Ukljucite javascript
Register Log in
HOME ARCHIVE ABOUT US EDITORIAL BOARD REVIEWERS FOR AUTHORS CONTACT

Archive > Year 2022, Number 2

Dialogic communication: An examination of National Olympic Committees' relationship-building strategies in online spaces


Authors

Rezzag Hebla Mehdi

Abstract

Previous studies of organizational online communication suggest that the adoption of dialogic communication strategies toward key constituents begets greater user engagement. The purpose of this article is to explore National Olympic Committees’ online platforms as spaces for dialogic communication. An analysis of n = 93 websites and related Facebook pages through a mixed methods approach to investigate potential differences between responsive and non-responsive organizations in their adoption of the dialogic communication principles, in addition, this study examined the difference in user engagement between the two groups. Though responsive and non-responsive organizations differ in their adoption of the dialogic principles, no significant difference could be found in user engagement. Implications and research recommendations are also discussed.

Keywords

Communication style; New Technology; Organizational Communication; Organizational Networks; Content Analysis

References

  1. Bortree DS, Seltzer T. Dialogic strategies and outcomes: An analysis of environmental advocacy groups’ Facebook profiles. Public Relat Rev 2009: 35(3):317-319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.05.002
  2. Comunello F, Mulargia S, Parisi L. The ‘Proper’ way to spread ideas through social media: Exploring the affordances and constraints of different social media platforms as perceived by Italian activists. The Sociol Rev 2016; 64(3):515-532. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.12378
  3. DiStaso MW, McCorkindale T. A benchmark analysis of the strategic use of social media for fortune’s most admired U.S. companies on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. Public Relat J 2013; 7(1), https://prjournal.instituteforpr.org/wp-content/uploads/2013DiStasoMcCorkindale.pdf
  4. du Plessis C. Social media crisis communication: Enhancing a discourse of renewal through dialogic content. Public Relat Rev 2018; 44(5):829–838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.10.003
  5. Fanpage Karma Academy. Metrics Overview - Fanpage Karma Academy. 2021; https://academy.fanpagekarma.com/en/metrics/
  6. Google Developers. PageSpeed Insights. 2021; https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/
  7. Google Search Central. Google Search Central. Google Developers. 2021a; September 9. https://developers.google.com/search/docs/advanced/crawling/special-tags
  8. Google Search Central. Google Search Central. Google Developers. 2021b; September 14. https://developers.google.com/search/docs/advanced/sitemaps/overview
  9. Gordon J, Berhow S. University websites and dialogic features for building relationships with potential students. Public Relat Rev 2009; 35(2):150-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2008.11.003
  10. Grunig JE, Hunt T. Managing public relations. New York London, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1984.
  11. Ha L, Pratt C. The real state of public relations on the World Wide Web. Public Relat Strat 2000; 6(3): 30-33.
  12. Hutchins B, Sanderson J. The primacy of sports television: Olympic media, social networking services, and multi-screen viewing during the Rio 2016 games. Media Int Aust 2017; 164(1):32-43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X17707065
  13. Ingenhoff D, Koelling AM. The potential of Web sites as a relationship building tool for charitable fundraising NPOs. Public Relat Rev 2009; 35(1):66-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2008.09.023
  14. International Olympic Committee. 2021; July 14, https://olympics.com/ioc/olympic-charter
  15. Kent ML, Carr BJ, Husted RA, Pop RA. Learning web analytics: A tool for strategic communication. Public Relat Rev 2011; 37(5):536-543.
  16. Kent ML, Lane A. Two-way communication, symmetry, negative spaces, and dialogue. Public Relat Rev 2021; 47(2):102014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102014
  17. Kent ML, Lane AB. A rhizomatous metaphor for dialogic theory. Public Relat Rev 2017; 43(3):568-578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.02.017
  18. Kent ML, Taylor M. Building dialogic relationships through the world wide web. Public Relat Rev 1998; 24(3):321-334.
  19. Kent ML, Taylor M, White WJ. The relationship between Web site design and organizational responsiveness to stakeholders. Public Relat Rev 2003; 29(1):63-77.
  20. Kim D, Nam Y, Kang S. An analysis of corporate environmental responsibility on the global corporate Web sites and their dialogic principles. Public Relat Rev 2010; 36(3):285-288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.04.006
  21. Kirk K, Ractham P, Abrahams A. Website development by nonprofit organizations in an emerging market: A case study of Thai websites. Int J Nonprofit Volunt Sect Mark 2016; 21(3):195-211. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1557
  22. Labrecque LI. Fostering consumer-brand relationships in social media environments: The role of parasocial interaction. J Interact Mark 2014; 28(2):134-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2013.12.003
  23. Lane AB. If it’s so good, why not make them do it? Why true dialogue cannot be mandated. Public Relat Rev 2018; 44(5):656-666.
