5

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjpm20

Journal of Promotion Management

ISSN: 1049-6491 (Print) 1540-7594 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/wjpm20

Dialogic Communication and Thought Leadership: Twitter Use by Public Relations Agencies in the United States

Patrick D. Thelen, Katy L. Robinson, Cen April Yue & Rita Linjuan Men

To cite this article: Patrick D. Thelen, Katy L. Robinson, Cen April Yue & Rita Linjuan Men (2021) Dialogic Communication and Thought Leadership: Twitter Use by Public Relations Agencies in the United States, Journal of Promotion Management, 27:1, 27-49, DOI: 10.1080/10496491.2020.1809595

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2020.1809595

Published online: 24 Aug 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1006

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Dialogic Communication and Thought Leadership: Twitter Use by Public Relations Agencies in the United States

Patrick D. Thelena , Katy L. Robinsonb, Cen April Yueb , and Rita Linjuan Menb

aSan Diego State University, San Diego, California, USA; bUniversity of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA

ABSTRACT This study examined how the 117 Twitter profiles maintained by U.S. headquartered agencies appearing in the 2017 Global Top 250 PR Agencies list from the Holmes Report are using this platform to communicate with their publics. Guided by the dialogic communication theory, a content analysis of 1,120 tweets (from the 112 agencies identified as having pub- lic active accounts) published between January and October 2017 were analyzed to better understand the content strat- egies implemented by these agencies as well as the relation- ship between levels of public engagement and the implementation of dialogic principles. Additionally, this study placed a special emphasis on thought leadership and the means being employed by agencies to introduce and promote their ideas. The study’s results suggest that while media vivid- ness increases the public’s levels of engagement, interactivity has an inverse effect. At the same time, the findings indicate that agencies are not fully employing the dialogic capacity of Twitter. From a strategic point of view, this study provides sig- nificant implications for social media communication practices by public relations agencies.

KEYWORDS Dialogic communication; thought leadership; social media; engagement; public relations agencies

Dialogic communication and thought leadership: Twitter use by public relations agencies in the United States

Social media’s widespread use has played an important role in changing how public relations (PR) practitioners share and communicate information (Komodromos, 2014) and has given them an opportunity to engage in two- way communication with their publics (Saxton & Waters, 2014). As engag- ing in dialogue is considered an effective strategy for building and main- taining relationships with publics (Bruning et al., 2008), several studies have explored how the Internet’s potential to enhance dialogic communica- tion can positively impact organization-public relationships (Kelleher, 2009;

CONTACT Patrick D. Thelen [email protected] San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA. � 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 2021, VOL. 27, NO. 1, 27–49 https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2020.1809595

Kent & Taylor, 1998). As a result, both scholars and practitioners have been searching for the most effective ways to communicate and engage with key publics through these relatively new technologies (Sundstrom & Levenshus, 2017). Unfortunately, researchers have found that organizations are not fully utilizing available dialogic communication strategies (Rybalko & Seltzer, 2010). Some studies have researched how different organizations are applying Kent and Taylor’s (1998) dialogic principles on social media (e.g. Haro-De-Rosario et al., 2017; Lovejoy et al., 2012; McAllister, 2012a; Sundstrom & Levenshus, 2017). However, there is a lack of empirical data that considers how PR agencies in the United States utilize social media platforms like Twitter, and more specifically, the effectiveness with which they use them. This study places a special focus on the means being utilized by agencies

to communicate their thought leadership practices. While the term has been extensively used, it has no standard definition. Nevertheless, it is often viewed as the act of creating and publicizing valuable and innovative ideas that influence the way people think about a wide range of topics (e.g., Van Halderen & Kettlor-Paddock, 2011; Young, 2013). Additionally, as sug- gested by Young (2013), thought leadership is intended to generate a genu- ine two-way process of communication that inspires thinking and learning. Ultimately, thought leadership has earned increasing attention as communi- cation tools that support the concept continue to expand. In particular, the advent of web-based communication, namely social media add a powerful update to email, seminars, white papers, books, and other platforms avail- able to spread thought leadership (Bourne, 2015; Young, 2013). Although it has received attention in the academic literature (e.g.,

Bourne, 2015; Diket & Klein, 2016; Kerns, 2019; Young, 2013), research on thought leadership is lacking in the public relations discipline. Building trust in their skills and expertise and setting themselves apart from compet- itors through thought leadership is a common strategic communication tool implemented by firms worldwide. Literature has not addressed if, and to what extent, agencies are developing and implementing novel ideas and employing social media as a platform to share their thought leadership. This study addresses that current gap. Specifically, this study fills a gap in academic communication literature by evaluating whether and how public relations agencies utilize Twitter to disseminate independently created, rele- vant ideas and related research, white papers, authored books, media cover- age, blogs, training sessions, workshops, webinars, seminars, and/or panel participation (Bourne, 2015; Young, 2013). Guided by the overarching theoretical framework of dialogic principles,

we conducted a content analysis that compared how the 117 Twitter pro- files maintained by U.S. headquartered agencies appearing in the 2017

28 P. D. THELEN ET AL.

Global Top 250 PR Agencies list from the Holmes Report are using Twitter to communicate with their publics. A total of 1,120 tweets published between January and October 2017 were analyzed to better understand the content strategies implemented by these agencies (such as media vividness, interactivity, and theme of posts), as well as the relationship between levels of public engagement (defined by the number of Replies, Likes, and Retweets) and the implementation of dialogic principles. This study provides important implications for public relations scholars

and practitioners working in PR agencies. Theoretically, it extends the growing body of knowledge on social media engagement, dialogic princi- ples, and thought leadership among large, medium, and small-sized PR agencies in the United States. Practically, this study helps provide import- ant insights for public relations agencies to better understand the social media landscape.

Literature review

Public relations and social media

The management of social media has become a significant and time-con- suming function for public relations practitioners. A practitioner survey conducted by Wright and Hinson (2017) found that 64% of PR professio- nals spend anywhere between 11% and 50% of their working time with blogs and other social media. A study that surveyed European practitioners found that 55% use social media on a daily basis and 27.2% use it several times per week at work (Moreno et al., 2015). Communication scholars have found that organizations utilize social media tools for a wide number of reasons, including relationship building (Cho et al., 2014) and marketing communications (Estanyol, 2012). With the development of new and emerging digital media, new behaviors are being born into business. Social media has shifted the way stakeholders connect with organizations, and the way professional communicators generate interest in their products, and ideas among stakeholders (Young, 2013). One endeavor involving strategic communication that has rarely been

addressed by scholarly literature, but has been described by news outlets, agency websites, and blogs, as an activity that can produce significant results and impact reputation, relationships and revenue, is thought leader- ship (Wetherhead & Roth, 2015). Social media is an important platform that public relations practitioners can utilize to position a spokesperson, cli- ent, agency, or themselves as thought leaders (Zuk, 2009). Not surprisingly, a study conducted by Chen et al. (2017) that examined the strategic use of social media for stakeholder engagement in startup companies in China, found that thought leadership was frequently used by many interviewees as

JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 29

a content strategy in their social media communication. Given the import- ance of thought leadership, the following sections will refer to its definition and its relevance in public relations.

