A Report on the Use of Web and Social Media by Not-For-profit Organizations - Robert Sampron

7/28/2019 A Report on the Use of Web and Social Media by Not-For-profit Organizations - Robert Sampron

1/38

Running head: A Report on the Use i

A Report on the Use of Web and Social Media Sites

by Not-for-profi t Organizations

Robert Sampron, B.A., B.S. Candidate and Intern

Metropolitan State College of Denver

November 24, 2009


2/38

Running head: A Report on the Use ii


3/38

Running head: A Report on the Use iii

Executive Summary

The Family Tree Inc., a Denver area not-for-profit organization (organization) wants to use

the Web and social media tools and sites to communicate better about its program. To do so, it

first wanted to assess how other local and national organizations use their Web and social media

presence to engage relevant populations. As a result, from August to October 2009, this author

conducted an assessment. This document reports the results.

Any unique medium, like telephone, radio, newspaper, or Web and social media, is only

capable of delivering a specific type of message. The type of message delivered by social media

sites, and increasingly by Web sites, relies on the social and technological interaction of

stakeholders. These stakeholders collaborate through social media to create common meaning

and accomplish common goals. The organizations surveyed do not use social media in this

fashion.

To design the layout and content of Web and social media sites, the surveyed organizations

use similar design principles and publish similar content. The sites follow a hierarchical, top-

down communication style, where organizational management creates and approves the content.

There is no evidence apparent from the sites that management discusses content choice with

relevant populations.

Organizations use Web sites as electronic brochures. As brochures, they contain synopses of

programs offered to relevant populations, with little to no interactivity available to user-readers.

Organizations use social media sites as electronic megaphones. One might surmise from

inspecting their Web sites, organizations believe they will reach a broader audience through

social media than without. However, their sites receive little or no user-reader comments, which


4/38

Running head: A Report on the Use iv

is often a sign of lack of interest. Researchers need to conduct further study to prove whether

organizations reach a broader audience with social media.

Some organizations, like Mile High United Way, continually publish to social media sites,

like Facebook and Twitter. They do not seek to engage user-readers in collaboration. It is also

evident that some organizations do not pay attention to their established social media sites. Over

the duration of this study, no organization responded to this authors requests to become a

Twitter follower.

Use of the Web continues to evolve. If organizations wish to engage people fully through

Web and social media sites, their use of these mediums should evolve as well. They should learn

to apply Web 2.0 concepts to use of these mediums. They should open to interactive, online

collaboration with their stakeholders and create common meaning and accomplishing common

goals. If organizations choose not to evolve as these mediums do, one wonders why they would

choose to communicate through the Web and social media at all.


5/38

Running head: A Report on the Use v

Table of Contents

INTRODUCING THE REPORT ................................................................................................ 1

DISCUSSING THE TOPIC ......................................................................................................... 3

DISCUSSING THE SUBJECT............................................................................................................ 3DISCUSSING THE PURPOSE ........................................................................................................... 3

DEFININGKEYTERMS ................................................................................................................. 4

Defining Social Media ............................................................................................................ 5

Defining Web 2.0 .................................................................................................................... 5

Defining Text ........................................................................................................................... 5

DISCUSSING THE SCOPE ............................................................................................................... 6

Discussing the Role of Collaboration ..................................................................................... 6

Discussing the Changing Terminology ................................................................................... 9

SUMMARIZING THE SCOPE OF THE REPORT .................................................................................. 9

DISCUSSING THE RESEARCH METHOD .......................................................................... 11

REPORTING THE RESULTS .................................................................................................. 11

REPORTING ON WEB AND SOCIAL MEDIA SITE COMMUNICATIONSTYLES ................................ 11

Communication Style ............................................................................................................ 12

Reading Style ........................................................................................................................ 12

Multimedia Style ................................................................................................................... 12

REPORTING ON WEB 2.0TECHNOLOGY ..................................................................................... 13

XML....................................................................................................................................... 13

Adobe Flash .......................................................................................................................... 14REPORTING ON WEB SITE DESIGN AND CONTENT-BUILDINGTECHNIQUES................................ 16

Web Site Design .................................................................................................................... 16

Index Page Style ............................................................................................................... 17

Content Page Style ............................................................................................................ 18

