“Replying, But Not Listening”: Experiences of Social Media
Dialogues between socially responsible consumers and
organisations
University of Amsterdam
Master Programme in Communication Science – Corporate Communication A Master Thesis Supervised by Joost Verhoeven
Marte Holt Sannesmoen 12312754
Abstract
There is little research about activist communication from the perspective of the activist consumer (Wolf, 2018). Furthermore, social media allows anyone to challenge corporations. This study explores the experiences of socially responsible consumers (SRCs) engaging in dialogue with organisations on social media. Semi-structured interviews with 10 participants was conducted. Two themes emerged from the analysis: 1. Experiences of being
taken seriously, and 2. Experiences of power. These two themes reflect the dynamic
experiences of SRCs, where they want to challenge organisations but appreciate the
constraints organisations work under. The findings are discussed with reference to Luhmann’s (1985) systems theory, concluding that organisations should become more adept at
Introduction
In an information society that values transparency and visibility, organisations are increasingly confronted by individuals and groups who deem certain corporate conduct irresponsible or undesirable (Joyce, 2010). Coombs (1998) argued that the advent of the internet would grant activists with more opportunities to challenge existing power relations. Digital activism, where citizens use digital technologies to push for social, political, or economic change is now common practice (Housley et al. 2018). Social media have made it easier for activists to facilitate protests, share information, interact with companies, and advocate for their cause in a more effortless and connected manner (Rotman et al. 2011).
Both corporate and public social media use is beyond the vogue, and has become an established reality (Zuboff, 2015). From a public relations view, social media have been praised for its ability to facilitate dialogue and build relationships between organisations and their stakeholders (Briones, Kuch, Liu & Jin, 2011). Dialogue is a corollary of listening (Kagan, 2008), and organisational listening can occur on multiple levels. Corporations either employ large-scale listening tools (Macnamara, 2016), or it can transpire between
organisational representative and consumer dyads (Avidar, 2013).
Social media allows anyone with internet access and the knowledge to navigate the social media landscape to broadcast their opinions (Loader & Mercea, 2011). This can create a volatile and unpredictable environment for organisations. Amongst these groups and individuals are socially responsible consumers (SRCs). SRCs are defined as individual, rational decision-makers that base their purchases on ethical, social, or environmental criteria (Caruana & Chatzidakis, 2013). The affordances of social media allow them to act
individually or collectively to advocate for change (Treem & Leonardi, 2012). Consequently, this has been recognized as a form of social media native activism (Kampf, 2018).
SRCs using social media to challenge or communicate with organisations about CSR issues operate in a unique interplay between consumption and protest, and can aim for macro-level structural change, or they might just want to advocate for their own cause and spread awareness (Rotman et al. 2011). Previous research on activist-organisation communication has been largely organisation-centric, and: “there appears to be a lack of insight into activist
communication from the activist perspective, resulting in a very limited, one-sided understanding of the concept.” (Wolf, 2018 p. 309).
The lack of insight into SRCs experiences of engaging in dialogue with organisations on social media is troubling. First, SRCs acting collectively have received a disproportionate amount of scholarly attention in comparison to SRCs acting individually (e.g. Child, 2018;
Close Scheinbaum, 2017; Kang, 2012). This undermines the agency individuals have in harming corporate reputation through expressing incidents of perceived or actual corporate misconduct on social media (Einwiller & Steilen, 2015). Second, how SRCs experience dialogues is likely to colour subsequent perceptions and actions towards the company. Third, in a volatile social media environment where SRCs and other stakeholders can co-construct, re-construct, and de-construct organisational identities (Albu & Etter, 2015), an appreciation of how they experience these dialogues can equip organisations with the tools necessary to steer this unpredictable, and under-researched domain of digital activism in a way that is ethical and effective.
The existing gaps in the literature call for an exploratory study from the perspective of individual SRCs. This leads to the following research question: How do socially responsible
consumers experience dialogues with organisations on social media? This study will uncover
new insights into social media native activism from a micro-level view, adding to extant theories of public relations and activist communication on social media. Gaining different viewpoints will help counteract the one-sided understanding of communication between organisations and activists on social media. This research will also be of societal/practical relevance. Acknowledging the inherent power imbalances between corporations and consumers, and trying to narrow that gap by adhering to what constitutes effective
communication on behalf of these consumers has normative value. Additionally, this can be helpful to social media/public relations practitioners when establishing guidelines for effective communication management.
Theoretical Framework
This theoretical framework will introduce the sensitising concepts that will guide the analysis of SRCs experiences of dialogues with organisations on social media. First, theory on SRCs and how they use social media is introduced. Second, the relevance of power theory is discussed. Third, the concept of dialogue and how it is applied by public relations
departments is elaborated upon. Lastly, organisational listening and its relevance in a social media context with SRCs is examined.
Socially Responsible Consumers and Social Media
Consumer social responsibility (CnSR) is the umbrella term for consumer decision making based on respect for communities and the environment (Seth & Khan, 2015). The socially responsible consumer (SRC) is often conceived as an individual, rational decision-maker that base their purchases on ethical, social, or environmental criteria (Caruana &
Chatzidakis, 2013). They judge companies not only by instrumental value-related criteria, but also moral and ethical ones.
The relationship between the consumer/activist and the organisation has traditionally been conceptualised through legitimacy and ideology (Kelly & Garrett, 2006). Ideology is a collection of normative beliefs and values embraced by a person or a group that extends beyond epistemic reasons (Honderich, 1995). For organisations, legitimacy is theorised as the license to operate, which is granted by actors external to the organisation (Seele & Gatti, 2017). Activists that engaged with businesses prior to the internet and social media have usually been viewed through the abovementioned concepts, namely as carriers of ideologies that could be manoeuvred to de- or re-legitimise corporate conduct.
