How to influence stakeholder engagement of non-profit and profit organizations through content style

(1)

Sarah Olivia Kubiak

10837752

Master's Thesis

Master’s Programme Communication Science

Graduate School of Communication

University of Amsterdam Semester 1 - 2015/2016

Supervisor: Dr. James Slevin

Date: 29.01.2016

''How to influence stakeholder engagement

of non-profit and profit organizations through content style''

(2)

- 2 -

Abstract

This research aimed at exploring the problem why non-profit organizations lag behind in their stakeholder engagement on social media as compared to profit organizations and their

stakeholder engagement. Particularly, the influence of different content styles on the degree of stakeholder engagement will be researched to provide practical advice on how

organizations can use content style to increase stakeholder engagement. It was hypothesized that content style could influence the willingness to engage. Furthermore, it was assumed that the relationship between content style and engagement is mediated by the factors trust, credibility and visibility. The relationship between trust and engagement and credibility and engagement was to supposed to be moderated by transparency. For this research is was chosen to conduct a content analysis. A total of 76 Facebook posts and 3000 comments belonging to the respective Facebook posts were analyzed. The results show that there is no significant relationship between content style and engagement, therefore the variables trust, credibility and visibility cannot act as mediators in the relationship between content and engagement. However, the analysis also showed that the relationship between trust and engagement is moderated by transparency. In addition to that, can be stated that trust, credibility and visibility have a positive influence on engagement. Therefore, non-profit organizations can take certain measures that will increase the impact of these factors in order to gain higher level of engagement from their stakeholders.

(3)

- 1 -

Introduction

At the end of 2015, the social media application Facebook had a total of 1.55 billion active users around the world (Statista, 2016). Initially, Facebook was used by private individuals as a convenient tool to foster personal social networks. However, the growing popularity in recent years convinced a great number of organizations to join the social media application. Nowadays, about 15 million organizations possess a Facebook account (Statista, 2016). The organizations use the social media application intensively for communication with their stakeholders (Perrigot, Kacker, Basset & Cliquet, 2012). Facebook offers countless new possibilities for organizations to engage in interaction with their stakeholders. Organizations of all sizes can benefit from the advantages of this application.

Del Mar Gálvez-Rodriguez, Caba-Perez and López-Godoy (2014) state that ‘’Facebook provides a strategic tool for fostering the stakeholders’ involvement with the organization’’ (p. 869). In addition to that Waters, Burnett, Lamm and Lucas (2009)

emphasize the great opportunities that Facebook offers organizations to communicate and to simplify their external communication with stakeholders e.g. to facilitate fundraising and to encourage a dialogue between an organization and its stakeholders (Briones, Kuch, Liu & Jin, 2010; Curtis, Edwards, Fraser, Gudelsky, Holmquit, Thornton & Sweetser, 2009). However, several studies show that profit and non-profit organizations seem to use Facebook and other social media applications in different ways (Blery, Katseli & Tsara, 2010; Cho, Schweickart & Haase, 2014). While profit organizations seem to use social media applications to their fullest potential, non-profit organizations lag behind in their social media usage behaviour or have at least not found a way to use social media applications in the most beneficial manner. Studies show that non-profit organization focus more on information-sharing while profit organizations tend to focus more on interacting with their stakeholder (Lovejoy & Saxton, 2012). The focus of information-sharing could be part of the nature of a non-profit

(4)

- 2 -

organizations as they normally deal with serious issues that require severe and thoughtful communication. However, the users of social media platforms possess a great amount of power and this power can be used by non-profit organizations to create more awareness for their fight for the good cause. Through finding new ways to operate on social media,

non-profit organizations can receive more engagement and support by their stakeholders.

It is assumed that the differences in content style are the one of the reasons why non-profit organizations suffer from less engagement on social media. Additionally, it is hypothesized that the choice of communication content of an organization on Facebook influences the stakeholder's willingness to engage. The relationship between the content style and the degree of engagement is mediated by trust, credibility and visibility as these factors influence the stakeholder's perception of their organization as well as if stakeholders are aware of the

organization's actions (Murthy,Hasting & Mawrie, 2014;Yang & Kent, 2013). Furthermore,

the relationship between trust and engagement is moderated by transparency as well as the relationship between credibility and engagement because transparency has a positive effect on the relationship between stakeholder and organization (Kang & Hustvedt, 2014). This leads to the following research question:

''To what extend differs the content style of profit and non-profit organizations on the social media application Facebook and how do these differences influence stakeholder engagement

on social media taking into account the factors trust, credibility, visibility and transparency?''

This study aims at providing practical advice from which, mostly non-profit, organizations should be able to benefit so that they can improve their social media appearance and

subsequently achieve higher stakeholder engagement on social media.

The article has the following structure: first, the theoretical framework on which the study is based will be provided. The theoretical framework is followed by the methodology section. Then, the results will be stated and explained. After the result section follows the conclusion

(5)

- 3 -

and discussion section. The last chapter includes a critical reflection and recommendations for future research.

Theoretical framework

Communication technology and its impact

Communication technology can be seen as ''strategic asset'' (Yang, Lee & Lee, 2007) for organizations. According to Zorn, Flanagin and Shoham (2011) influence ''organizational characteristics, environmental characteristics and pressures to establish legitimacy'' (p.3) the use of communication technology in non-profit organizations. Organizational size positively influences the adoption of communication technology in profit and as well as in non-profit organizations (Zorn et al., 2011). Zorn et al. (2011) found that non-profit organizations use communication technology mainly for communication and information flow, stakeholder engagement and resources acquisition, whereby the least amount of time is spend on stakeholder engagement.

However, communication technology like social media offers various opportunities for organizations like high interaction with stakeholders. Social media applications like Facebook enable organizations ''to engage in timely and direct end-consumer contact at relatively low cost and higher levels of efficiency'' (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2009, p.67). Ford and Mason (2013) state that social media offers '' unprecedented opportunities for sharing information and

knowledge'' (p. 1) between organizational members as well as between organizational members and external stakeholders. Sisco and McCorkindale (2015) add that social media facilitate more involvement for stakeholders with their organization as these applications ''create the perception of close interaction regardless of time and space, thereby connecting individuals and groups with organizations'' (p. 288). Therefore, social media can also help to foster relationships with the public. Furthermore, it can be stated that another advantage of

(6)

- 4 -

social media is that practitioners can address their audiences without the intervening influence of gatekeepers (Sisco & McCorkindale, 2013). That means that there is less filtering of

information and less information is kept away from the audience.

