; Scott & Maryman,
2016). However, many studies focused on Twitter and other platforms show that NPOs primarily
engage in one-way communications (Carboni & Maxwell, 2015; Ellison & Hardey, 2014; Seo &
Vu, 2020). Dialogic communication should be viewed as a communication orientation instead of
a technological feature (M. Taylor & Kent, 2014).
Interests (or Needs) of Potential Audiences
The “audience” represents the individuals or groups who receive the social media
messages that NPOs disseminate through social media channels(Differentiating Your
Stakeholders vs Audiences, 2019). In contrast, “stakeholders” refer to those who are directly
impacted by an organization’s actions and hold a stake in its decisions, such as employees,
donors, or beneficiaries. Unlike the unidirectional communication that often occurs with
audiences, stakeholders may be more frequently and directly engaged in the organization,
highlighting the importance of effective stakeholder management. Stakeholders can be broadly
classified into two categories: internal and external stakeholders (Differentiating Your
Stakeholders vs Audiences, 2019). For example, NPO board members will attend regular
meetings and are internal stakeholders, while NPO beneficiaries receive services and are external
stakeholders. With the rise of social media, audiences have become a vital group for
engagement, in addition to more traditional stakeholders.
Research has demonstrated that the needs of potential audiences are a primary factor that
motivates NPOs to adopt social media to build profiles and identify potential groups of donors,
volunteers, and employees. Furthermore, private funding sources, as opposed to government
33
funding, significantly influence social media use in NPOs. Seeking private donors requires NPOs
to conduct more extensive outreach and public relations efforts, which can be achieved through
the effective use of social media (McCaskill & Harrington, 2017). Meeting the needs of potential
audiences is particularly important for smaller NPOs, as it helps to fulfill both their own and
their funders’ expectations.
External stakeholder pressures are also critical drivers of NPOs’ adoption of new
technology, such as social media. Studies have shown that external groups, including volunteers
or donors, can exert significant pressure on NPOs to adopt new technologies (Nah & Saxton,
2013; Zorn et al., 2011). Such pressure is especially relevant for NPOs that rely on public
donations. Additionally, small NPOs are often more susceptible to such pressures. For example,
charities may feel compelled to respond to external comments and requests by implementing
social media activities to engage their stakeholders (Quinton & Fennemore, 2013). Finally, the
needs of existing supporters, especially for small NPO, are primary drivers of NPOs’ outreach
efforts, as they strive to reach more audiences and satisfy their funders’ expectations (Hou &
Lampe, 2015).
To What Effect Do NPOs Use Social Media
NPOs adopt social media for a variety of reasons discussed above. Many of these reasons
reflect specific expectations with regard to how social media will increase resources or help with
mission accomplishment. Research in this area considers how effective social media usage is,
and if NPOs are successful in their online mobilization. As NPOs are typically resource-poor and
social media investments could be viewed as unnecessary ‘overhead’ spending (Gneezy et al.,
2014; Lecy & Searing, 2015), it is essential to establish whether and how social media efforts
34
pay off. Table 6 provides a summary of research about the possible impact of NPOs’ social
media use on audiences, the served community, and the organization itself.
Table 6
The Effective Social Media Use in NPOs (“THE IMPACT” question)
The Impact of NPOs’ Social Media Use
On Audience
Increase supporter engagement and public awareness; complement offline
engagement; increase networking and community-building.
On communities
Served
Empowerment, community-building, leadership development
On the
organization
Fundraising and brand development
Increase NPOs’ Effectiveness in Awareness, Community Engagement and Fundraising
Studies have shown that social media use by NPOs can have a significant positive impact
on awareness, community engagement, and sometimes fundraising. The impact of social media
on fundraising is varied, with some studies finding no significant effect (Albanna et al., 2022),
while others indicating that social media can be used as a fundraising tool (Tonetti, 2019) and
significantly increase giving (Bhati & McDonnell, 2020).
NPOs use social media to connect with audiences, build brand awareness, share
important information, and gather feedback. Social media plays a vital role in increasing public
awareness, and it represents an important means of shaping perceptions of an organization’s
financial performance, success, and purpose (e.g., branding). Social media can be mobilized to
augment marketing strategies, engage audiences, and raise the NPOs’ public profile.
Regarding public awareness, NPOs can use social media to disseminate information and
raise awareness about their goals. By actively engaging with the public, NPOs can foster
35
relationships with various stakeholders, including local communities (Albanna et al., 2022; Kim
& Chen, 2015). This interactive process can significantly impact community engagement and
public awareness as social media can assist NPOs in conveying their mission to potential
supporters, connecting with individuals who are interested in supporting their cause and
spreading their initiatives and campaigns to the community. In addition, studies have found that
social media can contribute to increased civil engagement among audiences (Gil de Zúñiga et al.,
2012; Kim et al., 2013; B. G. Smith et al., 2018). Scholars have noted that having more social
media can lead to an increase in the frequency of discussions on public affairs and have a direct
impact on civic engagement (Gil de Zúñiga et al., 2012).
Enhance the Effectiveness of Social Change by Complementing Offline Engagement
Social media can be used to complement offline engagement to enhance the effectiveness
of a social change effort. Based on the literature, internet users who are highly engaged in more
and various offline groups, causes, and networks are more likely to contribute monetarily
because online donations are a form of engagement with social groups (Reddick & Ponomariov,
2013). Social media-based practices (e.g., fundraising) generate increased offline support such as
promoting action among prospective donors (Thorpe & Rinehart, 2013), advancing
organizational membership, and attendance at offline political campaigns (Gervais, 2015).
However, social media use for NPOs does not replace traditional offline face-to-face advocacy;
Instead, it “complements” in-person advocacy (Guo & Saxton, 2014). This is especially true for
online and offline participation substructures that should augment supporters’ voices and help
achieve their goals (Nabatchi & Leighninger, 2015; Scott & Maryman, 2016)
36
Increase The Importance of Audience Engagement (Responses)
Social media-based strategies could direct NPOs to allocate their resources to social
media and call the attention of more stakeholders or audiences. Building interactive relationships
via social media requires ample resources, labor, and time (Olinski & Szamrowski, 2021).
Therefore, NPOs need to constantly engage with potential audiences on their social networking
site to gain the trust of stakeholders because the audience who spends more time on the internet
is more likely to socially interact with NPOs in offline environments (Piatak & Mikkelsen,
2021).
The association of dialogic content with actual dialogue for mass communication
strategies was first studied in advocacy organizations (Bortree & Seltzer, 2009). Audience
responses (as engagement) to organization-generated messages were observed to provide a more
comprehensive framework about how stakeholders respond to messages, or, practitioners
collected messages and later developed a hierarchy of engagement (Lovejoy & Saxton, 2012).
Staff-Led and Supporter-Led Activism
Digital affordances (such as social media) have impacted the organizational forms of
advocacy as well as advocacy strategies and tactics (Hall et al., 2020). The key is a shift in the
relationship from staff to supporters. This kind of supporter-led engagement may generate more
advocacy for NPOs than traditional, staff-led activism designed to promote the organization.
NPOs initially employed social media for disseminating information mainly in a top-
down approach as technological changes facilitated a new form of NPOs advocacy between the
1960s and 1970s (Seelig et al., 2019, p. 17). This initial way of advocacy communication via
social media is more likely as Schmitz et al. (2020) called staff-led approaches; It requires large
resources in organizations themselves and also needs to attract a number of members for regular
37
financial and human support as professionalized activism. However, the later internet-based
interactive tools (e.g., social media) facilitate the increased use through which the audience and
NPOs can engage in advocacy campaigns (Goldkind, 2015, p. 383; Guo & Saxton, 2014; Nah &
Saxton, 2013). Additionally, online interactions can create a “major reservoir of civic energy”
(Schmitz et al., 2020, p. 4) and even produce frequent action among a large number of
supporters, especially for urban and youth populations (Chenoweth & Belgioioso, 2019). Social
media use also can increase audiences’ commitment to the mission of the organization or civic
and political issues by taking significant actions (Boulianne, 2015). All those presentence of
technology change have developed a shift toward a new form, support-led activism; In this
strategy, NPOs allow supporters to determine key issues such as campaign topics and related
NPO actions, follow the officials, or even directly join protests or social groups as owners of a
campaign (Guo & Saxton, 2014; Scott & Maryman, 2016). As such, it enhances the legitimacy
and ensures advocacy on topics that resonate with the public; It can more quickly adapt and scale
up activism (Hall et al., 2020); It can also help organizations to lessen the burden on their staff
and shift attention from simple awareness-raising to more meaningful mobilizing and organizing
of communities.
Measurement of Effective Social Media Use (For Advocacy) In NPOs
Table 7
Measurement of Effective Social Media Use (for Advocacy) in NPOs
Measurement
method
Audience Responses (Engagement Level)
Quantitative
analysis
A/B test and engagement level (audience responses) in the form of likes, shares, and
comments (from low to high) to assess the resonance of specific messaging.
38
Sentiment
analysis
The sentiment analysis can categorize audience responses in the text as positive,
neutral, and negative based on audience reactions (e.g., love, wow, haha, sad,
angry). It could be employed to optimize brand recognition in social media use
One approach was considered in studies from social media implementation (e.g.,
advocacy) to how social media use (for advocacy) as best practices (Guo & Saxton, 2014), more
researchers have alternatives to investigate the correlation between organization-generated
messages and the instant audience responses that displayed in the form of such actions as “likes,”
“comments,” and “shares” on Facebook (Carah, 2014; Coursaris et al., 2016; Kaur et al., 2019).
The measurement shift of almost real-time audience responses to NPOs’ messages related to
advocacy from the perceptual to the behavioral domain (Saxton et al., 2015); the capacity to
measure audience responses to organization-generated social media messages offered NPOs a
quantitative and comparable method to measure their relative effectiveness in advocacy
strategies.
Later, studies indicated the number of likes, comments, and shares to measure audience
engagement on Facebook (Guo & Saxton, 2014). The ICA framework was expanded to identify
message strategies, such as mission-related messages for specific health sectors of NPOs (Huang
et al., 2016). Also, NPOs were advised to use A/B testing to evaluate audience resonance for
specific messaging because advocacy organizations with social media can develop and refine
their strategies and tactics (Karpf, 2016). In sum, audience responses (engagement) are critical
for advocacy strategies via social media and can be used as a measure of successful engagement
strategies (Guo & Saxton, 2018). The importance of audience responses is also confirmed by
international studies. PBOs recognized a trend of audience relations to relationship management
(as engagement; Olinski & Szamrowski, 2021).
39
Measurement of The Engagement Level in Audience Responses (In the Form of Likes,
Comments, and Shares)
Audience responses are publicly available, so they could be beneficial for sentiment
analysis of users and even mapped to the pattern of audience interaction as a predictive indicator
on social media (Ross et al., 2018). Those audience responses are evaluated on their pertinent
level of engagement, respectively, from low to high (Cho et al., 2014; Kaur et al., 2019). In
Facebook, the type of organization-generated post is more likely to affect if users would engage
with the post in the form of likes, shares, and comments. Facebook includes four types of posts;
status updates, links to external sites, and multiple-media posts with photos or with videos
(Carboni & Maxwell, 2015). Status updates refer to only text and can be read. Multimedia posts
with photos and videos may have content. Those videos and photos can be viewed. Posts with
the link would be web links connected to external websites.
Likes
Clicking the “like“ button indicated that users (the audiences) agreed with the Facebook
content and expressed their personal preferences, and provided positive feedback on specific
items (Sumner et al., 2018). Users were 8 times more likely to click the like button than “share”
and “comment” (Pelletier & Blakeney Horky, 2015; Ross et al., 2018) as it was comparatively
easy and a quicker way to engage (Y. Zhang et al., 2022). The number of likes per post promotes
more positive feedback for the subjects in NPOs, so the number of likes positively leads to a
stronger sentiment.
40
Shares
Each “share” places a higher commitment compared to likes. The contents, once shared,
are added to personal profiles permanently, which is suggested to be part of users’ self-
presentation. In other words, the consequence of sharing content on Facebook advocates how the
users evaluate themselves because their posted contents leave the Facebook users vulnerable to
public engagement through viewing by all (Rui & Stefanone, 2013). Thus, (Facebook) users
become more conscious about their shared content; that shared content is made visible to this
community to reach a large audience and promote brand awareness campaigns (Coursaris et al.,
2016). Along the same lines, an increase in the number of shares also leads to a stronger
sentiment due to agreement from the audience on content.
Comments
These are generated content published by users and include more than only clicking
buttons such as like and share. Facebook comments influence readers’ perception of discussion
(Hong & Cameron, 2018), especially for public opinions as these (comments) are read by the
first posting users through browsing the newsfeed, which implicitly influences brand awareness
and purchase intentions (Carah, 2014). The contents of comments and the number of comments
would contribute to increasing the intensity of the topic discussion(Kaur et al., 2019).
Furthermore, the influence of customer-generated information (about NPOs as audience
comments) on trust is higher than the influence of company-generated information (about NPOs
as organization-generated messages), given that trust in brand and product were significantly
related to intent to purchase (which refers to action in NPOs)(Nikbin et al., 2022).
41
The Correction of Audience Responses to Messages Functions (As Measurement of
Engagement Level in the Form of Likes, Shares, and Comments)
Audience responses are presented with different technological tools such as direct replies,
hyperlinks, hashtags, and user mentions in addition to the form of likes, shares, comments, or
reactions (for details, refer to “the Audience Responses in the Facebook Behavior” section). The
present research categorizes likes, comments, and shares from the lowest to highest levels of
engagement. Generally, the greater number of likes, shares, and comments (or user mentions and
retweets) is the more effective audience responses. The higher number of shares there are, the
higher the level of audience engagement. The relationship between message strategies and
audience responses in the social media setting (e.g., Facebook or Twitter) is categorized into
three subthemes described below.
Audience Responses’ Correlation to Types of Messages (ICA Model)
Numerous scholars have analyzed the relationship between types of organization-
generated messages (information, community, and action) and the level of engagement from
audiences:
• Community-related content: those community-related content generated a greater number
of likes and comments than that information-related content (Guo & Saxton, 2014). Also,
community-based messages had a much higher impact than information-related messages
because community building is “a prerequisite for stimulating dialogue and user
engagement” (J. N. Smith, 2018, p. 308).