More recently, a concept borrowed from the marketing literature, namely Consumer Relationship Management has been applied to describe the relationship between SRCs and corporations on social media (CRM: Campell, 2003). SRCs and other activists were viewed as objects to be engaged with in order to maintain or engineer positive attitudes towards the company. Kampf (2018) suggested a less corporate-centric conceptualisation of social media native CnSR, of which subject-subject interactions between the SRC and the company representative is in focus, rather than viewing the SRC as an object to manipulate to reach corporate goals. Through social media, SRCs “engage in problem-solving with businesses by
offering contexts for making sense of CSR through enacting CnSR, creating an explicit connection between CSR and CnSR rooted in consumer practices.” (Kampf, 2018, p. 6). This
depicts the potential interplay between SRCs and organisations, whereby SRCs can challenge and/or contribute to organisational CSR practices. However, it also assumes that companies are open to listen, respond, and possibly act upon what has been conversed about.
Power
Power can be conceptualized as the control one has over valued resources (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). In this context, the power of SRCs is derived from their ability to harm corporate reputation. Through the use of social media, SRCs can facilitate protests, share information, interact with companies, and advocate for their cause in an effortless manner (Belk & Llamas, 2013). Boyd, McGarry and Clarke (2016) revealed how social media empowers the activist behaviour of individual SRCs, especially through the reach and speed of their messages. Even micro-level behaviours, such as sharing social criticism on a
company Facebook page are likely to be spread quickly throughout social networks, leading to ripple effects (Boyd et al., 2016). Individual SRCs can use social media to participate in dialogues with companies at their own leisure about causes that are important to them,
without the coordination that comes with joining larger social media groups or traditional protest situations.
Social media affordances facilitate activist communication (Leonardi, 2013). The reach and speed by which a SRC can share social criticism or praise about a company creates a stream of communication, in which the next piece of information dislodges the former one (Pfeffer, Zorbach & Carley, 2014). If a SRC shares a particularly juicy piece of information, this can spread quickly, resulting in “a temporal dominance of a single topic that,
consequently, leads to a large volume of communication” (Pfeffer et al. 2014, p. 120). Further,
the social media networks of individuals are likely to be clustered (Pfeffer & Carley, 2011), which in basic terms means that one’s connections on social media are connected to one another. This can lead to information being ricocheted to a user from different directions of their social networks.
Public relations have typically viewed activist communication as an obstacle that needs to be removed, in order to eradicate any resistance to corporate goals (Wolf, 2018). Despite the agency SRCs have to challenge corporations, corporations in turn have more power in terms of money and resources, and can refuse to listen to the SRC, or refute their voice.
Public Relations, Social Media Dialogue & Interactivity
Social media has been praised for its ability to facilitate dialogue and create stronger organisation-stakeholder relationships (e.g. Briones, Kuch, Liu & Jin, 2011; Pang, Shin, Lew & Walter, 2016; Yang, Kang & Johnson, 2010). The concept of dialogue has frequently been conflated and confused with the way symmetrical theory of public relations. The two-way symmetrical model made famous by Grunig and Hunt (1984) has been classified as the normative theory of how public relations practice should be conducted in order to be ethical and effective – “a characteristic of excellent communication management” (Grunig & Grunig, 1992, p. 285).
Two-way communication and dialogue are based on differing underlying premises, and differences in communicative processes and exchanges (Theunissen & Wan Noordin, 2012). Two-way symmetrical communication emphasises mutually beneficial outcomes for those involved. Alternatively, dialogue is process- rather than outcome-oriented. In dialogue, the focus is on the dynamic and multi-faceted creation of meaning rather than reaching a certain outcome (Avidar, 2013). This makes dialogue particularly relevant when
communicating with SRCs about CSR issues on social media. The SRC and the organisation are likely to differ in intent and goals, and achieving mutually beneficial outcomes is not
always plausible. Rather, dialogic communication recognizes conflict and disagreement as natural states that cannot always be resolved (Pearson, 1989).
Central to dialogue, is interactivity (Quiring & Schweiger, 2008). In the context of this study, SRCs need to have an understanding of the interactive potential of social media. Hence, they need to be able to navigate the social media landscape in a way that allows for
interactivity to unfold. When studying individual experiences, one has to take into consideration the social dimension of interactivity, where SRCs and organisational
representatives communicate, connect, and participate in a discussion. A content dimension is also important, as it reflects the quality, truthfulness and relevance of the communicative exchange.
Nonetheless, when organisations engage in dialogue, it is often to reach predetermined goals (Ihlen, May & Bartlett, 2014). This implies persuasive intent, which has been deemed inferior to other communication models in public relations theory (Grunig & Grunig, 1992). There seems to be a theory-practice gap, whereby organisations are employing persuasive, marketing based communications, whilst scholarly literature champions dialogue and two-way symmetrical communications. In the context of this study however, dialogue is not conceptualised as the absence of goals. It is conceptualised as an interactive conversation, whereby the SRC and the organisational representative engage in a written back-and-forth exchange, directly addressing one another.
Organisational Listening
Simply taking turns at speaking does not constitute dialogue. Rather, dialogue “is
comprised of an utterance chain in which a series of utterances need to be linked by
listening” (Macnamara, 2016, p. 150). Listening is important in a public relations context. In
contemporary societies, citizens need to interact with a multitude of organisations on a regular basis in “accessing goods and services, complying with laws and regulations, and living as
agentic social actors” (Macnamara, 2016, p. 152).
With regards to listening, seven tenets of effective ethical listening have been identified (Macnamara, 2016). These include giving recognition to people or groups,
acknowledging other’s expression of voice, paying attention to others, interpreting what they say, trying to understand others viewpoint, giving consideration with regards to requests or proposals, and responding in an appropriate way after such consideration has been given. Organisations often have to engage in large-scale listening with multiple stakeholders, and this large-scale listening require sophisticated, expensive technologies. In his cross-country organisational listening project, Macnamara (2016) found that organisations are much more
pertinent at speaking rather than listening, thus revealing a theory-practice gap in public relations research.