Defining thought leadership

Thought leadership is a term that is commonly used by consulting firms, technology industries and communication specialists. Badings (2009) views thought leadership as “establishing a relationship with and delivering some- thing of value to your stakeholders and customers that aligns with your brand/company value” (para. 1). Young (2013), on the other hand, suggests the following statement of meaning: “The creation or adaptation of an innovative concept for direct or indirect business advantage” (Loc 1016 of 7152). Van Halderen and Kettlor-Paddock (2011) propose a similar defin- ition: “the action of introducing and promoting convention-breaking ideas that cause people to change how they think about marketplace or societal issues” (p. 4). Thought leadership offers a number of advantages such as establishing authority while entering new markets, displaying a firm’s com- mitment to a specific field, and reaching thousands of potential clients in a quick and effective way (Bourne, 2015; Czerniawska, 2012). By providing helpful content and demonstrating the knowledge and

capabilities of the organization, thought leadership may help build relation- ships and enhance reputation (Young, 2013). Thought leadership is treated as a specialism among some companies (Bourne, 2015), with teams focus- ing on generating “white papers”, opinion editorials, email ‘alerts’, propri- etary research and policy documents (Young, 2013). Over the years, the term has broadened and a wide range of communication tools have been incorporated to familiarize customers and potential customers with a firm’s products and services through speeches, seminars, videos, articles, and blogs (Young, 2013). Published thought leadership consists of books, reports, research studies, and white papers (Bourne, 2015). Given its ability to communicate different issues, case studies have also been used as thought leadership. Similarly, presentations at conferences are a simple and common form of thought leadership that captures business experiences (Bourne, 2015). Having ample resources to draw on is a distinct advantage for firms that decide to incorporate thought leadership in their public rela- tions strategy (Bourne, 2015). This is why it is fundamental for companies to assess whether they have the resources and potential to develop a thought leadership position (Van Halderen & Kettlor-Paddock, 2011). Additionally, a long-term commitment over a period of many years is necessary (Van Halderen & Kettlor-Paddock, 2011).

30 P. D. THELEN ET AL.

Thought leadership and public relations agencies

Thought leadership can be implemented by all types of organizations, but is often seen as particularly relevant among B2B companies (Wetherhead & Roth, 2015), such as PR agencies. Having the ability to demonstrate insights and trends affecting their industry is an effective way for B2B com- panies to differentiate themselves from their competitors and capture the attention of key stakeholders, such as current or potential clients. A study conducted by Edelman and LinkedIn that measured that impact of thought leadership among B2B companies in the United States found that 58% of decision makers spend an hour or more per week reading thought leader- ship (Edelman-LinkedIn, 2018). As the competition between organizations and B2B companies continue

to increase, many firms are undertaking the challenge to attain thought leadership status and be recognized for their valuable information through their online content (Holston, 2014). Public relations agencies are not the exception (Holmes, 2018). The Excellence theory has emphasized the empowerment of public relations in the dominant coalition (Grunig et al., 2002). One of the ways in which PR practitioners and agencies can gain “the trust of senior management depends in large part on knowing the business or industry as well as public relations—and then speaking the lan- guage of that enterprise” (Grunig et al., 2002, p. 177). Through thought leadership, PR agencies can highlight their knowledge and expertise of pub- lic relations and business, and position themselves as organizational coun- selors. As stated by Holmes (2018), “thought leadership is probably the most effective form of marketing for most professional service firms, so it’s no surprise that PR agencies produce a wealth of surveys and studies” (para. 1). Some of these studies include Edelman’s Trust Barometer, Porter Novelli/Cone’s Purpose Premium Index, and GSG’s annual business and politics report (Holmes, 2018). More than half of decision makers (55%) use thought leadership as an important way to vet organizations they are considering working with, and 69% agree that it is one of the best ways to get a sense of the caliber of thinking an organization can deliver (Edelman- LinkedIn, 2018). These percentages highlight the relevance of thought lead- ership for public relations agencies that are continuously competing to maintain and acquire new clients. Among their several responsibilities, PR agencies will often disseminate thought leadership for their clients (e.g., Wise, 2013). However, scholarly literature has not addressed if and to what extent agencies are developing and implementing novel ideas and using social media as a platform to share their own thought leadership. Hence, the current study will explore how PR agencies are implementing thought leadership on one of the most utilized social media platforms among PR practitioners: Twitter (Jiang et al., 2017).

JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 31

Social media engagement

Engagement between organizations and their publics is a key component in social media (e.g., Rybalko & Seltzer, 2010; Sundstrom & Levenshus, 2017). Sharing meaningful conversations on ideas and issues of mutual interest will lay the groundwork for strategic engagement (Heath et al., 2013). Thought leadership is based on innovation, knowledge, and new ideas (McCrimmon, 2005), and can be used as an effective tool to engage key stakeholders on social media. Organizations that aspire to carry out thought leadership through social media, must detect which ideas are con- sequential, and figure out how to communicate those ideas to strategically important publics (Heath et al., 2013; Teece, 2007). As a rich area of public relations research, the topic of engagement has extended conceptually to enjoy distinct focus in public relations and social media (Avidar et al., 2015). Successful social media strategies are often measured or evaluated through social media engagement (Peruta & Shields, 2017) within specific contexts, such as PR agencies (Brodie et al., 2013). Engagement is often assessed as a processing function, thus some studies conceptualize engage- ment as cognitive, affective, or behavioral (Calder et al., 2009). Public engagement on platforms such as Twitter can be gauged through measures such as Reply, Retweet, and Like attached to a specific post or string of posts (Men & Tsai, 2014; Saxton & Waters, 2014). Previous studies con- ducted on Facebook have found that the number of Likes is higher than the number of Shares and Comments (Bons�on & Ratkai, 2013). As each of these actions require a somewhat distinct level of effort, scholars analyzing Facebook have separated these behaviors into three levels: low (Like), mod- erate (Share), and high (Comment) (Cho et al., 2014). On Twitter, a Retweet is the equivalent of a Share and a Reply is the equivalent of a Comment. While a Like reflects nonverbal engagement and enjoyment, a Share reflects voluntary social and organization engagement, and a Comment reflects high engagement through response and participation in organizational and respondent conversation (Cho et al., 2014). Hence, the current study will be measuring engagement through the Replies, Retweets, and Likes that the agencies’ tweets received.

