tate thesis final draft v6 returnedni (1) ni

8/4/2019 Tate Thesis Final Draft v6 ReturnedNI (1) NI

1/36

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION AND CONSUMERS- A STUDY OF THE

DIALOGIC LOOP OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN CONSUMERS AND

ORGANIZATIONS.

A Thesis

Presented to the Faculty in Communication and Leadership Studies

School of Professional Studies

Gonzaga University

Under the Supervision of Nobuya Inagaki

Under the Mentorship of Heather Crandall Ph.D.

_________________________________________________

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts in Communication and Leadership Studies

___________________________________________________

By

Ashlee Tate

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times N

Comment [NI1]: Use Times New Rom

throughout the paper


2/36

Organizational Communication and Consumers 1

April 2011

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study 45

Importance of the Study 45

The Problem 65

Definition of the terms used 65

Organization of Remaining Chapters 76

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 87

Theoretical Basis 87

Dialogic Theory in Organizations 98

Trust, Ethics, and Commitment 1211

Value Creation 1413

Facebook and Social Media 1614

Summary 1817

Research Questions 1917

Chapter 3: Scope and Methodology 1918

Scope of Study 1918

Methodology of Study 2018

Chapter 4: Results of the Study 2119

Introduction 2119

Data Analysis 2119

Discussion 2621

Chapter 5: Summaries and Discussions 2722

Limitations of the study 2722

Further Study Recommendations 2823

Conclusions 2823


3/36


References 3025

Appendix 29


4/36


Abstract

This paper discusses the impact of social media communication between consumers and

organizations. The goal of the study is to determine whether social media enhances the overall

communicative experience for the consumer. A qualitative study is performed to determine

whether organizations were successfully completing a dialogic loop of communication with the

help of social media. The study is based on the dialogic theory of Kent and Taylor and was

developed to determine whether organizations are effectively using social media for dialogic

purposes. The study includes five organizations which are chosen based upon news articles

asserting a change in image or customer orientation. Elements such as trust, value and a dialogic

loop of communication were evaluated.


5/36


_____________________________________________________________________

Faculty Reader

We the undersigned, certify that this thesis has been approved and that it is adequate in

Scope and methodology for the degree Master of Arts in Communication and Leadership

Studies.

________________________________________________________________________

Thesis or Project Director

________________________________________________________________________

Faculty Mentor

________________________________________________________________________

Faculty Reader

Gonzaga University,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

MA Program in Communication and Leadership Studies


6/36


Chapter 1: Introduction to the study

Importance of Study

Organizations have a more difficult time than ever before to impress and maintain

consumers. A superior product is no longer sufficient. Organizations must also communicate,

update and be completely transparent with consumers in order to gain loyalty. With the advent of

social networking, consumers are more connected to their organizations of choice. However,

with the recent scandals of large organizations such as Enron, BP and Halliburton, they are also

skeptical of claims relating to social responsibility and ethics. Just as organizations have taken an

interest in revamping their images, consumers have taken an interest in scrutinizing these efforts.

Consumers are asking questions about social responsibility, truthfulness, and environmental

consciousness. Clearly all organizations cannot be everything to each consumer, but they should

always strive to communicate and operate ethically. Many of the recent studies have determined

that organizations initiate communication but do not complete the loop of dialogue by

responding to the consumer, therefore leaving the consumer with a one-sided conversation that is

unable to create trust or value.

Theorizing about public relations through the lens of interpersonal or dialogic

communication is not new. Grunig and Huang (2000) point out that many have looked to the

literature on interpersonal communication for concepts that can be adapted or modified for a

theory of organization-public relationships (Kent & Taylor, 1998). The concept helps

organizations to look at consumers as individuals and theorizes about building relationships

Formatted: Left


7/36


instead of merely numbers. This provides a feeling of partnership between consumer and

organization, thus creating trust and value.

The ability to communicate with organizations directly gives consumers the power to

express their opinions for other consumers. It is imperative for organizations to join in the

conversation and create dialogue. This loop of dialogue creates value for the consumer, debunks

myths and rumors about the organization, and gives the consumer a reason to be loyal. In turn,

this creates a space for transparency between both the consumer and the organization which

encourages trust. Trust, dialogic loops and value equal customer retention.

The Problem

Many organizations today understand the importance of communication between

consumer and organization but have not mastered the art of the dialogic loop. The dialogic loop

is difficult to initiate and maintain if the organization is product focused rather than consumer

focused. Employing the dialogic loop requires organizations to constantly interact with

consumers whether they are initiating conversation, finding ways to create value or responding to

consumers. The idea is to think of the dialogic loop and its components as a cyclical constant in

the organization. It is never-ending. This constant communication will force the organization to

remain ethical, socially responsible and transparent.

Definitions of Terms Used

1) Stakeholder- A stakeholder in an organization is any group or individual who can affector is affected by the achievement of the organizations objectives (Freeman, 1984; De

Bussy, 2003).