Large-scale listening differs from social media-mediated listening between consumers and organisational representatives, which is an interpersonal exchange. Social media allows both parts of the dyad the benefit of time to completely understand each other, and to craft an appropriate response or ask for clarification. The concept of listening is likely to shape the experiences of SRCs, in that they might have a more positive experience if they feel listened to.
Methods Design
As the research question is focused on SRCs’ experiences of dialogues with
organisations on social media, qualitative methods were employed. More specifically, semi-structured interviews were used to collect data. Interviews can provide rich insights and detailed data about individual experiences (Braun & Clarke, 2013). Additionally, semi-structured interviews allows for unexpected information to emerge, and for the probing of particular topics.
Sampling procedure and sample characteristics
This study used a purposive sampling strategy, as specific members of the population were of interest. To ensure that participants would be able to meet for face-to-face interviews and to conduct the interviews in English, an announcement on three different English-based Amsterdam Community Facebook groups was made. Here, the purpose of the research was explained and the inclusion criteria introduced. Participants who wanted to participate were invited to contact the researcher directly.
Participants had to fulfil two criteria: 1) have engaged in a conversation with a company about ethical/CSR issues in the past 6 months, where the conversation consisted of at least four exchanges, and, 2) self-define as a socially responsible consumer. The first criterium was evaluated by viewing screenshots of the conversations. One such example would be the Twitter thread of a company announcing that they are quitting single-use plastic in their stores, where a consumer has reached out with a question or a comment, and the company has replied. The second criterium was assessed by explicitly asking participants whether they base their purchases on social, environmental or ethical criteria. Further, that they took the time to reach out to companies on social media about those issues assumes a certain level of responsible consumerism.
Thirty-five people responded to the announcement offering to participate. Twenty-one fulfilled the inclusion criteria after viewing the conversation screenshots. Fifteen participants were initially invited to participate, and cases were selected on the basis of variation in the type of company messaged, and the type of issue conversed about. After the seventh interview appointment, there was a lot of overlapping information. By the tenth interview, no new knowledge was being discovered, and the sample had reached saturation (Braun and Clarke, 2013). See Table 1 for participant characteristics.
Table 1.
Participant characteristics
Name (pseudonym) Age Residency
(NL) Nationality Occupation
Anna 21 Amsterdam Italian Student
Cristina 28 Amsterdam Italian Waitress
Elia 27 Amsterdam Dutch Student
Frank 30 Amsterdam Dutch Doctor
Grace 25 Utrecht English Room Attendant
James 24 Amsterdam Irish Bartender
Greg 22 Amsterdam English Bartender
Selina 25 Haarlem Swiss Barista
Stephanie 26 Haarlem South-African SEO Executive
Tabea 29 Amsterdam German Office Manager
Procedure
Participants were interviewed face-to-face by the researcher. Interviews were
conducted at participants leisure, and they decided themselves when and where the interviews would take place. In qualitative research, meeting participants face-to-face is considered best practice, as it allows the researcher to take note of non-verbal cues, such as body language and gestures (Braun & Clarke, 2013). Further, allowing participants to choose a place where
they feel comfortable increases the chances of them expressing their true opinions. Interviews were either conducted at a café of the participants choice, or on one of the University of Amsterdam campus sites.
The interview procedure was the same for all participants. To start, they were reassured by explaining to them that they were talking to someone who frequently engages with organisations on social media themselves, and who has had both good, bad and
indifferent experiences. To encourage the respondents to speak freely, it was explained that there were no right or wrong responses and it was their personal experience that was in focus.
Printed screenshots of the conversation in question were available to both the participant and the interviewer during the interview. All interviews followed the same pre-planned interview guide. The first topic that was addressed in the interview guide was experiences in general. Here, the goal was to understand participants’ subjective experiences of the conversations, and the conversation characteristics that contributed to said experience. The second topic was about power, and the aim was to understand how SRCs experienced the power dynamics between themselves and the organization in question. The third and last topic was organisational listening, and the aim here was to understand how being listened to (or ignored) impacts experiences. Nevertheless, there was room for the researcher to ask
questions specific to the conversation. Furthermore, there were multiple questions asked that were not explicitly in the interview guide, to follow up on matters that participants brought up themselves/independent of the interview guide.
Before starting the interviews, participants were informed that the interviews would be audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim by the researcher to warrant the accuracy of their statements. Further, extensive member-checking was conducted, where interpretations of participants statements were reiterated back to them to ensure they were accurate (Braun & Clarke, 2013). The average duration of the interviews was 43 minutes, and they were all conducted in English.
Data analysis
Each interview was transcribed verbatim using Word. Before starting the process of open coding, interview transcripts were read through a couple of times in order to become familiarised with the data. As this research is explorative, a grounded theory approach to data analysis was conducted. This approach is a systematic approach, whereby both the sampling procedure and analysis process is conducted with the aim of generating theory that is grounded in the data (Strauss, 1987). As a first step, transcripts were transferred to the
software application ATLAS.ti, which is a convenient tool for coding and analysing qualitative data.
Subsequently, the process of open coding began. In this part of the coding process, segments were selected based on when examples or further descriptions started and ended. Everything that was mentioned received a code, both the topic that participants talked about, and what they said about it. The codes were labelled as close to participant’s own words as possible, using the theoretical framework and research question as a guide. For example, if a participant talked about how they felt like they were not being listened to, that segment would receive the code “listening,” but also codes describing why they felt this way, what the antecedent(s) were, and whatever else was said about it. However, segments that were not directly compatible with the research question or theoretical outline were also coded, in order to stay open to alternative interpretations.
The open coding process rendered 1281 codes. As many of the codes described the same phenomena but with different wording, these codes were merged together. Then a more focused coding process took place. Based on the theoretical outline and what was found in the data, codes were either dragged into one or more groups: social media activism, power dynamics, listening, or other experiences. As the research question is about experiences, a lot of the codes revolved around feelings or sentiments. If the code reflected a general emotion, for example “feels angered,” it would fall into “other experiences.” However, if the code described an experience that touched upon the specifics of the theoretical outline, it would fall into that category. For example the code “feels empowered by reply” would fall into power. Another example that does not refer to an experience per se but is more about pragmatism, would be the code “uses social media to challenge.” This code would fall into the group social media activism.