Despite all the advantages, social media also involves some dangers. Using social media as an organizations can be a potential threat for your corporate image, e.g. when the social media activities are not integrated in the overall media strategy. If the social media activities are not aligned and conflicting messages are send, the image of an organization can suffer (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2009). Furthermore, social media activities themselves should be aligned, that means the message that is conveyed needs to be same on all social media channels (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2009). In addition to that, involves the effortless information sharing the risk of sharing too much information and also the risk of misuse of data by third parties (Ford & Mason, 2013). Therefore, engaging in social media also involves the risk of loss of control as organizations cannot control everything that is done with their information. Nowadays, companies have to engage in social media activities and the crucial goal of these activities is the relationship building with their stakeholders, as these relationships are vital for an organizations well-being and success. Risius and Beck (2015) state that in the end a ''company’s relational outcomes on social media are a result of the message characteristics immediately apparent during the interaction (content features) and (...) of a company’s overall social media management strategy and the manageable account characteristics'' (p. 825).

Differences in social media usage between non-profit and profit organizations

These days most organizations cannot survive without engaging in social media activities with their stakeholders. However, according to research there are some differences in how non-profit and profit organizations use social media. Not only are there differences in how the organizations use social media, also the results of the social media usage differ (Picazo-Vela, Gutiérrez-Martínez & Luna-Reyes, 2012). About the differences between non-profit and

(7)

- 5 -

profit organizations regarding social media usage, one can state that ''despite its potential benefit of public engagement, non-profit organizations use social media for diffusion of information as a subsidy to traditional media, rather than capitalizing on social media's interactive nature'' (Cho et al., 2014, p. 565). Whereas, profit organizations seem to embrace the ''interactive nature'' (Cho et al., 2014, p. 565) of social media more easily (Lovejoy &

Saxton, 2012).

Non-profit organizations mainly use social media applications for educating and informing their stakeholders, optimizing management issues and for communication with stakeholders (Zorn et al., 2011). Cho et al. (2014) describe the social media behaviour of non-profit organizations as followed: ''non-profit's social media message strategies are best described as one-way communication for sharing information, rather than two-way symmetrical

communication intended for interacting with publics'' (p. 565). Profit organizations tend to use social media applications for information-sharing and dialogic relationship-building (Lovejoy

& Saxton, 2012).

Sisco and McCorkindale (2013) state that most ''non-profit organizations lag behind others in social media adoption, waiting to see how other organizations adopt and use this new

technology'' (p. 289). Furthermore, a great number of non-profit organizations does not take advantage of the interactive functions of Facebook to build relationships with their

stakeholders (Waters et al., 2009; Lovejoy & Saxton, 2012). One of the reasons that non-profit organizations have less success on social media applications like Facebook is that they do not maintain them regularly or do not use these sites to their full advantage. That can be partially explained with the lack of resources like trained personal and time. Furthermore, should the power that financial resources have on social media activities not be

underestimated (Lovejoy & Saxton, 2012). Waters et al. (2009) describe 3 strategies for using social media in the most fruitful manner. First of all, organizations should engage in full disclosure on social media. Secondly, organizations should think about whether the

(8)

- 6 -

information they post online is actually useful for their stakeholders. The last strategy involves interactivity. Lastly, organizations can influence their social media appearance through content style. Content style can vary from information to persuasion, humour or customer care.

Stakeholder theory

Stakeholder theory is based on the thought that an organizations needs to take more into account for their decision-making than only its shareholders (Mainardes, Alves & Raposo, 2011). Although there are many versions of the concept stakeholder, they are all based on the following premise: ''the company should take into consideration the needs, interests and inﬂuences of peoples and groups who either impact on or may be impacted by its policies and operations'' (Frederick et al., 1992 as cited in Mainardes et al., 2011, p.228). Mitchell, Agle and Wood (1997) state that stakeholders can be judged according three characteristics which concern their power to influence the firm, the legitimacy of the stakeholder's relationship with

the organization and the urgency of the stakeholder's claim on the firm.

Moreover, there are a variety of issues that should be taken into account while dealing with stakeholders. First of all, a difference should be made between the stakeholders who have a claim in an organization and whose are able to influence an organization. Also, the actual and the potential relationship between an organization and a stakeholder should be acknowledged and finally also the nature of the relationship between organization and stakeholder needs to be reviewed. Hereby are power, dependency and reciprocity the key points (Mitchell et al., 1997). Stakeholder theory embraces not only phenomena like the relationship between an organization and its stakeholders, the structures of dependences between an organization and its stakeholders, but also the risks involved for stakeholders (Mitchell et al., 1997). An organization can have a huge variety of stakeholders, differing in their scope and their

(9)

- 7 -

first distinction should be whether the respective stakeholder is an internal or external one. Then, external stakeholders can be divided - amongst others - into economic, institutional and

ethical (Mainardes et al., 2011).

Concerning stakeholders on social media, organizations need to be aware of the ''temporal dynamics of social media'' (Jiang, Chen, Nunamaker & Zimbra, 2014). These temporal dynamics differ tremendously and depend on the topic, the amount of users involved in the issue, the issue itself. Major events tend to influence the dynamics heavily and organizations are restricted in the way they can influence these dynamics.

Engagement

Cabiddu, De Carlo and Piccoli (2014) state that ''the advent of social media led to an explosion of interest in customer engagement, given the opportunities presented by these media to facilitate close relationships with customers'' (p. 176). According to Men and Tsai (2015) can engagement be described as every action of an organization that aims at involving its stakeholders in its activities and decision-making processes. Engagement on social media becomes visible through showing interest in the particular organization and willingness to

take action (Yang & Kent, 2013), e.g. buying products or donations.

