2010 - Public Relations Society of America

More documents

Recommendations

Info

to continue with Apple, CNN, and Disney. After examining the data, the researcher went back to the t-test means to compare each individual tool mean with the combined mean to determine which was the lowest. This helped determine which tool, or combination of the tools, provided the strongest relationship. Interestingly, Apple, CNN and Disney all reported different results for the strongest relationship. Yet, because e-mail (97.2%) was advanced as the social media tool to generate the most committed relationship between the company/brand and the Millennial student, hypothesis one is partially supported. Even though the Apple, CNN, and Disney results of the current study all reported different preference of company/brand social media tool(s) for Millennials, of the tools that were significant, e-mail was part of those that Millennials responded to as interacting with the most while remaining the most committed to the company/brand. Furthermore, the t-test serves as a guide for both the companies/brands and public relations practitioners who question using social media tools to attract Millennial students. E-mail showed a significant difference between Millennials who had received an e-mail and those who had not and wanting their relationship to continue with each company/brand in six out of the eight companies/brands. PDA showed the least promise to commitment to the company/brand of the four social media tools looked at in this hypothesis, having only three of eight companies/brands show significance between those who had interacted with PDA and those who had not. Research Question #2. Research question two asked, “What is the relationship between a Millennial student’s commitment to maintaining a relationship with one of the top 10 most social company/brand and the interaction of the Millennial student with a social media tool of that company/brand?” A chi-square test was run for exposure to company/brand social media outlet (yes/no) and commitment to that social media company/brand. Results indicated out of the eight social media companies/brands, six had significant differences between the participants who had and those who had not been exposed to the company/brand social media outlet and his or her level of commitment to that particular social media company/brand. The current study reports Apple, Disney, Xbox, Starbucks, MTV, and Sony all having significant difference in the commitment level between those who had been exposed to company/brand social media tool and those who had not. Results support the argument that those Millennial students who had indicated that they had personally interacted with a company/brand via a social media tool(s) were more committed to maintaining a relationship with that particular company/brand than those Millennials who reported never having interacted with the company/brand via social media. Those Millennials who had actually interacted with the company/brand by using the social media tools most likely had some type of vested interest with the company/brand, thereby already establishing some type of relationship with the company/brand. It would suggest that if Millennials are interacting with companies, these users desire some type of relationship, usually positive, with that particular company/brand. Interestingly, this study found that for CNN and Dell the reverse proved to be true in exploring the relationship between a Millennial student’s commitment to maintaining a relationship with one of the top 10 most social company/brands and the interaction of the Millennial student with a social media tool of that company/brand. Commitment to maintaining a relationship with CNN and Dell was not different for those participants who had been exposed to social media and those who had not. The researcher can only speculate why this finding emerges. CNN is a company that supplies news to millions worldwide. Millennials may interact with CNN’s social media tools, but not be committed to maintaining a relationship with the company because of the nature of news and how it can be communicated in a variety of ways. For example, although the researcher in this study follows CNN on Twitter, the researcher is not 16
strongly committed to maintaining a relationship with CNN because of the preference to get news through the local television news channel for a local angle or national news from the NPR podcast so one can run while listening (multi-tasking Millennial). The results of this study raise additional questions about why Dell and CNN have different experiences with Millennials than other top companies/brands. This is very interesting data for public relations practitioners who work for both CNN and Dell, two widely respected companies. These top companies are reaching this Millennial market via social media tools, but questions addressing why there is no commitment to some companies with whom Millennials are engaged via social media tools needs to be further examined. Hypothesis #2. The second hypothesis in the current study states, “Those Millennial students who have had a relationship with the top 10 social brands via social media tools will be more likely to have a favorable perception of that company/brand.” An independent samples t- test was run for interaction with a brand/company through social