• Information-related content: information-related content attracted more numbers of
shares than the other two types of content with content analysis of Twitter messages.
Information-related tweets were more likely to be liked and “retweeted” compared with
42
those tweets, including only dialogue (Wang & Yang, 2020). Along these themes,
information-related Facebook messages were more likely to be liked, and action-related
messages generated more shares from the audience (Lam & Nie, 2020; Y. Zhang et al.,
2022).
• Social media can help NPOs develop and refine their strategies and tactics, such as A/B
testing to evaluate audience resonance for specific messaging (Karpf, 2016).
Effectiveness of Emotions in NPOs’ Audience Responses (With Sentiment Analysis)
Although extant studies have limited examinations of the effectiveness of emotions in
NPO social media messages, the findings indicated that NPOs should employ social media-based
strategies, especially at the message level, to acquire their stakeholders’ engagement and support
(Hu & Shi, 2017; Kanter & Paine, 2012; Swanson, 2012). Sentiment analysis is an area of
inquiry that clarifies human moods, behaviors, and opinions from written text in natural
environments (Kaur et al., 2019). The objective of sentiment analysis is to categorize audience
responses in the text as positive, neutral, and negative based on audience reactions (e.g., love,
wow, haha, sad, angry). Through sentiment analysis, there is a need to use natural language in
posts to optimize brand recognition in social media use and emphasize the importance of public
opinions for a better understanding of audience feedback (Poecze et al., 2018).
Emojis of love have the highest numbers, followed by wow, sad, angry, and haha, (Kaur
et al., 2019). This finding indicated that the audience is more likely to click positive reactions
(e.g., love, wow, haha) than negative reactions (e.g., sad and anger; Ortigosa et al., 2014). That
result is in line with previous scholarship; the audience is more supportive of each other in the
group concerning health-related issues (Frison & Eggermont, 2015). Furthermore, emojis
(reactions on Facebook behaviors-see Appendix C) could effectively increase the number of
43
retweets based on factors contributing to retweet-ability (Chung et al., 2020; Y. Zhang et al.,
2022). The use of emotive content has mixed results: posts with well-resourced information and
personal stories could help create a supportive community, while posts with negative emotions
(or reactions) such as fear or anger may lead to arguments and even spread unchallenged
misinformation (Balfour, 2020) or get more shared and commented on more on the news(Ross et
al., 2018).
Conclusion
The literature review indicates that social media can help NPOs achieve their mission-
related goals, including sharing information, mobilizing audiences for collective action, and
organizing communities. Social media can help NPOs, engage supporters and move them from
passive bystanders to active participants who contribute to causes. Social media can help NPOs
improve their engagement with audiences and stakeholders. It can be used to empower
supporters, and it can be leveraged for social change in the long term. However, research also
shows that social media is often underutilized by NPOs, and that success in using social media
depends on effective messaging. Using social media without compelling content or a strategy is
unlikely to contribute to NPO success.
Scholars have identified both internal and external factors that can influence how NPOs
adopt social media. The current literature offers valuable insights into the impacts of social
media use by NPOs on audiences, served communities, and the organizations themselves. In
addition, the literature established valuable frameworks for analyzing and categorizing different
social media contents. These frameworks and insights will be part of this study’s investigation of
small communities serving NPOs in the Los Angeles area. As the literature review also
demonstrated, existing research has frequently ignored very small, community-serving NPOs,
44
and also rarely combined quantitative and qualitative analyses of organizational messaging and
audience responses.
45
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
This chapter identifies the methodology used for this study including operational
definitions, conceptual framework, the research questions, research design, organizations and
messages sampling, data collection, and data analysis. The chapter also reviews the results of a
pilot study that preceded and informed the current research.
Operational Definitions
Emerging research about social media-related advocacy has analyzed diverse contexts
across multiple disciplines and with different definitions of related terminologies. To clarify
common confusing terms used in my study, I provided major operational definitions next.
Advocacy
Broadly, advocacy “describes a wide range of individual and collective expression or
action on a cause, idea or policy” (Mosley et al., 2022, p. 4; Reid, 2000, p. 1). One particular
type of advocacy is lobbying, which specifically targets legislators and other policymakers to
vote (Jung et al., 2014, p. 70). Other forms of advocacy include strategic litigation to use the
court system for accomplishing mission goals or mobilizing the public through the publication of
research and other educational efforts. Advocacy may be directed at the general public, corporate
actors, or other NPOs.
Advocacy Organizations
Advocacy organizations are groups with a primary emphasis on advocacy, rather than
service delivery (Schmitz et al., 2020). Some scholars have also used the term “interest groups”
or “social movement organizations” with an emphasis on developing new policy and
46
administrative rules, litigation, or lobbying (see also Appendix D; Berry, 1981; Mosley et al.,
2022).
Nonprofit Advocacy
Nonprofit advocacy includes all organizational and individual efforts of NPOs to
influence public policy (Jung et al., 2014) by direct lobbying or indirectly using information to
raise awareness among the public for mobilizing for or against specific behaviors or policies.
Such efforts may be aimed at “building grassroots constituencies and mobilizing citizens for
policy positions” (Z. Zhang & Guo, 2012, p. 222). See Appendix D for the list of advocacy
activities (Guerriero & Ditkoff, 2018). NPOs typically engage in advocacy as part of their overall
mission, either because it is an important complement to service delivery or a stand-alone effort.
Social Media
Social media is a broad term defined as an internet-based communication technology that
allows users to create an online profile, update their information, and develop social connections
with others (Hu & Shi, 2017; Svensson et al., 2015). The most popular social networks
worldwide include Facebook, YouTube, WhatsApp, Instagram, and Wxixin/Wechat and the list
of most popular social platforms in Appendix B (Social, Hootsuite, DataReportal and Kepios,
2022; The Modern Nonprofit, 2021). TikTok recently became one of the top six largest platforms
globally (as of January 2022; Clemence, 2022). Globally, there are more than 4.5 billion social
media users (We are social Team, 2021)
Conceptual Framework for the Dissertation
I built on the existing literature to establish a conceptual framework to investigate how
NPOs have used Facebook for their audience engagement in three message functions (as the ICA
model): information provision, calls for action, and community building (Lovejoy et al., 2012;
47
Lovejoy & Saxton, 2012). The three types of NPO engagement with an audience can be
understood as part of Arnstein’s ladder of engagement (Arnstein, 1969; Nared & Bole, 2020),
which categorized different levels of citizen engagement from a passive stage of “manipulation”
to the highest level of “citizen control” (see Appendix A). Applied to NPOs, information sharing
reflects a low level of participation and more passive engagement. Mobilizing represents a
medium level of engagement, and community-building is a high level of audience involvement
requiring supporter-led activism. Table 8, based on Lovejoy and Saxton’s model and derived
from Arnstein’s work (1969), illustrates three types of engagement activities, their goals,
communication formats in social media, and the level of engagement between NPOs and their
audience. The dissertation research used these three types of engagement activities to (a)
categorize social media messages into information sharing for raising awareness, (b) call for
action for mobilizing resources, and (c) community building for organizing audiences into active
and self-directed participants. These different types of engagement strategies in the social media
context reflect distinctions between one-way are two-way communication, as well as short-term
or long-term perspectives.
Table 8
Types of Engagement Efforts
Engagement activity
Goal
Social media focus
Information sharing
(mission-focused)
Awareness-
raising
One-way communication to change how audiences
think about a mission-relevant topic
Calls for action
Mobilizing
One-way communication, short-term actions, such
as donations or letter-writing; staff-led activism
48
Community building
(audience-focused)
Organizing
Two-way communication to create lasting
relationships and networks; facilitate supporter-
led activism
The first function, disseminating information, may be especially important for NPOs in
the initial stage of online relationship building because this engagement activity focuses on basic
awareness raising. Sharing information focuses on the core mission, services, programs, or other
related information NPOs believe is their target population or responds to supporters’ interests.
The second function listed in Table 8 emphasizes action, which Lovejoy and Saxton’s
(2012) framework identified as the third function. Once online supporters receive information
about a given issue, the NPO will seek to mobilize them to take action. This may include signing
petitions, showing up for an event, or donating time or money. NPOs may want to mobilize
resources and followers (or supporters) to fulfill financial and strategic goals. Lovejoy & Saxton
(2012) have identified seven subcategories of mobilization, which include promoting an event,
appealing for donations, selling a product, calling for volunteers and employees, supporting
lobbying and advocacy, joining another site, voting, and learning how to help. These categories
served as initial guidelines for coding schemes concerning action functions. I then also used
inductive coding to add newly emerging subcategories.
I identified the third function of social messaging as a form of community-building.
NPOs use these messages to create a community comprising individuals from different
backgrounds. Through dialogue in such a community, the public can engage in two-way
communication with the NPO and other supporters. By building a community around the NPO’s
cause, supporters are more likely to act and support the organization’s mission. These supporters
may then become champions and leaders of the NPO cause, generating their actions
49
independently of NPO advocacy (Heimans & Timms, 2014). Lovejoy and Saxton (2012) further
categorize community-related functions into four subcategories, including recognition and
thanks, acknowledging current and local events, responding to supporter messages, and soliciting
responses. The four subcategories are not mutually exclusive and may appear concurrently in
messaging.
Research Questions
To conduct this study, I focused on two important aspects of social media use. First, I
investigated how NPOs used Facebook for outreach. Based on prior studies (Lovejoy & Saxton,
2012), this type of investigation distinguishes between three principal ways of outreach:
information sharing to raise awareness, a call to action to mobilize, and community-building
efforts to organize audience members. Second, I studied how audiences responded to messages
posted on NNPO’s Facebook accounts. The analysis of audience engagement is crucial as it can
enhance the effectiveness of social media use, particularly when Facebook messaging is
delivered in an audience-centered manner. However, identifying the audience can be
challenging, which is why it is essential to understand audience members’ attitudes about
relevant topics, such as advocacy or mission. The research questions were as follows:
1. How do small Los Angeles-based NPOs engage their audiences on Facebook to share
information, call for action, and build community?
2. How do audiences respond to different small Los Angeles-based NPO messages by using
likes, comments, or shares?
50
Design of Research
To ensure I effectively addressed the two questions above, I conducted a descriptive and
comparative study using a design from Doyle et al. (2020) and Sandelowski and Barroso (2003).
This design was specifically applicable in social media research as this type of research is
commonly concerned with how audiences engage with NPOs online. This descriptive and
comparative design gathered data based on how NPOs and their supporters acted in a natural
environment. The study investigated the underlying meanings of NPO postings and the target
population’s subjective experience of how NPOs or NPOs’ supporters constructed their social
community (social media world), and how they interacted in that context (Merriam & Tisdell,
2015).
Pilot Studies
I began this investigation by conducting two pilot studies in the spring of 2023. The
rationale for conducting the two pilot studies was grounded in questions about the best criteria to
use to access social media content between NPOs and their audience. I also examined if
Facebook content had sufficient data for deeper analysis to answer my overall research questions
regarding how NPOs use social media. The pilot studies also helped me to understand how best
to navigate, manage, and anticipate any challenges or data entry problems (Jain et al., 2021).
Two pilot studies were conducted, and major questions and findings were listed in Table 9
Table 9
The Major Findings of Two Pilot Studies
Pilot Study 1
Pilot Study 2
Study Period
16 days (3/16-3/31/2022)
15 days (4/1-4/15/2022)
Questions
How do large NPOs use Twitter to
engage audiences for advocacy?
How do small Los Angeles-based NPOs
Use Twitter to engage the audiences for
advocacy?
51
Pilot Study 1
Pilot Study 2
Study subject
2 large NPOs
10 small NPOs
Study subject
activities
Food Bank and Environment
Environment, Education, Human Services
(youth development...), Unclassified,
Public Benefit, et., al
Posts
investigated
Over 250 posts but lost tracking
manually
132 posts with 302 codes (code analysis)
Supporter
comments
investigated
Over 150 content comments but lost
tracking
125 content comments
Findings
It was difficult to manually code a large
number of posts. Software supporting
coding is preferable.
The content of Twitter is very limited
and the majority of posts were due to
Twitter’s 140/280 character limit in
single postings.
It was found that Twitter was not a major
communication tool for the majority of
the sampled NPOs.
The source dataset (Great Nonprofits)
website did not have the majority of Los
Angeles NPOs. This prompted
switching to Nonprofit Explorer.
It was not possible to use the Ncapture
function in NVivo.
The preliminary results of the descriptive
analysis suggested using Excel or SPSS
for quantitative analysis and also helped
define the study timeframe (3 months)
Organizational Sampling
To capture small nonprofit organizations that serve urban communities, this study
focused on Facebook strategies used by Los Angeles-based NPOs with annual revenue of less
than $500,000. This study used purposive sampling to examine NPOs in a large urban area
because of my familiarity with the Los Angeles area and my own volunteer experience.
Purposive sampling is “the method of choice for most qualitative [studies]” (Merriam & Tisdell,
2015, p. 96) because generalization is not a goal of qualitative research. In this study, I used a
purposive sampling strategy to (a) accomplish information richness (Guetterman, 2015) on
organizational and supporter messaging; and (b) address a bias in the existing literature which
tends to sample larger and/or exclusively advocacy-focused NPOs.
52
Criteria for Purposive Sampling
To be included, all organizations had to meet the following criteria. First, the NPOs’
annual revenue (or average revenue) did not exceed $500,000 for the last three consecutive years
(2017, 2018, 2019, or 2020). The threshold of $500,000 was chosen because 66% of NPOs in the
United States fall into this category of small organizations. The report also notes that these small
NPOs only control 1.4% of the overall annual revenue of the sector (NCCS 2020). I also focus
on these smaller NPOs because they face particularly high barriers to social media-based
advocacy due to time, expertise, and resource scarcity.
Second, all organizations had to be recognized as an IRS 501c(3) charity organization,
and not elect IRS 501c(4) and (h) for advocacy activities. Third, the sampled NPOs had to
engage in advocacy or indicate that they advocate for their mission on their official website or
Form 990. I chose this criterion because my literature review suggested that social media
strategy often involves mission-related posts, and I expected to find a substantial number of
advocacy-related posts among the sample. If NPOs are engaged in advocacy, they are more
likely to engage in the types of outreach activities relevant to this study. Groups only engaged in
services may have limited reasons to develop a social media presence.
