Assignment3 Campaign Critique for Youtube

Public Relations Review 36 (2010) 329–335

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Public Relations Review

Socially distributing public relations: Twitter, Haiti, and interactivity in social media

Brian G. Smith ∗

University of Houston, 1119 Compass Cove Circle, Spring, TX 77379, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history: Received 25 May 2010 Received in revised form 18 August 2010 Accepted 23 August 2010

Keywords: Twitter Social media Public relations Haiti Stakeholders

a b s t r a c t

Social media and communication technology have shifted the power of communication from public relations practitioners to social media users who may not have a recognized role or defined interest in an organization. What results is a social model of public relations in which traditional public relations responsibilities are distributed to social media users, and which depends on interactivity, legitimacy, and a user’s social stake. This study explores social public relations through a qualitative analysis of user involvement on Twitter regard- ing relief efforts to support Haiti following the 7.0 earthquake that hit Port-Au-Prince in January, 2010. This analysis of Twitter posts also expands understanding of interactivity online and demonstrates social media user fulfillment of public relations objectives.

© 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

On January 12, 2010, a 7.0 magnitude earthquake hit the Haitian capital of Port-Au-Prince. Moments following reports of the earthquake, social media users flooded Twitter, posting queries about relief efforts, and establishing an online dialogue about the organizations and individuals involved in the Haitian recovery. These highly visible and continuously updated messages by non-organizational publics influenced the reputation of participating (and non-participating) organizations. Through Twitter, non-organizational publics fulfilled public relations activities, raising the question about the influence of social media on public relations.

Public relations research has identified and explored the ways in which social media facilitate relationship cultivation (Wright & Hinson, 2008). However, most of this research has examined organization-initiated efforts, leaving little under- standing of how online publics become active communicators and fulfill or impede public relations strategies. This research, which explores Twitter user response to the earthquake in Haiti, demonstrates that social media sites may be gateways through which public relations activities are socially distributed to non-organizational publics.

2. Literature review

Social media – a two-way form of media through which users construct personal identities through self-presentation and dialogue (Rettberg, 2009) – have received extensive attention for the way it empowers the public relations function (Porter & Sallot, 2005; Porter, Sweetser, & Chung, 2009), provides tangible measurement metrics (Porter, Sweetser Trammell, Chung, & Kim, 2007) and facilitates environmental scanning (Kelleher & Miller, 2006) while “help[ing] humanize the firm” (Marken, 2006/2007, p. 34).

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 801 420 8891. E-mail address: [email protected].

0363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.08.005

330 B.G. Smith / Public Relations Review 36 (2010) 329–335

Social media sites are virtual platforms for interactivity and information exchange (Perlmutter, 2008) where issues are debated and defined (Park & Reber, 2008). Social media users collaborate in content creation (Perlmutter, 2008), are proactive in searching information (Gurau, 2008), and value control in social media participation (Guillory & Sundar, 2008). Social media user interactivity is influenced by functionality (website features) and contingency (interdependence of responses) (Guillory & Sundar, 2008). Online involvement is dependent on website interactivity and personalization (Bruning, Dials, & Shirka, 2008; Sundar & Kim, 2005).

Organizations use social media to increase interactions with publics through a steady flow of inputs and outputs (Sundar, 2007) toward mutually beneficial relationships (Yang & Lim, 2009). Kent, Taylor, and White (2003) have identified five ways a web site can facilitate relationships: usefulness of information, feedback loops, ease of interface, conservation of visitors and generation of return visits. Seltzer and Mitrook (2007) argue that these principles make social media sites like blogs optimum for relationship cultivation.

Two online relationship strategies have received particular attention: communicated commitment and conversational human voice. Through communicated commitment, organizations communicate legitimacy and openness (Kelleher & Miller, 2006), and through conversational human voice, organizations connect personally with publics (Searls & Weinberger, 2000). Research has shown that communicated commitment and conversational human voice correlate positively with public relations relationship outcomes (Kelleher, 2009).