Then, these code groups were revised and extended, looking for patterns and contradictions in the data. This led to the emergence of two themes that captured the nuances of participants experiences of engaging in dialogues with organisations on social media : 1. Experiences of being taken seriously, and 2. Experiences of power.
Findings
The findings are structured in two parts. Part 1 describes participants motivation and conversation characteristics, whereas Part 2 outlines the types of experiences participants described.
Part 1: Conversation Characteristics and Motivation
Conversation characteristics. All of the participants engaged in conversations with large, for-profit companies about ethical issues. See Table 2 for an overview of the
conversation characteristics. The types of CSR issues participants talked about varied, and encompassed both social, environmental and ethical dimensions (Caruana & Chatzidakis, 2013). Most of them concerned socially responsible business operations, products and
services, such as waste policies, pollution, product safety or inclusivity (Lee & Kotler, 2013). Additionally, issues related to cause promotions and cause-related marketing was discussed, whereby the ethics of those practices was the focus. The issues reflected a critical eye towards business practices, not necessarily urging companies to go above-and-beyond with
discretionary philanthropic actions, but holding them accountable for their claims, and challenging them to do better.
Table 2.
Conversation characteristics
Name
(pseudonym) Company Conversation characteristics
Anna Nestlé Anna reached out on Facebook Messenger about their current policy on palm oil, asking what they have done to improve after the
Greenpeace KitKat campaign
Cristina KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
Cristina messaged them on Facebook Messenger asking about their CO2 and waste segregation policies
Elia Missguided Commented on an Instagram post, challenging the fast-fashion industry, pointing Missguided out as one of the worst
Frank Smirnoff Commented on Smirnoff`s YouTube page, about the video advertisement promoting the “Welcome Home” campaign to support members of the LGBTQ+ community taking part in Pride,
inquiring about their motives
promoted a skin whitening soap to their Asian audiences. Grace presented facts, her personal opinion, and attached a YouTube video
about the dangers of these products
Greg Sainsbury’s Commented on Sainsbury’s Twitter announcement about reducing plastic in their stores, pointing out talk-action gaps, and challenging
them to do more
James McDonalds Messaged McDonalds on Facebook, asking which cuts of beef they use in their burger, and whether the farming practices of their
suppliers are ethical and sustainable
Selina IKEA Commented on a Twitter thread, challenging their sustainability practices
Stephanie CoverGirl Cosmetics
CoverGirl announced on Twitter that they stopped animal testing, Stephanie inquired about the rigorousness of the testing, and whether they have stopped selling to markets where animal testing
is mandatory (China)
Tabea Lululemon Posted on one of their Twitter threads that she could not find any clothes her size in their shops, and challenged their inclusivity
Motivations. To completely understand participants experiences, it was important to understand their motivations. This was assessed by enquiring about why they engaged in conversation with the company in question, and what they were aiming for. For the most part, their answers reflected either a concern for others and self, or a suspiciousness about
corporate conduct. For example, Grace highlighted a concern for others and self as a reason why she engaged: “It’s just so dangerous.. It really messes with people’s confidence you
know.. when I visited Seoul, I saw just how bad it is, and I cannot.. uhhmm.. not do anything.”
A suspiciousness about corporate conduct however, was nicely demonstrated by Cristina, who stated: “Like.. they are aware aren’t they, about this flight anxiety thing and the climate..
think they are being honest.” The participants also talked about their motivations by
comparing them to those of the organisation. It became evident that the participants viewed themselves as fundamentally more moral than organisations: “I’m just a person who is trying
to do the right thing.. at least try you know, and companies just care about making money..” -
Elia.
Part 2. Experiences
When analysing the data, two themes emerged: 1. Experiences of being taken seriously, and 2. Experiences of power. Both these themes comprised of four indicators each, two that described experiences, and two that explained the mechanisms behind experiences. For the theme experiences of being taken seriously, the first indicator was not taken seriously, which could be explained by the mechanism indicator inadequate listening. The second indicator,
taken seriously, could be explained by expectations. Further, experiences of power was
indicated by feeling empowered, and feeling disempowered. Social media affordances was the mechanism that explained feelings of empowerment, whereas impression management
elucidated why participants felt disempowered. Experiences of being taken seriously
Experiences of being taken seriously arose as a theme, and this was of crucial
importance to participants. Having oneself and the validity of one’s message taken seriously was considered an important first step towards bringing about change. This strategic intent was demonstrated by Frank: “I’m posting this for a purpose you know… uhhm, I want them to
really understand that our.. ahh, identities are not for profit..”
Not taken seriously. The first indicator of this theme is not taken seriously.
Participants frequently mentioned that organisations gave replies that were not related to their questions, comments or queries. Greg said: “their reply was that they have a sustainable
store.. and that’s not what I was commenting on, not what I mean.. so I was like yeah good for you but still your business model sucks if you know what I mean.. they just weren’t replying to the point I made..” Furthermore, there was a lack of personalisation in replies.
Tabea described this well: “the sentences I got were pre-made.. they could have used those as
an answer to anything.. any negative messages.. and I would like a message that was more directed to me.”
These impersonal, insufficient replies elicited negative feelings, which led participants to infer that they were “one of many” – Stephanie. This created experiences of not being taken seriously, something that is demonstrated by Selina reflecting on how Ikea replied to
her comment: “I guess it made me feel a little angry, like they weren’t taking me seriously..” Moreover, generic replies made participants infer that they were talking to a robot or a
computer, which made them feel like they were not being recognised: “I think the only sort of
recognition given within this conversation was when I was actually put through to a person, so before that I feel like I wasn’t recognised.. well I was recognised by McDonalds as a company but I wasn’t recognised by anyone within it.” – James. Here, recognition is reliant
on human interaction, and when certain communicative cues signal otherwise, it leads to experiences of not being taken seriously. This is backed up by Grace reflecting on some of the computerised interactions she had with Palmolive early on: “I feel like.. like a machine can
never take you seriously.. It’s upsetting.”