Dialogic principles

Kent and Taylor (1998) describe dialogic communication as “any negoti- ated exchange of ideas and opinions” (p. 325). Social media provides organizations an opening to establish themselves as thought leaders by dis- cussing issues and ideas that are interesting and relevant to their publics. Similarly, social media also offers an opportunity to access and listen to the ideas that are being debated and mentioned by their publics (Pina et al.,

32 P. D. THELEN ET AL.

2019). This exchange of information can help organizations identify key issues that they can act on to develop thought leadership (Heath et al., 2013). McCrimmon (2005) argues that “thought leadership is based on the power of ideas to transform the way we think” (p. 1065). Additionally, two-way communication, dialogue, and establishing relationships are described as key components of successful thought leadership (Badings, 2009; Young, 2013). Hence, Kent and Taylor’s dialogic principles should be taken into consideration when studying the effectiveness of an agency’s use of thought leadership on social media. Kent and Taylor (1998) argue that dialogue develops relationships and that two-way symmetrical communica- tion facilitates dialogue. Using dialogic communication theory as a guide, the relationship between dialogic communication and two-way symmetrical communication inspired the development of the dialogic principles. Kent and Taylor’s research (1998) led to the creation of five principles that offer guidelines on how to integrate dialogic public relations and the Internet: dialogic loop, usefulness of information, generation of return visits, ease of the interface, and conservation of visitors. The dialogic loop is concerned with providing opportunities for users to ask questions and receive responses from the organization (Rybalko & Seltzer, 2010). Usefulness of information states that organizations should provide information that meets the public’s needs–not just the organization’s needs (Haro-De-Rosario et al., 2017; Rybalko & Seltzer, 2010). The third principle is the generation of return visits, and it addresses the level of attractive features available in the website (or social media feed) that will motivate users to return (Kent & Taylor, 1998; Rybalko & Seltzer, 2010). The fourth principle, ease of interface, suggests that websites should be intuitive and easy to navigate and understand (Kent & Taylor, 1998). While this is an important principle for website design, it has typically been left out of studies with a social media focus (Rybalko & Seltzer, 2010). The fifth principle is the rule of conservation of visitors, and it states that organizations should act in ways that encourage users to stay in their online spaces (Kent & Taylor, 1998). Although these principles were originally conceived for websites,

researchers have also analyzed how these principles are being used in Facebook (Bortree & Seltzer, 2009), and Twitter (Linvill et al., 2012; Rybalko & Seltzer, 2010; Watkins, 2017). The theory of dialogic principles has been studied in a wide range of organizations, such as nonprofit activ- ist organizations (Bortree & Seltzer, 2009; Lovejoy et al., 2012), Fortune 500 companies (Rybalko & Seltzer, 2010; Waters et al., 2014), public administrations (Haro-De-Rosario et al., 2017) and colleges and universities (McAllister, 2012b). Regardless of the setting, there is consensus that these platforms were under-utilizing their two-way dialogic capabilities (Linvill et al., 2012; Lovejoy et al., 2012). Researchers have suggested that

JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 33

perceptions of social media utility and technical competence are important factors that determine how social media is used (Kelleher & Sweetser, 2012). Overall, an understanding of the inseparable interrelation with pub- lics should be the motivation behind dialogue (Bruning et al., 2008). The enhanced understanding and appreciation that organizations and publics must have for each other (Kent & Taylor, 2002) has led some to argue that dialogue is a utopian ideal (Pieczka, 1997) and that “public relations practi- tioners do not—and indeed cannot—undertake dialogue” (Lane, 2014, p. 138).

Message strategies

The message strategies used by PR agencies to communicate with their key stakeholders on Twitter can play an important role in generating higher levels of engagement (e.g., Jiang & Benbasat, 2007). As noted by Heath et al. (2013), “deploying knowledge, insights and expertise to social media is a strategic act that must be informed by the organization’s overall market strategy, including thought leadership” (p. 80). Hence, the message strat- egies used to engage in thought leadership on social media are consequen- tial to an organization. The current study focuses on the following message strategies: vividness and interactivity. The potential that message vividness has to enhance levels of engagement through the effective presentation of information (Jiang & Benbasat, 2007), and the association between inter- activity and positive attitudes toward organizations (Fortin & Dholakia, 2005) has made these strategies a focus of interest among communication researchers (Koolstra & Bos, 2009).

Vividness Vividness has been defined as “the representational richness of a mediated environment as defined by its formal features; that is, the way in which an environment presents information to the senses” (Coyle & Thorson, 2001). Vividness comes most often in the form of text, photo, graphics, video, or even emoticons and ranges from low vividness (text only) to high (e.g., video animation) (Liu et al., 2017). Research has found that high levels of vividness can garner attention and lead to longer-lasting memories with increased accuracy (Keller & Block, 1997; Liu et al., 2017).

Interactivity Conventional scholarship has generally conceptualized interactivity as “the extent to which users can participate in modifying the format and content of a mediated environment in real time” (Steuer, 1992, p. 84). Included

34 P. D. THELEN ET AL.

within the ambit of interactivity are hyperlinks, hashtags, related URLs, vol- ume control, downloadable video, audio and GIFs and form fields (Stromer-Galley, 2004). Scholarship on interactivity has shown that higher interactivity enhances engagement, self-efficacy, and satisfaction (Judge et al., 2000; Liu et al., 2017). However, studies have also shown that people will perceive hyperlinks as being associated with a higher number of cogni- tive elaborations (Tremayne & Dunwoody, 2001). Based on the previously discussed topics, the following research ques-

tions are proposed: RQ1: How are agencies implementing thought leadership

through Twitter? RQ2: What dialogic principles are present in agencies’ tweets? RQ3: What message strategies (e.g., vividness, interactivity, themes) are

being used by agencies to engage publics? RQ4a: How do publics engage with the agencies on Twitter (Replies,

Retweets, Likes)? RQ4b: How do media vividness/interactivity/dialogic principles/themes

impact engagement behavior?