2.1. Distributing public relations

Through Twitter, social media users may participate in public relations activities, as public content reflects on organi- zational reputation. Kelleher (2009) has referred to this fulfillment of public relations strategies by non-public relations professionals as distributed public relations. Though discussions have emphasized organizational communicators (i.e. cus- tomer service, human resources, etc.), public posts on Twitter similarly reflect on organizational entities. This study explores the way social media user online interactivity reflects on organizational representation online—how public relations is distributed to Tweeters.

2.2. Twitter and the Haitian earthquake

The 7.0 magnitude earthquake that hit the Haitian capital of Port-Au-Prince in January 2010 was a highly visible “trending topic” on Twitter. Weeks following the earthquake, several hundred Haiti-related posts (or “tweets”) were uploaded every hour. Through Twitter, “a recipient driven information network” that allows users to post-short, 140-character messages on a public message board (Twitter, 2010), users discussed relief efforts in Haiti, including participating organizations and individuals. Twitter categorization tools were often used, including keywords, hashtags (categorical hyperlinks preceded by #) and the option to “follow” other users.

Though blogs have been the emphasis in public relations research (Vorvoreanu, 2006; Wright & Hinson, 2008), Twitter is a unique platform for exploring practice. Twitter’s character-count limits and real-time updates render it a place for ongoing and immediate interaction. Post-update and categorization tools facilitate dialogue in ways blogs do not, making it a dynamic environment for practitioner–user interaction.

2.3. Research questions

1. How do Twitter users communicate their involvement with Haiti relief efforts? 2. What public relations relationship strategies are represented by Twitter users?

3. Method

This study comprises a qualitative content analysis of Twitter posts regarding relief efforts in Haiti following the 7.0 magnitude earthquake. I collected Twitter posts, or tweets, using the keyword “Haiti” on six different occasions for 2–3 h per session between January 22 and February 11, 2010. I sought data depth by varying collection times of the days of the week. I began by copying large bodies of text, and employed the constant comparative method by categorizing tweets into topics of discussion surrounding Haiti. As themes became saturated, I limited collection to data that represented new themes. In sum, I collected over 1400 tweets. For data analysis, I employed the constant comparative method. First, I categorized posts based on user response type. Next, I assessed categorical assignments. Finally, I coded for online public relations strategies evident in tweets adding other categories where needed.

4. Findings

Twitter posts progressed from promotional efforts shortly after the disaster, to more personal, insightful and even critical tweets days later. Twitter users demonstrate communicated commitment and conversational human voice.

B.G. Smith / Public Relations Review 36 (2010) 329–335 331

4.1. RQ 1: How do Twitter users communicate their involvement with Haiti relief?

Individuals use Twitter to connect with a community of supporters, promote involvement, and personalize issues. Underlying each theme is an apparent motivation to declare individual involvement publicly.

4.1.1. Connecting Twitter users appear motivated to be connected to individuals with a common cause, primarily through declarations

of involvement and use of the Haiti keyword. For example, one user posted, “Doing relief work in Haiti. Exhausted and hot! Wish I could give this little girl some blood!” Another reported, “Staying at orphanage, children singing, dancing, sweet joyful sounds.” In addition to short declarations of “helping Haiti,” many added personal commentary, like one who said, “Made another donation to Haiti today! Feels good to do my good deeds!!” and another who posted, “Finally donated to Haiti relief thru company matching donations. Debating if I should donate more. Wanna see supplies actually get there.”

Users also used Twitter tools to connect to the community of Haiti supporters. Hashtags, including #Haiti, #HopeforHaiti, and #Igave, automatically connected posts, and the retweet function promoted contribution to community dialogue. For example, one user posted, “#whosincharge in #haiti That’s the question. Retweet to make this a trending topic and get the attention it so desperately needs”. Retweets seemed more dominant than personal messages, and users even forwarded simple messages like “Help Haiti now!” or “Tune into Hope for Haiti tonight!” rather than craft personal messages. Many forwarded videos, images and some created their own content, meaning the price of admission to the community of Haiti supporters may be content contribution.