REPORTING ON SOCIAL MEDIATOOLS AND SITES ..................................................................... 20

Facebook and MySpace ........................................................................................................ 20

Twitter ................................................................................................................................... 20

Discussing How Organizations Use Social Media Sites....................................................... 21

Discussing Social Media Tools Available to Organizations................................................. 22

CONCLUDING THE REPORT ................................................................................................ 25

MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................... 27

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 31


6/38

Running head: A Report on the Use vi

Table of Figures

Figure 1. An example of an XML tag change updating all texts containing the tag. ................... 15Figure 2. Example of a drop-down menu that uses Adobe Flash animation ................................ 16Figure 3. Example of a Web Site Index Page ............................................................................... 18Figure 4. Example of Content Page .............................................................................................. 19Figure 5. Example of Mile High United Way's Facebook Wall ................................................... 20Figure 6. The Salvation Army's Online Red Kettle Web Site ...................................................... 22


7/38

Running head: A Report on the Use 1

A Report on the Use of Web and Social Media Sites

by Not-for-profi t Organizations

Introducing the Report

Marshall McLuhan, the late renowned communications theorist, once wrote that the medium

is the message. Though theorists do not agree on what McLuhan meant, it is apparent that

because of the way a medium delivers a message, it is only capable of delivering a specific type

or style of message. Television can only deliver a television-like message, radio a radio-like

message, and an Internet Web or social media site a Web- or social-media-like message.

This report seeks to answer whether Web or social media sites are appropriate for delivering

the types of messages produced by not-for-profit organizations (organization), like The Family

Tree Inc.

This author divides the report into several discussions, including:

Introducing the Report Discussing the Topic Discussing the Research Method Reporting the Results Concluding the Report Making Recommendations


8/38



9/38


Discussing the Topic

In this section, the author discusses the following aspects of the report:

the subject the purpose key definitions the scope

Discussing the Subject

This report examines how six local and two national not-for-profit organizations

(organizations) use the ever-evolving Web sites and social media tools and sites to communicate

with user-reader. Managers and communicators should not take too lightly the impact of this

evolution on communication campaigns.

The organizations included:

The Family Tree Inc. Volunteers of America Colorado Branch Denver Options Mile High United Way The Kempe Center The Salvation Army (National) American Red Cross (National)

Discussing the Purpose

The first purpose of this report is to inform Steve Harrell, the Communications Director of

The Family Tree Inc., a Wheat Ridge, Colorado organization, about how similar organizations


10/38


use Web and social media sites to communicate with user-readers. Mr. Harrell intends to use

these mediums, especially the Twitter social media site, to communicate with relevant

populations.

As an organization, The Family Tree offers help to people trapped in cycles of domestic

abuse, violence, and homelessness (The Family Tree - About Us). Employees and volunteers

provide a range of services that help people become safe, strong, and self-reliant. Mr. Harrell

rightly believes it is important to use available mediums properly to inform and engage the

Denver Metropolitan community.

The second purpose of this report is to inform my internship supervisor at Metropolitan State

College of Denver, Prof. Robert Amend, of my activities during this internship.

The final purpose of this report is to recommend that The Family Tree exercise prudence

when using ever-evolving Internet mediums, like Web and social media sites, to deliver

messages. Again, a medium is only capable of delivering a specific type or style of message.

Thus far, Web 2.0 and social media do not seem suited to delivering the hierarchical, top-down

messages preferred by most organizations. They prefer a tight, traditional message control.

Evolving Internet mediums, like Web and social media sites, do not allow for traditional message

control.

Defining Key Terms

This section of the report defines the reoccurring terms social media, Web 2.0, and

texts.


11/38


Defining Social Media

Social media are interactive, Web-based tools that allow stakeholders to collaborate. As they

collaborate, stakeholders create common meanings and accomplish common goals (Lamer,

Sampron, & Sutter, 2009).

At first, stakeholders collaborated through play (Schmid, 2008). Increasingly, they use

interactive collaboration to train, inform, motivate, educate, and sell products, services, and ideas

to other stakeholders.

Defining Web 2.0

To understand social media and its potential uses, it is helpful to understand the core

principle behind Web 2.0. Tim OReilly, the creator of the term, and colleague John Musser

(2007) define Web 2.0 as the convergence of economic, social, and technological trends

through the Internet. This convergence allows users to collaborate through networks, using social

media and other tools, to achieve goals.