Method

A content analysis of the 117 Twitter profiles maintained by U.S. headquar- tered agencies appearing in the 2017 Global Top 250 PR Agencies list from the Holmes Report was conducted. The company’s profile required at least 20 posts and the latest post had to have been made within a month of when the sample was drawn to be included in the population of Twitter profiles; if not, the profile was considered inactive. 112U.S. headquartered agencies were identified as having a public and active Twitter account. Following the approaches taken by previous researchers conducting content analyses on organizational tweets (e.g., Linvill et al., 2012; Rybalko & Seltzer, 2010), all profiles and 10 posts from each profile (i.e., every other post appearing on the profile’s first page) were coded. All of these posts were published between January and October 2017. Thus, two units of ana- lysis were used (a) the companies’ Twitter profiles (n¼ 112), and (b) the tweets on each profile (n¼ 1,120). It is important to mention that as Retweets do not measure the engagement received by the agencies, but the engagement received by the original tweet, a separate analysis of the remaining 836 tweets (including original tweets, Replies, and Retweets with comments) was conducted to answer RQ4. The remaining research ques- tions (i.e., RQ1, RQ2, and RQ3) analyzed all of the 1,120 tweets. As stated by Park (2013), “Twitter is not only a means to expand interpersonal com- munication, but also a tool of exchange and discussion of current issues

JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 35

that occur in a society.” Additionally, research has found that 57% of deci- sion makers indicate that their preferred format for thought leadership is “snackable” media that can be digested in a few minutes (Edelman- LinkedIn, 2018). Therefore, it was considered an appropriate channel to measure how agencies are engaging in thought leadership and dialogue with their publics. Three coders were selected to code the content of the tweets. A written

coding instrument was developed and a six-hour training was conducted. During the pretest, each coder coded 10% of the sample. Krippendorff’s alpha was used to calculate intercoder reliability, and reliability coefficients for each category ranged from 90.2% to 100%. As Krippendorff’s alpha can be used with multiple coders and all levels of data (nominal, ordinal, inter- val, ratio) it was considered appropriate for the current study (Hayes & Krippendorff, 2007).

Coding mechanism

Vividness, interactivity and theme of tweets Coders determined which of the following formats were included in each tweet: text, photo, graphics/GIFs, video, and emoticon/emoji. The inclusion of each format was coded as “1¼ yes” and “2¼ no.” Additionally, message vividness (Coyle & Thorson, 2001) was coded as “1¼ low vividness” when tweets only included texts, “2¼moderate vividness” when tweets included photos or graphics/GIFs, and “3¼ high vividness” when posts included vid- eos. Interactivity (Steuer, 1992) was measured by counting the number of clickable hyperlinks and hashtags. Tweets that included no extra links/hash- tags were coded as “1¼ low interactivity”. Those that included one link/ hashtag were coded as “2¼moderate interactivity”, and those with at least two additional links/hashtags were coded as “3¼ high interactivity.” Researchers first read through the sample of tweets and developed taxono- mies of sixteen themes that were not mutually exclusive. These themes include (1) Client information; (2) Agency news and events; (3) Industry news; (4) Agency receiving award; (5) Agency participating in forums; (6) Corporate social responsibility initiatives; (7) Company vision/mission/ strategies; (8) Leadership activities (e.g. CEO giving a speech); (9) Products and services; (10) Thought leadership building (e.g. industry insights); (11) Commenting on any political, social issues, etc. (expressing opinion); (12) Posts related to partners or competitors; (13) Personal life (e.g. posting family pictures of employees); (14) Holiday wishes; (15) Greetings or con- gratulatory remark (wishing someone a happy birthday; congratulating employees on their workplace anniversary); (16) Other (if other, specify). The inclusion of each item was coded as “1¼ yes” and “2¼ no.”

36 P. D. THELEN ET AL.

Means of communicating thought leadership The following means of communicating thought leadership were included in this study: (1) Link to white paper; (2) Research related; (3) Link to blog; (4) Media interview; (5) Training session/workshop/webinar/seminar/ panel participation; (6) Book; (7) Independent study; (8) Other (if other, specify). The inclusion of each item was coded as “1¼ yes” and “2¼ no.”

Dialogic principles To measure the use of the dialogic principles (Kent & Taylor, 1998), cate- gories were developed based on previous research (Rybalko & Seltzer, 2010). In line with previous studies, the principle “usefulness of information” was renamed “information of interest to stakeholders” (Bortree & Seltzer, 2009). Also, as the “ease of interface” principle is applied by default in all Twitter pages, it was excluded from the analysis (Rybalko & Seltzer, 2010). The inclusion of each item was coded as “1¼ yes” and “2¼ no.”

Engagement behavior Coders measured Replies, Retweets, and Likes by recording the total number indicated in the tweets that were posted by the agencies.

Results

At the time the current study was conducted, the 112 analyzed agencies had tweeted an average of 4,356 times, followed 1,627 accounts, had 6,773 followers, and liked 1,223 other tweets. Among the 1,120 analyzed tweets, 66.4% were original, 1.2% were Replies, 25.4% were Retweets, and 7.1% were Retweets with comments.

RQ1: Thought leadership

Links to blogs/websites and training sessions/workshops/webinars/seminars/ panel participations were the most common means of communicating thought leadership. Of the total amount of tweets, almost one out of five (18.5%) included a link to a blog/website in which the agency developed their thought leadership and one out of ten (9.8%) tweets showed agencies expressing thought leadership through training sessions/workshops/webi- nars/seminars/panel participations. Much further behind, independent assertions (2.1%) media interviews (1.7%), and research related tweets (1.3%) followed in popularity. The least utilized means of communicating thought leadership were books (0.4%), and links to white papers (0.1%).

JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 37

Three out of four (75.9%) of the 112 analyzed agencies engaged in thought leadership at least once and less than one out of ten agencies (8.9%) engaged in thought leadership at least 80% of the time (i.e., eight out of their ten tweets were thought leadership related). Although posts addressing thought leadership did not have a significant effect on Retweets and Replies, they had a negative effect on total number of Likes (t=-3.161, df¼ 812.514, p< 0.01). Posts including thought leadership had significantly fewer Likes (M¼ 2.25, SD¼ 2.529) than those that did not include thought leadership (M¼ 3.08, SD¼ 5.049).

RQ2: Dialogic principles present in the agencies’ tweets

On average, agencies utilize 15.4% of their capacity for dialogic communi- cation in each tweet (Table 1). The dialogic loop, applied by 18.7% of the tweets, was the most widely used among the analyzed dialogic principles, and it was followed by generation of return visits (15.4%) and information of interest to stakeholders (13.0%). With 9.4%, conservation of visitors was the least often utilized dialogic principle. The extent to which each dialogic principle’s features are being used in

every post is also shown in Table 1. Mentioning users in tweets (66%) and the use of hashtags (62%) were the most common features utilized by agen- cies. Links to websites where additional information can be obtained (59%) and summaries of agency activities (40%) were the following two most uti- lized features. Among the analyzed features, the provision of surveys for users to express opinions on the agency (0.3%), links to discussion forums and FAQs on the agency’s website (1%), request to ask a question or leave a comment (1%), and questions posted by the agency to solicit feedback (1%) were the least utilized.