Fourth, to obtain a diverse group of NPOs engaged in advocacy across several sectors, I
sampled organizations active in promoting education, health, environmental issues, and housing
(see Table 11). Fifth, I narrowed the sample geographically to the Los Angeles area because it is
home to a diverse set of NPOs serving many different communities. As an urban area, we should
expect general familiarity with social media which may ensure data availability. I am also
personally familiar with the area and the residents. This allows me to interpret the results more
confidently and rely on my background knowledge to avoid drawing questionable conclusions.
53
Lastly, the organizations were required to maintain an active Facebook account
throughout the study period, using it as their primary communication tool. By sampling from
their Facebook posts, I was able to easily access their most recent and major communications to
(or potential) audiences without having to search across multiple social media platforms.
A summary of the inclusion criteria the for NPOs chosen is listed in Table 10.
Table 10
Inclusion Criteria for NPOs Chosen
Elements
Criteria
The rationale for target sampling
Size
<$500.000 for at least 3 years
2018–2020
For covering smaller NPOs (bias:
100-style sampling)
Geography
Los Angeles County
For increasing the understanding
of LA-based NPOs due to
familiarity (bias: limited studies)
Activities
Must include “advocacy” in a
mission statement or description
of significant activities (e.g., web
presence, annual reports, 990
forms)
For exploring the depth of the
activities of NPOs for advocacy
Sectoral
background
Communicati
on Level
Sectors for relevance in LA:
environment, health, education,
human service-food, public
community, housing shelter, and
uncategorized
Facebook as a major
communication tool
For multiple categories (bias: only
advocate organizations as a
single category)
To catch major and recent posts on
the social media platforms
Organizations Select Processes
The dataset was set up by extracting NPOs from the most current version (updated as of
April 2022) of the Nonprofit Explorer, a database that includes data on 3 million tax returns for
54
tax-exempt organizations since 2001 (Schwencke et al., 2013). ProPublica, a founder of
Nonprofit Explorer, is an independent, nonprofit news studio that generates investigative
journalism to spur reform through 100 dedicated journals. The selection process was filtered for
each inclusion criterion. My selection process included:(1) filter for each inclusion criteria from
the dataset, the most current version (updated as of April 2022) of the Nonprofit Explorer, which
includes data of 3 million tax returns for tax-exempt organizations since 2001 (Schwencke et al.,
2013), (2) on their website, I filtered “Los Angeles” in a “city” query, “California” in the “state”
query, every category in the “major nonprofit categories” query, and “501c(3)” in “organization
types.” Out of all NPOs that were initially considered for the study, only 14 organizations met all
of the inclusion criteria and were included in the final sample list. From this list,10 NPOs were
purposefully selected (see Appendix E). Lastly, three NPOs were excluded from the final sample
list due to their lack of social media presence during the study period. As a result, a total of seven
NPOs were ultimately examined for this study.
Table 11
Mission and classification of sampled NPOs (as “Activities” of All Criteria Table 9)
NPOs
NTEE Code
Mission statement
20/20 Mom
Public, Societal
Benefit-
Community
To close gaps in maternal mental health care.
Citizens for Los
Angeles
Wildlife Inc
Environment
Our mission is to promote, educate and protect the
fundamental importance of wildlife, wildlife habitats, and
wildlife corridors in Los Angeles and beyond
Community Trust
Foundation
Education
The mission of The Community Trust Foundation, Inc. is to
strengthen the region by working in partnership with donors
and community groups.
55
NPOs
NTEE Code
Mission statement
Invisible People
Human Service-
Housing &
Shelter
The most critical step to solving homelessness is public
advocacy. Your voice is essential to influencing policy
change, so we made it easy for you to speak up and be
heard.
NAMI Glendale
Health-Mental
Health
Since 1985, NAMI Glendale’s no-cost support groups,
education classes, and community presentations provide
welcoming spaces of support for all those affected by mental
illness; connect individuals to an empathetic community
based on their shared lived experiences; and offer hope that
recovery is possible.
NAMI Westside
Los Angeles
Health-Mental
Health
NAMI Westside Los Angeles offers free education programs
along with support, guidance, and hope for the growing
number of Angelenos affected by mental health conditions
NAMI Urban Los
Angeles
Health-Mental
Health
Advocating, educating, and supporting people with mental
illness and their families.
Message Sampling
To ensure an adequate sample of Facebook messages fully representing NPOs’
messaging strategies, I collected Facebook data using a three-stage process. The first step was to
search organizational web presences media (e.g., an official website or social media accounts) to
verify if the organizations maintain an active Facebook profile: I found 10 sampled NPOs used
Facebook as a major communication tool and even two of them used Facebook as only
communication tool without official original websites. In the second step, I manually gathered all
the contents (e.g., words and photos) posted by each NPO on their Facebook profile for data
collection from July 1, 2022, to September 30, 2022. In the third step, I collected the data from
audience responses including comments posted by users (including comments posted to pinned
posts), hyperlinks, and emojis. All data sets were collected for 3 months because they
represented a reasonable timeframe due to the richness of Facebook content available. This
insight had already emerged during my second pilot study (see Table 9), where I noticed the
56
overall (in-)frequency of organizational postings and audience responses. As I also sampled
randomly from the total number of messages, I chose a 3-month period as a sufficiently long
timeframe to capture a diverse set of contents. The unit of analysis was the specific Facebook
content posted by the NPO and audience members.
Random Sampling
Random sampling was used to collect organization-generated messages from the
Facebook accounts of seven NPOs for three reasons. Firstly, Gheondea-Eladi (2014) claimed
sampling is performed to “estimate the true values or parameters of statistics in a population and
to do so with a calculable probability of error” (p. 117); so, quantitative studies may employ
probability samples to support statistical generalization. Second, the sample size of quantitative
sampling is usually applying random sampling with large samples (in my case, 505 total
Facebook messages). Random sampling is a solution as it makes more accurate inferences by
choosing a greater variety of messages and simpler hypothesis testing. Third, the final sample
size was justified based on the preliminary findings of the pilot study. In Pilot Study 2 (see Table
9), a total of 132 Facebook messages out of 10 NPOs for 2 weeks were sufficient for code
analysis and descriptive analysis and further made some conclusions because the preliminary
findings revealed how those messages come across three categories (information, action, and
community) and also specify about subcategories of each category. Additionally, it is worth
noting that a single NPO (IP) contributes to 50% (= 218/439) of the total posts with responses in
the sampled pool, which may introduce bias. To mitigate this, random sampling (proportionally)
is a suitable method that can reduce the potential impact of this dominant sample. Therefore, by
proportionally sampling one-third of each NPO, I randomly sampled 150 posts (close to 132
posts in Pilot Study 2) out of a total of 439 posts with responses from each NPO in Table 3.5.
57
Table 12
Comparison of the Percentage of Total Posts Per NPO in the Original Data Set vs the Sampled
Data Set.
NPOs (N=7)
Total Posts
Sampled Posts
% of Each NPO
20/20 Mom
85
26
31%
CLAW
32
12
38%
CTF
50
16
32%
NAMI-GLA
85
17
20%
NAMI-WLA
15
4
27%
NAMI-ULA
20
4
20%
IP
218
71
33%
Total
505
150
30%
Data Analysis and Coding Procedure
In the first stage, I first randomly selected 150 posts with text out of a total of 505
organizational posts. As one NPO was responsible for 218 out of 505 posts, I chose between
20% and 38% of all messages from each organization. These 150 messages were then coded in
MAXQDA to assess the apparent modes of engagement. My code analysis relied on deductive
and inductive approaches and unfolded in two steps. For the deductive analysis, all Facebook
messages and content comments (audience responses) were first categorized into three areas
(informational, action-, or community-focused) and coded based on the 11 subcategories from
Lovejoy and Saxton (2012). Table 13 lists the subcategories identified in prior research.
Table 13
Lovejoy and Saxton’s (2012) 11 Subcategories
Community
Action
Giving recognition and thanks
Promoting an event
Acknowledgment of current & local events
Donation appeal
Responses to reply messages
Selling a product
Response solicitation
Calling for volunteers and employers
Lobbying and advocacy
Join another site or vote for the organization
58
Community
Action
Learn how to help
For the inductive analysis, new subcategories for informational messages were identified,
including event-related, mission-related, advocacy-related, and organizational information.
These subcategories were identified to complement the 11 existing subcategories suggested in
the literature. Each Facebook message was coded based on segments, and messages could
receive multiple codes.
In the second stage of my analysis, I analyzed the audience responses (i.e., Research
Question 2) in three steps (Chapter 5). First, I performed a count of ‘likes,’ ‘shares,’ and
‘comments’ and conducted a descriptive analysis. Second, I also adopted inductive content
analysis for text comments (because this qualitative data analysis was fit particularly for
relatively small-scale, noncomplex data (149 content comments) and suited for where few or no
previous frameworks for the content comments exist. Furthermore, content analysis could help
NPOs understand audiences’ sentiments (which I also employed) or identify emerging trends by
clustering themes and topics. Third, I employed sentiment analysis by counting positive (love,
care, haha in emoji), negative (anger and sad in emoji), and neutral reactions (Wow in emoji)
from the likes category responses from the audience.
After completing the coding process, I exported the report from MAXQDA to an Excel
sheet for further analysis of the Facebook content for the number of likes, number of comments,
and number of shares and “replies” (included in the number of “comments”) were counted and
detailed in the codebook for all contents comments in the analysis. Information for the number of
likes, comments, and shares provided a basic understanding of how an NPO used Facebook and
what the resonance level or audience response was.
59
Next, along with traditional retrievable metrics (e.g., number of likes, number of
comments, number of shares of posted contents), I performed sentiment analysis of audience
responses complementary to achieve a deeper understanding of their audience reactions (e.g., if
they were positive or negative in nature). All emojis were categorized into three classes: positive,
negative, and neutral. The emojis of “likes,” “love,” “care,” and “haha” were defined as positive
sentiment, and the emojis of “anger,” “sad,” or any negative term in the comments or replied to
as negative sentiment. The emoji of “wow” and “shares” with information or articles were
defined as neutral sentiments. The audience responses provided insights into the popularity of
organizational messaging as well as the sentiments of responses.
60
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
RESULTS AND FINDINGS: ORGANIZATIONAL MESSAGING
This chapter reports the main findings regarding NPO messaging. The results presented
focus on the messages posted by the seven sampled NPOs. They were categorized according to
three core content areas: information provision, call for action, and community-building. The
research examined the characteristics of each sampled posting, including the overall frequency of
specific content and possible multiple content areas. The chapter first provides a general
overview of the contents analyzed and then moves to a more in-depth investigation of the three
types of messaging.
Message Frequencies and Core Contents
Table 14 states the number of posts and frequency by individual NPOs not only overall
data.
Table 14
Frequency of Facebook Messaging for Seven NPOs
NPOs
# of Posts
Freq (92 days)
20/20 Mom
85
0.92
CLAW
32
0.35
CTF
50
0.54
NAMI-GL
85
0.92
NAMI-WLA
15
0.16
NAMI-ULA
20
0.22
IP
218
2.38
Total
505
61
Mean
0.79
Median
0.54
Table 15 summarizes the NPOs’ total number of posts and averages. The total ranged
from 15 to 218. The average was 72 Facebook messages during the period, while the median was
50. The average frequency of posts per day was 0.78 posts (median: 0.54), with a range from
0.16 to 2.38. There are no national data sets tracking the frequency of social media posts, but
some research suggests that smaller NPOs post between 1 and 2 times a day (McLachlan, 2021).
Table 15
Frequency of Facebook Messaging Across Sample
Facebook Messages
Seven NPOs
Study Period
Total
505
92 days
Mean
72
0.78 (per day)
Median
50
0.54 (per day)
Range (# of posts)
15-218
0.16-2.38
Table 16 provides the classification of 150 sampled posts based on the content focused on
information provision, calls for action, and community-building. I also assigned 15 subcategories
of message contents that emerged during the coding process (Appendix F). Appendix F
summarized the details of codebooks, including a brief memo (descriptions) of all modes of
engagement codes, the frequency, and the percentage of posts that received one or multiple
codes.
In Table 16, the sample reveals that 92% of the Facebook messages were used to
distribute information. 71.3% of messages contained calls for action, while only 24.7% were
focused on community-building. This dominance of information-and action-focused aligns with
62
expectations that smaller nonprofits may not have the resources to develop more complex and
sustained social media strategies. However, a more in-depth analysis of these results below also
reveals a more complex picture of how NPOs use information and action functions.
Table 16
Distribution of Sampled Post Across Three Core Categories
Core Category
Information
Action
Community-building
Actual Posts
138
107
37
Percent (N = 150)
92.0%
71.3%
24.7%
Table 17 provides a breakdown of all messages by organization and core contents
category. Some organizations show a significant number of community-focused messaging,
while others do not, including Invisible People (IP) with the most posts overall. As IP
contributed almost half of all analyzed messages, it is possible that a different sampling method
would have generated a larger percentage of community-based messaging. CLAW, NAMI-ULA,
and Mom 20/20 featured over 40% of their messages with community-building content.
Table 17
Sampled Posts Across Three Core Categories by Each Organization
NPO
Sample
Size
Inform
% of sampled
posts
Act
% of sampled
posts
Comm
% of sampled
posts
20/20
Mom
26
26
100%
24
92%
17
65%
CLAW
12
12
100%
11
92%
5
42%
63
NPO
Sample
Size
Inform
% of sampled
posts
Act
% of sampled
posts
Comm
% of sampled
posts
CTF
16
16
100%
14
88%
4
25%
NAMI-
WLA
4
4
100%
4
100%
1
25%
NAMI-
GLA
17
6
35%
14
82%
6
35%
NAMI-
ULA
4
4
100%
4
100%
3
75%
IP
71
70
97%
36
51%
1
1%
Total
150
138
107
37
The information-focused messages typically convey content on the organization’s
activities, events, facts, or reports relevant to the organization’s supporters and stakeholders. This
can be considered one-way communication because it does not explicitly aim for an ongoing
exchange between NPOs and their online members.