media tools (yes/no) and wanting a relationship with the brand/company to continue for a long time. Results indicated that there were significant differences for six of the eight media brands/companies for exposure to the brand/company social media tool and wanting the relationship to continue with the company (Table 4, Appendix D). For all companies/brands except CNN and Dell, results indicated that as participants’ usage of social media tools increased, their wanting to continue a relationship with the company/brand also increased. Millennials indicating that they somewhat agreed to strongly agreed that they wanted to continue their relationship with the company/brand for a long time was used to determine if they had a favorable perception of the company/brand. Apparently, according to the data, those students who have had a relationship with CNN and Dell via that particular company’s/brand’s social media tools do not have a favorable perception of CNN or Dell. Even after interacting with CNN and Dell via social media tools, it is surprising that those Millennials did not have a favorable perception. Reasons for this disconnect are unknown; however, the data clearly indicate a lack of relationship with Millennials for these two companies. What makes CNN and Dell the anomaly to the list of top 10 most social brands is unknown and intriguing. The support for hypothesis one is especially positive news for public relations practitioners who aim to engage this niche market of Millennials via social media tools. If, for the most part, Millennials have favorable perceptions of those companies/brands with which they interact via social media tools, public relations practitioners need to look at ways to interact with the Millennial target audience in order to build stronger, more favorable relationships. Research Question #3. The third research question asked is, “To what extent is a Millennial student’s favorable perception of the organization positively associated with his or her active social media behavior?” Pearson’s product-moment correlations were used to analyze this research question. Pearson’s product-moment correlations are used in situations were the independent and dependent variables are interval or ratio level measures (Reinard, 2008). In this study a correlation was run for active social media behavior (number of tools used: no tools = 0 to all tools listed selected = 7) and wanting a relationship with a brand/company to continue for a long time (strongly disagree = 1 to strongly agree = 7). Results indicate that there are significant correlations for all eight media brands/companies between active social media behavior and wanting the relationship to continue with the company/brand. Table 5 (Appendix E) presents the correlations between active social media behavior and Millennial students wanting their relationships with each company/brand to continue for a long time. Correlations were significant at the .001 level. 17
Page 1 and 2: 2 0 1 0 P R O C E E D I N G S W A S
Page 3 and 4: TABLE OF CONTENTS Research Papers _
Page 5 and 6: Public Relations Leadership through
Page 7 and 8: Millennial Students Relationship wi
Page 9 and 10: elationship approach to PR provides
Page 11 and 12: social media marketing is effective
Page 13 and 14: students who noted they were 17 or
Page 15: discussed previously, Millennial st
Page 19 and 20: gender (male/female) and each of th
Page 21 and 22: social media. One focus of the arti
Page 23 and 24: Shah, A. (2007, June 18). Social me
Page 25 and 26: Appendix B Table 2 Differences Betw
Page 27 and 28: Appendix D Table 4 Differences Betw
Page 29 and 30: Appendix F Table 6 Pearson Correlat
Page 31 and 32: Mentoring 2.0: How PR Educators Use
Page 33 and 34: Despite this, however, studies have
Page 35 and 36: Sometimes using Facebook to IM is a
Page 37 and 38: Investing time. As with any relatio
Page 39 and 40: pursuing chosen fields. For public
Page 41 and 42: Tam, S. Y., Dozier, D. M., Lauzen,
Page 43 and 44: While favor towards nuclear energy
Page 45 and 46: frames present new considerations w
Page 47 and 48: Procedural -Licensing and applicati
Page 49 and 50: “Shoreham Board Begins a Hunt for
Page 51 and 52: While the story element “positive
Page 53 and 54: Gamson, W. & Lasch, K. (1983). The
Page 55 and 56: Reputation Matters: Impact of Organ
Page 57 and 58: leadership had at hand a number of
Page 59 and 60: and 65+ (15.4%). More than half wer
Page 61 and 62: evealed significant differences for
Page 63 and 64: will be rewarded in the marketplace
Page 65 and 66: Investigating Multiplier Effects of
Page 67 and 68:
RQ1: Do PR practitioners and busine
Page 69 and 70:
accepting information they receive
Page 71 and 72:
still smacks of news. News coverage
Page 73 and 74:
Even when testimonials do not withs
Page 75 and 76:
viewed to some degree as a valuable
Page 77 and 78:
Perceptions of Product Blogs in Tai
Page 79 and 80:
Uses and gratifications theory has
Page 81 and 82:
Thus the degree to which blog reade
Page 83 and 84:
hours). Blog reading was dwarfed by
Page 85 and 86:
Effects of Language on Responses Ba
Page 87 and 88:
esponse (M = 4.13). For online acti
Page 89 and 90:
5-item Index 4.41(1.030) 3.80(1.033
Page 91 and 92:
ecommendations were more objective
Page 93 and 94:
Choney, B. (2009, September 29). Mi
Page 95 and 96:
Lenhart, A., Purecell, K., Smith, A
Page 97 and 98:
elational trust. Journal of Public
Page 99 and 100:
challenge will be to persuade survi
Page 101 and 102:
of Avian Flu. It is important to no
Page 103 and 104:
with an arousing stimulus or messag
Page 105 and 106:
Chen, N. (2009). Institutionalizing
Page 107 and 108:
Excellence in an Activist Organizat
Page 109 and 110:
public relations functions or tacti
Page 111 and 112:
Data Collection Documents. In an ef
Page 113 and 114:
Research. A key area of CTFK’s we
Page 115 and 116:
Engaging individuals. Many times ac
Page 117 and 118:
Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico; ge
Page 119 and 120:
Murphy, P. & Dee, J. (1996) Reconci
Page 121 and 122:
of Educational Progress (NAEP), 80%
Page 123 and 124:
school assessment, and that the pro
Page 125 and 126:
Both the paper and Web-based survey
Page 127 and 128:
student was admitted to their acade
Page 129 and 130:
Problems with the measures: Here, s
Page 131 and 132:
Patterns in the open-ended response
Page 133 and 134:
Trends evident in K-12 education, t
Page 135 and 136:
Another 15% of respondents (n = 8)
Page 137 and 138:
Table 1 Respondents’ Perceptions
Page 139 and 140:
Table 4 Frequencies of Listed Writi
Page 141 and 142:
Hansen, R.S. (1993). Clear, concise
Page 143 and 144:
so, this study follows up on recent
Page 145 and 146:
2009). In BMCC context, in addition
Page 147 and 148:
--------------------------------- I
Page 149 and 150:
social media is not crisis communic
Page 151 and 152:
and uses and gratifications theorie
Page 153 and 154:
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P.,
Page 155 and 156:
Table 1 BMCC Model Propositions (__
Page 157 and 158:
FIGURE 1 BMM Model (_____ & _____,
Page 159 and 160:
practitioners and scholars argue fo
Page 161 and 162:
Several studies, however, suggest t
Page 163 and 164:
factors that impact the development
Page 165 and 166:
perceptions of administrative suppo
Page 167 and 168:
(2009) reminds us that the limitati
Page 169 and 170:
412-414. Gonzalez-Herrero, A., & Ru
Page 171 and 172:
Intersections and Overlaps: Buildin
Page 173 and 174:
elations excellence, relationship-b
Page 175 and 176:
2002), all of which encourage emplo
Page 177 and 178:
Conley and Wagner-Marsh (1998) prop
Page 179 and 180:
passion, caring for people.” Note
Page 181 and 182:
done.” Accommodations such as fle
Page 183 and 184:
organizational commitment and loyal
Page 185 and 186:
Founder/Leader Faith & Vision Authe
Page 187 and 188:
Practical implications This study a
Page 189 and 190:
public relations (pp. 3-22). Mahwah
Page 191 and 192:
Grunig, L. A. (1992). Power in the
Page 193 and 194:
presented to the annual conference
Page 195 and 196:
Prioritizing Stakeholders for Publi
Page 197 and 198:
developed by Grunig and Hunt (1984)
Page 199 and 200:
expectant stakeholders possess two
Page 201 and 202:
each other” (p. 125). Examples of
Page 203 and 204:
Priority publics are those whose pa
Page 205 and 206:
Collection of data triangulated (Yi
Page 207 and 208:
Diffused Linkage. A diffused stakeh
Page 209 and 210:
Envirocare take it. They are also m
Page 211 and 212:
Dunham, L., Freeman, R. E., & Liedt
Page 213 and 214:
PEDAGOGICAL POSTERS 213
Page 215 and 216:
seem to be context-dependent (Lauri
Page 217 and 218:
Shapiro, A. (2003). Case Studies in
Page 219 and 220:
Argument #2: stories are for childr
Page 221 and 222:
Physiology “…your mind was evol
Page 223 and 224:
Conclusion In the movie, Indiana Jo
Page 225 and 226:
Pitching on your Feet: Using a Mock
Page 227 and 228:
speaker(s) are available after the
Page 229 and 230:
college’s connection to the commu
Page 231 and 232:
“I felt the class built upon our
Page 233 and 234:
community. Many participants have c
Page 235 and 236:
posting content to the Internet, bu
Page 237 and 238:
What’s All The Hype About Skype?
Page 239 and 240:
In between the times the class meet
Page 241 and 242:
Best Practices in Public Relations:
Page 243 and 244:
Assignment Structure Client Selecti
Page 245 and 246:
Conclusion Integrating real-world c
Page 247 and 248:
equires true fluency in the host co
Page 249 and 250:
living in London. Because visa and
Page 251 and 252:
Using the Case Study approach to an
Page 253 and 254:
tier responders hadn’t participat
Page 255 and 256:
Harnessing the Web for Teaching Wri
Page 257 and 258:
these tools and platforms. With wri
Page 259 and 260:
article 2. 259
Page 261 and 262:
Experimental methods may be better
Page 263 and 264:
The third hypothesis asked whether
Page 265 and 266:
Crisis in the Classroom: A cross-de
Page 267 and 268:
prepare and do the research. I prov
Page 269 and 270:
• September 2009 - More students
Page 271 and 272:
Public Relations Leadership Through
Page 273 and 274:
from using it multiple times a day
Page 275 and 276:
Kent, M. (2010). Directions in soci
Page 277 and 278:
Professor Clare Morgan at Oxford no
Page 279 and 280:
evenings at home working on his poe
Page 281 and 282:
Another strategy for the students w
Page 283 and 284:
Media list and crisis media list So
Page 285 and 286:
understand that knowledge of the cl
Page 287 and 288:
If creating separate teams for one
Page 289 and 290:
Integrating ethics into the undergr
Page 291 and 292:
Three-step approach The present aut
Page 293:
Putting Theory, Research and Strate
show all

2010 - Public Relations Society of America

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?