RQ3: What message strategies (e.g., vividness, interactivity, themes) are being used by agencies to engage publics?

Regarding media vividness, 21.2% of posts only used text (low vividness), 75.3% used photos or graphics (moderate vividness), and 3.6% used videos (high vividness). It is also worth noting that only 5.6% of posts included emoticons or emojis. In this study, interactivity was measured by the amount of links/hashtags included in each post. Although only 8.8% of posts had low interactivity (no extra links/hashtags), 61.8% had moderate interactivity (either a link or a hashtag), and 29.5% had high interactivity (both extra links and hashtags). Data showed a significant increase in the percentage of posts with high interactivity as the vividness of a post increased (v2(4) ¼ 14.451, p < .01).

38 P. D. THELEN ET AL.

The most popular themes among all agencies involved agency news and events (48.8%), client information (31.8%), and thought leadership building (30.4%). Agencies participating in forums and conferences (19.8%), leader- ship activities (18.0%), and greetings or congratulatory remarks (13.5%) were also used relatively frequently. Holiday wishes (0.1%), company vision/mission/strategies (2.1%), and personal life (2.2%) were among the least utilized themes.

RQ4a: Public engagement with agencies on Twitter (replies, retweets, likes)

As mentioned previously, 25.4% (n¼ 284) of the 1,120 tweets were Retweets. A separate analysis of the remaining 836 tweets (including ori- ginal tweets, Replies, and Retweets with comments) highlighted low levels of engagement: each post received 0.09 Replies, 1.12 Retweets, and 2.83 Likes.

Table 1. The features of dialogic principles.

TWITTER CONTENT Average Dialogic

Principles Percentage

Content index of the capacity for dialogic communication 15.4% Conservation of visitors 9.4% Link to the agency’s official website 17% Link to other social networking sites in which the agency is

present (Facebook, Flickr, YouTube, Instagram) 1%

Generation of return visits 15.4% Links to websites where additional information can

be obtained 59%

Links to news related to the agency issued by external media

13%

Links to discussion forums and FAQs on the agenc�ys website

1%

Option to request information by mail/e-mail 2% The use of other social networking sites to introduce

information (Facebook, Flickr, YouTube, Instagram) 2%

Dialogic loop 18.7% Reply by the agency to a user’s tweet 2% Like by the agency to a user’s tweet 14% The provision of surveys for users to express opinions on

the agency 0%

The use of hashtags 62% Request to ask a question or leave a comment (request can

be done via text/video) 1%

Questions posted by the agency to solicit feedback 1% Tagging users in a tweet 5% Mentioning users in a tweet 66% Information of interest to stakeholders 13.0% Media releases 1% Speeches by members of the agency (text, audio or video) 9% Statement of the agency’s vision/mission/goals 2% Details of how to participate in activities or services

organized by the agency 8%

Summaries of activities of agency 40% Written statement or column by a member of the agency

(doesn’t have to be company/product/service related) 19%

JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 39

RQ4b: Impact of media vividness/interactivity/dialogic principles/themes on engagement behavior

The analysis showed that vividness played a significant role in the total num- ber of Likes that each tweet (including original tweet, Reply, and Retweet with comment) received (F(2, 89.43) ¼5.610, p¼ 0.005). Tweets with low vividness had significantly fewer Likes (M¼ 2.28, SD¼ 2.103) than tweets with moderate vividness (M¼ 3.08, SD¼ 4.848). Tweets that included photos had significantly more Likes (M¼ 3.46, SD¼ 5.422) than those that did not have photos (M¼ 2.30, SD¼ 3.373). Vividness also played a significant role in the total number of Retweets (t¼ 3.119, df¼ 809.010, p< 0.01). Tweets that included photos or graphics had significantly more Retweets (M¼ 1.25, SD¼ 3.073) than those that did not have photos or graphics (M¼ 0.77, SD¼ 1.287). Interestingly, results also showed that interactivity had a negative effect on total number of Likes (F(3, 61.759) ¼4.315, p< 0.01). Among original tweets, low interactivity received significantly more Likes (M¼ 4.44, SD¼ 4.124), than tweets with moderate (M¼ 2.96, SD¼ 4.768) and high interactivity (M¼ 2.03, SD¼ 3.028). To measure how the use of the dialogic principles impacted engagement,

this study separated posts that included at least one of the features in each of the four dialogic principles from those that did not include any. An inde- pendent sample t-test found that the use of at least one of the features included in the dialogic loop (t¼ 24.827, df¼ 290.277, p< 0.001) and in the use of information of interest to stakeholders (t¼ 3.467, df¼ 681.473, p¼ 0.001) significantly increased the number of Likes. At the same time, the use of information of interest to stakeholders also significantly increased the number of Retweets (t¼ 2.571, df¼ 834, p< 0.05). On the other hand, the use of at least one generation of return visits features (t=-6.575, df¼ 454.748, p< 0.001) or one of the conservation of visitors features (t=-2.854, df¼ 395.598, p< 0.01), negatively impacted the number of Likes. Regarding the impact of themes on public engagement, tweets that referred to agency news and events (t¼ 6.667, df¼ 797.323, p< 0.001), agency receiving award (t¼ 4.058, df¼ 89.028, p< 0.001), and greetings or congratulatory remarks (t¼ 3.251, df¼ 141.891, p¼ 0.001) significantly increased the number of Likes. Agency news and events also significantly increased Replies (t¼ 2.646, df¼ 448.357, p< 0.01) and Retweets (t¼ 3.033, df¼ 834, p< 0.01). Similarly, greetings or congratulatory remarks also had a significant and positive effect on the number of Replies (t¼ 2.670, df¼ 166.382, p< 0.01).

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to better understand how public relations agencies have been utilizing Twitter by placing a special emphasis on

40 P. D. THELEN ET AL.

thought leadership and examining the utilized dialogic principles, the implemented content strategies, and how these strategies have impacted public engagement.