Multiple Content Areas Across Organizational Posts
One compelling observation emerging from the data is the presence of multiple content
areas across Facebook messages. For example, a single posting may feature both information and
action-related content (see Table 18). Slightly over 50% of the codes covered two categories,
while less than a quarter each had one or three codes applied. The prevalence of double and triple
codes in the sampled Facebook messages suggests that the NPOs use single postings for multiple
purposes. For example, the high frequency of co-occurring information and action-related
messaging suggests that NPOs use information strategically to motivate their supporters to
become more active.
64
Table 18
Singular and Multiple Code Patterns
1 code applied
2 codes applied
3 codes applied
Number of posts (N = 150)
36 (24%)
79 (52.7%)
35 (23.3%)
Information (138)
36
73 (w/action)
5 (w/community)
Action (107)
0
73 (w/information)
1 (w/community)
Community (37)
0
5 (w/information)
1 (w/action)
Singular and Multiple Message Contents
There are three categories: Single codes, double codes, and triple codes
• Single Codes. All single codes (36) were information-related posts. For example, this
type of post conveys to the audience a core belief of the NPO such as “housing and
physical stability is a foundational need to do anything else.”
• Double Codes. Slightly over 50% of the codes covered two categories. The
prevalence of multiple codes in the sampled Facebook messages suggests that the
NPOs use single postings for multiple purposes. For example, the frequent
cooccurrence of information and action-related messages indicates that the NPOs
seek to support their calls for action through specific information that will be
interesting to and emotionally resonant with their audiences.
One example of an information and action post by 20/20 Mom is as follows: “I invite you
to help us celebrate this milestone by making a tax-deductible contribution to 20/20 Mom today.
Because of supporters like you, we have seen a narrative shift in this space over the last 11
years.” The content of the post provides informational messages as it discusses 20/20 Mom’s
65
current fundraising events and their 11-year duration; The statement “By making a tax-
deductible contribution to 20/20” represents an action-related message, specifically a call for
donations.
An example of a combination of information and community-building statement would
be: “#TBT To that time The Cause Connection selected 2020 Mom as a beneficiary of their
fundraiser this year, so we can further propel our work closing gaps in Maternal Mental
Health.” The reference to #TBT’s events represents community-related messages, aligning with
the subcategory-acknowledgment of current local news and events in Table 20. These messages
contribute to building a sense of community with shared mission interests in maternal mental
health.
• Triple Codes. There were less than a quarter (23.3%) of posts with contents covering
all three categories. This suggests another way in which NPOs seek to promote
multiple goals in a single Facebook message.
A representative post-coded under all three categories states: “Thanks to your generous
support, we filmed Eviction last week. . . . With the affordable housing crisis getting worse,
causing mass evictions, our social impact films will help push for policy change!.” “Thanks to
your generous support” could be interpreted as a community-related message, as it falls under the
subcategory of ‘giving recognition and thanks’ mentioned in Table 20. This message not only
expresses gratitude but also serves as a reminder or encouragement for the audience to take
action in further donations. “With the affordable housing…help push for policy change!“ presents
an informational message about how this organization contributed to the mission by filming eviction
to push for policy change.
66
Information-Focused Messaging
In this section, I illustrated each of the categories (information-focused, action-related,
and community-building) by identifying subcategories and by elaborating on how the sampled
NPOs use messaging, especially for advocacy.
Subcategories in the Information-Focused Messages
During the coding process, I identified inductively four subcategories (see Table 19) for
information-related messaging. These subcategories effectively encapsulate the distinctive
characteristics of each message type. These subcategories provide deeper insights into how the
sampled NPOs share information across a range of relevant topics. The four subcategories
include information about the mission, events, advocacy efforts, and the organization itself.
Table 19
Subcategories of Information-Focused Messages
Subcategory
Key contents
#Post
As a % of all information-
related posts (138 posts/ 175
codes)
Mission
Information related to its specific mission to
raise awareness of the organization’s
brand
88
63.77%/50.29%
Events
Information related to events or activities to
promote organizational events/ activities
39
22.29%/28.26%
Advocacy
Information-related advocacy and lobbying
such as policy or petition
25
6.8%/18.12%
Organization
Information related to organizational
programs, services, board members, or
photos posts for events
23
6.3%/16.67%
Total
Single, double, or triple codes (see Table
16)
175
67
In information-focused messaging, mission-related content resented the only subcategory
limited to the main category. It is also the most frequently found subcategory. For example, this
message is exemplary for solely mission-focused content: “Celebrating the generous spirit of our
humanitarians inspires each of us to do more, give more, and be more.” The goal is to positively
reinforce the organizational mission, vision, and values and raise awareness among the audience.
All other subcategories (events, advocacy, and organization) constitute examples of
combining information and action categories in messaging. Event-related information often
included information focused on fundraising events, including time, location, or purpose, and
was often combined with calls for volunteers or other actions to be taken by online followers.
Advocacy-related information typically focused on relevant legislation or regulations, including
a link to contact legislators or local policymakers. Organizational information included content
about new programs, services, new board members, or event photos.
Cooccurrence of Information-and Action-Related Messaging
A breakdown of the 72 information and action posts (see Table 20) reveals that more than
half (34) are event focused. They share information (e.g., date, time.) and ask for specific actions
(e.g., attendance, donations). In addition, there are other combinations of action/information
messages which focus on advocacy and mission issues. These co-occurrence patterns suggest
that NPOs frequently combine various content goals to engage the audience. Although the posts
are coded as information-and action-focused, they also reveal some potential community-
building efforts focused on bringing supporters together and providing them with information
and skills necessary to be more engaged, individually, and collectively.
Table 20
68
Distribution of Subcategories in Action-Related and Information-Focused Posts
Cooccurrence Information/Action (n = 73)
Event
Advocacy
Mission
Organizational
Action - promote the event
34
Action - lobbying and advocacy
12
3
Action - learn how to help
4
9
Action - donation appeal
1
5
1
Action - know the organization better
2
Action - joint and follow another site of the
organization
1
Advocacy in Information-Related Messaging
One key aspect of social media postings is advocacy used by NPOs to address the root
causes of the social issues they focus on. In this sense, advocacy-related information often
provides the audience with a specific call to act based on information about the extent the of
problems to be addressed. For example, “The child care crisis is worsening each day” followed
this message: “Support and vote for a budget reconciliation.”
Advocacy-related information is also generally specific to the audience and emphasizes
local issues. For example, IP posted “If you live in Los Angeles, here is a link for the City
Council contact information” and then that organization later asked, “Please reach out to your
legislators to demand they stop the sweeps.” Advocacy messages are also likely to contain
emotional appeals, such as “People are dying on the streets every day because they do not have
housing.” Such as message is then, again, combined with a call for action: “You can help -
Contact your legislators today” Similarly, the NPO, Invisible People, wants to energize
audiences: “We must demand more affordable housing from our leadership,” and then they ask
69
for specific actions to be taken, actions designed to convey to policy decision-makers that the
NPO needs a lot of support from Los Angelinos: “contact your representatives today.”
In sum, informational-related messages were a common practice for advocacy. These
posts typically addressed the root causes of social issues by specifying a certain audience and
they emphasized local issues as well as delivered an emotional appeal followed by a call for
action.
Action-focused Messaging (Mobilizing)
For the 107 action-related messages, the analysis presented in Table 21 revealed one type
of message previously not identified in the subcategory (“know the organizations better”). In
addition, I re-phrased one existing subcategory and labeled it as “call for volunteers, employees,
and public representative.”
Table 21
Subcategories of Action-Related Posts
Subcategory
Key contents
# posts
As a percentage
107 posts/150
codes
Promote an event
Invited to attend the event or activities
41
38.32%/27.3%
Learn how to help
Requested to learn how to help NPOs
38
35.51%/10.2%
Lobbying and advocacy
Requested the audience to contact public
officials and to lobby for policy petitions
21
19.63%/14.00%
Following the
organization on social
media
Invited the audience to follow NPOs on
official websites or social media sites
15
14.02%/10.00%
Donation appeal
Requested monetary and in-kind donation
14
13.08%/9.33%
Know the NPOs better
Request to learn and read more information
about organizations such as missions
10
9.35%/6.67%
70
Subcategory
Key contents
# posts
As a percentage
107 posts/150
codes
All other (miscellaneous)
Recruit volunteers and employees; join
another site or vote for the organization;
posted positive feedback
11
10.33%/7.28%
Total
Double or triple codes
150
Action-related posts fall into several subcategories with specific goals pursued by the
NPO. A leading goal is the promotion of an event and inviting the audience to join. This
content category is followed by an action designed to empower audience members in specific
ways by learning how to help. Such requests entail specific actions in support of the mission,
especially for organizations with more complicated social issues such as homelessness. The
third-most important category is lobbying and advocacy, often entailing requests to contact
public officials or local representatives on relevant policies.
All remaining categories are much less frequent and include requests to follow the
organization on social media, appeals for donations, call for volunteers and public
representatives, announcing job openings, requests to learn more, or suggestions to follow other
groups with related missions. Considering the prevalence of event-and supported-focused
actions around advocacy and learning, it is notable that NPOs do not excessively use action-
related messaging for fundraising or volunteer drives. Although donations may also be solicited
at invited events, the analysis reveals a substantive focus on the mission and how supporters
can get more involved to generate forms of supporter-led activism (Hall et al., 2020).
Advocacy in Action-Related Messages
Lobbying and advocacy in action-related messages often provided online supporters
with easy access to elected officials. The NPO (IP) posted “You can help -Contact your
71
legislators today, and urge them to make ending homelessness a priority.” It received 33 likes,
14 shares, and five comments. The type of message also included a link or hashtag to direct
them to send advocacy messages as citizens. For example, the NPO, Citizen for Los Angeles
Wildlife, requested the following action: “Please show your support for this measure by
submitting a comment here: https://cityclerk.lacity.org/publiccomment/?cfnumber=21-1284.
The NPO, IP, requested action to support them by tagging “We have a perfect storm of
homelessness coming, . . . @invisibSupport for criminalization increases while support for
housing decreases.” The NPO (IP) was organized to educate the public (on homelessness) via
storytelling and news. The NPO believes “homeless is very hard” and wants to “help make real,
lasting change-policy change can end the homelessness.” These response patterns can be
helpful for NPOs in assessing the effectiveness of their messaging. For more details, please see
Chapter 5 which provides an analysis of audience responses.
A final action-focused type of messaging (rarely discussed in the literature) is the effort
by NPOs to direct their audiences to other groups and networks. For example, the NPOs IP,
CWE, and 20/20 Mom encourage the audiences to explore other information provided
elsewhere. For example, 20/20 Mom posted, “Learn more about the work from this task force.”
or CWE posted, “Learn more here: link with other website information.”
Community-Building Messaging (Organizing)
The least common community-related messages served as means to interact, share, and
communicate with stakeholders in a way to eventually facilitate online and offline community-
building. Table 22 provides a breakdown of these messages based on three subcategories.
Table 22
72
Subcategories of Community-Related Posts
Subcategory
Key contents
# of
Posts
As a percentage of (37
posts/47 codes)
Acknowledgment of current
and local events
Events not initiated by the
organization
25
67.57%/53.19%
Giving recognition and thanks
Recognition of individuals or
groups
19
51.35%/41.43%
Responses to replied messages
Responses as interactive
communication
3
8.11%/6.38%
Total
Double and triple codes
47
Community-related content was identified and coded in 37 (24.7%) of the sampled 150
posts. There were three subcategories with multiple coding. The two dominant subcategories
were mentions and acknowledgments of current and local events that were not initiated by the
organization itself and giving thanks and recognition. For example, the NPO, 20/20 MOM, stated
that “CCBHCs, . . . provide a range of mental health and substance use disorder services.” This
type of community-related messaging focuses on linking the NPO and its supporters to broader
networks of actors with similar interests. Community-related messages reflect the broader views
on social issues held by the NPOs. Although the reference in messages may not explicitly state
how NPOs attempt to build up relationships, networks, and communities with the audiences,
community-related messages demonstrated that NPOs reach out to larger audiences through their
organizational or personal affiliations. Examples of these messages include “thanks to the
American Rescue Plan.” or announcing other organizations’ events such as “Join national mental
health leaders” In other cases, NPOs may recognize the accomplishments of others with similar
goals: “The Honorable Mitchell L. xxx granted the Hillside Federation’s petition and has ordered
the City to RESCIND the Bertoni memo.” Sharing hashtags or mentioning (# or @)) others’
73
advocacy also serves community-building functions. By communicating such messages to
audiences, the NPO raises awareness among supporters about specific topics or contents which
goes beyond simple information provision: For example, the NPO, NAMI Glendale, posted “Our
friends @namisangabrielvalley invite you to their 38th Annual Georgette Shatford Memorial
Lecture Series!”
Giving recognition and thanks represents acknowledging the contributions of their
supporters, volunteers, and followers. This may include mentions of deceased employees. This
message received the largest number of comments. Interestingly, the majority of thank-you
messages were for the provision of direct services (11 of 19), not for financial support.
Recognition for financial support is likely accomplished through more direct forms of
communication (e.g., thank you letters or personal calls), rather than through the more
anonymous online channels. Another goal of giving recognition is to retain and recruit
supporters. For example, the NPO, NAMI Uran LA, posted: “Thank you to everyone who has
been tagging and posting about Bebe Moore and BIPOC Mental Health Awareness Month.”
Community-Related Messaging Enhance Advocacy Effort
The findings of my code analysis of community-related messages yield two significant
insights. First, all subcategories of community-related messages identified did serve as the
cornerstone of NPOs’ advocacy activities. Secondly, the findings suggest that NPOs ought to
integrate the characteristic traits of community-related posts into their content strategy for
advocacy messaging. By fostering a community around the NPO’s mission, supporters are more
likely to become engaged and actively support the organization’s cause, including its advocacy
efforts.
74
Conclusion
Results of the analysis showed that information and action-related content dominated the
Facebook messages of the sampled NPOs. This baseline result shows a dominance of one-way
messaging focused on sharing of information and calls for action. The lower frequency of
community-based messaging is likely a result of the limited resources of these smaller NPOs (see
Chapter Two). Community-based messaging as a form of two-way communication requires
significant human resources to maintain an extensive social media presence. However, the
analysis also revealed that NPOs frequently combine different contents in their messages to
improve audience engagement and responses. Chapter Four focuses on the audience responses
and investigates how online supporters of these NPOs engage with their messaging. A number of
additional insights can be derived from the analysis in this chapter.