In cases where participants expressed positive sentiments surrounding the
conversation, this could quickly change whenever they were given computerised answers. One example is when Anna gets an automatic message: “I was really happy that they replied
but then they just sent me this automatic message in Dutch, even though they saw that I was speaking English… So that made me quite frustrated actually..”
Mechanism: inadequate listening. The insufficient replies that participants mentioned as a reason behind them not feeling taken seriously largely stemmed from a lack of
organisational listening. They often described that organisations just do not get it, or that they put no effort into interpreting what is being said. For example, Tabea mentioned: “They are
not acknowledging anything I’m saying, they’re just trying to redirect the conversation, so basically they are not listening.. they are replying but not listening.” Another issue
participants frequently brought up was that the organisation decided whenever the
conversation was done. This made them feel like they were not being listened to: “I would
feel like my point was being taken seriously, and that I was being listened to if it was more of a conversation rather than yes or no.. so yeah I want them to stimulate more conversation.. I want them to engage more with me, because I felt like in this context it was quite like okay here is your answer, next one” – Stephanie.
Additionally, participants were well aware of the discursive strategies that
organisations employed to make it look like they were being taken seriously, while in reality they were not. Conversational, informal language and the use of emoticons were some of these strategies: “The language used was to trick me into believing that I was being listened
to even though the actions being described kind of confirmed that I wasn’t..” – James. This
was also backed up by Greg: “It’s all very much, like it sounds super conversational with
Taken seriously. On the other hand, participants also expressed feelings of being heard, and of being taken seriously. This was largely dependent on feelings of closeness: “It
makes me feel heard and listened to because yeah.. most of the times there is this kind of gap between companies and their consumers.” – Anna. However, the experience of being taken
seriously by getting a reply was often independent of the quality of the answer, where participants perceived getting a reply as a statement of recognition, which led to positive sentiments. Cristina demonstrates this nicely by stating: “I could see that it was just a copy
and paste answer from a website but still someone took the time to reply to me, so that was nice.”
Mechanism: expectations. Experiences of being taken seriously were largely coloured by expectations. Or more correctly, when negative expectations were violated. Participants often talked about how they did not expect a reply, especially because they felt like what they were enquiring about was not as important as typical customer service issues such as
complaints. For instance, Cristina said: “When I texted them I was like they will never reply to
me, that was the first thing I thought.. because they are really fast at replying whenever there is a complaint because no one wants complaints and bad reviews and this was something completely off topic so I was like.... yeah they will never reply to me.” Having low
expectations in terms of getting a reply resulted in elevated experiences, and participants felt like they were being taken seriously: “When you have a concern and you approach them, and
they actually get back to you and they answer.. and I think that is memorable in the sense that it created a connection, and I felt heard.” – Anna.
Assumptions were also used to justify corporate behaviour. This occurred at times when they felt like they were not being listened to and not being taken seriously, thus acting like an emotional buffer. One example of this is when Frank said: “They didn’t really
interpret what I was saying at all.. it’s not a person, so I can’t blame them for that, it’s maybe a lot cheaper.” When faced with persuasive techniques, participants also referred back to
their expectations. They were aware of when organisations tried to persuade them, and viewed it as a normal thing that organisations “have to do” – Grace. For example, Elia said
“I feel like it’s very typical of organisations to do that.. because you cannot really confront or satisfy consumers all the time so they kind of have to point the conversation towards their goals, which is understandable and very typical..” This is a compassionate deed, where
participants use both their knowledge about organisations’ persuasive intent and their
operations to justify their poor communications. Further, participants had certain expectations and assumptions about the professional role of public relations practitioners. For example,
Cristina elaborated on this stating: “I would like it to be more personal and not just ehhmm..
quick, like hey I`m just doing my job, next.. But I also understand that this is their job.” Here,
Cristina demonstrates an understanding of role constraints, and uses this to reflect on her experience, taking the perspective of her interlocutor.
Experiences of power
Experiences of power also emerged as a theme. Participants frequently highlighted the power dynamics between themselves and the organisation. Their power was their voice, whereas the organisation’s power over them was the ability to refute their voice: “I can voice
my opinion and in that sense I have power, but they can easily undermine ehhmm.. what I say.. and then my power is gone, they are refusing to let me speak my mind, and then I can’t
change anything..” – Stephanie.
Feeling empowered. Feeling empowered is the first indicator. Participants were empowered by how social media levelled the playing field between themselves and the organisations, making it easier to advocate for certain issues. For example, Grace stated: “I
think first of all social media enable us all to say what we want, so we are more powerful.. and with this we can challenge more powerful organisations.” In this section Grace explicitly
mentions that organisations are more powerful, but that social media is a tool one can employ to confront them. Moreover, they also perceived that traditionally skewed power relations levelled when they used social media, compared to traditional media. Cristina described this well: “yeah so I didn’t feel like there were any of those me or them having any power over the
other, so it was kind of a same level conversation..”
Further, having one’s opinion out there was also described as an empowering
experience, where participants felt empowered by the fact that everyone could see what they were writing. This was strongly connected to the potential impact it could make. For example, Frank mentioned: “I feel powerful, because if I say something really negative it’s out there for
everyone to see and it could turn into such a s*t storm.. just with the snap of a finger the organisation could go through hell.” Here, experiences of power are associated with the
possibility of provoking a difficult situation for the organisation. The ability to raise awareness about an issue and push an organisation into action was also a source of empowerment. For example, Selina said: “Social media empowers the public to speak up
about their issues and especially when it comes to sustainability practices because nowadays corporations always try to be really good about it.. and yeah it social media makes it easier to accuse them of greenwashing, and to point out different .. uhhmm raise awareness about problems they don’t take care of at all.”