  24. Liu W, Xu W, Tsai, J-Y. Developing a multi-level organization-public dialogic communication framework to assess social media-mediated disaster communication and engagement outcomes. Public Relat Rev 2020; 46(4):101949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2020.101949
  25. Lovejoy K, Saxton GD. Information, community, and action: How nonprofit organizations use social media. J Comput-Mediat Comm 2012; 17(3):337-353. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01576.x
  26. Madichie NO, Hinson R. A critical analysis of the “dialogic communications” potential of sub-Saharan African Police service websites. Public Relat Rev 2014; 40(2):338-350.
  27. McAllister S. User perceptions of dialogic public relations tactics via the Internet. Public Relat J 2008; 2(1):1-18.
  28. McCorkindale T, Morgoch M. An analysis of the mobile readiness and dialogic principles on Fortune 500 mobile websites. Public Relat Rev 2013; 39(3):193-197.
  29. McCoyd JLM, Kerson TS. Conducting intensive interviews using email: A serendipitous comparative opportunity. Qual Soc Work 2006; 5(3):389–406.
  30. Meho LI. E-mail interviewing in qualitative research: A methodological discussion. JASIST 2006; 57(10):1284-1295. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20416
  31. Naraine ML, Parent MM. This Is how we do it: A qualitative approach to national sport organizations’ social-media implementation. Int J Sport Communication 2017; 10(2):196-217.
  32. Ngondo PS, Wirtz J. An analysis of the website strategies of top fee-generating U.S.-based public relations agencies. Public Relat J 2013; 7:1-32.
  33. Park H, Reber BH. Relationship building and the use of Web sites: How Fortune 500 corporations use their Web sites to build relationships. Public Relat Rev 2008; 34(4):409-411.
  34. Pearson R. Beyond ethical relativism in public relations: Coorientation, rules, and the idea of communication symmetry. Public Rel Res Annual 1989; 1(1-4):67-86.
  35. Pegoraro A, Scott O, Burch LM. Strategic use of facebook to build brand awareness: A case study of two national sport organizations. Int J Public Adm Digit Age 2018; 4(1): 69-87.
  36. Pettigrew JE, Reber BH. The new dynamic in corporate media relations: How Fortune 500 companies are using virtual press rooms to engage the press. J Public Relat Res 2010; 22(4):404-428.
  37. Place KR. Moral dilemmas, trials, and gray areas: Exploring on-the-job moral development of public relations professionals. Public Relat Rev 2019; 45(1): 24-34.
  38. Reber BH, Kim JK. How activist groups use websites in media relations: Evaluating online press rooms. J Public Rel Res 2006; 18(4):313-333.
  39. Rubin AM, Perse EM, Powell RA. Loneliness, parasocial interaction, and local television news viewing. Hum Commun Res 1985; 12(2):155-180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1985.tb00071.x
  40. Saxton GD, Guo SC, Brown WA. New dimensions of nonprofit responsiveness: The application and promise of internet-based technologies. Public Perform Manag Rev 2007; 31(2):144-173.
  41. Seltzer T, Mitrook MA. The dialogic potential of weblogs in relationship building. Public Relat Rev 2007; 33(2):227-229.
  42. Taylor M, Kent ML. Congressional web sites and their potential for public dialogue. Atl J Commun 2004; 12(2):59-76.
  43. Taylor M, Kent ML, White WJ. How activist organizations are using the Internet to build relationships. Public Relat Rev 2001; 27(3):263-284.
  44. Uzunoğlu E, Misci Kip S. Building relationships through websites: A content analysis of Turkish environmental non-profit organizations’ (NPO) websites. Public Relat Rev 2014; 40(1):113-115.
  45. Vale L, Fernandes T. Social media and sports: Driving fan engagement with football clubs on Facebook. J Strateg Mark 2018; 26(1):37-55.
  46. Wang Y, Yang Y. Dialogic communication on social media: How organizations use Twitter to build dialogic relationships with their publics. Comput Hum Behav 2020; 104, 106183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106183
  47. Waters RD, Burnett E, Lamm A, Lucas J. Engaging stakeholders through social networking: How nonprofit organizations are using Facebook. Public Relat Rev 2009; 35(2):102-106.
  48. Waters RD, Williams JM. Squawking, tweeting, cooing, and hooting: Analyzing the communication patterns of government agencies on Twitter. J Public Aff 2011; 11(4):353-363. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.385
  49. Watkins BA. Experimenting with dialogue on Twitter: An examination of the influence of the dialogic principles on engagement, interaction, and attitude. Public Relat Rev 2017; 43(1):163-171.
  50. Watkins B, Lewis R. Initiating dialogue on social media: An investigation of athletes’ use of dialogic principles and structural features of Twitter. Public Relat Rev 2014; 40(5):853-855.
  51. Winand M, Belot M, Merten S, Kolyperas D. International Sport Federations’ social media communication: A content analysis of FIFA’s twitter account. Int J Sport Commun 2019; 12(2):209-233.
  52. Zhou A, Xu S. Digital public relations through the lens of affordances: A conceptual update of the “ease of interface” dialogic principle. SocArXiv Papers 2020; https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/uzhk9

©2024 Sports Academy Belgrade. All rights reserved. Powered by Magma
Publication of this journal is financially supported by the Ministry of Science, Technology and Development Republic of Serbia.