Defining Text

When used with Web 2.0 and social media, the word text does not necessarily mean the

conventional output of words and images to paper or computer screens. Rather, text means every

imaginable form of computer-based creative expression. Through social media, Web 2.0 puts the

convergence of technology at each stakeholders fingertips, allowing them to combine various

media into a final, Web-based text. These media include:

videos games


12/38


animation fine art music films presentation graphics podcasts streaming netcasts words and images printed on paper

words and images displayed on or with computer non-paper-based output devices

Discussing the Scope

This section discusses the scope of topic. The scope details the role collaboration plays in

creating Web 2.0 content.

The key to unlocking the potential of Web 2.0 lies in using interactive social media tools to

create shared meaning and accomplish shared goals. People use these tools to interact, creating

common results, experiences, and worldviews. When they interact, they play games, create war

and peace, rebel against oppression, seek and receive help, express ideas, understand cultural

differences, and solve common or individual problems. The Family Trees relevant population

may similarly use social media tools to create shared meaning and accomplish shared goals.

Discussing the Role of Collaboration

This section of the report summarizes earlier research completed by the author and several

colleagues on the topic of Web 2.0. That work concerned the near-term use of Web 2.0 concepts


13/38


and tools in technical communication (Lamer, Sampron, & Sutter, 2009). Technical

communication includes messages that inform and motivate user-readers, like those currently

delivered by organizations like The Family Tree.

Traditional communicators have different thoughts about the meaning of collaboration. Jones

(2008) reveals that people create texts using three forms of collaboration, including:

contextual collaboration hierarchical collaboration group collaboration

First, professionals most often use contextual collaboration to create a text. This

collaboration takes two forms: genre-use and document borrowing.

Genre-use collaboration occurs when one author employs the genres, templates, andmodels created by others to form sections of a text. Professionals use this more than any

other form.

Document-borrowing collaboration occurs when one author recycles text elements fromother texts.

Next, professionals moderately use hierarchical collaboration. This also takes two forms:

author-centered and sequential.

Author-centered collaboration occurs when one author writes, edits, and designs allelements of a finished work.

Sequential collaboration occurs when a group interacts to edit parts of an originalauthors text.


14/38


Finally, professionals use group collaboration, though rarely. When they do, collaboration

takes four forms: horizontal-division writing, group single-authored writing, reactive writing,

and joint writing. Each form requires more than one author to create a text.

Horizontal-division writing occurs when "units" of writers use minimal interaction tocreate a text.

Group single-authored writing occurs when one author creates the majority of a text,while others contribute small sections.

Reactive writing occurs when a group creates the work, with each member contributing

one or more sections.

Joint writing occurs when a group interacts throughout the process to create a text.

To date, stakeholders have not had an easy time collaborating to create texts. Lamers,

Sampron, and Sutter contend this was so for two reasons no longer relevant with Web 2.0. First,

collaboration was too onerous and expensive. Second, collaboration defied the traditional, highly

controlled flow of information preferred by organizations.

Collaboration was too onerous and expensive because people needed to transport text

physically by mail, overnight courier, and fax machine. If they chose to conference by telephone

or video equipment, they had to pay a fee.

Collaboration also defied the traditional, highly controlled flow of information preferred by

organizations. This traditional flow was from communicator, usually the management through a

professional communicator, to the user-reader. Users had little direct input into the process of

creating the texts they used. When collected at all, feedback came through usability testing.


15/38


The credo of all professional communication is to focus messages on the needs of user-

readers. When they have little or no role in the creative process, the resulting messages may not

be helpful. This defeats the whole purpose of the message.

Discussing the Changing Terminology

Until our time, we used terms like creator, author, sender, or transmitter to mean the person

or medium sending a text. We also used terms like user, reader, listener, receiver, or viewer for

the person or device receiving a text. The latter was always a passive participant in the

communication process.

Web 2.0 changes this. There is no such thing as a passive participant anymore. There is no

such thing as an author-sender or user-reader anymore. Rather, people who use Web 2.0 and

social media become co-creators and co-users of a text. They become shared stakeholders in

the communication process.