Within this online community, users debated the effectiveness and credibility of relief efforts and their participants. One user questioned, “How much did all these telethons help Haiti?” and others suggested solutions: “They are awash in doctors; nurses in short supply – Why can’t extra DR stand as nurse?” Some even asked community advice about how to get involved. Twitter users may even consider these conversations separate from real-life associates. One user admitted, “Supposed to be going to a Haiti fundraiser tonite but don’t feel like going into the city. But if I don’t, my friends will disown me.”

Promoting. Twitter users seek to persuade through reviews on relief efforts. Personal commentary in such activities was common. For example, some referred to reports of John Travolta’s involvement with responses like “awesome guy” and “that’s what I’m talking about!” while others posted comments like, “John Travolta’s bringing Scientology ministers to help in Haiti. Apparently, these poor people haven’t suffered enough.”

Calls to action were a common theme that reverberated through tweets. Some helped users identify legitimate charities, while others instructed on ways to help Haiti, including the following post that was commonly retweeted: mike9r Step 1: Go to any cellphone store. Step 2: Use one of their phones to text “HAITI” to 90999 to donate $10. Step 3: Goto Step 2.

Well-articulated calls to action were particularly viral, as users retweeted poignant points. For example, one user posted: “As long as the pigs are still in the yard, what good does it do to plant flowers ? #STOPHAITICORRUPTION”. Shortly thereafter, another user retweeted that user’s message, adding “EVERYONE REACHING OUT TO #HAITI MUST GET THIS TRENDING! GET THE PIGS OUT OF THE YARD! #STOPHAITICORRUPTION”

Finally, self-promotion was evident on Twitter, as many users pledged to donate money with new followers. Pledges ranged from 10 cents to 10 dollars per new follower. In fact, some users mentioned Haiti just for the exposure it earned them. One user posted: “#letsbehonest im tryin 2 get followers #hannahmontana #haiti #nbc #conan #leno” another tweeted: “I shall never obtain that elusive 100 twitter followers. Maybe I should mention Haiti? Naa!”

Personalizing. Users infuse Haiti into Twitter’s “what I’m doing now” theme, by expressing sympathy and publicizing personal involvement. For example, one tweet proclaimed, “Donated to Haiti, almost completed Zelda and discovered a new funeral doom band. Overall productive day”. Another read, “Gonna be bringing a ton of clothes tomorrow to school to donate to Haiti”. Some simply reflect on Haiti issues in a personal way, like one user who tweeted, “When a catastro- phe like this comes I get to know of a remote country and ask myself: Why I didn’t learn more before #Haiti”. Another commented: “Friend asks to text off your phone, only to find out from your phone bill $100 has been donated to Haiti #awkwardsituation”.

In personal posts like those quoted above, Twitter users may assume others are reading their posts. Some users posed personal messages and supply requests from Haiti: “I need tents for 10 or more in Delmas 33 Urgent! #haiti”. One user even sought penitence for a recent tweet comparing disasters in Haiti and New Orleans: “Just want to say I apologize bout the tweet about Haiti and New Orleans. I cannot judge New Orleans to Haiti. New Orleans had a lil over 10k dead. Haiti got 150k+ dead. I really take that back. Forgive me plz.” Some even expected celebrities to read (and respond to) posts directed at them, like the user who posted “@justinbieber If you tweet me I will donate $10 to Haiti”. One user lamented poor judgment in a recent tweet:”

4.2. RQ 2: What public relations relationship strategies are represented by Twitter users?

Though tweets promoting organizational efforts in Haiti are common, users also reflect public relations relationship cultivation strategies in their tweets, including communicated relational commitment and conversational human voice. Dialogic feedback loops, positivity, and openness are also apparent.