First, there was a strong overlap between information-related messages and action-related
messages, indicating that the NPOs seek to support their calls for action through specific
information that will be interesting and emotionally resonant for their audiences. A majority of
these combined messages were event-focus. Second, although community-related messaging was
much less frequent across the overall sample, a few of the NPOs made much more extensive use
of it than others. Third, information-focused messaging was dominated by mission-focused
content which is designed to reinforce the NPOs’ perspectives on the social issues they address.
This included targeting the audience for continued education by suggesting links or watching
videos.
Fourth, regarding action-related messaging, the study found a prevalence of event-and
supported-focused actions around advocacy and learning. Notably, NPOs do not excessively use
action-related messaging for fundraising or volunteer drives. Instead, these NPOs are using calls
75
for action in a more community-building effort such as the effort by NPOs to direct their
audiences to other groups and networks than previously recognized in the literature. For
example, advocacy-related messaging in this realm focuses on giving supporters the tools to
contact local politicians or to connect to other organizations with similar missions.
Fifth, community-related messaging is dominated by two types of content: announcing
events organized by others and acknowledging the contributions of employees, volunteers, and
others. Messages are designed to keep supporters active on the platform by hashtag and @ and to
recruit supporters. This type of community engagement emphasizes the importance of linking
online and offline activities and the idea that NPOs rely primarily on dedicated stakeholders for
their success.
So, apart from confirming expectations from the literature, these results build an
important bridge to the next chapter focused on audience responses. Very few studies have
attempted to provide detailed insights into both organizational messaging and subsequent
audience responses. Given that NPOs use social media platforms for a range of strategic
objectives, the effectiveness of the efforts hinges on the level of audience engagement with their
messages. As such, measuring audience engagement is critical to evaluating the impact of NPOs’
social media messages. Accordingly, I chose to quantify audience engagement by analyzing
metrics such as likes, shares, and comments, and qualifying text-based responses (code analysis),
as outlined in Chapter Five.
76
CHAPTER FIVE
RESULTS AND FINDINGS: AUDIENCE RESPONSES
Assessing audience engagement is crucial for NPOs as it can enhance the effectiveness of
social media use and help develop a more audience-centered approach. In this chapter, I reported
the main findings regarding audience responses to NPO messaging. This analysis builds on the
previous chapter which provided a content analysis of the organizational Facebook messages.
The audience’s analysis presented in this chapter covers three separate parts. The first section of
the analysis provides a descriptive overview of response rates in relation to the organizations’
postings. The following is an interpretation of likes, shares, and comments distribution across
five categories based on 150 sampled posts examined in Chapter Four, which could interpret
how the audience responded to the content of organization-generated posts. The second part
summarizes the results of sentiment analysis. Finally, the last part complements the first two
sections by offering a qualitative evaluation of a sample of online comments posted by
supporters of the NPOs.
Descriptive Analysis of Audience Responses (Likes, Shares, Comments)
Overall, 86.9% of all organizational posts (439 of 505) received likes, shares, or
comments. Table 23 offers an overview count for all likes, shares, and comments for the total
number of posts (N = 505) and the smaller sample (n = 150). This allows for assessing the
representativeness of the sample in comparison to the entire 3-month social media engagement
period. If you compare the mean and median responses per post in this Table 23, you will notice
that the numbers are very close for shares and comments, with values of 2.44 and 0.80 as well as
0.76 and 0.24 respectively. However, when it comes to likes, there is a significant difference
between the mean and median responses per post (11.88 vs. 4.45). The proximity in scores of
77
mean and median being close suggests that the majority of the data points are clustered around
the center of the distribution, so it implies that the average value (mean) and the middle value
(median) are representatives of the data as a whole. The results indicate the sampled posts are
more representative of the full set of posts with regard to shares and comments, and not as
representative with regard to likes by comparison to the median. However, the results also
revealed that the closeness of the mean and median alone does not provide a complete
understanding of the data distribution. To gain a more thorough insight, additional measures and
visualizations including the calculation of standard deviation and related data in Table 23 are
listed below.
Table 23
Descriptive Analysis of Likes, Shares, and Comments Across All Posts
Likes received
Shares received
Comments received
Total no. of all posts
6,001
1,231
385
Mean response score per post
11.88
2.44
0.76
Median response score per post
4.45
0.80
0.24
Note. N = 505
Table 23 revealed that audience members used likes most frequently, followed by shares
and comments. For all NPOs, the likes dominated, and only CTF had more comments than
shares. The mission of CTF focuses on connecting donors with community groups by creating a
grant or funding process, and most of the funding was awarded to youth (with education
development) based on posts. Their unique mission involved more financial-related activities,
which was reflected in their audience engagement and greater average comments (1.16) than
78
average shares (0.8) per post. Notably, the three NAMI chapters received significantly fewer
responses than everyone else.
Likes, shares, and comments represent different levels of engagement, ranging from a
low level requiring merely a ‘click’ (like) to sitting down and writing a response (comment).
This finding indicates the number of likes, shares, and comments would be used as an indicator
for comparing the engagement level of the audience to organization posts. This result also aligns
with content comments via code analysis (see Table 26). The community-related comments were
viewed having as the highest engagement level in three types (information, action, and
community) because those types of comments included the most (72) comments, compared with
action (44) and information (37) related comments respectively in the form of comments. This
indicates that NPOs can increase their engagement with their audiences by relying on the content
analysis of posts with the most comments, shares, and likes.
Table 24
Descriptive Analysis of Likes, Shares, and Comments Across Sampled Posts
NPO (n=7)
Sample
Size
Like
Per
Post
Share
Per Post
Comment
Per Post
Total
150
3,248
21.65
615
4.10
291
1.94
Mean
21.4
464
13.36
87.87
2.83
41.57
1.60
Median
16
190
7.31
31
1.94
22
0.85
Min
4
4
1
0
0.94
0
0.18
Max
71
120
32.46
30
6.92
34
3.58
Standard
Deviation
6.51
7.13
1.19
79
Notably, the number of likes per post varied much more greatly than the number of
shares and comments. Zero likes, shares, and comments represented the lowest possible score,
and the maximum score for likes was 120 (SD = 6.51), for shares 30 (SD= 1.73), and 34 for
comments (SD= .19) in Table 23. This result suggested the shares and comments seemed to
maintain a similar pattern along the mean as the audiences’ attitudes to posts would be more
consistent no matter what level of engagement they exhibited (shares or comments).
Based on my analysis, the high variability of the number of likes stemmed from a single
organization (CTF) and had an 18.6 standard deviation because of four extreme counts of likes.
The first post received 112 likes (“Let’s continue Sean’s legacy of giving and continuing to
improve our community, it helps everyone”). The second post received 63 likes (“The
Community Trust Foundation Board of Trustees is pleased to announce Mirjhana A Buck as
their new Board President”) and the third one had 48 likes (“A beautiful start to the evening for
the 2022 Humanitarian Award Dinner”). The last one had 30 likes (“CTF, through Ray & Brenda
Morriss Fund, recently granted to the joint effort of two theater companies for an outdoor touring
production of Shakespeare in the Park”) compared with other posts receiving no more than 10
likes. The four posts appear to foster a sense of community by acknowledging organizational
awards, endorsing influential leaders, and recognizing sponsors as part of a united community.
These posts are significant (receiving a large number of likes) because they discuss topics that
generate interest and evoke emotions, which could further help to build long-lasting
relationships.”
Table 25
Likes, Share, and Comments Distribution Cross Five Categories (150 Posts in Chapter 4)
80
Total
Posts
Avg
No. of Likes
Avg.
No. of Shares
Avg.
No. of
Comments
Total
Information
only
36
29.91
4.33
1.66
1,293
Inform/Act
73
23
4.82
2.49
2,213
Action/Com
1
10
3
0
13
Inform/Com
5
21.6
3
0.6
126
Triple
Codes
35
10.11
2.37
1.14
477
Average
21.52
4.06
1.9
4,122
After analyzing the general distribution of likes, shares, and comments (see Tables 23
and 24), I present several emerging key findings based on the distribution of likes, shares, and
comments across the five categories, with a focus on the underlying 150 messages that were
analyzed in Chapter Four. In Table 23, there were no messages coded as “action only” or
“community only,” indicating a lack of such content in the analyzed dataset (consisting of 150
messages). The second finding highlights those posts in the “information only “and “information
and action” categories tend to generate higher likes, while the “information and community”
category receives more shares and comments. However, the “action and community” category
shows limited engagement, suggesting a potential need for more targeted content or promotional
strategies. The “triple codes” category exhibits moderate engagement across different metrics.
The third finding reveals that the “information and action” category ranks second in terms of
likes and shares, but first in terms of comments. The “information only” category ranks first in
likes and second in comments. These findings indicate that the “information” category performs
well above average across all three forms of audience response (likes, shares, and comments).
Additionally, the combination of information and action appears to be the most engaging, as it
provides engaging content while mobilizing the audience.
81
These findings could lead to three main interpretations. First, one-way communication
(information-only messages) does not appear to be less engaging, although the absence of
“action only” and “community only” coded messages limits the analysis. Second, information-
based messages are more engaging even when combined with the other two categories (action
and community). Third, the information/action combination is the only category with consistent
above-average responses, so the combination of information and action appears to be the most
engaging, as it provides engaging content while mobilizing the audience. However, community-
building-related messages did not seem to be relatively strong, because the substantive contents
of identified messages are contrasting with what is commonly discussed in the literature and
recommended in practice. This outcome could be influenced by various factors, such as the
absence of specific messaging that goes beyond basic “community” content. It worth refers back
to Chapter Four, where it was mentioned that the “community-related” messages analyzed were
characterized as “basic” and may not align with the conceptual idea of “organizing,” which is
typically considered more significant than mobilizing and raising awareness.
The overall conceptual frame may be built up based on Table 25. Informational messages
play an essential role in getting audience responses in addition to only raising awareness
discussed in the literature. Information messages may reconfirm and reinforce audience
commitment, reminding users about goals and missions. The limitation of this study was
presented as we only have one “noninformation” category (action and community with only one
message). Pertinent results may be unique to small nonprofits lacking dedicated social media
teams.
82
Qualitative Analysis of Content Comments
Apart from the descriptive analysis of likes, shares, and comments, it is essential to
explore the substantive contents of audience text comments. In the following section, I present an
analysis of a sample of text comments (N = 76 content comments out of a total of 147 content
comments; see Appendix G). One NPO was excluded from this analysis because they did not
receive any content comments on their posts. Possible explanations for the lack of text comments
could include: (a) NAMI West LA had the least posts than the second-least active NPO (15 vs.
20) over the 3 months, (b) it had the second lowest response rate (27% vs. 32%) compared to the
third lowest NPO during the same period, and (c) six of its posts that received no responses (likes
or shares) only were published for sharing information.
The first surprising observation is that audience responses generated an inverse ranking
of the three categories (information, action, and community) when compared to the
organizational messaging (see Table 26). Audiences expressed in their comments a greater focus
on community, followed by action and information. The differences in emphases are not as
pronounced for audience comments as for organizational posts, and Table 24 shows some initial
evidence of what the supporters of these NPOs were interested in the most.
Table 26
Comparing Organizational and Supporter-Generated Foci (With Double or Multiple Codes)
Community
Action
Information
Audience content comments (n=76)
80.3% (62)
57.9% (44)
48% (37)
Organizational posts (n=150)
24.7 % (37)
71.3% (107)
92% (138)
83
Information-Related User Comments
On table 27, information-related comments (a total of 38 comments) from the audience
were also classified under each of the four subcategories: mission, events, advocacy-and,
organization-related. The majority of the mission-related comments were the homeless
storytelling and citing the concepts of homelessness such as citation from the book “Directions to
the Dumpster” (receiving the highest number of “likes;” see also Appendix G). Information-
related user comments rank lowest among the three core categories. Regarding the subcategories,
a mission focus dominates all other ones.
Table 27
Contents Comments Across Information Subcategories
Key contents
# of subcategories
coded
As a % of total information contents
messages (37 comments/ 37 codes)
Mission
Comments on
organizational mission
24
63.89%
Event
Comments about
advocacy
6
16.67%
Advocacy
Comments on events
4
11.11%
Organization
Comments on
organization
3
8.33%
Total
Single, double, and
triple codes
37
84
Action-Related User Comments
In Table 28, action-related comments from the audience were classified under each of the
five subcategories: help NPOs and their audience, other-replied with positive feedback, advocacy
and lobbying, questions about how to help, and donations (see also Appendix G).
Table 28
Contents Comments Across Action Subcategories
Key contents
# of
subcategories
coded
As a % of total
information contents
messages (44
comments/63 codes)
Help NPOs and
their audience
Comments about the actions the
audience voluntarily did to
support organizations and their
community
21
33.33%/47.73%
Other-replied with
positive
feedback
Comments to provide positive
feedback to organizational and
other users’ posts
14
22.22%/31.82%
Advocacy and
lobbying
Comments to advocate for NPOs
and voluntarily request to vote
or contact local presentative for
NPOs
9
14.29%/20.45%
Questions about
how to help
Comments to inquiry about how
to support NPOs and audience
9
14.29%/20.45%
Know the
organization
better
Comments to express their
intention to know the
organization better by acting as
the audience suggested
8
12.70%/18.18%
Donation appeal
Comments to donation request
2
3.17%/4.55%
Total
63
Out of a total of 76 content comments, 44 comments were related to action (57.9%). The
major subcategory included comments about taking action to support organizations and their
85
audience such as hashtags to support NPOs. For example, the hashtag #2020mom was used with
the following response: “Can someone help John look into Biofeedback Therapy.” The second
most frequent subcategory included comments with positive feedback to organizational and other
posts. This demonstrated commitment to this online community from the audience because
positive feedback (e.g., “Wish you good luck”) reflected recognition of organizations or others’
opinions, which lead to the subcategory (recognition and thanks) of community function. The
third most frequent subcategory was advocacy and lobbying. Its characteristic was that the
audience was not only actively involved with advocacy activities but also presented as leaders of
advocacy process for common interests (e.g., “voice for the homeless to your state agent”).
Interestingly, the key action goal of mobilizing donations did not translate into a corresponding
level of audience reaction.