Summarizing the Scope of the Report

To summarize, Web 2.0 and social media are revolutionary because they allow stakeholders

to co-create and co-use a text. They may now do so without onerous restrictions on time, space,

cost, and technology. These restrictions all but disappear. Instead, stakeholders may collaborate

and communicate using free audio-visual Web 2.0-based technologies, like Skype and Adobe

Buzzword.

What does this mean for organizations? It means to send better, well-received messages, they

should reconsider the types and styles of messages they send using Web and social media sites.

Indeed, they may want to reconsider whether to use these sites at all.


16/38



17/38


Discussing the Research Method

The author used a qualitative method to assess how organizations communicate using Web

and social media sites. Because the surveyed organizations do not presently make use Web 2.0

the concepts defined by OReilly and Musser, the author does not use the term stakeholder to

report results.

When using the qualitative research method, a researcher observes and reports on a limited

number of cases relevant to the study topic. For this report, the author examined each page and

link of every Web and social media site for the surveyed organizations.

Reporting the Results

In this section, the author reports on how the surveyed organizations use the following

elements to build Web and social media presences.

Web 2.0 and social media site communication styles Web 2.0 technology site design and content-building techniques social media tools

Reporting on Web and Social Media Site Communication Styles

In this section, the author reports the communication styles used almost universally to build

Web and social media sites. These styles include:

communication style reading style multimedia style


18/38


Communication Style

Organizations universally communicate on Web and social media sites using a hierarchical,

top-down style. This means organization management creates the messages used by relevant

audiences. The messages are similar, and contain no potential for users to interact or collaborate.

The closest thing to an interactive tool at these sites is the ability to send e-mail messages to the

organization. Indeed, each organization is in full control of content.

Reading Style

Organizations universally build Web and social media site presence for scanning, not

interactive use or narrative reading. Within a few seconds, users may generally find and scan

relevant texts or videos. The ratio of text to video is about 99:1.

Multimedia Style

Organizations universally communicate using photographic images. Some use Adobe Flash

to animate menus. Few use video or sound.

Photographic images generally include pictures of fundraising events and/or members of the

relevant populations. The latter pictures likely serve as symbols for these populations. Use of

symbols likely helps to make user-readers feel a kinship with the people depicted, and that the

organizations can help them too.

Video products include professionally crafted marketing messages and news stories reported

by local television stations. When organizations include video products to deliver a message,

they engage in collaboration. However, it is not the interactive collaboration possible using Web


19/38


2.0 tools. Video content does not come from relevant populations. Indeed, stakeholders have no

way to upload video.

Reporting on Web 2.0 Technology

Extensible Markup Language (XML) is the backbone programming language for Web 2.0

and social media tools and sites. Designers used XML to design each surveyed site, while many

also used Adobe Flash to provide video elements and animate menu elements.

XML

XML allows Web designers to use metadata tags to create texts. Metadata tags are single or

multi word descriptive codes, used like the index section of a textbook, to bookmark content

elements. The designer first creates a database of tagged elements. Then, like putting together a

puzzle, the designer inserts individual tagged elements into a new or existing text.

Tagged elements include:

language symbols, like words, phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs, and sound files graphics, like borders, figures, tables, images, and videos links to other documents and elements

Computer scientists created XML code to remedy output problems unaddressed by its

predecessor programming language, Hypertext Markup Language (HTML). Now, regardless of

the output device used, whether a computer screen, smart phone, laser printer, etc., output

appears the same.

Computer scientists also created XML to make composing and editing texts easier. With

XML, Web content designers may draw from, insert to, or change tagged elements from an


20/38


unlimited number of other texts. These texts include Web and social media sites, paper

documents, photographic images, video products, etc. The only limit on a designers use of

tagged elements is imagination.

Figure 1 gives an example of an XML tag change updating (populating) all documents

containing the tag.

For example, a Web designer incorrectly tags the picture of a sunset in an XML database, but

does not know it at first. She tags the picture as Sunset-1, and inserts it into various locations

within 500 different texts. These texts range from Web sites, to business cards, to stationary

letterhead. As one would imagine, the process of inserting the tag into 500 texts takes weeks to

complete.