Hollebeek, Glynn and Brodie (2014) describe engagement as a ''motivational state'' (p. 150). The stakeholder develops a relationship with his object of engagement, which is based on the need for ''interactive experiences'' (Hollebeek et al., 2014, p.150) with the object of

engagement. Social media is the ideal environment to fulfil this need. Sashi (2012) states that ''engagement refers to the creation of experiences that allow companies to build deeper, more meaningful and sustainable interactions between the company and its (...) stakeholders'' (p. 256). In order to get these interactions it takes a lot of time and effort from the

organizational site (Sashi, 2012). According to Sashi (2012) there are four stages of

(10)

- 8 -

needs to be acknowledged that the level of engagement is influenced by a variety of factors including transparency, trust, credibility and visibility (Kang & Hustvedt, 2014; Yang &

Kent, 2013).Nevertheless, before engagement can be achieved, one needs a relationship with

the respective stakeholders. Relationships are crucial for social media sites (Waters et al., 2009) but a relationship between a company and its stakeholders on social media does not evolve if the site of a company is only used for the diffusion of information and only marginally for interaction with the stakeholders. However, stakeholder engagement is the essential ingredient for the success of social media operations of organizations (Jo & Kim, 2003).

Trust, credibility and transparency

While establishing a relationship with stakeholders on social media organizations need to be aware of the impacts of the factors trust, credibility and transparency. These three concepts are interrelated. While talking about interactions on social media, one crucial factor that cannot be underestimated is transparency as it influences the interactions between users and organizations on social media. Rawlins (2009) states that transparency consists of

participation, giving substantial information to stakeholders, accountability and secrecy. Transparency is vital for an stakeholder-organization relationship as it influences if stakeholders perceive an organization as reliable (Kang & Hustvedt, 2014). Related to transparency is trust. Organizations cannot underestimate the power of trust while they are engaged on social media as trust positively influences how the stakeholders perceive the organization and its social media appearance (Kohring & Matthes, 2007). According to

Murthy,Hasting and Mawrie (2014) is ''trust (...) essential for establishing communities and

promoting social cohesion'' (p. 171), this is not only important in offline relationships but also for online relationship between organizations and its stakeholders. Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2000) emphasize that trust in an organizational setting makes processes more efficient as

(11)

- 9 -

well as it reduces the complexity of interactions between organizations and stakeholders,

which is beneficial for both sides.

Moreover, if stakeholders perceive trust in the organization, it makes it easier for them to rely on the organization. In addition to that, the connection between transparency and credibility becomes apparent through the influence credibility has on how stakeholders perceive the information they get from an organization. Especially on social media, there a lot of

information is available, the receiver of the information needs to be sure that he can rely on the information (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000). Willingness to engage with an organization is unlikely to happen when the stakeholder does not perceive the organization and its social media content as credible.

Visibility

If organizations aim at increasing their stakeholder engagement on social media, visibility is a factor that cannot be underestimated. Visibility is crucial for engaging in social media,

especially for organizations using social media to reach their stakeholders. Visibility refers to the ''public presence of an individual or organization in the media'' (Yang & Kent, 2013, p.563). Visibility on social media deals with ''how frequently social media users discuss an individual, organization or related issue'' (Yang & Kent, 2013, p. 563). Furthermore, it is crucial for an organization to keep track of ''what is being said (...), how frequently it is being said, and in what particular media it is being said'' (Botha, Farshid & Pitt, 2011, p.45).

Visibility is related to the change of communication patterns due to modern technology (Thompson, 2005). According to Thompson (2005) do modern technologies ''create a variety of new interactional situations which have their own distinctive properties'' (p. 34), this means that modern technologies alter human behaviour and especially how humans communicate with each other. Furthermore, these new technologies are responsible for a ''new form of visibility'' (Thompson, 2005, p. 35). This new visibility concerns the

(12)

- 10 -

impact of the characteristics of new communication technologies on the human vision, this means that communication technologies broaden the vision (Thompson, 2005). The reason for that are on the one hand technical extensions for the vision e.g. cameras but also the new forms of social interactions that result from these new technologies (Thompson, 2005). According to Thompson (2005) were the communication technologies responsible for a ''de-spatialized visibility which allowed for an intimate form of self-presentation freed from the constraints of co-presence'' (p. 38). This means, that through the new technologies it is not necessarily required to be in the presence of something or someone to see it. However, visibility also has some disadvantages, Thompson (2005) describes visibility as a ''double-edged sword'' (p. 41). The major downfall is that in our times it is necessary to create visibility for a person or an organization through the media. Otherwise, it can happen that even if an organization is fighting for a good cause, they can suffer from ''death by neglect'' (Thompson, 2005, p.49) due to insufficient visibility in the media. This dependence on visibility requires certain strategies to conquer invisibility and can be described as a ''struggle to be seen and heard, and the struggle to make others see and hear'' (Thompson, 2005, p. 49). The ultimate goals for organizations, especially on social media, is high visibility as high visibility relates to high amount of likes, shares and comments and therefore also greater financial success for a company (Yang & Kent, 2014).

Hypotheses

The hypotheses tackle the stated research problem through encompassing different layers of problem. Stakeholder engagement on social media depends on a variety of factors which organizations need to be aware of and need to know how to use them in their advantage. Therefore, based on the theoretical framework, the following hypotheses can be stated:

 H1: The social media content of an organization influences the degree of stakeholder

(13)

- 11 -

 H2: Trust has a positive influence on the relationship between social media content

and the degree of stakeholder engagement

 H3: Credibility has a positive influence on the relationship between social media

content and the degree of stakeholder engagement.

 H4: Visibility has a positive influence on the relationship between social media

content and the degree of stakeholder engagement.

 H5: The relationship between trust and stakeholder engagement is moderated by

transparency.

 H6: The relationship between credibility and stakeholder engagement is moderated by

transparency.

Model

Figure 1. illustrates the hypothesized relationship between the social media content of non-profit and non-profit organizations and the degree of engagement from their stakeholders. The relationship between the independent and dependent variable is assumingly mediated by the factors trust, credibility and visibility. In addition to that, the relationship between trust and engagement, as well as between credibility and engagement is moderated by the factor

transparency. The theoretical models aims at illustrating that stakeholder engagement depends on a number of factors.

(14)

- 12 -

Method

Research design

The research is designed as comparative content analysis as the purpose of the study is to analyze and compare the differences in the social media content of non-profit and profit organizations. Content analysis is the appropriate research method for this research as content analyses are used for the precise analysis of media content through categorizing and

classifying the chosen content as well as the reactions related to the chosen content (Dooley,

2009; Elo, Kääriäinen, Kanste, Pölkki, Utriainen & Kyngäs, 2014).The chosen organizations

are being compared on the basis of several criteria that enable the researcher to indicate the differences in social media content and how these different content styles influence the stakeholder engagement of the respective organizations.