Community-Related User Comments
In Table 29, community-related comments from the audience were classified under each
of the four subcategories: public replies, giving recognition and thanks, demonstrating support,
and sharing current events or news (see also Appendix G).
Table 29
Contents Comments Across Community Subcategories
Key contents
# of
subcategories
coded
As a % of total information
content messages 62
comments/97 codes
Public replies
The audience replied to other
audiences’ posts (or NPOs’
posts)
30
48.39%/30.9%
Giving recognition
and thanks
The audience expressed
appreciation for the
organizational works
26
41.94%/26.8%
86
Demonstrate the
support
The audience validated the
relationship with the NPOs
23
37.10%/23.71%
Sharing current
news and local
events
The audience shared current and
local events related to NPOs
(not initiated by NPOs)
18
29.03%/18.56%
Total
97
Out of a total of 76 content comments, 66 comments were coded as community-related
audience comments (81.3%). The leading subcategory was public replies as the audience actively
discussed the most interesting topics and activities by replying with their own opinions or related
events or information (e.g., “So sad to hear! The Liberty Canyon Crossing needs to be built
asap”). The second most common response was giving recognition and thanks as the audience
expressed appreciation for the organizational work such as “Thank you so much for sharing
about this.” The third most frequent subcategory focused on validating the relationship with the
organization as the audience shared their stories with the organization or joined events such as
“This is a photo she & I took 7 years ago at my first @namicommunicate national conference
held in 2015.” Community-related comments represent a strong sense of a united community for
common interests.
Sentiment Analysis
The contents of audiences’ responses in comments are important qualitative indicators
that add information to the frequency counts of likes, comments, and shares. For example, emojis
representing “like,” “love,” “care,” “haha,” and sometimes “wow” express positive sentiments,
and the emoji of “anger,” “sad” or any negative term in the comments or replies express negative
sentiment. Shares with information or articles represent a neutral sentiment.
87
On table 30, the analysis revealed that 85.0% of total likes contained positive reactions
(likes, love, care, haha, wow), while 14.4% were recognized as negative (sad, anger), and 0.4%
were classified as neutral (information or events).
Table 30
Positive, Neutral, and Negative In Likes
Positive Reaction (+)
Neutral Reaction
Negative Reaction (-)
Likes #(N=6001)
5,100
21
880
% of total Likes
85.0%
0.4%
14.4%
This result indicates that the majority of the audience was more likely to provide positive
reactions by clicking an “emoji” compared to the negative reaction. However, due to the majority
of data (71.7% of total likes) coming from one organization (IP), I added a supplementary review
in posts to my sentiment study in Table 31.
Table 31
Positive, Negative, and Neutral in Posts
Positive Reaction
Neutral Reaction
Negative Reaction
Posts
147
10
57
Percentage (N=150)
98%
6.67%
34%
Surprisingly, the posts with negative reactions were 34 %, which were much higher than
the posts with neutral reaction (6.67%) of total posts. Therefore, the initial finding (see Table 30)
88
indicating a preference for positive reactions among the majority of the audience led to a second
study (see Table 31), which revealed that posts with negative emotions received more responses
than those with neutral reactions. One of the reasons for this phenomenon of the second finding
is that negative emotions not only serve as a means of tending to attract arguments and debates
but also express agreement with such posts in a negative sentimental manner. Thus, the presence
of negative posts, such as those evoking anger, appears to generate more engagement and
interaction compared to posts with neutral emotions.
Conclusion
The analysis of audience responses to NPO messaging provides several important
findings and insights. First, a descriptive analysis of audience responses (likes, shares, and
comments) in Facebook accounts revealed that audiences used likes most frequently, followed
by shares and comments. This is an expected result, considering that likes require the least effort
by audience members. However, there was great variability across NPOs in the number of likes,
shares, or comments, indicating that some NPOs maintained a relatively active user base, while
others did not.
Second, based on the analysis of the distribution of likes, shares, and comments across
five organizational message categories (information only, information and action, information
and community, action and community, and triple coding), the analysis connected Chapter Five
results to results presented in Chapter Four. The findings suggest that combined information and
action messages received above-average responses across all three categories, while information-
only messages scored above-average responses with regard to likes and shares, but not with
regard to comments (see Table 25). These results are only suggestive because the Chapter Four
results did not generate any messages coded “action only” or “community only” and only one
89
message coded “action and community.” As a result, there is no basis to fully compare audience
responses across a representative sample of different organizational messaging. The finding also
underscores the need for further exploration of community-building messages to better
understand their impact on audience engagement.
Third, a content analysis of selected audience comments revealed a strong presence of
community-focused content (see Table 26). This result stands in contrast to the content analysis
of organizational messaging, which featured only a small proportion of community-focused
content. Even when NPOs themselves make minimal efforts to create an online community, the
audience (the users) often takes the initiative to do so. This suggests that audience members are
more interested in community-building, which may suggest to NPOs strategies to increase their
audience engagement. Audience members engage in a consistent record of expressing
recognition or demonstrating support.
Fourth, audience comments on information messages primarily emphasize organizational
mission in a confirmatory manner (see Table 27). Audiences primarily endorse the original
messaging. In contrast, audience responses to action-focused messaging are distributed across a
wider spectrum of subcategories (see Table 29). More than 60% of the coded messages highlight
either supportive messaging, supportive actions taken, or a desire to learn more about the
organization. Only a few comments explicitly engage with advocacy content. This result
suggests that audiences primarily use their comments to endorse the mission by indicating
support in words or actions. Finally, responses to community-focused messages show a broad
range of interests, including (again) primarily showing recognition or demonstrating support.
Fifth, the sentiment analysis revealed that NPOs’ Facebook pages receive mainly positive
feedback from audiences. There is also a significant presence of negative sentiments which are
90
often also supportive of the organizational messaging. Considering that none of the NPOs
included in this sample are explicitly engaged in more controversial political messaging, they are
not likely to receive audience messages opposed to their mission.
91
CHAPTER SIX
DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS OF CHAPTER FOUR AND CHAPTER FIVE
This study explored how a sample of seven small NPOs based in Los Angeles engage
their online audiences on Facebook. Based on random samples of organizational messages and
audience responses collected during 3 months in 2022, the study extends our understanding of
organization-generated messages and audience responses taking place on social media. The study
employed a widely used analytical framework: (a) information-focused messaging aimed to raise
public awareness about NPOs’ mission (b) action-focused messaging designed to mobilize
audiences for taking specific actions, and (c) community-focused messaging emphasized the
need to organize audiences into collective actors. The study confirmed some of the existing
claims about social media use among NPOs and contributes new knowledge by identifying new
subcategories to the categories of information-, action-, and community-based messaging.
Although social media is easy to use, it is not an equalizer for smaller organizations in
terms of reaching their audience due to various barriers such as time, human resources, and
financial constraints. As such, many small NPOs struggle to effectively use social media and
rarely can measure their social media engagement or compete with larger groups often able to
employ dedicated social media staff. In this final chapter, I will first summarize the key findings
from Chapter Four, then the results from Chapter Five, followed by a discussion of study
limitations and future research directions.
Organizational Messaging: One-way Communication
Results of the analysis showed that information and action-related content dominated the
Facebook messages of the sampled NPOs. This baseline result shows a dominance of one-way
messaging focused on sharing of information and calls for action. The lower frequency of
92
community-based messaging is likely a result of the limited resources of these smaller NPOs.
Community-based messaging as a form of two-way communication requires significant human
resources to maintain an extensive social media presence. However, the analysis also revealed
that NPOs frequently combine different contents in their messages to improve audience
engagement and responses. A number of additional insights can be derived from the analysis in
this chapter.
First, there was a strong overlap between information-related messages and action-related
messages, indicating that the NPOs seek to support their calls for action through specific
information that will be interesting and emotionally resonant for their audiences. A majority of
these combined messages were event focused. Second, although community-related messaging
was much less frequent across the overall sample, a few of the NPOs made much more extensive
use of it than others. Third, information-focused messaging was dominated by mission-focused
content which is designed to reinforce the NPOs’ perspectives on the social issues they address.
This included targeting the audience for continued education by suggesting checking links or
watching videos.
Fourth, with regard to action-related messaging, the study indicated a prevalence of
event-and supported-focused actions around advocacy and learning. Notably, NPOs do not
excessively use action-related messaging for fundraising or volunteer drives. Instead, these
NPOs are using calls for action in a more community-building effort such as the effort by NPOs
to direct their audiences to other groups and networks than previously recognized in the
literature. For example, advocacy-related messaging in this realm focuses on giving supporters
the tools to contact local politicians or to connect to other organizations with similar missions.
93
Fifth, community-related messaging is dominated by two types of content: announcing
events organized by others and acknowledging the contributions of employees, volunteers, and
others. Messages are designed to keep supporters active on the platform by hashtag and @, and
to recruit supporters. This type of community engagement emphasizes the importance of linking
online and offline activities and the idea that NPOs rely primarily on dedicated stakeholders for
their success.
Audience Responses: A Community Focus
The analysis of audience responses to NPO messaging provides several important
findings and insights. First, a descriptive analysis of audience responses (likes, shares, and
comments) in Facebook accounts revealed that audiences used likes most frequently, followed
by shares and comments. This is an expected result, considering that likes require the least effort
by audience members. However, there was great variability across NPOs in the number of likes,
shares, or comments, indicating that some NPOs maintained a relatively active user base, while
others did not.
Second, based on the analysis of the distribution of likes, shares, and comments across
five organizational message categories (information only, information/action,
information/community, action/community, and triple coding), the analysis connected Chapter
Five results to results presented in Chapter Four. The findings suggest that combined information
and action messages received above-average responses across all three categories, while
information-only messages scored above-average responses with regard to likes and shares, but
not with regard to comments (see Table 23). These results are only suggestive because the
Chapter Four results did not generate any messages coded “action only” or “community only”
and only one message coded “action and community.” As a result, there is no basis to fully
94
compare audience responses across a representative sample of different organizational
messaging. The finding also underscores the need for further exploration of community-building
messages to better understand their impact on audience engagement.
Third, a content analysis of selected audience comments revealed a strong presence of
community-focused content (see Table 24). This result stands in contrast to the content analysis
of organizational messaging, which featured only a small proportion of community-focused
content when NPOs themselves make minimal efforts to create an online community, the
audience (the users) often takes the initiative to do so. This suggests that audience members are
more interested in community-building, which may suggest to NPOs strategies to increase their
audience engagement. Audience members engage in a consistent record of expressing
recognition or demonstrating support.
Fourth, audience comments on information messages primarily emphasize organizational
mission in a confirmatory manner (see Table 25). Audiences primarily endorse the original
messaging. In contrast, audience responses to action-focused messaging are distributed across a
wider spectrum of subcategories (see Table 26). More than 60% of the coded messages highlight
either supportive messaging, supportive actions taken, or a desire to learn more about the
organization. Only a few comments explicitly engage with advocacy content. This result
suggests that audiences primarily use their comments to endorse the mission by indicating
support in words or actions. Finally, responses to community-focused messages show a broad
range of interests, including (again) primarily showing recognition or demonstrating support.
Fifth, the sentiment analysis revealed that NPOs’ Facebook pages receive mainly positive
feedback from audiences. There is also a significant presence of negative sentiments which are
often also supportive of the organizational messaging. Considering that none of the NPOs
95
included in this sample are explicitly engaged in more controversial political messaging, they are
not likely to receive audience messages opposed to their mission.
Limitations
This study is subject to several limitations that should be considered. Firstly, the study
included a relatively small sample size of seven NPOs based in Los Angeles. This sample was
drawn from the Nonprofit Explorer database supported by ProPublica. The data used here is
publicly available and contains reliable information about tax-exempt charities in the United
States, but the platform only aggregates data from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS). This
database is more extensive compared to resources like Charity Navigator or Candid (a joint
initiative of Foundation Center and GuideStar search website), and it reflects the inherent
limitations of reporting requirements in the United States. For example, religious organizations
or groups with a budget of less than $50,000 annual budget are not required to register with the
IRS.
As a result, this sample may allow for transferring some of the results to similar
organizations, but the results are not necessarily representative of the small nonprofit sector in
Los Angeles or the United States. The study’s focus on small NPOs in the Los Angeles area
means that the results are more likely to apply to similar NPOs with limited resources to support
a social media presence. Second, the study collected data over 3 months (July to September).
Data collection during a different period may have yielded different results. For example, many
U.S.-based NPOs engage in more fundraising efforts at the end of the year, which could generate
a different set of organizational messages or audience responses.
Third, the study did not review all messages and audience responses, but only a random
sample. It also excluded all organizational responses to audience postings and only focused on
96
original posts and audience responses. A full analysis of all messages may affect the final results.
Finally, Facebook was used as the only social media platform for this study. This analysis did not
explore the social media presence of these NPOs on other platforms, such as Instagram and
TikTok with more visual content.
Future Research
There are a number of future research directions suggested by the results of this study.
Future research could delve deeper into the dynamics of different message categories and
explore additional factors that contribute to audience engagement. For example, interviews with
leaders and staff of the NPOs study would likely provide additional insights not captured by only
reviewing Facebook messaging. Increasing the sample size would enable more messages to be
analyzed and would provide a better basis for determining the validity of the findings. For
example, a future study could sample across major nonprofit sectors to increase organizational
diversity, or it could introduce size-based variation to capture possible differences in social
media use based on budget or other factors. Future research can focus additional attention on the
subcategories of information-, action-, and community-based messaging. For example, it is
essential to explore in greater depth the underlying intentions of both NPOs and audience
members in posting online. This may entail exploring in greater detail what specific goals are
pursued by messages categorized by researchers as information-, action-, or community-focused.
97
References
Albanna, H., Alalwan, A. A., & Al-Emran, M. (2022). An integrated model for using social
media applications in non-profit organizations. International Journal of Information
Management, 63, 102452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102452
Alonso-Cañadas, J., Galán-Valdivieso, F., Saraite-Sariene, L., & Caba-Perez, M. del C. (2019).
Unpacking the Drivers of Stakeholder Engagement in Sustainable Water Management:
NGOs and the Use of Facebook. Water, 11(4), Article 4.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w11040775
Anagnostopoulos, C., Gillooly, L., Cook, D., Parganas, P., & Chadwick, S. (2017). Stakeholder
Communication in 140 Characters or Less: A Study of Community Sports Foundations.