When she completes inserting the tag into the texts, she realizes she made an error. Rather

than tag the picture of a sunset, she was supposed to tag a picture of the companys logo. In the

old days, she would have to go through and remove the sunset picture from all 500 texts, and

then cut-and-paste in the companys logo. Again, this could take many weeks to complete. With

XML, however, all she need do is remove the Sunrise-1 tag from the sunset picture and attach

it to the company logo. The XML database then populates each text with the change. A process

that used to take weeks now takes only seconds.

Adobe Flash

Adobe Flash allows designers to build Web and social media sites using animated video and

text elements. The surveyed Web sites that use drop-down menus create the effect with Flash

animation. Figure 2 shows an example of a Flash Animation drop-down menu used by Denver

Options.


21/38


Figure 1. An example of an XML tag change updating all texts containing the tag.


22/38


Figure 2. Example of a drop-down menu that uses Adobe Flash animationSource: Denver Options

Reporting on Web Site Design and Content-building Techniques

Web Site Design

All organization Web sites serve as online brochures. Just as one scans a brochure to

understand an organizations mission and services, one similarly scans these Web sites. Web

sites, however, contain a level of detail not easily delivered by brochure. Some contain so much

detail, they take more than eight hours to fully review.

For all organizations, Web site design follows a clear meme. For delivering content, each site

contains two page design styles, including:

index page style content page style


23/38


Index Page Style

An index page, commonly called a welcome screen, introduces user-readers to a Web site.

The page also serves as the Table of Contents (TOC) for the entire site. Figure 3 contains an

example of an index page.

An index page usually contains the following elements:

masthead TOC wordmark or trademark body text framing devices donation and/ or volunteer information footers (folios)

Mastheads usually contain a TOC and wordmark or trademark for the organizations identity.

Webmasters use Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) and/or Flash Animation drop-down menus

to link TOC elements to corresponding content pages.

Body text often includes information about relevant current events or topics of interest.

Designers also use text boxes used to frame the body text. These framing text boxes, located to

the left and/or right of the body text, contain several elements:

a TOC that duplicates the mastheads TOC links to the most commonly sought topics summaries of and links to popular topics links to financial and volunteer support opportunities details


24/38


Finally, when using footers, designers often include a copyright notice, U.S. mail address, e-

mail address, and telephone number.

Figure 3. Example of a Web Site Index Page

Source: Mile High United Way

Content Page Style

Content pages always use the same masthead as seen on the index page. They often use the

same framing text boxes and same content as seen on the index page. They contain body text,


25/38


and often contain footers. Finally, the often address similar topics from organization to

organization. Figure 4 shows an example of a content page.

Figure 4. Example of Content Page

Content pages almost uniformly contain text and video elements about an organizations:

purpose and mission relevant service population contact information, including names, phone numbers, U.S. mail addresses, Email

address, and Website links

officers, including biographies and contact information volunteer and financial support opportunities calendar of upcoming events programs and services methods preferred for obtaining help efforts to gather information from user-readers visiting the site


26/38


Reporting on Social Media Tools and Sites

Organizations generally use three specific social media sites, including:

Facebook MySpace Twitter

Facebook and MySpace

Facebook and MySpace are social networking Web sites. Users own a page within the

network, and may post and reply to a variety of texts, including status updates, videos, audio

files, polls, etc. Figure 5 shows an example of the Facebook wall page for Mile High United

Way.

Figure 5. Example of Mile High United Way's Facebook Wall

Source: Facebook

Twitter

Twitter is an announcement service. Those who use Twitter do so to broadcast status update

messages of up to 140 characters to followers. These status update messages are called tweets.

Users may search Twitter by keyword tags for specific topics of interest. Tweet tags are actually


27/38


XML metadata tags, and are rendered in the format pound sign +keyword (ie., #family,

#violence, #abuse). To become a follower of another users tweets, one must ask for and receive

permission.

Discussing How Organizations Use Social Media Sites

Organizations use social media sites like a kind of megaphone or roadside billboard. The

messages are short and intended to drum up interest in upcoming events. Organizations do not

use these sites to prompt discussions or interactive exchanges. They never respond to comments.

All communication style is hierarchical.

Organizations may think that by using social media they will spread their messages to a

broader audience. No study presently exists to support this thought. However, one may surmise

that from the lack of comments left by user-readers, the hallmark of a sites viability, many do

not.