Selection of research units

The sample consists of 76 Facebook posts in total, respectively 38 posts by non-profit organizations and 38 posts by profit organizations. The posts were gathered from the

Facebook Sites of 3 non-profit organizations and 3 profit organizations, that means between 11 and 15 posts per company (see Appendix B) were analyzed. Furthermore, a total of 3000 comments belonging to the respective posts were analyzed. Per post between 10 and 50

comments were analyzed.

The latest 50 posts of each organization were gathered into one data set and from this pool of posts, the posts were randomly selected for analysis. The amount of posts was limited to 50 per organization as not all posts of the respective Facebook pages had a sufficient number of comments. Therefore, only posts that at least 10 comments were selected for the initial pool of posts. The organizations were selected on the basis of their social media appearance, that includes a certain amount of likes, at least 50 posts on their Facebook and a minimum of activity, meaning that the time between two posts should not be too long, e.g. not more than

(15)

- 13 -

two weeks. For the sake of comparability, all organizations had to have to have similar ''social media preconditions'' like mentioned above.

Characteristics of the research units

The Facebook posts of the following non-profit organizations were analyzed: Amnesty

International Germany, Pro Asylum Germany and World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Germany and of the following profit-organizations: Samsung Mobile Germany, BMW and L'Oreal Paris. The profit organizations are chosen on the basis of their high involvement products as these tend to evoke more customer engagement than low involvement products. As the pages will be compared with the Facebook pages of non-profit organizations it is crucial that the products of the profit organizations are related to high involvement as the issues that non-profit organizations address tend to be more highly emotional issues which are more likely to trigger engagement.

Observed variables

The independent variable of this research is ''social media content'', this variable addresses the content of the Facebook posts. The content of a post can be either informational, persuasive, advertising, humoristic or customer care. It is hypothesized that the type of social media content has an influence on the willingness to engage. Consequently, is engagement the dependent variable. In this research the dependent variable engagement consists of two items, first the willingness to take action, e.g. buy the advertised products or donate money to charity and secondly the emotional engagement, meaning that the commenter shows understanding or affective support for the organization and its goals. These items are based on Smith and Gallicano (2015). The influence of the chosen content style on engagement is mediated by the variables trust, credibility and visibility. The variable trust consists of seven items and are based on the studies and definitions of Murthy, Hasting and Mawrie (2014), Kohring and

(16)

- 14 -

Matthes (2007), Rotter (1967) and Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2000). The items addresses the different layers of trust. It is hypothesized that a person perceives more trust in an organization, his level of engagement will be higher. The second mediating variable is credibility, this variable consists of four items, which are based on the study of Westerman, Spence and van der Heide (2014). The items indicate if a commenter perceives the

organization and their posts as credible or not. It is hypothesized that if the commenter perceives the organization and their posts as credible, than his level of engagement will be higher. The last mediating variable is visibility. Visibility will be measured in the percentages of likes, shares and comments according to the total likes of the Facebook page of the

organization . It is hypothesized that higher visibility leads to more engagement. Furthermore, there is also one moderating variable, transparency. This variable consists of nine items which are based on a scale by Rawlins (2009) and are supposed to indicate the various layers of transparency an organization can show in their social media activities. A high amount of transparency is supposed to have a positive influence on the variables trust and credibility.

Procedure

One month was scheduled for data gathering and analysing. From each chosen organization between 10 and 15 posts and a total of 500 comments were analyzed. Therefore, a total of 76

posts and 3000 comments were analyzed.

The posts and comments were gathered from Facebook and then manually transferred into a SPSS file. The coding process started with some general information about the organizational Facebook page, if it is owned by a non-profit or profit organization, how many likes the pages has, etc. Then, the post itself was analyzed. First, it was about the communication content the organization chose, whether the content is more informational, persuasive, advertising or customer care related. After the analysis of the content, it was analyzed whether the

(17)

- 15 -

After that, visibility was analyzed. To measure visibility, the number of the likes for the whole page as well as the number of likes, shares and comments for each post needed to be stated. Then, for each post the percentages for likes, shares and comments were calculated (according to the total likes of the page). These three percentages were added and the resulting score indicated whether visibility was very low (0 - 1%), low (1 - 2,5%), medium (2,5 - 5%) or high (> 5%). In the following step, the comments of the respective post were analyzed. The analysis of the posts started with the variable trust. The items were based on various studies and are supposed to indicate whether the commenter shows trust in the

organization or not. Hereafter, the degree of credibility was analyzed. Whether the commenter perceives the organization as credible or not, is supposed to have an influence to the

engagement. Finally, the dependent variable engagement was measured through indicating whether a commenter indicated the behavioural intention to engage in action and whether the commenter indicated emotional engagement, meaning an positive affection towards the organization and its goals.

Results

A statistical analysis was conducted to test the assumption that the content style on social media sites influences the stakeholders willingness to engage with the organization. It was assumed that the type of content, so whether a post is informative, persuasive or based on advice or humour influences stakeholders to engage. The relationship between content style and engagement is mediated by trust, credibility and visibility as literature research showed that these factors influence the usage behaviour of social media users. Moreover, it was assumed that transparency functions as a moderating variable between trust and engagement as well as between credibility and engagement. Literature research showed that transparency has an effect on trust as these variables influence a stakeholder's perception of an

(18)

- 16 -

Mediation analysis

A mediation analysis was conducted to research the role of the hypothesized mediators in the theoretical model. According to Baron and Kenny (1985) and Urban and Mayerl (2007) must a variable meet four requirements for being labelled as a mediator variable. First of all, the independent variable needs to have a statistically significant influence on the dependent variable, the mediating variables are not included in this part of the analysis. Secondly, the independent variable needs to have a statistically significant influence on the mediator variable. Thirdly, the mediator variable needs to have a statistically significant influence on the dependent variable. Finally, the last requirement is that the effect from the independent variable on the dependent needs to decrease when conducting the regression with the mediator variables. Full mediation is achieved if the independent variable has no additional influence on the dependent variable during the complete regression (including the mediators).