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28(5),
2224–2250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9802-4
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder Of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of
Planners, 35(4), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
Austin, L., Guidry, J., & Meyer, M. (2020). #GunViolence on Instagram and Twitter: Examining
Social Media Advocacy in the Wake of the Parkland School Shooting. The Journal of
Public Interest Communications, 4(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.32473/jpic.v4.i1.p4
Balfour, V. H. (2020). Likes, comments, action! An examination of the Facebook audience
engagement strategies used by strategic impact documentary. Media International
Australia, 176(1), 34–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X19897416
Banks, I. (2022). Facilitating #dialogue or #buildingsupport? Journal of International Criminal
Justice, 20(1), 55–80. https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqac005
98
Beard, A. (2022). Activism, Aestheticized: Instagram Infographics, Visual Politics, and Online
Advocacy [Columbia University]. https://doi.org/10.7916/fryh-z496
Berry, J. M. (1981). Beyond Citizen Participation: Effective Advocacy Before Administrative
Agencies. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 17(4), 463–477.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002188638101700405
Bhati, A., & McDonnell, D. (2020). Success in an Online Giving Day: The Role of Social Media
in Fundraising. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(1), 74–92.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764019868849
Blackbaud. (2022). Online Giving Trends [White Paper].
https://institute.blackbaud.com/charitable-giving-report/online-giving-trends/
Bortree, D. S., & Seltzer, T. (2009). Dialogic strategies and outcomes: An analysis of
environmental advocacy groups’ Facebook profiles. Public Relations Review, 35(3), 317–
319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.05.002
Boulianne, S. (2015). Social media use and participation: A meta-analysis of current research.
Taylor & Francis Online, 18(5), 524–538.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1008542
Bruns, A., Highfield, T., & Burgess, J. (2014). The Arab Spring and Its Social Media Audiences:
English and Arabic Twitter Users and Their Networks. In Cyberactivism on the
Participatory Web (p. 33). Routledge.
Bürger, T. (2015). Use of digital advocacy by German nonprofit foundations on Facebook.
Public Relations Review, 41(4), 523–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.07.007
99
Campbell, D. A., Lambright, K. T., & Wells, C. J. (2014). Looking for Friends, Fans, and
Followers? Social Media Use in Public and Nonprofit Human Services. Public
Administration Review, 74(5), 655–663. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12261
Carah, N. (2014). Like, comment, and share Alcohol brand activity on Facebook. University of
Queensland. https://fare.org.au/like-comment-share-alcohol-brand-activity-on-facebook/
Carboni, J. L., & Maxwell, S. P. (2015). Effective Social Media Engagement for Nonprofits:
What Matters? Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs, 1(1), 18–28.
Chenoweth, E., & Belgioioso, M. (2019). The physics of dissent and the effects of movement
momentum. Nature Portfolio, 3(10), Article 10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-
0665-8
Cho, M., Schweickart, T., & Haase, A. (2014). Public engagement with nonprofit organizations
on Facebook. Public Relations Review, 40(3), 565–567.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.01.008
Chung, A., Woo, H., & Lee, K. (2020). Understanding the information diffusion of tweets of a
non-profit organization that targets female audiences: An examination of Women Who
Code’s tweets. Journal of Communication Management, 25(1), 68–84.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-05-2020-0036
Clemence, C. (2022). The 2022 State of Social Media for Nonprofits. https://givewp.com/social-
media-for-nonprofits/
Coursaris, C. K., Van Osch, W., & Balogh, B. A. (2016). Do Facebook Likes Lead to Shares or
Sales? Exploring the Empirical Links between Social Media Content, Brand Equity,
Purchase Intention, and Engagement. 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences (HICSS), 3546–3555. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2016.444
100
Danielson, C., Malagon, P., & Bohn, S. (2022, October). Poverty in California [White Paper].
Public Policy Institute of California. https://www.ppic.org/publication/poverty-in-
california/
Differentiating Your Stakeholders vs Audiences. (2019, Spetember). The Worldcom Group®.
https://worldcomgroup.com/insights/how-to-differentiate-stakeholders-vs-audiences/
Dimond, J. P., Dye, M., Larose, D., & Bruckman, A. (2013). Hollaback! | Proceedings of the
2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work. CSCW’13, 477–490.
https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/2441776.2441831
Ekström, M., & Östman, J. (2015). Information, Interaction, and Creative Production: The
Effects of Three Forms of Internet Use on Youth Democratic Engagement.
Communication Research, 42(6), 796–818. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650213476295
Ellison, N., & Hardey, M. (2014). Social Media and Local Government: Citizenship,
Consumption and Democracy. Local Government Studies, 40(1), 21–40.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2013.799066
Frison, E., & Eggermont, S. (2015). The impact of daily stress on adolescents’ depressed mood:
The role of social support seeking through Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 44,
315–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.070
Gálvez-Rodríguez, M. del M., Caba-Pérez, C., & López-Godoy, M. (2014). Drivers of Twitter as
a strategic communication tool for non-profit organizations. Internet Research, 26(5),
1052–1071. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-07-2014-0188
Garczynski, J. V. (2017). Why should libraries use social media to fundraise? In Fundraising:
How to Raise Money for Your Library Using Social Media. Chandos Publishing.
101
Gervais, E. A. (2015). Social network websites as information channels for the US Social Forum.
Media, Culture & Society, 37(4), 547–565. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443714566899
Gil de Zúñiga, H., Jung, N., & Valenzuela, S. (2012). Social Media Use for News and
Individuals’ Social Capital, Civic Engagement and Political Participation. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(3), 319–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-
6101.2012.01574.x
Gneezy, U., Keenan, E., & Gneezy, A. (2014). Avoiding overhead aversion in charity (pp. 632–
635) [White Paper]. Science. https://www-science-
org.sandiego.idm.oclc.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.1253932
Goldkind, L. (2014). E-advocacy in Human Services: The Impact of Organizational Conditions
and Characteristics on Electronic Advocacy Activities among Nonprofits. Journal of
Policy Practice, 13(4), 300–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/15588742.2014.929073
Goldkind, L. (2015). Social Media and Social Service: Are Nonprofits Plugged In to the Digital
Age? Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 39(4),
380–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2015.1053585
Greenpeace Volunteer Platform. (n.d.). [White Paper]. Greenpeace USA. Retrieved March 31,
2023, from https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/volunteer-platform/
GRIN. (2021, September 13). Ultimate Guide to Instagram vs YouTube [White paper].
Instagram vs Youtube Influencer- Which Should You Choose For Your Brand?
https://grin.co/blog/instagram-vs-youtube-influencers/
Gruber, D., Smerek, R., Thomas- Hunt, M., & James, E. (2015). The real-time power of Twitter:
Crisis management and leadership in an age of social media—ScienceDirect. Science
Direct, 58(2), 163–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2014.10.006
102
Guerriero, P., & Ditkoff, S. (2018). When Philanthropy Meets Advocacy (SSIR). Stanford Social
Innovation Review, 48–54.
Guetterman, T. C. (2015). Descriptions of Sampling Practices Within Five Approaches to
Qualitative Research in Education and the Health Sciences. Forum Qualitative
Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 16(2), Article 2.
https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-16.2.2290
Guidry, J. P. D., Jin, Y., Orr, C. A., Messner, M., & Meganck, S. (2017). Ebola on Instagram and
Twitter: How health organizations address the health crisis in their social media
engagement. Public Relations Review, 43(3), 477–486.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.04.009
Guidry, J. P. D., Sawyer, A. N., Burton, C. W., & Carlyle, K. E. (2020). #NotOkay: Stories
About Abuse on Instagram and Twitter. Partner Abuse. https://doi.org/10.1891/PA-D-18-
00037
Guo, C., & Saxton, G. D. (2014). Tweeting Social Change: How Social Media Are Changing
Nonprofit Advocacy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(1), 57–79.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764012471585
Guo, C., & Saxton, G. D. (2018). Speaking and Being Heard: How Nonprofit Advocacy
Organizations Gain Attention on Social Media. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 47(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764017713724
Hall, N., Schmitz, H. P., & Dedmon, J. M. (2020). Transnational Advocacy and NGOs in the
Digital Era: New Forms of Networked Power. International Studies Quarterly, 64(1),
159–167. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqz052
103
Heimans, J., & Timms, H. (2014, December). Understanding “New Power.” Harvard Business
Review. https://hbr.org/2014/12/understanding-new-power
Hong, S., & Cameron, G. T. (2018). Will comments change your opinion? The persuasion
effects of online comments and heuristic cues in crisis communication. Journal of
Contingencies and Crisis Management, 26(1), 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-
5973.12215
Hou, Y., & Lampe, C. (2015). Social Media Effectiveness for Public Engagement: Example of
Small Nonprofits. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems, 3107–3116. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702557
Hu, Q., & Shi, W. (2017). Understanding Nonprofit Organizations’ Use of Social Networking
Sites: An Examination of Management Factors: Government & Law Journal Article | IGI
Global. IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJPADA.2017010102
Huang, Y.-C., Lin, Y.-P., & Saxton, G. D. (2016). Give Me a Like: How HIV/AIDS Nonprofit
Organizations Can Engage Their Audience on Facebook.
Http://Dx.Doi.Org/10.1521/Aeap.2016.28.6.539.
https://doi.org/10.1521/aeap.2016.28.6.539
Jain, R., Kelly, C. A., Mehta, S., Tolliver, D., Stewart, A., & Perdomo, J. (2021). A Trainee-Led
Social Media Advocacy Campaign to Address COVID-19 Inequities. Pediatrics, 147(3).
https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2020-028456
Jung, K., No, W., & Kim, J. W. (2014). Who Leads Nonprofit Advocacy through Social Media?
Some Evidence from the Australian Marine Conservation Society’s Twitter Networks.
Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia, 13(1), 69–81.
https://doi.org/10.17477/jcea.2014.13.1.069
104
Kang, M. (2014). Understanding Public Engagement: Conceptualizing and Measuring its
Influence on Supportive Behavioral Intentions. Journal of Public Relations Research,
26(5), 399–416. https://doi-org.sandiego.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/1062726X.2014.956107
Kanter, B., & Paine, K. D. (2012). Measuring the Networked Nonprofit: Using Data to Change
the World. John Wiley & Sons.
Karpf, D. (2016). Analytic Activism: Digital Listening and the New Political Strategy. Oxford
University Press.
Kaur, W., Balakrishnan, V., Rana, O., & Sinniah, A. (2019). Liking, sharing, commenting and
reacting on Facebook: User behaviors’ impact on sentiment intensity. Telematics and
Informatics, 39, 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.12.005
Kennedy, A. K., & Sommerfeldt, E. J. (2015). A Postmodern Turn for Social Media Research:
Theory and Research Directions for Public Relations Scholarship. Atlantic Journal of
Communication, 23(1), 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2015.972406
Kim, Y., & Chen, H.-T. (2015). Discussion Network Heterogeneity Matters: Examining a
Moderated Mediation Model of Social Media Use and Civic Engagement. International
Journal of Communication, 9(0), Article 0.
Kim, Y., Hsu, S.-H., & de Zúñiga, H. G. (2013). Influence of Social Media Use on Discussion
Network Heterogeneity and Civic Engagement: The Moderating Role of Personality
Traits. Journal of Communication, 63(3), 498–516. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12034
Lam, W. F., & Nie, L. (2020). Online or Offline? Nonprofits’ Choice and Use of Social Media in
Hong Kong. Springer Link, 31(1), 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-019-00128-1
105
Lecy, J. D., & Searing, E. A. M. (2015). Anatomy of the Nonprofit Starvation Cycle: An
Analysis of Falling Overhead Ratios in the Nonprofit Sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Quarterly, 44(3), 539–563. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764014527175
Lovejoy, K., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Information, Community, and Action: How Nonprofit
Organizations Use Social Media*. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
17(3), 337–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01576.x
Lovejoy, K., 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(2), 313–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.01.005
McCaskill, J. R., & Harrington, J. R. (2017). Revenue Sources and Social Media Engagement
Among Environmentally Focused Nonprofits. Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs,
3(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.20899/jpna.3.3.309-319
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and
Implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
Mitlin, D. (2016). The role of grassroots organizations in community development [White
Paper]. Urbanet. https://www.urbanet.info/grassroots-organizations/
Mosley, J. E., Suárez, D. F., & Hwang, H. (2022). Conceptualizing Organizational Advocacy
Across the Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector: Goals, Tactics, and Motivation. SAGE
Journal, 08997640221103247. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640221103247
Nabatchi, T., & Leighninger, M. (2015). Public Participation for 21st Century Democracy (1–
368). John Wiley & Sons.
106
Nah, S., & Saxton, G. D. (2013). Modeling the adoption and use of social media by nonprofit
organizations. New Media & Society, 15(2), 294–313.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812452411
Namisango, F., Kang, K., & Rehman, J. (2019). What Do We Know about Social Media in
Nonprofits? A Review. PACIS 2019 Proceddings, 15.
Nared, J., & Bole, D. (Eds.). (2020). Participatory Research and Planning in Practice. Springer
International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28014-7
Nikbin, D., Aramo, T., Iranmanesh, M., & Ghobakhloo, M. (2022). Impact of brands’ Facebook
page characteristics and followers’ comments on trust building and purchase intention:
Alternative attractiveness as moderator. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 21(3), 494–508.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.2018
Nonprofit Tech for Good. (2019). Global NGO Technology Report 2019 [White Paper].