Remembering the earlier discussion of medium and message, social media is just that, social.

It depends on stakeholders interacting to create common meaning and achieve common goals.

These surveyed sites are among the most silent this author has seen in four years of using social

media. Indeed, attempts by the author to become a follower of each surveyed organizations

Twitter page received no replies or approvals. The author wonders whether anyone ever read the

requests.

Some organizations may be turning away entirely from social media. For example, during the

December holiday season, the Salvation Army raises financial support online through its Red

Kettle Campaign (Online Red Kettle). Figure 6 shows this campaigns vital Web site. Unlike the

index page on the Salvation Armys main Web site, the index page on Red Kettle site contains


28/38


no social media links. The author wonders whether this omission was an oversight or a deliberate

decision by the Salvation Army.

Figure 6. The Salvation Army's Online Red Kettle Web Site

Source: The Salvation Army

Discussing Social Media Tools Available to Organizations

Organizations have a range of social media tools available for interactively creating and

delivering content to stakeholders. However, few use them. The following is a list of current

tools:

Blogso These Web sites allow writers to post articles about any topic imaginable. They

also allow readers to make comments. Bobsonthejob.net is one example of a blog

Web site.


29/38


Folksonomy/Bookmarking/Taggingo This concept, made possible through XML, allows collaborators to bookmark

Web, document, and social media content using keyword links, otherwise known

as metadata tags. Tags allow stakeholders to quickly search for, identify, and

receive desired information through Intranets and the Internet. Tags also allow

stakeholders to create new Web and social media sites with tagged elements

found at other sites. Delicious.com is an example of a folksonomy Web site.

Forumso These Web sites serves as communications hubs for gathering posted messages or

having running, real-time dialogs with other stakeholders about topics of interest.

Firedoglake.com is an example of a forum Web site.

Mobile applicationso These are software applications that allow mobile phones and personal data

assistants (PDA) to receive and transmit specific types of information.

Applications may include programs for browsing the Web, receiving E-mail,

sending text messages, etc.

RSS feedso This software utility uses XML tags to tailor the receipt of newly posted Web

content. Most Web browsers and E-mail client applications allow users to

subscribe to RSS feeds.


30/38


Wikiso These Web sites allow collaborators to write and edit texts on any subject

imaginable. The most well known example is Wikipedia.com, an online

encyclopedia.

Wikizineso These are Web-based magazines, created from collections of articles submitted by

collaborators or XML-tagged elements scoured from the Web.


31/38


Concluding the Report

This report examined how local and national organizations use Web and social media sites to

deliver messages. Organizations use Web sites as electronic brochures to communicate messages

about their programs and services. They also use social media sites as elaborate megaphones to

announce events to a supposedly larger audience.

Surveyed organizations appear to deliver messages successfully through Web sites, though

no data is available to prove this. Web site design follows a popular meme. Authors create

detailed sites using XML and Flash animation. All sites use multimedia, in the form of

photographic images, to deliver content. Several use video and sound media.

Organizations likely hope that social media successfully delivers their messages to a broader

audience. The lack of commentary by user-readers, a hallmark of social media sites, suggests

they do not. Indeed, organizations may wish to conduct further research to determine whether

these sites help them reach a broader audience. This authors sense is they do not.

As presently used by surveyed organizations, Web and social media sites do not offer

stakeholders an interactive experience. However, interactive experience seems to be force

evolving Internet mediums, like Web and social media sites. Consequently, organizations appear

to be swimming against the tide of Internet evolution.

No surveyed Web or social media site directly engages stakeholders to create common

meaning or achieve common goals. Indeed one might conclude from this study, that evolving

Web and social media sites may not be the right mediums for delivering the hierarchical

messages preferred by organizations.


32/38



33/38


Making Recommendations

If organizations truly want to transmit their messages to a broader audience through the

evolving Web and its social media sites, they should open up the experience to interactive

collaboration. They should allow the audience to decide which messages are useful and

meaningful. To do so, organizations must be mindful that mediums evolve. What worked

yesterday to deliver useful, meaningful messages may not work today or tomorrow. Yesterday,

user-readers were content to receive a message from authority. Today, stakeholders want an

interactive Web experience in which there is no authority, one in which they have a role in

creating useful, meaningful content.