While testing the first requirement, it became apparent that the independent variable

communication content did not explain the variance in engagement scores as R2 = .01,

B = -.48, β = -.31, p > .05, so the first requirement is not fulfilled. Furthermore, Table A. shows that the independent variable social media content significantly predicted credibility scores, β = -.42, p < .05, as it did with the mediator variable visibility, β = .19, p < .001. However, the relationship between social media content and credibility is negative. The variable social media content did not predict trust scores. Therefore, the second requirement for the mediator variables is only fulfilled by credibility and visibility. Credibility predicted engagement scores, β = .47, p < .001 and visibility also predicted engagement scores, β = .98, p <.001. The effect of the independent variable communication content on the dependent variable engagement does not decrease when all the mediators are included in the regression (β = -.43, p < .01 in the complete regression compared to β = -.31, p > 0.5 in the regression

(19)

- 17 -

As all the main requirements for mediation are not fulfilled, hypotheses 1, 2, 3 and 4 need to be rejected as there is no effect from social media content on stakeholder engagement and therefore trust, credibility and visibility cannot act as mediators in this relationship. However, the analysis showed that there is a relationship between social media content and credibility, as well as between communication content and visibility. In addition to that, the analysis also showed that there is a positive relationship between trust and engagement, credibility and engagement as well as visibility and engagement.

Step 1

Engagement

Comm. Content R2 p β B .01 .93 -.31 -.48 Step 2

Trust Credibility Visibility

Comm. Content R2 p β B R2 p β B R2 p β B .002 .09 -.48 .18 .002 .021 -.42 -.91 .36 .000 .19 .18 Step 3 Engagement R2 p β B Trust .27 .000 .52 .22 Credibility .19 .000 .47 .33 Visibility .10 .000 .98 .16 Step 4 Engagement p β B Comm.Content .005 -.43 -.68 Trust .000 .69 .28 Credibility .000 -.15 -.11 Visibility .000 .21 .32 R2 = .31 Table A. Mediation analysis

(20)

- 18 -

Moderation analysis

Hypothesis 5 assumed that transparency moderates the relationship between trust and

stakeholder engagement. The results indicate that higher trust (B = .28, SEb = .32, β = .69, p < .001) and higher transparency (B = .17, SEb = .44, β = .31, p < .001) were both associated with higher stakeholder engagement. The analysis showed also that the interaction effect between trust and transparency was also significant (B = -.007, SEb = .004 , β = -.201, p < .05). Although the interaction effect is rather small, it implies that if transparency is high, the effect of trust on engagement is lower. If transparency is low, the effect of trust on

engagement is higher. Summarized, it can be stated that hypothesis 5 is confirmed.

Figure 2. Moderation effect of transparency on the relationship between trust and engagement

Hypothesis 6 assumed that transparency moderates the relationship between credibility and stakeholder engagement. The statistical analysis shows that there is no significant interaction effect between the variables (B = -.006, SEb = .007 , β = -.095, p > .05). Therefore,

hypothesis 6 needs to be rejected. 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4

Low Trust High Trust

De p en d en t var iab le Low Transparency High Transparency

(21)

- 19 -

Descriptives

Non-profit organizations Profit organizations

Communication content Yes No Total Yes No Total

Informative Post 96,5% 3,5% 100% 64,9% 35,1% 100% Persuasive Post 55,5% 44,7% 100% 26,2% 73,8% 100% Advertisement 0,0% 100% 100% 40,7% 59,3% 100% Humour 3,4% 96,6% 100% 3,4% 96,6% 100% Advice 37,1% 62,9% 100% 15,3% 84,7% 100% Customer care 0,0% 100% 100% 17,4% 82,6% 100%

Engagement Yes No Neutral Total Yes No Neutral Total Willingness to take action 19,7% 8,9% 71,5% 100% 32,5% 12,5% 55,6% 100%

Positive mindset 48,5% 9,4% 42,1% 100% 52,0% 14,5% 33,5% 100%

Table B. Percentages communication content and engagement

Table B. shows that non-profit and profit organizations differ in the style of their social media content. Non-profit organizations use mainly informative and persuasive content as well as advice in their posts. Profit organizations use mostly informative content,

advertisement and persuasion in their Facebook posts. Profit organizations scored higher on willingness to take action as well as on emotional engagement than non-profit organizations. Nevertheless, the differences relating to the emotional engagement between profit and non-profit organizations are rather small.

Conclusion

This study researched the problem why non-profit organizations are less successful on social media than profit organizations and aimed at providing new guidelines for non-profit

organizations to improve their social media appearance, in particular on Facebook. It was assumed that the style of social media content is one of the reasons why non-profit

(22)

- 20 -

sounded as followed: ''To what extend differs the communication content of profit and non-profit organizations on the social media applications Facebook and how do these differences influence stakeholder engagement on social media taking into account the factors trust,

credibility, visibility and transparency?''

It was examined whether the content style of an organization has an influence on the stakeholder engagement on social media user, in particular the Facebook ''fans'' of the respective organizations. Furthermore, it was supposed that the influence on communication content on engagement was mediated by the factors trust, credibility and visibility. In addition to that, it was hypothesized that transparency had a moderating influence on the relationship

between trust and engagement as well as engagement.

First of all, it can be stated that non-profit and profit differ in their choice communication content. Non-profit organizations use mainly informative and persuasive content as well as advice in their posts. Whereas profit organizations use mostly informative content,

advertisement and persuasion in their Facebook posts (see Table B.). Concerning the level of engagement, it can be stated that the stakeholders of profit organizations showed higher willingness to take action as well as higher emotional engagement. However, the differences relating to the emotional engagement between profit and non-profit organizations are minor. The overall finding that shows higher level of engagement for the profit organizations is supported by literature. Cho et al. (2014) state that non-profit organizations use social media mainly for sharing information, whereas profit organizations focus also on relationship

building.

The findings of this research suggest that non-profit organizations rely more on information sharing, whereas profit organizations have a mixture of different content styles which make it more attractive for the stakeholder, which in turn enables stakeholder engagement. Therefore, non-profit organizations are advised not to rely only on sharing information and giving advice but to enhance their communication content on social media through incorporating various

(23)

- 21 -

types of content.