332 B.G. Smith / Public Relations Review 36 (2010) 329–335

4.2.1. Communicating commitment Twitter users communicate commitment and influence organizational legitimacy through real-life context, as reflected

by one user who declared: “Honestly, I have NOT yet given money to Haiti relief – don’t trust the donate via text thing but during tonite’s telethon, I will call it in!” Reports of organizational events and donation totals were also common, and some added personal commentary. For example, one user commented: “RT @SamaritansPurse: ‘A day here is like a month.’ #Haiti team leader speaking of the morale of the team working. Keep them in your prayers” while an employee tweeter said, “Nice to be able to contribute our Palm Pre dev skills to Haiti relief.”

Twitter posts also criticized organizational commitment. One user complained, “News networks are on to the next story and neglecting to cover the things going on in Haiti. They could be so useful now!” and another posted, “The @MiamiHerald website won’t knock Haiti out of the feature box even for the State of the Union? They must really want that Pulitzer”. Pessimism was particularly evident surrounding celebrity involvement. One user wrote “#letsbehonest – most celebrities helping Haiti now didn’t give a crap a month ago” and another wrote “this whole haiti situation just looks suspect, I dont trust these people at all”.

Twitter users also publicized personal commitment. For example, one user declared “#withmyrefundcheck I’d donate to #haiti,” and another stated, “Time to get ready for work to take care of people, continue to pray for the people of Haiti.” In this way, Twitter users provide a real-life context to involvement.

4.2.2. Conversational human voice Tweets communicate messages in ways that organizations cannot. For example, one user commented: “Chanel number

5 is always a must in a disaster zone. . . good for body collecting and triage in raw sewage areas. Viva coco chanel #haiti”. Tweets show candor and add real-life perspectives to organizational efforts: “I tried to text yele and donate money to Haiti, Tmobile reps called me quick and suggested I not make my PAST DUE bill any higher”. In this way, users couple publicity with personal commentary: “This week JJ Bean is matching your donation for Haiti. Plus the Canadian Gov’t matches the total contribution. Its a multiplying miracle.”

Human voice on Twitter may be critical in nature. One user exclaimed, “Who the hell is the Society of Professional Journalists to tell reporters how to behave in Haiti? What gall”. Others criticized political institutions: “#Haiti is without a government. To help out, I am donating Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Coakley & both Clintons! #obamafail.”. Human voice may also simply be quirky. One user posted his involvement in a lyric: “I could’ve left my phone at home, but this is a disastuh. Callin cuz they’re collectors. . . and Haiti needs my Mastuh (card).” Others quipped: “It’s fun to watch a soap opera without the sound and imagine every conversation is about the tragedy in Haiti” and “#uknowubrokewhen Haiti sends YOU some money”.Twitter as a feedback engineTwitter served as virtual town hall for discussion of relief efforts. One individual tweeted, “I think if your going to capitalize on selling stuff to benefit Haiti 100% of proceeds need to go there. not 1%” and another posted, “We need to have a voice in plan for #Haiti, more importantly, our HAITIAN partners need to be creating that plan”. Users openly debated US and organizational involvement, including tweets that questioned participation: “I am not saying not do something for Haiti, yes donate, but I think the same effort needs to go into the American Homeless & unemp”. Feedback on Haitian relief efforts was most evident during the US State of the Union address. Debate ranged from commentary about an 8-year-old boy who sent his allowance to Obama to give to Haiti (“I am disturbed that a little boy would think it a good idea to send his money to the fed gov’t instead of the red cross to help Haiti.”) to reactions to the president’s recognition of Haiti in his address (“Scant mention of Haiti in the SOTU. Disappointed”).