2) Consumer-A purchaser of a good or service in retail. Formatted: Font: (Default) Times N


8/36


3) Social Responsibility-The obligation of an organization's management towards thewelfare and interests of the society in which it operates.

4) Value Creation-Value creation is the primary aim of any business entity. Creating valuefor customers helps sell products and services, while creating value for shareholders, in

the form of increases in stock price, insures the future availability of investment capital to

fund operations.

5) Social Media-Primarily internet or cellular phone based applications and tools to shareinformation among people. Social media includes popular networking websites, like

Facebook and Twitter; as well as bookmarking sites like Digg or Reddit. It involves

blogging and forums and any aspect of an interactive presence which allows individuals

ability to engage in conversations with one another, often as a discussion over a particular

blog post, news article, or event.

6) Dialogic Loop-An offer and follow through on two-way communication (Kent & Taylor1998)

Organization of Remaining Chapters

This study will attempt to discover the point at which organizations fall short in utilizing

social media in creating the dialogic loop of communication between organizations and

consumers. Chapters will be organized beginning with the discussion of the theoretical basis,

followed by the importance of trust, ethics and commitment when choosing to incorporate

dialogic communication in the organization and will conclude with a section discussing the

dialogic effects of Facebook and social media. A summary of the material will provide a general

overview of the literature and its importance in understanding the following study.



Formatted: Font: Not Bold

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"


9/36


Chapter 2: Review of the Literature

Theoretical Basis

Dialogue is fast becoming a hot topic in business. If businesses aim to stay current and

ahead of the competition they are realizing that they must incorporate dialogue into their

foundation of communication strategies. By definition, a stakeholder in an organization is any

group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organizations

objectives (Freeman, 1984; De Bussy, 148). For the purposes of this paper stakeholder and

consumer will be used synonymously.

Stakeholders are beginning to take a hard look at how organizations conduct themselves

in relations to both their communities and their audiences. Consumers today are determining

whether the organization is creating value for them, and if the conduct is socially responsible.

Therefore, organizations can no longer afford to ignore their stakeholders. People are looking to

be a part of honest and ethical companies.

With the introduction of social media and the ability for stakeholders to directly interact

with organizations and public relations practitioners alike, are turning toward a dialogic theory of

practice. Many of the studies available have looked at the five features of dialogic

communication and have determined that in most areas of study public relations practitioners as

well as organizations are not capitalizing on the full dialogic potential of the internet. More

specifically, there is a lack of true dialogue in the social networking arena between organizations

and stakeholders.

Formatted: Left



10/36


The aim of this research study is to determine whether or not true dialogue is occurring

between both stakeholders and organizations. The study will employ the five components of

dialogic practice set forth by Kent and Taylor (1998), with the incorporation of their guiding

principles.

Dialogic theory in organizations

Most organizations believe they are creating dialogue with consumers opposed to simply

initiating interaction. There has a been a gradual progression from a one-way press

agentry/publicity model of public relations to a two-way practice with emphasis on persuasion

and relationship management (Grunig & Hunt 1984; Kent, 2008) Prior to the theory of dialogue

this one way symmetrical practice of communication was widely accepted. However many

scholars began the transition to the next best model for public communication which was the two

way symmetrical model at the time (Grunig, 1992; cf, also Wu & Taylor 2001;Kent, 2008 ;) Not

to be confused with each other, Kent and Taylor (1998) clarify the differences by stating that

Grunigs two way symmetrical model of communication is a structured process for organizations

to use in order to create interactive communication while the dialogic theory is a type of

relational interaction (pg. 265). This relational interaction requires a trusting relationship to exist,

thereby defining the relationship between consumer and organization as the product of the

interaction. Therefore, unless an organization makes an integral effort to develop a relationship

with their stakeholder, true dialogue will not be present. A relationship cannot be developed

unless both parties are truly vested in the creation of dialogue opposed to interaction alone.

Grunigs two-way symmetrical model can be completed by any organization due its procedural

method, which is behaving ethically and doing the right thing is hard to do (Kent, pg. 5, 2008).

Many scholars claim that the dialogic theory of communication is the most ethical practice in




11/36


public relations and organizational communication (p. 5).With that being said, most

organizations are unable to fulfill the dialogic potential of the internet.

In order for organizations to create dialogic spaces for their consumers, the integration of

trust, transparency, and commitment must consistently remain present. Organizations have to

make consumer communication an integral aspect of everyday operations.

The idea of dialogue is closely related to ethical communication (Pearson, 1989; De

Bussy, pg. 149, 2003). Due to the similarities between interpersonal communication theory and

dialogic communication theory, trust and ethicality are central to developing long lasting

relationships. If organizations are determined to develop strong relationships with their

stakeholders Kent (2008) suggests that organizations orient their focus toward relationships. He

continues that organizations must attempt to treat other people with respect and value rather than

merely seeing consumers as people to buy or use our services; the emphasis is on the behavior

sought rather than the good of the other. Otherwise, the relationship is two-way symmetrical

rather than dialogic (p. 4) because the focus is on the means of influence rather than the quality

of the relationship (p.6). Utilizing dialogic strategy can be difficult to incorporate as it is time

consuming and requires a fundamental shift in the organizational culture for implementation.