Thought leadership

Young (2013) suggests that thought leadership should generate a two-way process of communication. Under this perspective, agencies were not suc- cessful in their process of communicating thought leadership. Although three out of every ten agency-posts addressed thought leadership building, these tweets had no significant effect on the number of Replies and a nega- tive effect on the total number of Likes. This shows that they were neither increasing engagement nor generating a two-way process of communica- tion. This study found that sharing links to blogs or websites was the most popular way of implementing thought leadership. In fact, 18.5% of all posts fell under this category. Although links to blogs can certainly help in shar- ing an organization’s thought leadership, this study’s findings suggest that agencies were not placing significant efforts in using this content to develop conversations and seek feedback. To be advantageous, thought leadership needs to be communicated effectively. Although 61% of decision makers are more willing to pay a premium to work with an organization such as a PR agency that has articulated a clear vision versus one that does not pub- lish thought leadership, and 92% said thought leadership has increased their respect for an organization, the opposite effect is also true; when thought leadership is done poorly, 46% of decision makers argue that it has decreased their respect for an organization (Edelman-LinkedIn, 2018). The development of substantial research related reports (1.3%), white papers (0.1%), and books (0.4%) was done very infrequently and, perhaps, may have been a more effective and powerful way to set themselves apart from their competitors. In December 2018, the Holmes Report published an art- icle highlighting the top 12 thought leadership pieces developed by public relations agencies. All of these pieces were surveys and research related reports on business and politics, values-based consumers, social media, cyber-security, gender equality, credibility among influencers, and trust in technology (Holmes, 2018). This list demonstrates that thought leadership is valued when it is grounded in research.

Dialogic principles

A common principle shared by successful users of thought leadership is their interest in engaging in a two-way process of communication involving dialogue and response with interested audiences (Young, 2013). Posts

JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 41

intended to create two-way conversations will tend to contain higher num- ber of Likes and Comments (e.g., Bellucci & Manetti, 2017). The received responses and comments will contribute in gaining an understanding of how effectively the idea has been communicated (Young, 2013). Dialogic communication requires a necessary level of commitment in identifying how dialogue will benefit publics (Kent & Taylor, 2002). The same is true with thought leadership. Instead of simply thinking about how the develop- ment of thought leadership can benefit their organization, a public relations agency, for example, needs to consider how their thought leadership will be beneficial to their publics. The results obtained show that public relations agencies in the U.S. are utilizing, on average, 15.5% of their capacity for dialogic communication. Applied by 18.9% of the tweets, the dialogic loop was the most widely used dialogic principle. Among the eight features included in this principle, only two of them were frequently utilized: men- tioning users in tweets (67.7%) and using hashtags (61.6%). Although these two features are important steps that can be taken to increase the likeli- hood of dialogue, it is important to note the distinction between facilitating dialogue and genuine dialogue (Kent & Taylor, 1998; Taylor & Kent, 2004). Several other relevant features in this principle, such as posting questions to solicit feedback (0.7%) or replying to a user’s tweet (1.7%) were rarely considered. These findings suggest that while agencies value certain aspects of the dialogic loop, two-way communication is rarely occurring. While social media is a tool that provides a wide range of features that can be uti- lized to encourage two-way communication, this study supports previous research revealing that these capabilities are underutilized by diverse organ- izations (Haro-De-Rosario et al., 2018; Watkins, 2017). In other words, as stated by Manetti et al. (2017), organizations need to place a greater level of emphasis on developing dialogic conversations with their publics. A pre- vious study conducted by Heaselgrave and Simmons (2016) that focused on increasing understanding of the use of social media for dialogue by com- municators in Australian local governments found that social media are more valued as tools for broadcasting messages and customer response than for dialogic purposes. Similarly, the current study found that instead of utilizing Twitter as an opportunity to build sustainable relationships through two-way communication, PR agencies are predominantly employ- ing this platform as a broadcasting tool.

Message strategies and public engagement

Both media vividness and interactivity had significant yet opposite effects on engagement. Tweets with low vividness had fewer Likes than those with moderate vividness. These results are aligned with previous studies

42 P. D. THELEN ET AL.

indicating that vividness plays an important role in generating Likes and Shares (Liu et al., 2017). Low interactivity received significantly more Likes than tweets with moderate and high interactivity. Previous studies have suggested that the presence of hyperlinks (interactivity) might be perceived as a sign of more information, which would require higher levels of cogni- tion efforts (Tremayne & Dunwoody, 2001). Thus, users with lower levels of motivation may ignore posts they perceive as being too demanding (Liu et al., 2017). The results also indicated that utilizing at least one of the fea- tures included in the dialogic loop and in the use of information of interest to stakeholders increased engagement levels. These findings support previ- ous studies that have shown that providing information of interest can be a significant predictor of responsiveness to the communication efforts dis- played by organizations (McAllister-Spooner & Kent, 2009). Regardless of the message strategies being utilized, public engagement with public rela- tions agencies on Twitter is consistently low.

Conclusion

Findings from this study assist in extending the current knowledge on Twitter and public engagement of PR agencies. The dialogic communica- tion theory provides researchers a tool to study how organizations are using social networks to develop online relationships with publics. Thus, this study contributes to our understanding of this theory as well as the message strategies implemented by agencies and their effects on engage- ment. Additionally, this study helps fill the research gap on how PR agen- cies are communicating their thought leadership through Twitter, a topic that has received limited attention in academic literature (Young, 2013). Overall, PR agencies are currently communicating their thought leadership in a manner that is not having a significant positive effect on engagement levels. The low levels of substantial research related reports and white papers is one plausible explanation for these results. From a strategic point of view, this study provides significant implica-

tions for strategic communication and thought leadership practices among public relations agencies in the digital era. Engaging publics through Twitter and other social media platforms gives agencies an opportunity to develop meaningful interactions and provide helpful content that demon- strates their knowledge and may help them build relationships and enhance their reputation. Unfortunately, the low levels of engagement show that agencies are not using social media effectively for engagement purposes. This study’s results suggest that the themes, media vividness, and inter- activity of the tweets play an important role in generating engagement. It also suggests that utilizing the features included in the dialogic loop and in

JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 43

the use of information of interest to stakeholders has a positive effect in engagement. The coding schema that was utilized to measure the use of the dialogic principles and the implementation of thought leadership serves as a useful guide for PR practice that could provide agencies relevant metrics to assess their use of Twitter. This could help them increase their levels of dialogue and address issues that were previously being ignored. Regarding the use of thought leadership, the study suggests that in order to be effect- ive, agencies need to be willing to invest an adequate amount of resources and time commitment. When large global firms decide to use thought lead- ership, they will often invest significant sums of money to develop ideas, distribute, endorse, and evaluate ideas and content (Young, 2013). Naturally, public relations agencies may have substantially less resources than large global firms that invest millions of dollars in thought leadership (Young, 2013). This does not mean that PR agencies should not engage in thought leadership. It suggests that the thought leadership they develop should focus on their strengths and areas of expertise, and demonstrate an understanding of the goals and interests of their publics. If PR agencies produce content and generate ideas that are meaningful to their publics, and are committed to generate opportunities in which they can interact and engage in dialogue with their publics, they will increase the likelihood of producing consequential thought leadership. By providing thought lead- ership that is timely, accurate, and useful (Thomas et al., 2009), PR agen- cies may increase their engagement levels and will build trust in their firm’s expertise (Bourne, 2015). Leadership in PR agencies can play a sub- stantial role in nurturing an environment that inspires thought leadership. As stated by Kerns (2019): “To create and sustain an organizational culture characterized by thought leadership and wisdom, a strategic message needs to be communicated across the organization by top management” (p. 26). Although this study incorporated quantitative methods, it tends to be

descriptive in nature. In-depth interviews with public relations agencies would help provide further insights and would allow researchers to explore practitioners’ perceptions on their engagement strategies and on how important it is for them to communicate their thought leadership practices. Moreover, understanding how thought leadership works as a process of communication on Twitter from the perspective of professional communi- cators may corroborate the findings of the current study. Additionally, this study only considered Twitter. Other platforms, such as Facebook and LinkedIn, could also be analyzed in future research. This study focused on public relations agencies headquartered in the United States. Acquiring fur- ther data on how public relations agencies in other countries are communi- cating with their publics on social media could also be pursued in the future. Social media engagement and thought leadership can help build and

44 P. D. THELEN ET AL.

develop relationships and enhance organizations’ trust and reputation with their publics. Being aware of how to conduct these activities effectively is of paramount importance for public relations agencies.

ORCID

Patrick D. Thelen http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7240-8692 Cen April Yue http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9320-842X

References

Avidar, R., Ariel, Y., Malka, V., & Levy, E. (2015). Smartphones, publics, and OPR: Do publics want to engage? Public Relations Review, 41(2), 214–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.pubrev.2014.11.019

Badings, C. (2009). Definitions of thought leadership. http://www.thoughtleadershipstrategy. net

Bellucci, M., & Manetti, G. (2017). Facebook as a tool for supporting dialogic accounting? Evidence from large philanthropic foundations in the United States. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 30(4), 874–905. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-07- 2015-2122

Bons�on, E., & Ratkai, M. (2013). A set of metrics to assess stakeholder engagement and social legitimacy on a corporate Facebook page. Online Information Review, 37(5), 787–803. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-03-2012-0054

Bortree, D. S., & Seltzer, T. (2009). Dialogic strategies and outcomes: An analysis of envir- onmental advocacy groups’ Facebook profiles. Public Relations Review, 35(3), 317–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.05.002

Bourne, C. D. (2015). Thought leadership as a trust strategy in global markets: Goldman Sachs’ promotion of the ‘BRICs’ in the marketplace of ideas. Journal of Public Relations Research, 27(4), 322–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2015.1027772

Brodie, R. J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., & Hollebeek, L. (2013). Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.029

Bruning, S. D., Dials, M., & Shirka, A. (2008). Using dialogue to build organization– public relationships, engage publics, and positively affect organizational outcomes. Public Relations Review, 34(1), 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2007.08.004

Calder, B. J., Malthouse, E. C., & Schaedel, U. (2009). An experimental study of the rela- tionship between online engagement and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(4), 321–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2009.07.002

Chen, Z. F., Ji, Y. G., & Men, L. R. (2017). Strategic use of social media for stakeholder engagement in startup companies in China. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 11(3), 244–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2017.1298114

Cho, M., Schweickart, T., & Haase, A. (2014). Public engagement with nonprofit organiza- tions on Facebook. Public Relations Review, 40(3), 565–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. pubrev.2014.01.008

Coyle, J. R., & Thorson, E. (2001). The effects of progressive levels of interactivity and viv- idness in web marketing sites. Journal of Advertising, 30(3), 65–77. https://doi.org/10. 1080/00913367.2001.10673646

JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 45

Czerniawska, F. (2012). Thought leadership: Too important to be left to consultants? https:// www.sourceglobalresearch.com/blog/2012/08/09/thought-leadership-too-important-to-be- left-to-consultants

Diket, R. M., & Klein, S. R. (2016). Thought leadership: Social media and leadership in an information-based society. In E. A. Samier (Ed.), Ideologies in educational administration and leadership (pp. 127–146). Routledge.

Edelman-LinkedIn. (2018). 2019 B2B though leadership impact study. https://www.edelman. com/research/2019-b2b-thought-leadership-impact-study

Estanyol, E. (2012). Marketing, public relations, and how Web 2.0 is changing their rela- tionship: A qualitative assessment of PR consultancies operating in Spain. Public Relations Review, 38(5), 831–837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.04.006

Fortin, D. R., & Dholakia, R. R. (2005). Interactivity and vividness effects on social pres- ence and involvement with a web-based advertisement. Journal of Business Research, 58(3), 387–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(03)00106-1

Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective organizations: A study of communication management in three countries. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Haro-De-Rosario, A., S�aez-Mart�ın, A., & del Carmen Caba-P�erez, M. (2018). Using social media to enhance citizen engagement with local government: Twitter or Facebook? New Media & Society, 20(1), 29–49.

Haro-De-Rosario, A., S�aez-Mart�ın, A., & G�alvez-Rodr�ıguez, M. M. (2017). Facebook as a dialogic strategic tool for European local governments. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 50E, 73–89.

Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability meas- ure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1(1), 77–89. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/19312450709336664

Heaselgrave, F., & Simmons, P. (2016). Culture, competency and policy: Why social media dialogue is limited in Australian local government. Journal of Communication Management, 20(2), 133–147. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-07-2015-0059

Heath, D., Singh, R., Ganesh, J., & Taube, L. (2013). Building thought leadership through business-to-business social media engagement at Infosys. MIS Quarterly Executive, 12(2), 77–92.

Holmes, P. (2018, December 10). 2018 review: Top 12 thought leadership pieces. Retrieved from https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/2018-review-top-12-thought-lead- ership-pieces

Holston, D. (2014). Thought leadership online. Print, 68(2), 14. Jiang, H., Luo, Y., & Kulemeka, O. (2017). Strategic social media use in public relations:

Professionals’ perceived social media impact, leadership behaviors, and work-life conflict. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 11(1), 18–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1553118X.2016.1226842

Jiang, Z., & Benbasat, I. (2007). Research note–Investigating the influence of the functional mechanisms of online product presentations. Information Systems Research, 18(4), 454–470. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1070.0124

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., & Locke, E. A. (2000). Personality and job satisfaction: The medi- ating role of job characteristics. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.237

Kelleher, T. (2009). Conversational voice, communicated commitment, and public relations outcomes in interactive online communication. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 172–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01410.x

46 P. D. THELEN ET AL.

Kelleher, T., & Sweetser, K. (2012). Social media adoption among university communica- tors. Journal of Public Relations Research, 24(2), 105–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1062726X.2012.626130

Keller, P. A., & Block, L. G. (1997). Vividness effects: A resource-matching perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(3), 295–304. https://doi.org/10.1086/209511

Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 28(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(02)00108-X

Kent, M., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through world wide web. Public Relations Review, 24(3), 321–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(99)80143-X

Kerns, C. D. (2019). Leading thought leadership: A practice-oriented framework. International Leadership Journal, 11(1), 3–41.