4.2.4. Twitter for collaboration Twitter posts are interdependent. Retweets are common, and enable users to build off others’ commentary and network

on relief efforts. Whereas some users forwarded messages calling tweeters to “keep the attention on Haiti”, others posted queries seeking ways to help out. For example, one user tweeted, “I wanna raise money for #Haiti. Many people lost limbs and will need prosthetics. Let’s brainstorm,” another suggested, “I wonder if there is any way that I could help Haiti when my current contract ends if I find myself with some time off?” One may have even used Twitter as a classified ad site: “Haiti Earthquake – Young Male Looking For Work: I am a young male looking for work”.

5. Discussion

Twitter is more than a message engine—it is a platform for social connection and promotion. Interactivity is a driving force of Twitter use, and involvement seems dependent on technological facilitation (functional interactivity) and interdependent messaging (contingent interactivity). Furthermore, Tweets can fulfill or impede public relations efforts as messaging activities are distributed to publics with little or no stake in organizational success.

5.1. Social media use, interactivity, and self-expression

This study confirms previous research (Sundar, Kalyanaraman, & Brown, 2003) that interest in a topic is a factor in online interactivity, which may be defined as quick, even copy-cat message retrieval and distribution. In spite of assumptions that social media sites like Twitter encourage self-expression, users may be more interested in representing an issue and belonging to a community than communicating personal insight, a perspective that contradicts accepted definitions of

B.G. Smith / Public Relations Review 36 (2010) 329–335 333

social media as a tool for self-expression (Rettberg, 2009). Evidence for this claim includes common use of retweets (which require the user to recognize the original post and user) and hashtags, which automatically associate users with other Haiti tweeters. Twitter posts, alone, may not confirm this assumption, and future research should explore this self-expression vs. issue association dichotomy.

Social media use for issue alliance expands understanding of functional and contingent interactivity. On the one hand, social media tools that facilitate issue alliance (i.e. retweets, forwards, “liking” applications), may lead to more interactivity for their facilitation of user association with an issue. In other words, functional interactivity is based on an application’s ease of use in connecting a user to his or her intended interest.

User needs in issue association may also underscore application of contingent interactivity. This study confirms contin- gency perspectives, that social media use is based on the interconnected nature of message posts (Guillory & Sundar, 2008), but it adds insight on user “self-as-source” needs in that contingency. Whether social media users need to be recognized as the purveyors of information may be less important than being a purveyor of such information among a group of supporters. In other words, contingent interactivity is based on user need to be one of a group of individuals who supports an issue.

5.2. Social public relations

Twitter user engagement in this study provides understanding of a socially distributed model of public relations, in which individuals with little recognized stake in an organization initiate and fulfill public relations responsibilities through online interactivity. In this social model, public relations-related activities are initiated by an online public, facilitated by communication technology, and based on user interactivity (or the searching, retrieval, and distribution of information online). Whereas other online models consider the organization as source (i.e. the dialogic web model [Kent et al., 2003]) social public relations are based on user-initiation and comprise three concepts: viral interaction, public-defined legitimacy, and social stake.

5.2.1. Viral interaction Public relations-related messages expand through the ease of sharing (functional interactivity) and the relevance of the

message to an issue community (contingent interactivity). In the case of organizational representation in Haiti relief efforts, simple messages that both easily communicate the message (“Help Haiti Now!”) and associate the user with the online Haiti support community fulfill user needs and are, therefore, posted as an update on their Twitter profile. Viral public interaction also recognizes the value of well-articulated point. Such messages (i.e. the Haiti “Get the pigs out of the yard” comment) may be more likely to be communicated by multiple users.

5.2.2. Public-defined legitimacy Twitter users personalize issues and communicate personal relevance, granting organizational legitimacy through con-

versational human voice and communicated commitment. Though it may be difficult to judge perceived legitimacy in a content analysis of Twitter posts, the retweeting of others’ posts demonstrates basic credibility and lends measurable legiti- macy to the opinions communicated. The critical question under this heading is whether the nature of the message (positive or negative) influences the perceived legitimacy of the message, and by extension, the organization represented. Further investigation into user perceptions would aid in understanding.