This fundamental shift requires organization to focus their efforts on trust, ethics and

commitment in order to create true dialogue rather than simply interactive communicative

techniques.

This study as well as the previous studies has based the foundation on the five principles

provided by Kent and Taylor (1998): the dialogic loop, usefulness of information, generation of


12/36


return visits, intuitiveness/ease of interface, and conservation of visitors. These five principles

have been translated to many forms of social media sites such as

Twitter, Facebook and YouTube for dialogic interactions. In each of the following

principles, creating value is the pervasive goal. Organizations looking to create dialogue and

potentially lasting relationships with consumers will attempt to engage all five of the principles

below.

Principle one: The Dialogic Loop which focuses on the ability for feedback between the

organization and the public. It provides stakeholders a venue to query organizations and gives

organizations a way to create value for its members by determining, meeting and exceeding

needs.

Principle two: The usefulness of information which leads back to creating value for the

stakeholder. Kent and Taylor (1998) subscribe to the idea of content driving visitors into genuine

dialogue and organizations should always attempt to engage them with new, relevant and

important information.

Principle three: The generation of return visits should encourage stakeholders to come

back to the conversation. Kent and Taylor suggest incorporating interactive strategies, such as

forums, discussion sessions and experts to keep stakeholders engaged in pure dialogue with the

organization.

Principle four: The intuitiveness /ease of interface implying that information needs to be

easy to find and the links need to provide a purpose for the stakeholder.


13/36


Principle five: The rule of conservation of visitors which suggests that organizations steer

away from paid advertising when attempting to engage in dialogue. The implication of this

principle is that the attention should be focused on the dialogue between the stakeholder and

organization. Anything that may distract the visitor should be removed.

Trust, ethics, and commitment

Trust

Dialogue can occur when both the organization and the stakeholder trust each other.

Research on trust (Botan & Taylor, 2005; Kent, Taylor & Turcilo, 2006), the related concept of

social capital (Ihlen, 2005), and an assortment of interpersonal, psychological, political, and

ethics research (cf., Kent & Taylor, 2002) all support the utility of relationship building and

dialogic communication (Kent, 2008, p4). De Bussy (2003) concurs that true dialogue requires

an atmosphere of mutual trust: participants must have a genuine concern for the needs and

interest of the other parties involved (pg., 152). Kent (2008) suggests that organizations make a

commitment to truth, honesty, and trust in the publics, claiming that trust and candor tend to

exceed the risk in most cases (pg. 6).

With transparency comes risk. However, acknowledgement of risk is necessary for

organizations that aim to create dialogic spaces due to the transparency that must be present to

encourage trust between the consumer and the organization. However, Kent (2008) posits that

with the integration of trust, consumers understand that organizations are not perfect and will

make mistakes from time to time. He continues by adding that most people will usually forgive

[the organization] and forget about the incident very quickly (Benoit, 1995; Hearit, 2001; pg. 6).



14/36


Trust is one of the most basic and important elements of building dialogue within an

organization. In order to do so, organizations must incur some risk and remain ethically

responsible and committed to dialogic communication with their consumers.

EEthics

Transparency and ethics go hand in hand in the effort of creating dialogic spaces for

consumers. Transparency can be difficult for organizations that are unethical and fear the loss of

consumer support with the idea of becoming transparent. Kent (2008) suggests that organizations

respond to individuals and publics not because they have to, but because telling the truth is the

best way to do business (pg. 7). In support of ethicality, Botan (1997) argued that dialogic

communication is characterized by a relationship in which both parties have a genuine concern

for each other (Debussy, pg.149, 2003). The idea that an organization wants to create a

transparent environment translates to a vested interest in their stakeholders which is enough to

open the arena for dialogic engagement. Where conditions of trust, trustworthiness, and

cooperativeness exist between organizations and their stakeholders, opportunistic behavior is

minimized and the contracts between the parties may be executed more efficiently, thereby

reducing costs and creating a source of competitive advantage (pg.148). Kent (2008) continues

the thought by explaining dialogue as an understanding and respect rather than persuasion and

manipulation. Employing dialogue is difficult and requires a commitment to effective

communication, respect, and trust in others (p.4). Incorporating dialogue into an organization is

Formatted: Left, Indent: First line:

Formatted: Left



15/36


no easy task, in that each member of the organization must understand the integral goal of ethical

and honest communication.

Commitment

If organizations can implement these three elements of trust, ethics, and commitment they can

not only create dialogic spaces for their consumers but undoubtedly create value for both the

organization and consumers alike. Kent (2008) points out that a dialogic approach calls for

valuing organizational members and stakeholders at all levels which requires a strong

commitment to dialogue (pg. 17). In order to effectively employ and utilize dialogic theory,

organizations must commit themselves to incorporate dialogic activities into daily operations

from the top managers to support staff. Additionally, opening departmental, organizational, and

leadership meetings, to stakeholders and state seekers are also an effective means of facilitating

dialogue within the organization (pg.17). Organizations may not have the ability to be

completely transparent all the time but they should always attempt to seize the opportunity if

presented.