For example, organizations should allow Facebook users to offer ideas and suggestions about

their programs. Minimally, they should approve requests from potential Twitter followers. The

latter condition is simply unacceptable. If user-readers cannot have a simple follower request

answered, why bother with Twitter at all?

This author offers a few suggestions for opening Web and social media sites to stakeholder

collaboration. For example, organizations might allow users to:

share information openly through social media links discuss issues openly through social media forums, blogs, and wikis receive information automatically by RSS feed rather than e-mail lists

o This allows stakeholders to customize their information-seeking experience bytopic rather than passively receive messages that are not useful or meaningful.

Open the Web sites application programming interfaces (API) for use by others


34/38


o An open API allows a stakeholder to use, but not change, XML-tagged elementsfrom an organizations Web site. The stakeholder may then use these tagged

elements to create a mash-up Web site. A mash-up site combines tagged

elements from one or more sites with original output coding to present

information in new, more helpful ways to other stakeholders.

For example, years ago, Google Inc. opened its Maps API to the Web community. This brave

decision created a revolution in web design. It allowed outside designers to take core information

from Google Maps and create new mash-up Web sites.

Gasbuddy.com is an example of a mash-up site (Gasbuddy.com). It combines Google Maps

elements with gasoline price reports input by site subscribers to display graphical maps that show

gas station locations and prices throughout the United States and Canada. This is a handy tool,

especially when gas prices soar around holiday time.

If social media has proven one thing, it is interactivity is now key to engaging audiences.

Just as people would rather ride the attractions at an amusement park than sit on a bench, they

would rather interact with a Web site than read one.

Organizations best engage people by interacting with them, by inviting them into the process

of creating common meaning and achieving common goals. Social media sites are perfect for

this task.

Organizations should now decide whether to engage relevant audiences using evolving

Internet mediums. They should now decide whether to evolve their message styles from

hierarchical to interactive. If they choose to keep a traditional, hierarchical style, their messages


35/38


may no longer be relevant to an audience that uses interactive mediums. Their messages may no

longer suit the medium.

The days of static Web sites are over. The days of interactive, social media-based Web sites

are here. Will organizations be able to make the transition? Will they remain seated on the

Internets park bench while other stakeholders interactively ride its attractions?


36/38



37/38


References

Gasbuddy.com. (n.d.). Retrieved November 20, 2009, from Gasbuddy.com:

http://gasbuddy.com/

Jones, S. (2008). How we collaborate: Reported frequency of technical communicators

collaborative writing activities. Retrieved February 22, 2009, from Technical Communication,

54 (3):

http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/stc/00493155/v54n3/s2.pdfexpires=123639

1990&id=49264744&titleid=10262&acnname=Society+for+Technical+Communication+Memb

ers&checksum=921EE66D1BA3D6D2219EB6281D203B7E

Lamer, B., Sampron, R., & Sutter, D. (2009). A Report on the Role of Web 2.0 in Technical

Communication in the Next Five Years. Metropolitan State College of Denver, Technical

Communication.

Musser, J., & O'Reilly, T. (2007).Ajax Web 2.0 Principles and Best Practices. Retrieved

February 28, 2009, from Slideshare.net: http://www.slideshare.net/brighteyes/ajax-Web20-

principles-and-best-pracices-oreilly-2007

Online Red Kettle. (n.d.). Retrieved November 20, 2009, from Salvation Army:

http://give.salvationarmyusa.org/site/TR/RedKettleCampaigns/RedKettle?fr_id=1270&pg=entry

Schmid, R. (2008, August). Real text in virtual worlds. Retrieved August 30, 2008, from

Technical Communication, 55 (3):

http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/stc/00493155/v55n3/s6.pdf?expires=12363


38/38


91700&id=titleid=10262&accname=Society+for+Technical+Communication+Members&checks

um=42A323B36D8A8F80C192A44A3AC51AA0

The Family Tree - About Us.(n.d.). Retrieved November 2, 2009, from The Family Tree:

http://www.thefamilytree.org/en/about-us

Documents

A Report on the Use of Web and Social Media by Not-For-profit Organizations - Robert Sampron