However, as the statistical analysis showed that there is no significant relationship between communication content and engagement. Trust, credibility and visibility are therefore no mediators in the described relationship between social media content and engagement. Nevertheless, the analysis also showed that trust, credibility and visibility have an significant relationship with the variable engagement. Westerman et al. (2014) stated that perceived credibility is one of the crucial factors for social media users to evaluate the content of social media sites. If a certain social media site is perceived as credible, the probability for

involvement is higher which in turn can lead to engagement. Therefore, the finding that there is a positive relationship between credibility and engagement is supported by literature.

Previous research showed that trust is a necessary requirement for people to engage in

interaction (Dywer, Hiltz & Passerini, 2007; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000).This research

shows that this finding is also applicable for interactions or engagement on social media. Especially with the increasing importance of social media application in everyday life and business, this finding emphasizes the need for higher safety standards for users of social media sites and the internet in general. Higher safety standards can be achieved through more openness and transparency from organizations on social media. Supporting this statement, the results show that transparency had a moderating effect on the relationship between trust and engagement. Kang and Hustvedt (2014) stated that transparency influences whether social media users perceive an organizations as reliable and are therefore feel more comfortable to engage in interaction with an organization. Literature research showed that the above average use of pure information-sharing on social media tends to have a negative effect on social media users as information-sharing does not evoke emotions and it is therefore less likely to trigger the desire to interact with the particular organization, even if the addressed topics are

highly emotional (Lovejoy & Saxton, 2012).

(24)

- 22 -

than it comes to interactions between organizations and stakeholders. Non-profit

organizations can highly benefit if their stakeholders perceive higher levels of trust, credibility and transparency towards them. Organizations can apply these findings through taking

concrete measures that increase these factors. These measures to increase trust and transparency mean that organizations could give their stakeholder easier access to their sources and show them how they process the information they acquire. Since trust and

transparency are positively related to engagement, increasing trust and transparency would the next option for non-profit organizations to boost their stakeholder engagement. Achieving higher visibility is rather challenging. Social media applications offer options to increase number of likes; unfortunately, these options are not in the financial budget of all non-profit organizations. However, there are options to create more awareness, greater awareness can be achieved through e.g. online events, blogs or free celebrity endorsements for certain topics or the engagement of new sponsors. This increased awareness that can develop into higher

visibility for non-profit organizations and their fight for the good cause.

Discussion

Based on the results of the statistical analysis, some practical advice for organizations were derived. The advice can be used by organizations that suffer from low stakeholder

engagement on social media. The main advice is to increase trust, credibility and visibility. At first, this advice can seem rather vague. Nevertheless, the proposed, specific measures

mentioned above can increase trust, credibility and visibility and can be effective for reaching the desirable goal of higher stakeholder engagement. As particularly the task of increasing visibility can be challenging for non-profit organizations on a tight budget, these

organizations need to be more creative. However, there are affordable options for organizations to increase the public awareness of the issues and their organization.

(25)

- 23 -

Limitations

Due to restrictions in time and workforce, the scope of the study had to be limited. First of all, the number of organizations was limited to six, three non-profit and three profit organizations. The choice of posts of the respective organizations was rather difficult and time-consuming as a great number of posts had less than 50 comments. Therefore, the decision was made to analyze post that had at least 10 comments. Per post not more than 50 comments were analyzed. This led to an unequal amount of posts per organization, the amount of posts per organization differs between minimum of 11 and a maximum of 15 posts. Therefore, the sample is slightly unbalanced. As there was no adequate software available to the researcher, the posts and comments had to be manually copied into a SPSS-file, which had a major effect on the total amount of posts and comments that could be processed. For the sake of feasibility,

it was chosen to analyze 500 comments per organization.

Furthermore, the restricted generalizability needs to be mentioned. First of all, the study only focuses on Facebook comments and does not take other social media applications into

account. So the results can only be generalized for Facebook. In addition to that, did the study only focus on the German and Dutch Facebook pages of the respective organizations, that implies that the results can only be generalized for those two countries.

Future research

As social media applications are a crucial part of everyday business nowadays, more research should be done on this subject. This study provided some insights concerning the content style of organizations and the level of engagement of their stakeholders. Future research could be based on the main ideas of this study. To provide deeper insights, the future sample could include data from various social media applications like Twitter, YouTube and Instagram. A bigger sample size would lead to higher reliability and generalizability. The amount of posts and comments should be increased as well as the number of organizations and countries. The

(26)

- 24 -

posts of one organizations should not only be analyzed from one country-specific page but from various ones to provide deeper insights. Moreover, it could be interesting to research other types of organizations like small- or medium-sized organizations. Content analysis was the appropriate method for this study as it is the most suitable for analyzing the differences in

the chosen data content.However, it could be recommend for future studies use a

mix-methods approach e.g. analyzing data from content analysis and surveys or experiments to gain sophisticated data and be able to present helpful insights for research and practice.

References

Baron, R. M., Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator - mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Blery, E.K., Katseli, E., Tsara, N. (2010). Marketing for a non-profit organization.

International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 7(1), 57-68.

Botha, E., Farshid, M., Pitt, L. (2011). How sociable? An exploratory study of university brand visibility in social media. South African Journal of Business Management,

42(2), 43-51.

Briones, R.L., Kuch, B., Liu, B.F., Jin, Y. (2010). Keeping up with the digital age: How the American Red Cross uses social media to build relationships. Public Relation Review,

37, 37-43. doi:10.1016 /j.pubrev.2010.12.006

Cabiddu, F., De Carlo, M., Piccoli, G. (2014). Social media affordances: Enabling customer engagement. Annals of Tourism Research, 48, 175-192. Cho, M., Schweickart, T., Haase, A. (2014). Public engagement with nonprofit organizations

on Facebook. Public Relations Review, 40, 565-567. Curtis, L., Edwards, C., Fraser, K.L., Gudelsky, S., Holmquit, J., Thornton, K., Sweetser,

K.D. (2009). Adoption of social media for public relations by nonprofit organizations.