Value-c Creation

Creating value for stakeholders can be done in a variety of ways, though the most basic is

through dialogue and trust. The ability to give stakeholders what they want and further the

relationship is a sure way to create shared value between organizations and stakeholders. Claims

that if organizations and publics want to build long term satisfying relationships with each other,

engagement in dialogic communication by both organizations and their publics is critical in order

Formatted: Tab stops: 0.06", Left

Formatted: Tab stops: 0.06", Left


16/36


to make headway towards mutually beneficial relationships (Kent & Taylor 1998; Hong et al.,

2009).

In each principle of Kent and Taylors (1998) dialogic strategy there is a way to create

value for the stakeholder, not just the organization. Value is created for stakeholders when the

organization takes the first step to stimulate dialogic spaces on their profile where users within

the social network can then capitalize on available dialogic loops. However many organizations

are missing a significant opportunity to build mutually beneficial relationships with stakeholders

by failing to effectively utilize the full gambit of dialogic strategies that social networking sites

offer (Bortree, 2010, p.1). Oftentimes, organizations that want to engage in dialogic strategies

and fail, due to are confused confusion, at their next step. Kent and Taylor (1998, 2002) have

suggested that many avenues are available to engage the public, including: discussion groups,

publishing the email addresses and telephone numbers of organization leaders, providing

speeches, videos and other organizational materials online. They also strongly encourage

organization leaders to participate in online discussion groups and forums as a step in the right

direction (Kent, 2008). This studys aim is to determine how and what organizations are doing in

order to engage stakeholders in dialogue and this list serves as a starting point for most.

Without question, dialogue is currently considered an important concept in the field,

however relatively little has been done with the concepts and theories of dialogue since Kent and

Taylors (1998 & 2002) essays (Kent, 2008, p.2). Tools such as blogs and networking sites

created a trend towards a more open discussion and dialogue (English, 2009, p. 6). According to

Gross & Acquisti (2005), social networking sites have moved from niche phenomenon to mass

adoption (p.71). This progress has forced various groups and organizations to adapt the

technology to maintain their audience and reputation (English, 2009, p.7). The important


17/36


18/36


Facebook profiles and social networking in general are more interactive than email

communication and not as limiting as Twitter. Although some organizations can benefit from

dialogue more than others, all organizations need to understand the importance of incorporating

dialogic theory into their communication strategies. Kent and Taylor (2001) focused their

research efforts on activist organizations identifying the internet as an equalizer that offers a

low cost, controllable communication channel that can magnify these efforts and create

linkages with other like-minded stakeholders (Coombs; Kent & Taylor, 2001). However,

organizations that attempt to capitalize on the low cost method of relationship building will fall

short if they are not committed to the effort necessary for dialogic communication. Kent (2008)

confirms this point by adding that even at the most basic level, individuals and organizations that

practice dialogic [communication] make a commitment to truth, honesty, and trust in publics (pg.

6).In addition, the internet and social networking sites such as Facebook offer stakeholders an

opportunity to truly take stake in the organization of interest (Kent & Taylor 2001, p. 22). Hong

(2010) claims that when publics have the ability express their opinions and thoughts to

organizations, it allows organizations to know more about their publics and helps them adapt to

their publics needs (p.1). Many scholars have studied dialogue in the context of internet based

applications such as Facebook, YouTube, weblogs, and Twitter only to discover that although

some dialogic principles are employed, the internet has not been used to its full dialogic

potential. Dialogue has been examined by dozens of scholars over the last ten years and applied

to everything from Advocacy (Edgett, 2002), pharmaceutical organizations (Rennie & Mackey,

2002), and South African NGOs (Naudea, Froneman, Atwood, 2004), to community colleges

(McAllister, 2006) and profit/nonprofit organizations (Avidar, 2007; Kent, Taylor & White

2003; Taylor, Kent & White, 2001).


19/36


A variety of organizations have been studied which leads the research in a new direction.

The lack of full dialogic properties found in previous studies provides the impetus to assess

whether true dialogue is being attempted and the content that is being discussed. Therefore social

media should create a space for the public to express, views, ask questions and create genuine

dialogue with an organization.

Summary

Organizations are under tremendous scrutiny to perform and operate ethically.

Consumers expect organizations to communicate with them directly and authentically. Although

many organizations have adopted social media as the method by which they communicate with

stakeholders, many have fallen short of completing the loop of communication by engaging in

conversation. Rather than conversing and understanding their consumers, most organizations

have learned how to initiate contact and interaction instead. Consumers need to feel as if they are

participating in a conversation opposed to just receiving information. The importance of the

dialogic loop is the requirement of transparency, trust and commitment opposed to a two-way

symmetrical form of communication in which the loop is incomplete. Each components

mentioned in the literature review are required to not only effectively complete the loop of

communication but also to create value for the consumer as well. Further research in the field

will continue to provide valuable information for organizations that truly want to understand and

communicate with consumers more efficiently.