Mechanism: social media affordances. When elaborating on feelings of
empowerment, social media affordances were frequently mentioned. Participants described deriving power from the ease and speed of which they could reach companies, and from the potential reach of their message. For example, James spoke about ease stating that: “There is
a power in accessibility, there is a power in pathways to communicating with companies that wouldn’t have been there before.” The speed of which opinions could be voiced and their
possible reach also came up, and were seen as important denominators of power. An example is when Anna mentioned: “If you have an opinion you can just put it into words and share it
with thousands of people in literally one second, and… uhhm.. this can have consequences.”
Social media empowered the activist behaviour of participants, even if they had never taken part in more traditional protest behaviours: “I have never really marched or protested in
the streets.. but with social media I can challenge these companies in an instant, ehhmm like I can do it on my morning commute, it’s so easy and fast..” – Greg. Further, the affordance of
visibility was also mentioned as a source of empowerment: “With social media.. what I say is
out there you know uhhmm.. for anyone to see, and you cannot really do anything if nobody can see or hear you..” – Stephanie. Visibility was then imperative in experiences of
empowerment, as it was a first step towards impact.
Feeling disempowered. Conversely, experiences of disempowerment were also derived from visibility, or more correctly visibility without impact. Participants often mentioned that having one’s opinion out there does not automatically assume power. A lack of influence and social connections was one of the reasons behind this. When reflecting on why she felt disempowered, Tabea stated: “well I don’t feel like I have power.. I don’t have a
lot of followers, I had one comment and one like, I don’t get a lot of attention, so no..” The
way that organisations chose to react to messages was also a source of disempowerment. While participants described that getting a reply from the organisation was empowering because they were recognised, replies could also have a reverse effect: “At the same time,
their response has the opposite effect in the sense that they gave me such a short answer, like I am one of many.” – Stephanie.
Feelings of disempowerment also arose when participants had to persevere to get in contact with the organisation. This created a distance in which power differences surfaced. An example is when James describes how he felt after repeatedly messaging McDonald’s: “I felt
very.. like powerless is a very strong word, and I don’t like to describe myself as powerless, but in that situation I felt I had very little power to actually speak to someone..” This quote
did not like to describe himself in this way, but felt like it was the only appropriate label at the time.
Mechanism: impression management. One of the mechanisms behind feeling
disempowered was impression management. Whilst participants felt empowered by getting a reply, this could easily be undermined whenever organisations employed manipulative communicative strategies. Frank put this nicely when he said: “Yeah they know the drill, they
have experienced this a thousand times and know how to deal with it so I feel like.. I’m not that empowered because of that.” That organisations were experienced at impression
management often made participants feel like they had little power to actually bring about change, as the responses organisations employed were used to dilute their arguments. This also demonstrates the amateur/professional relationship between the SRC and the
organisational representative. The SRC is an amateur at communication, whereas the organisational representative is a trained professional, and does this on a daily basis.
Organisations also tried to direct the conversation. For example, Tabea described how Lululemon tried to bring their conversation which was originally in a public Twitter thread to personal message: “I posted it overtly for a purpose because I wanted people to read it for a
reason you know, and now I feel like they are trying to silence me and I don’t really think this is how you should react to these.. ahhh.. open letters, it’s like an open letter that I am writing.”
Here, she explains how the organisation tries to silence her, and thus undermine her power. The organisation is attempting to replace a visible medium (twitter thread) with a less visible one (personal message). This is a strategic move, where challenging conversations are dealt with privately, in order not to have adverse ripple effects for the organisation.
Participants also explicitly used the words “impression management” to describe how organisations tried to manipulate the conversation: “They are not really concerned about us,
it’s all impression management… to, ahh.. prevent a sh*tstorm.” – Elia. In addition to
directing the conversation to the private, organisations also tried to decide which trajectory conversations should take, by overriding participants arguments. For example, Greg said:
“They didn’t really respond to the points I was making, but rather.. you know, derailed my whole argument to a different point.”
Discussion
This study explored the experiences of SRCs engaging in dialogues with organisations on social media. Participants subjective experiences were in strong opposition to the dominant public relations literature, championing two-way symmetrical communication, and using
social media to facilitate dialogue and relationships (Grunig & Grunig, 1992; Briones et al. 2011). Rather, inadequate listening and impression management were common encounters – dialogic communication was not.
Theoretical implications
Luhmann’s (1985) theorizations about social systems can be used as a framework for interpreting SRCs experiences. Social systems establish a difference between themselves and their environment, which acts to reduce societal complexity. A social system: “emerges
whenever two or more persons' actions are connected, first as an informal interactive system which then may develop into a formalised organisational system - an organisation, a
corporation. A social system is an abstraction; in the main meaning (German: Sinn), which isolates itself from other meaning, takes on its own 'life', motivates and justifies itself in selective communication processes” (Holmström, 1997, p. 12). Accordingly, social systems
reproduce themselves through communication.
The public relations department of the organisations participants are conversing with can be considered an organisational system. However, the identity of that system is not defined by tangibles, but by meaning – what makes sense or not (Holmström, 1997). In this case, organisations are identifying with a public relations and marketing logic, which is based on maintaining legitimacy and engineering positive attitudes towards the company (Kelly & Garett, 2006; Campell, 2003). As their identities follow this logic, engaging in communicative behaviours such as inadequate listening and impression management makes sense – it is meaningful for organisations to do this.
One the other hand, SRCs are following a political, activist logic. Using social media to challenge companies and to advocate for change are behaviours that are compatible with this system logic (Kampf, 2018). It is the incompatibility of the differing logics that give rise to unpleasant experiences, such as not being taken seriously. Experiences of not being taken seriously occur because inadequate listening does not make sense to participants, it signals a lack of concern for the individual and the wider issue. Whilst for organisations, “listening inadequately” can save time and money. Giving standardised, impersonal responses is tactical behaviour from organisations – it ensures consistency in their communications. Moreover, deciding not to engage any further with the SRCs can also be a strategic move, as they are trying to avoid reputational damage.