Public Relation Review, 36, 90-92. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.10.003

Del Mar Gálvez-Rodriguez, M., Caba-Perez, C., López-Godoy, M. (2014). Facebook: A new communication strategy for non-profit organisations in Colombia. Public Relations

Review, 40, 869-870. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.10.002

Dooley, D. (2009). Social Research Methods. Harlow: Pearson Education. Dywer, C., Hiltz, S. R., Passerini, K. (2007). Trust and privacy concern within social

networking sites: A comparison of Facebook and MySpace. AMCIS 2007

Proceedings. Paper 339. http://aisel. aisnet.org/amcis2007/339

Elo, S. Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainen, K., Kyngäs, H. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: A focus on trustworthiness. Sage Open, 1-10. doi:

10.1177/2158244014522633 Ford, D.P., Mason, R.M. (2013). Knowledge management and social media: The challenges

and benefits. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 23(1-2), 1-6. doi: 10.1080/10919392.2013.748603

(27)

- 25 -

Hollebeek, L.D., Glynn, M.S., Brodie, R.J. (2014). Consumer brand engagement in social media: Conceptualization, scale development and validation. Journal of Interactive

Marketing, 28, 149 - 165.

Jiang, S., Chen, H., Nunamaker, J.F., Zimbra, D. (2014). Analyzing firm-specific social media and market: A stakeholder-based event analysis framework. Decision Support System,

67, 30 - 39.

Jo, S., & Kim, Y. (2003). The effect of web characteristics on relationship building. Journal

of Public Relations Research, 15(3), 199–223.

Kang, J., Hustvedt, G. (2014). Building trust between consumers and corporations: The role of consumer perceptions of transparency and social responsibility. Journal of Business

Ethics, 125(2), 253 - 265. doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1916-7

Kaplan, A. M., Haenlein, M. (2009). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and

opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53, 59 - 68. doi: 10.10 16/j.bushor.

2009.09.003 Kohring, M., Matthes, J. (2007). Trust in news media - Development and validation of a

multidimensional scale. Communication Research, 34(2), 231-252. Lovejoy, K., Saxton, G.D. (2012). Information, community, and action: How nonproﬁt

organizations use social media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 337 - 353. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01576.x Mainardes, E.W., Alves, H., Raposo, M. (2011). Stakeholder theory: issues to resolve.

Management Decision, 49(2), 226 - 252. doi: 10.1108/00251741111109133

Men, L.R., Tsai, W.-H. S. (2015). Infusing social media with humanity: Corporate character, public engagement, and relational outcomes. Public Relations Review, 41, 395 - 403. Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R., Wood, D.J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification

and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. The Academy of

Management Review, 22(4), 853 - 886.

Murthy, D., Hasting, C., Mawrie, S. (2014). The use of social media to foster trust, mentorship, and collaboration in scientific organizations. Bulletin of Science,

Technology & Society, 34(5-6), 170 - 182. doi: 10.1177/0270467615582196.

Perrigot, R., Kacker, M., Basset, G., Cliquet, G. (2012). Antecedents of early adoption and use of social media networks for stakeholder communications: Evidence from

franchising. Journal of Small Business Management, 50(4), 539 - 565. Picazo-Vela, S., Gutiérrez-Martínez, I., Luna-Reyes, L.F. (2012). Understanding risks,

benefits, and strategic alternatives of social media applications in the public sector.

Government Information Quarterly, 29, 504 - 511.

Rawlins, B. (2009). Give the emperor a mirror: Toward developing a stakeholder

measurement of organizational transparency. Journal of Public Relations Research,

21(1), 71-99. doi: 10.1080/10627260802153421

Risius, M., Beck, R. (2015). Effectiveness of corporate social media activities in increasing relational outcomes. Information & Management, 52, 824 - 839. Rotter, J.B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of trust. Journal of Personality, 35(4),

651-665. Sashi, C.M. (2012). Customer engagement, buyer-seller relationships, and social media.

Management Decision, 50(2), 253 - 272. doi: 10.1108/00251741211203551

Sisco, H.F., McCorkindale, T. (2013). Communicating ''pink'': an analysis of the

communication strategies, transparency and credibility of breast cancer social media sites. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 18, 287 - 301. doi: 10.1002/nvsm.1474 Smith, B. G., Gallicano, T.D. (2015). Terms of engagement: Analyzing public engagement

(28)

- 26 -

Statista - The Statistics Portal (2016). Leading social networks worldwide as of November 2015, ranked by number of active users (in millions). Retrieved on 11.1.16, via: http://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/

Thompson, J.B. (2005). The new visibility. Theory, Culture & Society, 22(6), 31–51. doi: 10.1177/0263276405059413

Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, W.K. (2000). A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature,

meaning, and measurement of trust. Review of Educational Research, 70(4), 547-593. doi:10.3102/00346543070004547 Urban, D., Mayerl, J. (2006). Regressionsanalyse: Theorie, Technik und Anwendung.

Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Waters, R.D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A., Lucas, J. (2009). Engaging stakeholder through social

networking: How nonprofit organizations are using Facebook. Public Relations

Review, 35, 102-106.

Westerman, D., Spence, P.R., van der Heide, B. (2014). Social media as information source: Recency of updates and credibility of information. Journal of Computer-Mediated

Communication, 19, 171 - 183. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12041

Yang, A., Kent, M. (2014). Social media and organizational visibility: A sample of Fortune 500 corporations. Public Relations Review, 40(3), 562 - 564. Yang, K. H., Lee, S. M., Lee, S.-G. (2007). Adoption of information and communication

technology. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 107(9), 1257 - 1275. Zorn, T. E., Flanagin, A. J., Shoham, M. D. (2011). Institutional and non-institutional

inﬂuences on information and communication technology adoption and use among nonproﬁt organizations. Human Communication Research, 37, 1-33.

(29)

- 27 -

Appendix A: Codebook 1. General information

 Which company owns the page?

1 = Amnesty International Germany, 2 = Pro Asylum, 3 = WWF Germany, 4 = Samsung Mobile Deutschland, 5 = BMW, 6 = L'Oreal Paris

 Is the page owned by a non-profit or organisation?

1= non-profit organization, 2 = profit organization

 How many likes has the page in total?

....

 Date of the post

dd-mm-year

2. Part I: Analysis of the posts

2. 1 Communication content

Which communication content is used in the post?