20/36


Research Questions

RQ1: Are they really completing the dialogic loop of communication?

RQ2: Are they creating trust between consumer and the organization?

RQ3: Are organizations creating value between consumer and organization?

Chapter 3: Scope and Methodology

TheSscope of the study

This study will be based on a purposive sample of five Facebook profiles created by

retail organizations that have actively worked toward revamping their image and consumer

contact. Criteria included, but were not limited to: having an active Facebook fan page, a well-

known organization, active Facebook contact and updates either between consumers or between

organization and consumer. As an extension to the study conducted by Bortree and Seltzer

(2008) I would like to set up a table that will include content categories which will incorporate

the five principles of Kent and Taylor (1998), new items incorporated in the Bortree and Seltzer

(2008) study and an introduction of an additional content category to determine elements of trust,

commitment and ethicality in order to determine true dialogic activity. The data for this project

will be collected in the spring of 2011 over a one week period in order to determine an increase,

leveling, or decrease in dialogic communication, network extensiveness and elements of trust.

Formatted: Left


21/36


Methodology of the Study

For this study a purposive sample of five Facebook profiles created by large

organizations that have recently been mentioned in the media for working on their

communication efforts with their consumers. A table was created using twelve content categories

to analyze the content on each organizations Facebook wall in order to determine whether the

organization is initiating as well as completing the dialogic loop of communication, thereby

offering their consumers the most effective and interactive forms of communication possible.

Content categories were developed based upon the following: Kent and Taylors dialogic

theory (Kent & Taylor 1998; Taylor, et. Al., 2001), the study of Facebook profiles conducted by

Bortree and Seltzer (2009), R. Edward Freemans (2008) stakeholder theory of value-creation and

organizational-consumer trust (Benoit, 1995; Hearit, 2001; Kent, (2008).

Modeling this study after Bortree and Seltzers 82-item questionnaire, each of the 12

categories were marked as present or absent. In addition to the categories used from Kent and

Taylor and Bortree and Seltzer I also incorporated additional categories for value-creation,

indication of consumer trust and organizational responses versus consumer responses. Two

categories assessed the network extensiveness (total number of friends or fans on the profile) and

networkgrowth (1 week increase in number of profiles friends or fans) (Bortree & Seltzer,

2009).



22/36


Chapter 4: The Study

IntroductionIntroduction

Three out of five of the organizations used their Facebook walls for facilitating

communication between consumers, advertising, or relaying information. Consistent dialogic

loops were made by two of the five organizations over the one week period. The quanitative

results highlight the importance of dialogic interaction, value-creation, and organizational

engagement and the direct effect it can have on network extensiveness and growth.

Results and Data Analysis

Qualitative Results

Starbucks and Wal-Mart

Starbucks and Wal-Mart are the largest two organizations of the five, and the results from

the study indicate that they are the worst in their dialogic communication efforts. The two

retailers were identical in the results with the exception of special offers for Facebook fans which

Wal-Mart consistently did throughout the study. Of the two organizations Wal-Mart, although

Formatted: Font: 16 pt

Formatted: Left

Formatted: Left, Indent: Left: 0", H0.5"

Comment [NI2]: Each chapter starts

page



Formatted: Font: 16 ptComment [NI3]: You need the headi



Formatted: Left


23/36


significantly smaller had a network growth that surpassed Starbucks. Starbucks network

extensiveness is over twenty million while Wal-Mart has near five million. The most significant

difference between the two was the presence of value-creation for Wal-Mart consumers opposed

to Starbucks which was deemed present due to the special offers and incentives for Facebook

fans.

Pottery Barn

Pottery Barn had the third largest network growth and also the third largest network

extensiveness of the study. This organization was consistently communicating with consumers

and had the highest indications of trust. Many of the consumers seemed to know that their posts

would get a response and typically within a few hours. Consumer responses were directed at

Pottery Barn specifically, indicating the start of a conversation and the expectation of a response.

The dialogic loop was consistently completed throughout the study. Pottery Barn always

responded to posts by name, offered their assistance and further information when necessary,

which are elements of trust and value-creation for the consumer. The organization would

continue the conversation through posts until the consumer ended it with a thank you or a similar

response acknowledging the ending of a conversation. In addition, if Pottery Barn initiated a

conversation through a company post, the organization would give the consumers time respond

and complete the dialogic loop with a response back to the consumers which indicated strong

dialogic loops between organization and consumer. This organization also gave consumers

special offers and incentives for being Facebook fans, which in turn creates value and incurs

trust.


24/36


Safeway

Safeway fell short of many areas in the study. This organization has a larger network

extensiveness than Zappos.com but received less growth than all five. There was no sign of

dialogue during the study and very little interaction from the organization. The company began

conversations and never responded. There was no sign of value-creation or indicators of

consumer trust.