Interestingly, experiences of power was a prominent theme, and systems theory can also shed light on the dynamics leading up to this. Social media affordances facilitates the activist communication of SRCs (Gibson, 1983; Leonardi, 2013; Treem & Leonardi, 2012).
The strategic employment of these affordances empowers SRCs, and gives them more personal autonomy. However, organisations are also using the social media affordances in a way that coincides with their system logic, for example by replacing a very visible medium with one that is less visible. When SRCs encounter communicative behaviours from
organisations that are discordant with what they are aiming for, feelings of disempowerment arise. In this case, impression management, and trying to direct the conversation away from what is “uncomfortable” is a strategic move from organisations. SRCs on the other hand perceive this as manipulation, and feel like organisations are disempowering them by refuting their voice.
Moreover, the findings demonstrate that SRCs attempt to rationalise organisational communication. In systems theory, meaning is the normative foundation of social systems, and boundaries only open up cognitively (Holmström, 1997). Expectations about
organisational behaviour, goals, and professional roles were the cognitive mechanisms that enabled participants to be more empathetic towards organisations. The meaning participants attached to these expectations was bound by their own system logic, in the sense that getting an unexpected reply is a step towards making an impact – which makes them feel taken seriously. This highlights the perspective-taking dynamics SRCs engage in, where
experiences are made more positive by considering the system constraints their interlocutors are bound to.
Whilst systems theory provides a framework to explain the experiences of SRCs, the findings also enrichen theory on social media dialogues and organisational listening.
Experiences of not being taken seriously confirms just how important the content dimension of interactivity is for social media dialogues, as when organisational replies were irrelevant it was labelled as inadequate listening (Quiring & Schweiger, 2008). This ties in with
Macnamara`s (2016) work, and his outline of the seven tenets of effective ethical listening. The findings propose that the absence of two of these tenets, namely interpreting what others say and responding in an appropriate way has a negative impact on experiences, in a way that is signals inadequate listening.
The social dimension of interactivity is also imperative to signal effective listening. All participants were social media literate and knew how to facilitate an interactive
communication process, eliciting recognition, acknowledgement and attention from the organisation by getting a reply (Macnamara, 2016). Despite this, they often felt like the organisation assumed that the conversation was done, and discouraged further engagement with their replies. This advocates for a more thorough conceptualization of listening, one that
concerns the technologically mediated interpersonal exchange between SRCs and
organisational representatives. The negative emotional response associated with inadequate listening suggests that effective ethical listening in a social media context should include ending the conversation in an appropriate way.
Nevertheless, the power struggles as indicated by experiences of power is sobering for social media advocates (e.g. Briones et al. 2011, Kampf, 2018), and calls for a more nuanced conceptualisation of the power dynamics between organisations and activists on social media. Whilst this study reveals how SRCs experience power dynamics, one needs a deeper
understanding of the role of social media practitioners and organisational cultures in terms of power to develop a holistic conceptualisation of power in this context. The power struggles that participants experiences also advocates for a change in the discourse surrounding social media native activism and power. Scholars have largely focused on the empowering effects of social media for activists, whilst the role of organisational communication has been
downplayed. As certain facets of organisational communication were experienced as disempowering, future research focusing on the interplay between social media affordances and organisational communication on experiences of power could be fruitful.
This research is also of practical relevance. On one hand, organisations are effectively eradicating resistance to corporate goals by contributing to experiences of not being taken seriously and disempowerment (Wolf, 2018). On the other, this is not considered best practice (Grunig & Grunig, 1992). An interesting finding was that the participants used expectations as a cognitive mechanism to take the perspective of the organisation. Organisations need to signal effective listening by attempting to take the perspective of the SRC. For organisations, spending more money and resources on educating social media staff in how to employ dialogic principles during tough conversations could have a positive impact on the
experiences of SRCs, as their expectations are often low. Additionally, this is also beneficial for organisations. Engaging in productive conversations about ethical/CSR issues will ultimately lead to a richer understanding of the issues that are important for SRCs. Limitations
This study is not without limitations, and these should be addressed when considering the transferability of the results. One limitation is that to ensure that participants were talking about their personal experiences, they were free to choose a particularly memorable
conversation. Hence, conversations were not always “dialogues” per se in that they employed dialogic principles, as most of them did not (Theunissen & Van Noordin, 2013). Nevertheless, this is a finding itself in the sense that the experiences of these types of conversations were
more accessible for participants to talk about. To shed light on this, more research is needed. Particularly quantitative research investigating cognitive effects such as emotion and memory of different types of conversations
A surprising finding is that all of the organisations participants conversed with were large, for-profit companies. One must then be careful about generalising these findings, as the experiential dynamics might differ for other types of organisations. This calls for a reflection on the type of labels used. In this study, the label “socially responsible consumers” were given to participants. “Concerned citizens,” or “ethically aware” are labels that could be applied too, as they refer to similar concepts. However, the connotation of socially responsible consumers implies that we are talking about for-profit organisations. It also suggests a more political stance, in that a responsibility for greater society is assumed by “socially responsible.” This might have had an impact on how participants interpreted their experiences. Further, this study demanded that participants engaged in retrospection. To help aid their memory, they also had access to a copy of the conversation during the interview. This could have an impact on the data, as they have already had time to process these experiences, and the emotional impact might be over- or underemphasized.
Conclusion
Notwithstanding these limitations, this study has made a bold step towards
understanding the experiences of SRCs and activist communication from the perspective of the activist. Interestingly, the experiences that were more negative in valence, such as not being taken seriously and feeling disempowered could be explained by a crash of the differing system logics (Luhmann, 1985). Contrarywise, experiences of positive valence, such as feeling empowered and taken seriously, could be explained by cognitive mechanisms and social media affordances. This elucidates the different mechanisms underlying experiences, and creates a more nuanced view of social media native activist communication. Further, it advocates for organisations to become more adept at perspective-taking if they want to engage in productive conversations about social, environmental, and ethical issues.
Albu, O., & Etter, M. (2015). Hypertextuality and Social Media. Management
Communication Quarterly, 30(1), 5-31.