Nonprofit Technology for Good. https://assets-global.website-
files.com/5d6eb414117b673d211598f2/5de82e1550d3804ce13ddc75_2019-Tech-Report-
English.pdf
NP Source. (2022). Social Media Giving Statistics For Nonprofits [White paper].
https://nonprofitssource.com/online-giving-statistics/
Obar, J. A., Zube, P., & Lampe, C. (2012). Advocacy 2.0: An Analysis of How Advocacy
Groups in the United States Perceive and Use Social Media as Tools for Facilitating
Civic Engagement and Collective Action. Journal of Information Policy, 2(1), 1–25.
https://doi.org/10.5325/jinfopoli.2.2012.1
107
Olinski, M., & Szamrowski, P. (2021). Facebook as an engagement tool: How are public benefit
organizations building relationships with their public? PLOS ONE, 16(9), e0256880.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256880
Ortigosa, A., Martín, J. M., & Carro, R. M. (2014). Sentiment analysis in Facebook and its
application to e-learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 527–541.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.024
Pelletier, M. J., & Blakeney Horky, A. (2015). Exploring the Facebook Like: A product and
service perspective. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 9(4), 337–354.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-09-2014-0059
Piatak, J., & Mikkelsen, I. (2021). Does Social Media Engagement Translate to Civic
Engagement Offline? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 50(5), 1079–1101.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764021999444
Poecze, F., Ebster, C., & Strauss, C. (2018). Social media metrics and sentiment analysis to
evaluate the effectiveness of social media posts. Procedia Computer Science, 130, 660–
666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.04.117
Quinton, S., & Fennemore, P. (2013). Missing a strategic marketing trick? The use of online
social networks by UK charities. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Marketing, 18(1), 36–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1450
Ramirez, M. (2022). Los Angeles’s Leading Progressive Organizations Fight for a Better
Future. https://bluetent.us/api/content/70bbff2e-ec6d-11ea-a2d0-1244d5f7c7c6/
Reddick, C. G., & Ponomariov, B. (2013). The Effect of Individuals’ Organization Affiliation on
Their Internet Donations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(6), 1197–1223.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764012452670
108
Reid, E. (2000). Understanding the Word “Advocacy”: Context and Use. In Structuring the
Inquiry into Advocacy (Vol. 1, p. 66). Urban Institute Press.
Rogers, R. (2018). Digital Traces in Context| Otherwise Engaged: Social Media from Vanity
Metrics to Critical Analytics. International Journal of Communication, 12(0), Article 0.
Ross, B., Potthoff, T., Majchrzak, T. A., Chakraborty, N. R., Ben Lazreg, M., & Stieglitz, S.
(2018). The Diffusion of Crisis-Related Communication on Social Media: An Empirical
Analysis of Facebook Reactions. ScholarSpace. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/50207
Rui, J. R., & Stefanone, M. (2013). Strategic Image Management Online. Taylor & Francis
Online, 16(8), 1286–1305. https://doi-
org.sandiego.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/1369118X.2013.763834
Russmann, U., & Svensson, J. (2016). Studying Organizations on Instagram. Information, 7(4),
Article 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/info7040058
Saxton, G. D., Niyirora, J., Guo, C., & Waters, R. (2015). #AdvocatingForChange: The Strategic
Use of Hashtags in Social Media Advocacy. 16(1), 154–169.
Saxton, G. D., & Wang, L. (2014). The Social Network Effect: The Determinants of Giving
Through Social Media. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(5), 850–868.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764013485159
Saxton, G. D., & Waters, R. D. (2014). What do Stakeholders Like on Facebook? Examining
Public Reactions to Nonprofit Organizations’ Informational, Promotional, and
Community-Building Messages. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(3), 280–299.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2014.908721
Schmitz, H. P., Dedmon, J. M., Bruno-van Vijfeijken, T., & Mahoney, J. (2020). Democratizing
advocacy?: How digital tools shape international non-governmental activism. Journal of
109
Information Technology & Politics, 17(2), 174–191.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2019.1710643
Schwencke, K., Tigas, M., Wei, S., Glassford, A., Suzzo, A., & Brandon, R. (2013). Nonprofit
Explorer. ProPublica. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/
Scott, T., & Maryman, J. (2016). Using Social Media as a Tool to Complement Advocacy.
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, 7(1).
https://doi.org/10.7728/0701201603
Seelig, M. I., Millette, D., Zhou, C., & Huang, J. (Catherine). (2019). A new culture of advocacy:
An exploratory analysis of social activism on the web and social media. Atlantic Journal
of Communication, 27(1), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2019.1540418
Seo, H., & Vu, H. T. (2020). Transnational Nonprofits’ Social Media Use: A Survey of
Communications Professionals and an Analysis of Organizational Characteristics.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(4), 849–870.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764020908340
Shier, M., & Handy, F. (2012). Understanding online donor behavior: The role of donor
characteristics, perceptions of the internet, website and program, and influence from
social networks. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing,
17(3), 219–230. https://doi-org.sandiego.idm.oclc.org/10.1002/nvsm.1425
Shin, N., & Chen, Q. (2016). An exploratory study of nonprofit organisations’ use of the internet
for communications and fundraising. International Journal of Technology, Policy and
Management, 16(1), 32–44. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTPM.2016.075937
Smieško, I. (2016). Criminal Liability of Facebook Reaction Buttons in Environment of the
Slovak Republic as a Form of Hate Speech. 4, 213–234.
110
Smith, B. G., Smith, S. B., & Knighton, D. (2018). Social media dialogues in a crisis: A mixed-
methods approach to identifying publics on social media. Public Relations Review, 44(4),
562–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.07.005
Smith, J. N. (2018). The Social Network?: Nonprofit Constituent Engagement Through Social
Media. Taylor & Francis Online, 30(3), 294–316.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10495142.2018.1452821
Statista Global Consumer Survey. (2022, April). Social media brand awareness KPI ranking
U.S. 2022. Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1307244/most-well-known-social-
networks-in-the-united-states/
Sumner, E. M., Ruge-Jones, L., & Alcorn, D. (2018). A functional approach to the Facebook
Like button: An exploration of meaning, interpersonal functionality, and potential
alternative response buttons. New Media & Society, 20(4), 1451–1469.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817697917
Svensson, P. G., Mahoney, T. Q., & Hambrick, M. E. (2015). Twitter as a Communication Tool
for Nonprofits: A Study of Sport-for-Development Organizations. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(6), 1086–1106.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764014553639
Swanson, L. A. (2012). A Strategic Engagement Framework for Nonprofits—Swanson—2013—
Nonprofit Management and Leadership—Wiley Online Library. Wiley Online Library,
23(3), 303–323.
Taylor, M., & Kent, M. L. (2014). Dialogic Engagement: Clarifying Foundational Concepts.
Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 384–398.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2014.956106
111
Taylor, M. P. (2021). All Talk and No Action? A Comparative Analysis of Nonprofit Twitter
Chats. Taylor & Francis Online, 0(0), 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10495142.2021.1953668
Thorpe, H., & Rinehart, Robert. (2013). Action Sport NGOs in a Neo-Liberal Context: The
Cases of Skateistan and Surf Aid International. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 37(2),
115–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193723512455923
Tonetti, A. (2019). Fundraising and online marketing: How social media have an impact on the
growth of a charity organization [Univesrity De Lisboa]. https://repositorio.iscte-
iul.pt/handle/10071/18995
Wallace, T., & Rutherford, A. C. (2020). The Big Bird Gets the Worm? How Size Influences
Social Networking by Charitable Organizations—Tom Wallace, Alasdair C. Rutherford,
2021. 50(3), 626–646. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764020959472
Wang, Y., & Yang, Y. (2020). Dialogic communication on social media: How organizations use
Twitter to build dialogic relationships with their publics. Science Direct, 104, 106183.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106183
Waters, R. D. (2009). The Importance of Understanding Donor Preference and Relationship
Cultivation Strategies. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 21(4), 327–346.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10495140802662523
Waters, R. D., & Jones, P. M. (2011). Using Video to Build an Organization’s Identity and
Brand: A Content Analysis of Nonprofit Organizations’ YouTube Videos. Journal of
Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 23(3), 248–268.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10495142.2011.594779
112
Watkins, B. A. (2017). Experimenting with dialogue on Twitter: An examination of the influence
of the dialogic principles on engagement, interaction, and attitude. Science Direct, 43(1),
163–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2016.07.002
Young, J. (2012). The Current Status of Social Media use among Nonprofit Human Service
Organizations: An Exploratory Study [Virginia Commonwealth University].
https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/etd/2723
Young, J. A. (2017). Facebook, Twitter, and Blogs: The Adoption and Utilization of Social
Media in Nonprofit Human Service Organizations. Human Service Organizations:
Management, Leadership & Governance, 41(1), 44–57.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2016.1192574
Zhang, Y., Dong, C., & Cheng, Y. (2022). How do nonprofit organizations (NPOs) effectively
engage with the public on social media? Examining the effects of interactivity and
emotion on Twitter. Internet Research, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print).
https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-05-2021-0290
Zhang, Y., He, D., & Sang, Y. (2013). Facebook as a Platform for Health Information and
Communication: A Case Study of a Diabetes Group. Journal of Medical Systems, 37(3),
9942. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-013-9942-7
Zhang, Z., & Guo, C. (2012). Advocacy by Chinese Nonprofit Organisations: Towards a
Responsive Government? Australian Journal of Public Administration, 71(2), 221–232.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2012.00766.x
Zhou, T. (2011). Understanding online community user participation: A social influence
perspective. Internet Research, 21(1), 67–81.
https://doi.org/10.1108/10662241111104884
113
Zorn, T., Flanagin, A., & Shoham, M. (2011). Institutional and Noninstitutional Influences on
Information and Communication Technology Adoption and Use Among Nonprofit
Organizations. Human Communication Research, 37, 1–33.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01387.x
114
Appendix A
Eight Levels On Ladder Of Engagement
115
Appendix B
Six Types Of Social Media
Note: The Modern Nonprofit, 2021, p. 1
116
Appendix C
Reaction to Facebook Behaviors
Facebook extended the “like” button to five more emotions as “emojis” (Kaur et al.,
2019). Those reaction buttons present audience behaviors and are acknowledged as “a modern
form of speech” (Smieško, 2016). On Facebook, the list of emojis is shown in Figure 1 and
counted in the “likes” group as one number. The “care” emoji (third one) was added in March
2020 as an additional choice for COVID-19 and used in reactions to FB posts.
Figure 1: Facebook reaction button
117
Appendix
Types of Advocacy Activities
Note: Guerriero & Ditkoff, 2018
118
Appendix E
The Sampling List of 10 NPOs
Nonprofit Organizations
Major Categories (NTEE)
1In 6 (remove from final list)
Human Service-Intervention and
Crisis
20/20 Mom
Public, Societal Benefit-Community
Citizens for Los Angeles Wildlife Inc
Environment
Community Trust Foundation
Education
Invisible People
Human Service-Housing & Shelter
Kind Campaign (remove from final
list)
Human Service-Youth Development
NAMI Glendale
Health-Mental Health
NAMI Westside Los Angeles
Health-Mental Health
NAMI Urban Los Angeles
Health-Mental Health
RARE Genomics Institute (remove
from final list)
Educational
119
Appendix F
Facebook Codebook With Frequencies and Percentages
Code System-Subcategories
Memo
Frequency
% of
codes
Information
Mission-related information
information on NPOs is aligned with their missions and
intended to raise awareness which may be developed to a
higher level of engagement-action: mission-related activities
88
23.7%
Event-related information
Information related to a certain event such as time, contact,
location, and purpose may be developed to a higher level of
engagement-Action: promoting an event
39
10.5%
Advocacy-related information
Information on NPOs is to advocate their mission and intended
to raise awareness which may be developed to a higher level of
engagement as “ action-lobbying and advocacy”
25
6.7%
Organizational information
Information related to organizational activities such as partners,
contact, program, social media updates even photos of events
23
6.2%
Action
calls for actions
Promoting to events
Invite the audience to events that benefit organizations in any
way
41
11.02%
Learn how to help
Request to learn how they can support organizations through
the way organizations identified
38
10.22%
Lobbying and advocacy
Request to contact public officials or lobby for concerns or
issues of organizations
21
5.65%
Follow organizations on social
media
Invited audience to follow their organization on their official
website or social media sites
15
4.03%
Donation appeal
Request to make a monetary or in-kind donation
14
3.76%
Know organizations better
Request to learn and read more information about organizations
such as missions
10
2.69%
Call for volunteers, employees, or
public representatives
Request for participants for research or posting a study,
volunteers, and employees
4
1.08%
Join or follow another site or vote
for the organization
Request to join another social media site or another website for
the organization
4
1.08%
Other-positive messages
messages to warm or encourage the audience to get through the
day, the week, or the month
3
0.81%
Community
Acknowledgment of current and
local events
Acknowledge other organizations and their community events
and activities (not created by the organizations)
25
6.72%
Giving recognition and thanks
Acknowledge thanks for the contributions of their donors and
supporters
19
5.11%
Responses to replied messages
Responses to the audiences’ comments about the organizations
3
0.81%
Total
372
120
Appendix G
Content Comments Codebook With Frequency and Percentage
Code
Subcategories
Memo
Freque
ncy
% of
76 comments
Informa
tion
the comments include questions about
organizational-related information
Informat
ion > Mission-
related
Information is related to the organizational
mission and intended to raise awareness 23
30.2
6%
Informat
ion > Event-
related
Comments or questions about organizational
events 6
7.89
%
Informat
ion > Advocacy-
related
Comments on some advocacy-related
information and help organizations advocate for their
missions
4
5.26
%
Informat
ion >
Organization-
related
Comments or questions for organizational
information such as access code
3
3.95
%
Action
Action >
Help
organizations and
their audience
comments on taking actions or jointing activities
for organizations or their audience
21
27.6
3%
Action >
Other replied
with positive
feedback
Responses to encourage organizations for their
work
14
18.4
2%
Action >
Advocacy and
lobbying
Comments to advocate or lobby ( or the
audience were in the process of advocacy) about the
missions of organizations
9
11.8
4%
Action >
Questions about
how to support
the audience asked for a way of supports
9
11.8
4%
Action >
Know
organizations
better
The audience expressed their intention to know
the organization better by taking action the audience
suggested
8
10.5
3%
Action >
Donate appeal
Comments on donations in monetary or in-kind
stuff to the organizations
2
2.63
%
Commu
nity
Commun
ity > Comments
to public reply
messages (and
posts)
Comments of the organization to respond to
people’s comments
30
39.4
7%
Commun
ity > Giving
recognition and
thanks
Express thanks and appreciation for
organizational works
26
34.2
1%
121
Commun
ity > Demonstrate
support for
organizations
the audience expressed support for the
organization in any way organization identified
23
30.2
6%
Commun
ity > Sharing
current news and
local events
Acknowledgment of mission-related events and
activities (not initiated by organizations and attempt to
build up the sense of community
18
23.6
8%
196