Zappos.com

Although Zappos.com is a small internet based company, they understand the importance

of value-creation, trust, and dialogue. This organization had each area of interest in the study

present in the organization. The Facebook wall was consistently filled with dialogue amongst

consumers and the organization. The dialogic loop was present throughout the study. Indications

of trust and value-creation were present as well as special offers and incentives. The only

category absent in this organization was the presence of guest speakers from within the

organization which would be a natural progression to their dialogic efforts.

Quantitative Results

The quantitative results reveal the importance of value creation and dialogic

communication in network growth and customer engagement. The three organizations with the

highest network growth engaged in value-creation while the two others did not. Value-creation

was determined by the content of the postings from the organization. If the organization provided

valuable content to the consumer opposed to advertisments or purely consumer marketing. For

this study, value-creation was determined if organizations initiated discussion topics with their




Comment [NI4]: How did you analyz

is, how did you idententify the types of

engagementat oriented toward value cre

should be explained in ch3


Comment [NI5]: spell



25/36


consumers that were unrelated to marketing. Dialogic initiation was a key determining factor in

value-creation engagement.

Those three organizations, in order of increase are: Walmart, Zappos and Pottery Barn.

Each of these organizations, although one is almost as large as Starbucks, engaged in value

creation and customer engagement.

The quantitative results were derived from the calculation between the beginning network

extensiveness and the network growth. The quotient provided the quantitative portion of this

study. The results indicate that there is a direct correlation between customer engagement and

value creation that leads to network growth and increase, which is demonstrated through all three

organizations with Walmart increasing by .5%, Zappos.com by .2%, and Pottery Barn by .1%

over the course of the study. Both Starbucks and Safeway increased at a much lower rate of .001

and .002 respectively due to the absence of dialogic communication and value creation. This

study proves the importance of organizational involvement and customer engagement for

significant network growth and customer loyalty.

Zappos.com and Pottery Barn were the only organizations in the study that shared

commoanalities of four important components: dialogic communication, value-creation,

indicators of trust and higher organizational responses. This indicates that smaller businesses can

compete with larger corporations by employing principles of dialogic communication, value-

creation techniques, and fostering trust through organizational involvement.

Results of the study


Comment [NI6]: Where die these nu

from?



Formatted: Centered, Indent: First l


26/36


Key

A-Absent

P-Present

U-user responses

O-organizational responses

Walmart Safeway Starbucks Zappos Pottery Barn

network extensiveness 4696676 148976 20462537 109606 484055

Dialogic Loop-Taylor A A A p p

Links to homepage-

Seltzerp P p p p

intrusive advertising A A A A A

Join Now option P P P P P

special offers or

incentives for FB fansA A P A P

content sharing P P P P P

guest speakers A A A A A

indication of trust A A A P P

increase in network

over 1 weekp P p p p

value creation p A A P P

user responses v.

organizationresponses

U U U O O

Ending network

extensiveness4921992 149859 20556703 111456 489016

Network growth 225316 883 94166 1850 4961

Comment [NI7]: Table is crossing ov

border


Formatted: Underline

Formatted: Left


27/36


DDiscussion

Although each organizations responses were outweighed by consumer responses both

Pottery Barn and Zappos.com completed the dialogic loop by initiating the conversation,

allowing responses and commenting on consumer responses as well. The network growth

increased for all five organizations, although the two organizations with the lowest network

extensiveness had the most significant presence of the dialogic loop of communication.

Zappos.com and Pottery Barn were the most effective in initiating conversation and

responding to comments in order to complete the loop. The other three organizations initiated

conversation; however, they did not return to the conversation or respond to the comments in

order to complete the loop of communication. The results have also indicated the absences of

trust indicators in the three organizations that did not engage in dialogic communication

activities.

This study shows that true communication and the ability to create value for the

consumer and trust in the organization is a difficult task to complete. However, consumers are

paying attention to how they are treated by organizations as indicated by the network growth

amongst each organization. The largest organizations would have been expected to have the

highest growth; however, it is the organizations that communicated the most that garnered the

most growth respective to their network extensiveness.

As in the Bortree and Seltzer (2009) study, these organizations are missing a significant

opportunity to build mutually beneficial relationships with stakeholders (pg. 318). These

organizations do not understand the impact that dialogic strategies can offer.


28/36


RQ1: Are they really completing the dialogic loop of communication? These findings suggest

that most organizations are not completing the dialogic loop of communication. Rather they are

initiating conversation opposed to engaging in true dialogic strategies.

RQ2: Are they creating trust between consumer and the organization? This study suggests that

there is a significant correlation between the dialogic loop and trust. If there is a dialogic loop of

communication, there will be indicators of trust as well. as This study has proven this through the

two organizations that displayed dialogic communication, trust indicators and an increase in

network growth.

RQ3: Are organizations creating value for consumers? The three organziation with the highest

network growth created value and engagement for consumers.