Avidar, R. (2013). The responsiveness pyramid: Embedding responsiveness and interactivity into public relations theory. Public Relations Review, 39(5), 440-450.
Belk, R., & Llamas, R. (2013). The Routledge companion to digital consumption. London: Routledge.
Boyd, D., McGarry, B., & Clarke, T. (2016). Exploring the empowering and paradoxical relationship between social media and CSR activism. Journal Of Business
Research, 69(8), 2739-2746.
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful Qualitative Research; A Practical Guide
for Beginners. London: Sage. ISBN 978-1847875822
Briones, R., Kuch, B., Liu, B., & Jin, Y. (2011). Keeping up with the digital age: How the American Red Cross uses social media to build relationships. Public Relations Review,
37(1), 37-43.
Campbell, A. J. (2003). Creating customer knowledge competence: managing
customer relationship management programs strategically. Industrial Marketing Management,
32(5), 375-383.
Caruana, R., & Chatzidakis, A. (2013). Consumer Social Responsibility (CnSR): Toward a Multi-Level, Multi-Agent Conceptualization of the “Other CSR”. Journal Of
Business Ethics, 121(4), 577-592.
Child, C. (2018). Shopping for Change: Consumer Activism and the Possibilities of Purchasing Power. Contemporary Sociology: A Journal Of Reviews, 47(6), 724-725.
Close Scheinbaum, A. (2017). The Dark Side of Social Media: A Consumer
Psychology Perspective (1st ed.). New York: Routledge.
Coombs, W. (1998). An Analytic Framework for Crisis Situations: Better Responses From a Better Understanding of the Situation. Journal Of Public Relations Research, 10(3), 177-191.
Einwiller, S., & Steilen, S. (2015). Handling complaints on social network sites – An analysis of complaints and complaint responses on Facebook and Twitter pages of large US companies. Public Relations Review, 41(2), 195-204.
Gibson, J. (1983). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.
Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (1992). Models of public relations and communication. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 285-325). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
Holmström, S. (1997). The inter-subjective and the social systemic public relations paradigms. Journal of Communication Management, 2(1), 24-39.
Honderich, T. (1995). The Oxford companion to philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Housley, W., Webb, H., Williams, M., Procter, R., Edwards, A., & Jirotka, M. et al. (2018). Interaction and Transformation on Social Media: The Case of Twitter Campaigns.
Social Media + Society, 4(1), 205630511775072.
Ihlen, Ø., Bartlett, J., & May, S. (2014). The handbook of communication and
corporate social responsibility (1st ed.).
Joyce, M. (2010). Digital activism decoded. New York: International Debate Education Association.
Kampf, C. (2018). Connecting Corporate and Consumer Social Responsibility Through Social Media Activism. Social Media + Society, 4(1)
Kang, J. (2012). A Volatile Public: The 2009 Whole Foods Boycott on Facebook.
Journal Of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(4), 562-577.
Kelly Garrett, R. (2006). Protest in an Information Society: a review of literature on social movements and new ICTs. Information, Communication & Society, 9(2), 202-224.
Leonardi, P. (2013). Theoretical foundations for the study of sociomateriality.
Information And Organization, 23(2), 59-76.
Loader, B., & Mercea, D. (2011). NETWORKING DEMOCRACY? Information,
Communication & Society, 14(6), 757-769.
Luhmann, N. (1985). Soziale systeme. grundriss einer allgemeinen theorie. Frankfurt am main.
Macnamara, J. (2016). Organizational listening: Addressing a major gap in public relations theory and practice. Journal of Public Relations Research, 28(3-4), 146-169.
Magee, J., & Galinsky, A. (2008). The Self-Reinforcing Nature of Social Hierarchy:
Origins and Consequences of Power and Status. SSRN Electronic Journal.
Pang, A., Shin, W., Lew, Z., & Walther, J. (2016). Building relationships through dialogic communication: organizations, stakeholders, and computer-mediated communication.
Pearson, R. A. (1989). A theory of public relations. Unpublished Dissertation. Ohio University.
Pfeffer, J., Zorbach, T., & Carley, K. M. (2014). Understanding online firestorms: Negative word-of-mouth dynamics in social media networks. Journal of Marketing
Communications, 20(1-2), 117-128.
Quiring, O., & Schweiger, W. (2008). Interactivity: A review of the concept and a framework for analysis. Communications, 33(2).
Rotman, D., Vieweg, S., Yardi, S., Chi, E., Preece, J., Shneiderman, B., Pirolli, P., and Glaisyer, T. 2011. From Slacktivism to Activism: Participatory Culture in the Age of Social Media. Proceedings of the CHI '11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing
Systems. New York, NY:ACM, 819–22.
Seele, P., & Gatti, L. (2015). Greenwashing Revisited: In Search of a Typology and Accusation-Based Definition Incorporating Legitimacy Strategies. Business Strategy And The
Environment, 26(2), 239-252.
Seth, S., & Khan, M. (2015). Green Marketing : Solving Dual Purpose of Marketing and Corporate Social Responsibility. Management Studies And Economic Systems, 1(3), 181-188.
Theunissen, P., & Wan Noordin, W. (2012). Revisiting the concept “dialogue” in public relations. Public Relations Review, 38(1), 5-13.
Treem, J., & Leonardi, P. (2012). Social Media Use in Organizations: Exploring the Affordances of Visibility, Editability, Persistence, and Association. SSRN Electronic Journal.
Wolf, K. (2018). Power struggles: A sociological approach to activist communication.
Public Relations Review, 44(2), 308-316.
Yang, S., Kang, M., & Johnson, P. (2010). Effects of Narratives, Openness to Dialogic Communication, and Credibility on Engagement in Crisis Communication Through
Organizational Blogs. Communication Research, 37(4), 473-497.
Zuboff, S. (2015). Big other: Surveillance Capitalism and the Prospects of an Information Civilization. Journal Of Information Technology, 30(1), 75-89.
