Using Social Media in Public Communication
1 like826 views
This document discusses a study examining the use of social media, specifically Twitter and Facebook, by the CDC and WHO during the 2009 H1N1 flu pandemic. The study analyzed over 200 social media posts and official website messages from April to July 2009. It found that the WHO's social media posts more closely reflected the situation updates on its official website, while the CDC's posts varied in focus across platforms. Both organizations avoided direct engagement with users on social media. The study concludes that social media can effectively disseminate timely pandemic information while avoiding misinformation, but direct interaction with users may not be advisable in emergency situations.
Using Social Media in Public Communication
- 1. Felicia Song & Masudul Biswas Louisiana State University
- 2. Social Media & New Communication Potentials User-generated content Networking capacity Interactivity
- 3. Social Media Use Today About 73% of American teens and young adults, and 40% of adults aged over 30 used social networking sites in 2009 (Lenhart, Purcell, Smith, & Zickuhr, 2010). SNS users ages 50 and over have nearly-doubled from 22% in 2009 to 42% in 2010 (Madden, 2010). Nearly 1 in 5 Internet users is using Twitter or another service to share & see personal and business updates. (October 2009)
- 4. Nuances in the Digital Divides Who is online? From 2000 - 2010, internet users who are black or Latino has nearly doubled—from 11% to 21%. BUT, language, economic disadvantage, and conditions of access still matter.
- 5. Nuances in the Digital Divides Of those who are online… Digital access is increasingly mobile, especially for people of color (70% are texting) Nearly ½ of black internet users go to a social networking site on a typical day (vs. just 1/3 of white internet users) 25% of online African-Americans use Twitter & other status update services (vs. 15% of white internet users)
- 6. ROLES OF SOCIAL MEDIA IN PANDEMIC COMMUNICATION: A STUDY The study examined the use of social networking sites by the CDC and the WHO in the context of the H1N1 flu outbreak It compared (1) types of messages; (2) relationships to message trends on official websites; and (3) levels of interaction with users
- 7. POTENTIALS OF SOCIAL MEDIA Quick & live communication Widget compatible and simultaneously accessible on and from multiple platforms Allows users to interact within network Pushes web traffic to official web sites/web pages
- 8. STUDY SAMPLE Content analysis of Twitter updates, Facebook posts, and official website posts/ messages. 243 Twitter updates, 251 Facebook messages and comments, and 222 web site posts disseminated by CDC and WHO, April - July, 2009. Twitter pages: CDCflu, CDCemergency, CDC_eHealth, whonews Facebook pages: CDC and WHO
- 9. FINDINGS Types of message content about H1N1 on Twitter, Facebook, and official websites - Investigation or diagnosis - Preventive and safety measure - Treatment issues - Situation updates - “web-promotion” messages
- 10. FINDINGS Differences between CDC and WHO usage? WHO: more situation update-related messages on both Twitter and Facebook pages CDC: the CDCflu and CDCemergency posted more messages on situation updates on Twitter pages, and more messages on preventive and safety issues on their Facebook page. Twitter page CDC_eHealth mainly posted web-promotion messages.
- 11. FINDINGS Did Twitter and Facebook pages reflect the message- focus of the official websites? WHO - Message postings on Twitter and Facebook pages reflected messaging trends of their official website. - The official website posted more situation updates than messages on investigation, prevention and safety, and treatment.
- 12. FINDINGS Did Twitter and Facebook pages reflect the message- focus of the official websites? CDC - The Facebook page reflected the messaging trend of the official website and posted more messages on prevention and safety than other messages. - BUT the combination of three Twitter pages posted more situation updates than other four types of messages.
- 13. FINDINGS Did CDC and WHO use Facebook and Twitter for interactivity? Facebook -CDC and WHO did not directly interact or exchange messages with Facebook users. -But Facebook users interacted with other users on the H1N1 flu situation on Facebook pages of the CDC and the WHO.
- 14. FINDINGS Did CDC and WHO use Facebook and Twitter for interactivity? Twitter - CDC only shared or re-tweeted the messages from government organizations and other CDC Twitter pages. They did not react to messages of other Twitter users on Twitter. - WHO also did not interact with other Twitter users.
- 15. Conclusions & Assumptions Social media function as supportive tools for website-based interventions during a case of outbreak communication, requiring speedy and constant dissemination of essential messages to address situational uncertainty. Both CDC and WHO avoided any engagement or interaction, particularly involving unconfirmed information. The structure of Twitter is more effective in avoiding rumor and misinformation than Facebook in pandemic or emergency situations.
- 16. Effective use of Facebook & Twitter Facebook Twitter Educational (in combination with YouTube/podcasting/an online discussion forum) Interaction/Participation Promoting website content Routine & Emergency Updates Monitoring / Crowdsourcing Networking & Creating Lists Promoting website content Promoting researchers (encouraging researchers to tweet) Separate Twitter page for news media
- 17. Conclusion: Questions to Address Who is your audience? What is your purpose of communication? What is the nature of your message content?
- 18. Social Media Strategies/Planning Issues Oil spill, Seafood safety, rip currents, beaches Nature of Communication Routine OR emergency/ crisis? Identifying Audiences/Publics Priority OR Target external publics? Active OR Passive external publics? Planning & Developing Messages •Informative (research-based OR situational?) •Participatory (for the purpose of idea generation) •Gathering and monitoring public perception/opinion on SEA Grant-related issues
Editor's Notes
- #2: FWS: Thank you – Introductions (sociology / mass comm)
- #3: FWS: Web 2.0- sns (facebook, myspace), blogs & microblog tools (Twitter), Flickr & YouTube, wikis, podcasts What makes them different from Web 1.0– traditional websites with discussion forums, emails/list-servs?
- #7: MB--Tell that H1N1 flu is the first pandemic of the century. Transition after first bullet – to explain why is this study done? Rationale. Transition after third bullet – switch to emergency communication context and potentials of social media tools during emergency communication.
- #8: MB
- #9: MB:
- #10: MB: Web-promotion message (will explain) is a derived message category used in this study. It refers to the messages conveying web-based communication services about H1N1-related information, e.g. podcasting, video, PSA, press briefing transcripts, social media tools, and web briefings posted on the official website. MAKE THIS POINT IN THE NEXT SLIDE WHEN COMPARING: Only the CDC about H1N1 flu via separate Twitter (CDC e-Health) and Facebook. MOVE THIS TO THE NEXT SLIDE: Two additional observations: The CDC and WHO got more users of their Twitter pages than Facebook pages. The CDC posted more messages (posts) on their Facebook page than the WHO.
- #11: MB
- #12: MB
- #13: MB
- #14: MB
- #15: MB
- #16: MB
- #17: MB: Effective use will depend on the purposes of using social media. Re. Interaction: Facebook and blogs can be two other platforms for interaction. Also monitoring related tweets of followers and SEA Grant issue-related “search” results.
- #19: FWS