Chapter 5: Summaries and Conclusions

Limitations of the study

This research is exploratory in nature and has a number of limitations. The most

significant limitation of the study was the shortened time frame and lack of additional

instruments. A consumer survey to coincide with the qualitative table and quantitative findings to

create a definitive correlation among those organizations that implement the dialogic loop, trust

and value creation and those who do not, would add significant relevance to this study. In

addition, the differences in organizational culturesside may have an effect on the results and

conclusions.

Formatted: Left



29/36


Further study recommendations

The creation of training materials for organizations to implement the dialogic loop as

well as how to create value for consumers could be the most effective way to demonstrate a link

between consumer trust and the dialogic theory of communication. Analyzing the pre and post

training differences could provide significant information for both organizations as well as

dialogic theory. Future studies should compare organizations with a similar number of fans on

Facebook as well as similar brand recognition.

Finding a link between trust, dialogic theory and value-creation could be a significant

area of research for organizations and public relations practitioners as well.

Conclusions

The findings indicate that organizations have not recognized the full potential of social

media in communicating with their consumers. Many organizations are simply communicating

by Grunigs two-way symmetrical model of communication, whereby the organization starts the

conversation to engage the consumer but does not complete the loop by responding.

Organizations can significantly improve sales, consumer relations and trust by completing the

loop between organization and consumer and initiate both trust and value for the consumer.

Now with the popularization of corporate social responsibility, organizations are forced

to find and create value within the organization for their consumers. The public is more involved

than ever in organizational images and can damage a reputation through the use of social media.

Organizations are now scrutinized for charitable contributions, responses to customer

dissatisfaction and value creation for the consumers. There are so many competitor organizations

and online counterparts, consumers have the ability to switch from one organization to the other




30/36


if they are not valued. Organizations must make their goals of customer retention their top

priority. If they are unable to keep consumer interest, customers will find an organization that

will.


31/36


References

1. Avery, E., Lariscy, R., Amador, E., Ickowitz, T., Primm, C., & Taylor, A. (2010).Diffusion of social media among public relations practitioners in health departments across

various community population sizes. Journal of Public Relations Research, 22(3), 336-358.

doi:10.1080

2. Avidar, R. (2009). Social media, societal culture and Israeli public relations practice.Public Relations Review, 35(4), 437-439. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.06.002

3. Bartlett, J. (2004). Making a difference after all: The relationship between media andstrategic public relations. Australian Journal of Communication, 31(1), 75-88. Retrieved

from

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=13812592&site=ehost-

live

4. Bhattacharya, C., Korschun, D., & Sen, S. (2009). Strengthening StakeholderCompanyrelationships through mutually beneficial corporate social responsibility initiatives.Journalof Business Ethics, 85, 257-272. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9730-3

5. Bonini, S., Court, D., & Marchi, A. (2009). Rebuilding corporate reputations.McKinseyQuarterly, (3), 75-83. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=43320348&site=ehost-

live

6. Boon, S., & Sinclair, C. (2009). A world I don't inhabit: Disquiet and identity in second lifeand facebook.Educational Media International, 46(2), 99-110.

doi:10.1080/09523980902933565

7. Bortree, D. S., & Seltzer, T. (2009). Dialogic strategies and outcomes: An analysis ofenvironmental advocacy groups Facebook profiles. Public Relations Review, 35(3), 317-

319. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.05.0028. Bruning, S. D., Castle, J. D., & Schrepfer, E. (2004). Building relationships between

organizations and publics: Examining the linkage between organization public

relationships, evaluations or satisfaction, and behavioral intent. Communication Studies,

55(3), 435-446. Retrieved from


live

9. Building corporate reputation with stakeholders. (2010).European Journal of Marketing,44(11), 1856-1874. doi:10.1108

10.Burger, M. (2009). Businesses' social involvement through public relations: A criticalcomparison of market-oriented and reflective paradigms of public relations.

Communication: South African Journal for Communication Theory & Research, 35(1),

101-118. doi:10.108011.Bush, M. (2010). Are major marketers training john Q. public to whine on web?

Advertising Age, 81(25), 2-30. Retrieved from

Comment [NI8]: Dont add serial numentries


Formatted: Font: Italic



Formatted: Default Paragraph Font,pt








http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=13812592&site=ehost-livehttp://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=13812592&site=ehost-livehttp://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=13812592&site=ehost-livehttp://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=13812592&site=ehost-livehttp://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=13812592&site=ehost-live


32/36



live12.Bush, M. (2010). How social media is helping the public-relations sector not just survive,

but thrive. (cover story). Advertising Age, 81(30), 1-21. Retrieved from


live

13.Callison, C. (2003). Media relations and the internet: How fortune 500 company web sitesassist journalists in news gathering. Public Relations Review, 29(1), 29.

doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(02)00196-0

14.Capriotti, P. & Moreno, A. (2007). Corporate citizenship and public relations: Theimportance and interactivity of social responsibility issues on corporate websites. Public