5.2.3. Social stake Findings from this study call for a revised understanding of the stakeholder. Traditional definitions depict stakehold-

ers as organizationally defined groups of people, who may affect or be affected by an organization’s decisions. In other words, a public’s “stake” in the organization is tangible and organizationally defined. However, by this understanding, Twit- ter users who communicated messages about organizations or individuals involved in relief efforts had little stake in the organization—they neither stood to gain or lose by organizational actions.

Rather, by communicating about an organization’s or individual’s actions, Twitter users associated their online profile with a particular stance on the Haiti relief efforts. This may represent user risk, as the credibility of an organization or the message about an organization reflects on the social status of that user in an online community. In other words, social media users may have a “social stake” in an organization or issue when communicating online. Social media users’ public messages influence the credibility they maintain in their online communities. The risk associated with publicly aligning oneself to an issue or opinion creates stake for a social media user in a participating organization. This concept of social stake may be more fluid than “stake” held by local community members, who are affected by the actions of a local establishment, or employees, whose financial interests are staked to the organization, and is need of further investigation through in-depth interviews or other qualitative means.

5.3. A preliminary theory of socially distributed public relations

It may be shortsighted to argue that an individual case of social media use establishes a need for new theoretical direc- tions in public relations, and it is not my contention that current public relations theories need revision. However, it is valuable to consider the findings from this study as a starting point to consider how social media may influence the future of

334 B.G. Smith / Public Relations Review 36 (2010) 329–335

public relations. To this end, I believe the following preliminary understanding has value to public relations theorizing and practice: socially distributed public relations are online, retrievable communication activities which reflect on an organiza- tion, facilitated by communication technology and dependent on recognition of the social stake a user or group may risk in communicating a message publicly about an organization or cause.

Though preliminary, this perspective holds value for understanding how public relations may be “distributed” to non- organizational publics. First, social media users’ public alignment with an organization represents user risk. Second is the notion of facilitated communication—that is, the nature of insight and ease of sharing such insight influences social fulfillment of public relations strategies. Finally, as a retrievable activity, messaging is searchable and measurable. Mea- surement is facilitated, through consideration of simple metrics like retweets or message forwarding, but may be expanded to the quality of a user’s public identification with an organizational issue or message through his or her updated online status.

5.4. Implications for practice

To facilitate social distribution of public relations, practitioners become accessible resources. Publics have unparalleled reach and access to information, and practitioners can help social media publics sort through the clutter. In this way, informa- tion sharing and interaction facilitate relationship cultivation. Practitioners should be well-versed in the online discussions to provide useful insights that fulfill user needs and lead to further interaction (which may be expressed as a user’s decision to “follow” or “friend” the organization or practitioner).

5.5. Limitations and future research

Findings in this study are exploratory, and limitations exist in exploring a finite data set (Haiti relief efforts) in a short amount of time (2 weeks). Also, it may be natural that a hot-button topic like the Haiti disaster will bring out the most extreme commentary (though those who comment in a public venue may be more likely to do so because they have a strong opinion). Potentially complicating results are the possibility that message tone and meaning could have been misunderstood.

At the same time, the limited data sets, context, and timeframe of this research open new avenues for research in public relations and social media research. Scholarship has only begun to uncover social media’s effect on public relations, and the only “wrong” direction in research would be to consider social media as simply another media outlet on par with traditional news or mass media. Social media should be considered more than an organizational tool, and future research should explore user experience, risk and motivations (i.e. issue alliance vs. self-expression). New definitions of stakeholder and organizational legitimacy stand out as critical needs in research.

The development of public relations will be defined by scholar willingness to reconsider traditional notions of what public relations are in light of an ever-growing technologically empowered world of communicators. This task requires scholars to move beyond efforts to simply translate public relations models into the online sphere, but rather consider this an opportunity to consider new levels of risk, relationship, and interactivity.