The question will be answered be the following categories:  Information (1 = yes; 2 = no)

 Persuasion (1 = yes ; 2 = no)  Advertisements (1 = yes; 2 = no)  Humour (1 = yes ; 2 = no)  Customer care (1 = yes ; 2 = no)

(30)

- 28 -

2.2 Transparency

The items of this variable are based on Rawlins (2009):

 Completeness

0 = no, 1 = yes, 2 = not applicable

Completeness relates to whether the organization reports sufficiently about issues relevant for stakeholders

 Relevance

0= no, 1 = yes, 2 = not applicable

Relevance relates to whether the given information is crucial to the decision-making process of the stakeholders

 Truth

Truth relates to whether the given information is honest and accurate

 Fundamentality

Fundamentality relates to whether the given information addresses the main issues of the story

 Comprehensiveness

Comprehensiveness relates to whether the organizations tells the ''whole story''

 Clarity

Clarity relates to whether the chosen language is appropriate and understandable for the given context

(31)

- 29 -

 Timeless

Timeless relates to whether the organizations gives its stakeholders sufficient time to make a decision based on their information

 Easy access to information

Easy access relates to whether all interested stakeholders can easily find the information and review it

 Full disclosure

Full disclosure relates to whether the organization also states the negative information

2.3 Visibility

 Percentage of likes, shares and comments per post based on the total amount of the

respective Facebook page

3. Part 2: Analysis of the comments

3.1 Trust

The items of this variables are based on Murthy, Hasting and Mawrie (2014), Kohring and Matthes (2007), Rotter (1967) and Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2000):

 Does the commenter perceives the company's post as honest?

0 = no ; 1 = yes ; 2 = neutral

 Does the commenter perceives the company as reliable?

(32)

- 30 -

 Does the commenter indicates that he trusts the information in the post?

0 = no, 1 = yes, 2 = neutral

 Does the commenter indicates that he perceives the company which posted the post as

company with morals? 0 = no, 1 = yes, 2 = neutral

 Does the commenter indicates that he perceives the company as a company what is

willing to share ideas and information freely? 0 = no, 1 = yes, 2 = neutral

 Does the commenter perceives the company as competent?

 Does the commenter perceiver the company as open (= would they inform the public

about negative issues? 0 = no, 1 = yes, 2 = neutral

3.2 Credibility

The items of this variable based on Westerman, Spence and van der Heide (2014):

 Does the commenter perceives the provided information as conceivable?

 Does commenter believes that the company knows the truth about the issue they are

adressing in their post? 0 = no, 1 = yes, 2 = neutral

 Does the commenter believes the company will tell the truth as the company knows it?

(33)

- 31 -

 Does the commenter indicates that he thinks that the company has his best interests at

heart?

3.3 Engagement

The items are based on Smith and Gallicano (2015):

 Does the commenter indicates willingness to take action (explicit statements about

whether the respective persons wants to donate, buy a product, etc.)? 0 = no, 1 = yes, 2 = neutral

 Does the commenter indicates emotional engagement? (= explicit statements showing

''positive affectivity, affective commitment, and empowerment'' (Smith & Gallicano, 2015, p. 83))

0 = non, 1 = yes, 2 = neutral

(34)

- 32 -

Appendix B: Data Overview

Item Number Organization Post number per org. +

comments

1 Amnesty International Post 1: 24 2 Amnesty International Post 2: 13 3 Amnesty International Post 3: 37 4 Amnesty International Post 4: 50 5 Amnesty International Post 5: 22 6 Amnesty International Post 6: 50 7 Amnesty International Post 7: 11 8 Amnesty International Post 8: 38 9 Amnesty International Post 9: 25 10 Amnesty International Post 10: 42 11 Amnesty International Post 11: 43 12 Amnesty International Post 12: 36 13 Amnesty International Post 13: 30 14 Amnesty International Post 14: 34 15 Amnesty International Post 15: 45

Total of analyzed posts: 15

Total of analyzed posts: 500

16 Pro Asylum Germany Post 1: 35 17 Pro Asylum Germany Post 2: 41 18 Pro Asylum Germany Post 3: 50 19 Pro Asylum Germany Post 4: 50 20 Pro Asylum Germany Post 5: 50 21 Pro Asylum Germany Post 6: 50 22 Pro Asylum Germany Post 7: 50 23 Pro Asylum Germany Post 8: 29 24 Pro Asylum Germany Post 9: 50

(35)

- 33 -

25 Pro Asylum Germany Post 10: 26 26 Pro Asylum Germany Post 11: 50 27 Pro Asylum Germany Post 12: 19

Total of analyzed comments: 500

28 WWF Post 1: 19 29 WWF Post 2: 50 30 WWF Post 3: 50 31 WWF Post 4: 50 32 WWF Post 5: 50 33 WWF Post 6: 50 34 WWF Post 7: 41 35 WWF Post 8: 50 36 WWF Post 9: 43 37 WWF Post 10: 47 38 WWF Post 11: 50

39 Samsung Mobile Germany Post 1: 29 40 Samsung Mobile Germany Post 2: 29 41 Samsung Mobile Germany Post 3: 40 42 Samsung Mobile Germany Post 4: 50 43 Samsung Mobile Germany Post 5: 50 44 Samsung Mobile Germany Post 6: 50 45 Samsung Mobile Germany Post 7: 50 46 Samsung Mobile Germany Post 8: 50 47 Samsung Mobile German Post 9: 50 48 Samsung Mobile Germany Post 10: 39 49 Samsung Mobile Germany Post 11: 19 50 Samsung Mobile Germany Post 12: 44

(36)

- 34 -

51 BMW Post 1: 50 52 BMW Post 2: 50 53 BMW Post 3: 50 54 BMW Post 4: 44 55 BMW Post 5: 48 56 BMW Post 6: 50 57 BMW Post 7: 47 58 BMW Post 8: 50 59 BMW Post 9: 36 60 BMW Post 10: 17 61 BMW Post 11: 30 62 BMW Post 12: 28

63 L'Oreal Post 1: 16 64 L'Oreal Post 2: 50 65 L'Oreal Post 3: 31 66 L'Oreal Post 4: 50 67 L'Oreal Post 5: 50 68 L'Oreal Post 6: 30 69 L'Oreal Post 7: 27 70 L'Oreal Post 8: 22 71 L'Oreal Post 9: 32 72 L'Oreal Post 10: 50 73 L'Oreal Post 11: 23 74 L'Oreal Post 12: 50 75 L'Oreal Post 13: 25 76 L'Oreal Post 14: 44

(37)

- 35 -

Total of all posts: 76