Relations Review 33, 84-91

15.Coman, C., & Pun, M. (2010). The image of the public institutions and new technologies.Romanian Journal of Journalism & Communication / Revista Romana De Jurnalism SiComunicare- RRJC, 5(4), 45-53. Retrieved from


live

16.Craig, E., Igiel, M., Wright, K., Cunningham, C., & Ploeger, N. (2007). Will you be myfriend?: Comupter-mediated relational development on facebook.com International

Communication Association. Retrieved from


live

17.Croft, A. C. (2007). Emergence of "new" media moves PR agencies in new directions.Public Relations Quarterly, 52(1), 16-20. Retrieved from


live

18.Curtis, L., Edwards, C., Fraser, K. L., Gudelsky, S., Holmquist, J., Thornton, K., &Sweetser, K. D. (2010). Adoption of social media for public relations by nonprofit

organizations. Public Relations Review, 36(1), 90-92. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.10.003

19.Dawkins, J. (2004). Corporate responsibility: The communication challenge. Journal ofCommunication Management, 9(2), 108-119. Retrieved from


live

20.De Bussy, N. M., Ewing, M. T., & Pitt, L. F. (2003). Stakeholder theory and internalmarketing communications: A framework for analyzing the influence of new media.

Journal of Marketing Communications, 9(3), 147-161. Retrieved from


live








33/36


21.Diga, M., & Kelleher, T. (2009). Social media use, perceptions of decision-making power,and public relations roles. Public Relations Review, 35(4), 440-442.doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.07.003

22.English, K. (2009). Tubers talk: Examining the comments on presidential YouTube videosusing dialogic theory. Conference Papers -- International Communication Association, 1-

28. Retrieved from


live

23.Gilpin, D. (2010). Organizational image construction in a fragmented online mediaenvironment. Journal of Public Relations Research, 22(3), 265-287.

doi:10.1080/10627261003614393

24.Gilpin, D. R., Palazzolo, E. T., & Brody, N. (2010). Socially mediated authenticity. Journalof Communication Management, 14(3), 258-278. doi:10.1108/13632541011064526

25.Hong, S. Y., Yang, S., & Rim, H. (2010). The influence of corporate social responsibilityand customercompany identification on publics dialogic communication intentions.

Public Relations Review, 36(2), 196-198. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.10.00

26.Kent, M. (2008). The dialogic turn in public relations: Toward a theory of dialogicpractice. In (p. 1) National Communication Association. Retrieved from


live

27.Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the World WideWeb. Public Relations Review, 24(3), 321. Retrieved from


live

28.Liu, M. (2008).An extreme facebook makeover: Using social network sites to teachinterpersonal communication. Conference Papers -- National Communication Association,

, 1. Retrieved from


live

29.McAllister-Spooner, S. (2008). Fulfilling the dialogic promise: A ten-year reflective surveyon dialogic internet principles. Conference Papers -- National Communication Association,

1. Retrieved from


live

30.No author. (2010, November 27) 3 Examples of Stellar Social Media Customer Service.Retrieved April 11, 2011, from http://www.afterdarkgrafx.com

31.Noff, A. (2010, November 1). The Starbucks Formula for Social Media Success. RetrievedApril 11, 2011, from http://www.thenextweb/starbucks-formula-success.com

32.Online Business Dictionary (n.d.) Value Creation Definition. Retrieved April 10, 2011,from http://www.businessdictionary.com














34/36


33.Rybalko, S., & Seltzer, T. (2010). Dialogic communication in 140 characters or less: Howfortune 500 companies engage stakeholders using twitter. Public Relations Review, 36(4),336-341. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.08.004

34.Taylor, M., Kent, M. L., & White, W. J. (2001). How activist organizations are using theinternet to build relationships. Public Relations Review, 27(3), 263. Retrieved from


live

35.Walker, A.K. (2010, January 2).Retailers Reach Customers Through Social Media Sites.Retrieved April 11, 2011, from http://www.medbaltimoresun.com

36.Zwiebach, E. (2006, Jan 23).Branding Safewayk. Retrieved April 11, 2011, fromhttp://www.supermarketnews.com/brandingsafeway






http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=5375974&site=ehost-livehttp://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=5375974&site=ehost-livehttp://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=5375974&site=ehost-livehttp://www.supermarketnews.com/brandingsafewayhttp://www.supermarketnews.com/brandingsafewayhttp://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=5375974&site=ehost-livehttp://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=5375974&site=ehost-live


35/36


Appendix

Walmart Safeway Starbucks Zappos Pottery Barn

network extensiveness 484055 4696676 148976 20462537 109606

Dialogic Loop-Taylor A A A p p

Links to homepage-Seltzer p P p p p

intrusive advertising A A A A A

Join Now option P P P P P

special offers or incentives for FB fansA A P A P

content sharing P P P P P

guest speakers A A A A A

indication of trust A A A P P

increase in network over 1 week p p p p p

value creation- p A A P P

user responses v. organization responsesU U U O O

Formatted: Left


36/36


4921992 149859 20556703 111456 489016

Network growth 225316 883 94166 1850 4961

Key

P= present

A=absent

U=user response

O=organizational responses

tate thesis final draft v6 returnedni (1) ni

Documents