References

Bruning, S. D., Dials, M., & Shirka, A. (2008). Using dialogue to build oranization–public relations, engage publics, and positively affect organizational outcomes. Public Relations Review, 34, 25–31.

Guillory, J., & Sundar, S. S. (2008). Can interactivity in corporate websites influence public perceptions of organizations? In Paper presented at the International Communication Association Conference Montreal, Canada.

Gurau, C. (2008). Integrated online marketing communication: Implementation and management. Journal of Communication Management, 12(2), 169–184. Kelleher, T. (2009). Conversational voice, communicated commitment, and public relations outcomes in interactive online communication. Journal of

Communication, 59, 172–188. Kelleher, T., & Miller, B. M. (2006). Organizational blogs and the human voice: Relational strategies and relational outcomes. Journal of Computer-Mediated

Communication, 11(2), article 1. Kent, M. L., Taylor, M., & White, W. J. (2003). The relationship between web site design and organizational responsiveness to stakeholders. Public Relations

Review, 29, 63–77. Marken, G. A. (2006/2007). Blogosphere or blog with fear. Public Relations Quarterly, 51(4), 33–35. Park, H., & Reber, B. H. (2008). Relationship building and the use of web sites: How Fortune 500 corporations use their web sites to build relationships.

Public Relations Review, 34, 409–411. Perlmutter, D. (2008). Blogwars. New York: Oxford. Porter, L. V., & Sallot, L. M. (2005). Web power: A survey of practitioners’ worldwide web use and their perception of its effects on their decision-making

power. Public Relations Review, 31, 111–119. Porter, L., Sweetser, K., & Chung, D. (2009). The blogosphere and public relations: Exploring practitioner’s roles and blog use. Journal of Communication,

13(3), 250–267. Porter, L. V., Sweetser Trammell, K. D., Chung, D., & Kim, E. (2007). Blog power: Examining the effects of practitioner blog use on power in public relations.

Public Relations Review, 33, 92–95. Rettberg, J. W. (2009). ‘Freshly generated for you, and Barack Obama’: How social media represent your life. European Journal of Communication, 24, 451–466. Searls, D., & Weinberger, D. (2000). Markets as conversations. In R. Levine, C. Locke, D. Searls, & D. Weinberger (Eds.), The cluetrain manifesto: The end of

business as usual (pp. 75–114). New York: Perseus. Seltzer, T., & Mitrook, M. A. (2007). The dialogic potential of weblogs in relationship building. Public Relations Review, 33, 227–229. Sundar, S. S. (2007). Social psychology of interactivity in human–website interaction. In A. N. Joinson, K. Y. A. McKenna, T. Postmes, & U.-D. Reips (Eds.), The

Oxford handbook of internet psychology (pp. 89–104). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sundar, S. S., Kalyanaraman, S., & Brown, J. (2003). Explicating website interactivity. Communication Research, 30(1), 30–59.

B.G. Smith / Public Relations Review 36 (2010) 329–335 335

Sundar, S. S., & Kim, J. (2005). Interactivity and persuasion: Influencing attitudes with information and Involvement. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 5(2). Retrieved on March 3, 2010 from. http://www.jiad.org/vol5/no2/sundar/index.htm

Twitter. (2010). Twitter 101. Retrieved March 3, 2010 from. http://business.twitter.com/101 Vorvoreanu, M. (2006). Online organization–public relationships: An experience-centered approach. Public Relations Review, 32, 395–401. Wright, D. K., & Hinson, M. (2008). Examining the increasing impact of social media on the public relations practice. Retrieved March 3, 2010 from.

http://www.instituteforpr.org/files/uploads/Wright-Hinson.pdf Yang, S.-U., & Lim, S. (2009). The effects of blog-mediated public relations (BMPR) on relational trust. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21, 341–359.