Komodromos, M. (2014). A study of PR practitioners’ use of social media tools in Cyprus. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 19(2), 1450011–1450019. Nohttps://doi.org/ 10.1142/S1084946714500113

Koolstra, C. M., & Bos, M. J. W. (2009). The development of an instrument to determine different levels of interactivity. International Communication Gazette, 71(5), 373–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048509104980

Lane, A. (2014). Toward understanding the (lack of?) significance of dialogue to the prac- tice of public relations. Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, 15(1), 123–142.

Linvill, D. L., McGee, S. E., & Hicks, L. K. (2012). Colleges’ and universities’ use of Twitter: A content analysis. Public Relations Review, 38(4), 636–638. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.pubrev.2012.05.010

Liu, J., Li, C., Ji, Y. G., North, M., & Yang, F. (2017). Like it or not: The Fortune 500’s Facebook strategies to generate users’ electronic word-of-mouth. Computers in Human Behavior, 73, 605–613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.068

Lovejoy, K., Waters, R. D., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Engaging stakeholders through Twitter: How nonprofit organizations are getting more out of 140 characters or less. Public Relations Review, 38(2), 313–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.01.005

Manetti, G., Bellucci, M., & Bagnoli, L. (2017). Stakeholder engagement and public infor- mation through social media: A study of Canadian and American public transportation agencies. The American Review of Public Administration, 47(8), 991–1009. https://doi. org/10.1177/0275074016649260

McAllister, S. M. (2012a). How the world’s top universities provide dialogic forums for marginalized voices. Public Relations Review, 38(2), 319–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. pubrev.2011.12.010

McAllister, S. M. (2012b). Practitioner perceptions of the importance, function, and actual utilization of dialogic Internet Tools and institutional resources at American colleges. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 20(4), 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870. 2012.711151

McAllister-Spooner, S. M., & Kent, M. L. (2009). Dialogic public relations and resource dependency: New Jersey community colleges as models for web site effectiveness. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 17(4), 220–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15456870903210113

McCrimmon, M. (2005). Thought leadership: A radical departure from traditional, pos- itional leadership. Management Decision, 43(7–8), 1064–1070. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 00251740510610062

Men, L. R., & Tsai, W. S. (2014). Perceptual, attitudinal, and behavioral outcomes of organ- ization–public engagement on corporate social networking sites. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 417–435. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2014.951047

JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 47

Moreno, A., Navarro, C., Tench, R., & Zerfass, A. (2015). Does social media usage matter? An analysis of online practices and digital media perceptions of communication practi- tioners in Europe. Public Relations Review, 41(2), 242–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. pubrev.2014.12.006

Park, C. S. (2013). Does Twitter motivate involvement in politics? Tweeting, opinion lead- ership, and political engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1641–1648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.044

Peruta, A., & Shields, A. B. (2017). Social media in higher education: Understanding how colleges and universities use Facebook. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 27(1), 131–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2016.1212451

Pieczka, M. (1997). Understanding in public relations. Australian Journal of Communication, 24(2), 65–80.

Pina, L. S., Loureiro, S. M. C., Rita, P., Sarmento, E. M., Bilro, R. G., & Guerreiro, J. (2019). Analysing consumer-brand engagement through appreciative listening on social network platforms. Journal of Promotion Management, 25(3), 304–313. https://doi.org/10. 1080/10496491.2019.1557805

Rybalko, S., & Seltzer, T. (2010). Dialogic communication in 140 characters or less: How Fortune 500 companies engage stakeholders using Twitter. Public Relations Review, 36(4), 336–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.08.004

Saxton, G. D., & Waters, R. 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(3), 280–299. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/1062726X.2014.908721

Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication, 42(4), 73–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.tb00812.x

Stromer-Galley, J. (2004). Interactivity-as-product and interactivity-as-process. The Information Society, 20(5), 391–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240490508081

Sundstrom, B., & Levenshus, A. B. (2017). The art of engagement: Dialogic strategies on Twitter. Journal of Communication Management, 21(1), 17–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/ JCOM-07-2015-0057

Taylor, M., & Kent, M. (2004). Congressional web sites and their potential for public dia- logues. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 12(2), 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1207/ s15456889ajc1202_1

Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640

Thomas, G. F., Zolin, R., & Hartman, J. L. (2009). The central role of communication in developing trust and its effect on employee involvement. Journal of Business Communication, 46(3), 287–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943609333522

Tremayne, M., & Dunwoody, S. (2001). Interactivity, information processing, and learning on the world wide web. Science Communication, 23(2), 111–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1075547001023002003

van Halderen, M., & Kettler-Paddock, K. (2011). Making sense of thought leadership. RSM Insight, 6, 4–6.

Waters, R. D., Ghosh, P., Griggs, T. D., & Searson, E. M. (2014). The corporate side of the blogosphere: Examining the variations of design and engagement among Fortune 500 blogs. Journal of Promotion Management, 20(5), 537–552. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10496491.2014.946207

48 P. D. THELEN ET AL.

Watkins, B. A. (2017). Experimenting with dialogue on Twitter: An examination of the influence of the dialogic principles on engagement, interaction, and attitude. Public Relations Review, 43(1), 163–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2016.07.002

Wetherhead, D., & Roth, M. (2015). Putting more thought into practice: Thought leader- ship lessons to build on. Public Relations Tactics, 22(8), 11.

Wise, H. (2013). Delivering on thought leadership. https://www.prweek.com/article/1274838/ delivering-thought-leadership

Wright, D. K., & Hinson, M. D. (2017). Tracking how social and other digital media are being used in public relations practice: A twelve-year study. Public Relations Journal, 11(1), 1–30.

Young, L. (2013). Thought leadership: Prompting businesses to think and learn. Kogan Page. Zuk, R. (2009). Thought leadership on the social Web: Six traits that draw people to your

ideas. Public Relations Tactics, 16(8), 7.

JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 49