The social media era ushers in an increasingly “noisy” information environment that renders it more difficult for nonprofit advocacy organizations to make their voices heard. How then can an organization gain attention on social media? We address this question by building and testing a model of the effectiveness of the Twitter use of advocacy organizations. Using number of retweets and number of favorites as proxies of attention, we test our hypotheses with a 12-month panel dataset that collapses by month and organization the 219,915 tweets sent by 145 organizations in 2013. We find that attention is strongly associated with the size of an organization’s network, its frequency of speech, and the number of conversations it joins. We also find a seemingly contradictory relationship between different measures of attention and an organization’s targeting and connecting strategy.
BakshyE.HofmanJ. M.MasonW. A.WattsD. J. (2011). Everyone’s an influencer: Quantifying influence on Twitter. In Proceedings of the Fourth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (pp. 65-74). New York, NY.
2.
BarabásiA. L.AlbertR. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 286, 509-512.
3.
BaumgartnerF. R.JonesB. D. (2010). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
4.
BonkK. (2010). Strategic communications. In RenzD. (Ed.), The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and management (3rd ed., pp. 329-346). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
5.
BortreeD. S.SeltzerT. (2009). Dialogic strategies and outcomes: An analysis of environmental advocacy groups’ Facebook profiles. Public Relations Review, 35, 317-319.
6.
BroomG. M.CaseyS.RitcheyJ. (1997). Toward a concept and theory of organization-public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9, 83-98.
7.
CalderB. J.MalthouseE. C.SchaedelU. (2009). An experimental study of the relationship between online engagement and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23, 321-331.
8.
ClarkW. R.GolderM. (2015). Big Data, causal inference, and formal theory: Contradictory trends in political science?PS: Political Science & Politics, 48, 65-70.
9.
DavenportT. H.BeckJ. C. (2001). The attention economy: Understanding the new currency of business. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.
10.
EarlJ.KimportK. (2011). Digitally enabled social change: Activism in the Internet age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11.
EdwardsH. R.HoeferR. (2010). Are social work advocacy groups using Web 2.0 effectively?Journal of Policy Practice, 9, 220-239.
12.
ElmanR. J.OgarJ.ElmanS. H. (2000). Aphasia: Awareness, advocacy, and activism. Aphasiology, 14, 455-459.
13.
EngT.LiuC.SekhonY. (2012). The role of relationally embedded network ties in resource acquisition of British nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41, 1092-1115.
14.
Farrar-MyersV. A.VaughnJ. S. (Eds.). (2015). Controlling the message: New media in American political campaigns. New York: New York University Press.
15.
GreenbergJ.MacAulayM. (2009). NPO 2.0? Exploring the web presence of environmental nonprofit organizations in Canada. Global Media Journal—Canadian Edition, 2, 63-88.
16.
GrossC. P.AndersonG. F.PoweN. R. (1999). The relation between funding by the National Institutes of Health and the burden of disease. New England Journal of Medicine, 340, 1881-1887.
17.
GuoC.SaxtonG. D. (2010). Voice-in, voice-out: Constituent participation and nonprofit advocacy. Nonprofit Policy Forum, 1(1), Article 5. doi:10.2202/2154-3348.1000
18.
GuoC.SaxtonG. D. (2014). Tweeting social change: How social media are changing nonprofit advocacy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43, 57-79.
19.
HermidaA. (2010). From TV to Twitter: How ambient news became ambient journalism. Media/Culture Journal, 13(2). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1732603.
20.
HillsG.LumpkinG. T.SinghR. P. (1997). Opportunity recognition: Perceptions and behaviors of entrepreneurs. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 17(4), 203-218.
21.
HomansG. C. (2013). The human group (Vol. 7). New York, NY: Routledge.
22.
HowlettM. (1998). Predictable and unpredictable policy windows: Institutional and exogenous correlates of Canadian federal agenda-setting. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 31, 495-524.
23.
HughesA. L.PalenL. (2009). Twitter adoption and use in mass convergence and emergency events. International Journal of Emergency Management, 6(3-4), 248-260.
24.
JangC. Y.StefanoneM. A. (2011). Non-directed self-disclosure in the blogosphere: Exploring the persistence of interpersonal communication norms. Information, Communication & Society, 14, 1039-1059.
25.
JonesB. D.BaumgartnerF. R. (2005). The politics of attention: How government prioritizes problems. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
26.
KingdonJ. (1984). Agendas, alternatives and public choices. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
27.
KleinM. (2012). How to harvest collective wisdom on complex problems: An introduction to the MIT Deliberatorium. (Center for Collective Intelligence Working Paper).
28.
LanhamR. (2006). The economics of attention. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
29.
LedinghamJ. A.BruningS. D. (1998). Relationship management in public relations: Dimensions of an organization-public relationship. Public Relations Review, 24, 55-65.
30.
LovejoyK.SaxtonG. D. (2012). Information, community, and action: How nonprofit organizations use social media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 337-353.
31.
LovejoyK.WatersR. D.SaxtonG. D. (2012). Engaging stakeholders through Twitter: How nonprofit organizations are getting more out of 140 characters or less. Public Relations Review, 38, 313-318.
32.
McNuttJ. G.MenonG. M. (2008). The rise of cyberactivism: Implications for the future of advocacy in the human services. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 89, 33-38.
33.
MurthyD. (2011). Twitter: Microphone for the masses?Media, Culture & Society, 33, 779-789.
34.
ObarJ. A.ZubeP.LampeC. (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, 1-15.
35.
OcasioW. (2011). Attention to attention. Organization Science, 22, 1286-1296.
36.
PetrayT. L. (2011). Protest 2.0: Online interactions and Aboriginal activists. Media, Culture & Society, 33, 923-940.
37.
PietersR.WedelM. (2004). Attention capture and transfer in advertising: Brand, pictorial, and text-size effects. Journal of Marketing, 68, 36-50.
38.
ReddickC.PonomariovB. (2013). The effect of individuals’ organization affiliation on their Internet donations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42, 1197-1223.
39.
RenC. R.GuoC. (2011). Middle managers’ strategic role in the corporate entrepreneurial process: Attention-based effects. Journal of Management, 37, 1586-1610.
40.
SaxtonG. D.GuoC. (2014, November20-22). Conceptualizing social media capital. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action, Denver, CO.
41.
SaxtonG. D.WangL. (2014). The social network effect: The determinants of giving through social media. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43, 850-868.
42.
SaxtonG. D.WatersR. 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, 280-299.
43.
SimonH. A. (1971). Designing organizations for an information-rich world. In GreenbergerM. (Ed.), Computers, communications and the public interest (pp. 37-72). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
44.
SproullL. S. (1984). The nature of managerial attention. Advances in Information Processing in Organizations, 1, 9-27.
45.
TufekciZ. (2013). “Not this one”: Social movements, the attention economy, and microcelebrity networked activism. American Behavioral Scientist, 57, 848-870.
46.
WatersR. D.BurnettE.LammA.LucasJ. (2009). Engaging stakeholders through social networking: How nonprofit organizations are using Facebook. Public Relations Review, 35, 102-106.
47.
WattamE. (2009). A voice for the people: The role of social media technologies in community empowerment and regeneration. In Proceedings from Salford Postgraduate Annual Research Conference (pp.417-427). Salford, UK: University of Salford.
48.
WebsterJ. G. (2011). The duality of media: A structurational theory of public attention. Communication Theory, 21, 43-66.
49.
WoodB. D.VedlitzA. (2007). Issue definition, information processing, and the politics of global warming. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 552-568.
