Serena Cersosimo SCOM 280-Barnes Final Research Paper April 29th 2014 How are nonprofits utilizing social

media as a communication tool? Social Media has taken our society to new heights. Not only is it used to socialize between friends, but now is utilized by organizations to promote and advocate missions and visions. With my background in my Non Profit Studies minors, coursework in Social Media Practicum, and extensive research, I am credible to study these topics together. With the Boom in Social Media, Nonprofits are starting to utilize this free way of marketing. I want to know exactly how nonprofits are utilizing social media as a communication tool.

Literature Review According to Kanter and Fine (2010), focusing on how nonprofits can utilize social media, with specific examples of nonprofits, as well as an implemented plan for change. One of the first steps for nonprofits to utilize social media is to address the organization outside of the institutions walls. Nonprofits need to analyze who their audience is on social media, such as friends on Facebook and reach outside of the organization. This book talks about how to reach outside of the organizations audience such as addressing personal social networks including family and friends, professional networks including colleagues, funders, government agencies, etc. Gaining a larger audience can help each person involved in the organization feel special, which is a nonprofit management basic skill to being successful. Another implemented plan for change this book offers is how to build trust through transparency of the nonprofits

social media. For example, Figure 6.1 from Kanter and Fine (2010) uses Indianapolis Museum of Art Dashboard for help build the idea of transparency. This dashboard allows followers to track the museums progress with key indicators such as number of visitors, monthly membership rates, energy efficiency, visitors geographic location, and how many works of art are on loan or exhibit (Kanter and Fine, 2010). This dashboard allows anyone to enter behind the scenes of the nonprofit and help gain transparency and trust from the network. Greater transparency for a nonprofit is vital to embracing a broader network of individual and organizations. Kanter and Fine express how important it is to engage open and honestly to make utilizing a nonprofit successful. A great example of how nonprofits can utilize social media tools is what Kanter and Fine, 2010, call going from friending to funding. In this example (Kanter and Fine, 2010), Scott Harrison decides to have a birthday party and invite his friends on Facebook. In lieu of gifts, Scott asks guests to make a donation to Charity: Water, which is a nonprofit he started to fund clean drinking water in developing countries. This can go poorly if you do not take the steps Kanter and Fine offer to ask your friends to fund your nonprofit. Kanter and Fine offer steps such as keeping it simple, like making the Facebook page to be able to track the progress. Allowing others to see directly where their money is going with visual aids or descriptions goes a long way. Another tip is being transparent, as mentioned before. The last tip is to listen, engage, and build relationships (Kanter and Fine, 2010). This book gives nonprofits the advice and plans needed to improve and bring about the relationships nonprofits need to be successful. Guo & Saxton (2014) studied strategies nonprofits use to advocate for change through social media, specifically twitter. The strategies were broken down into a twofold

message-level analysis: a textual analysis which examines the prevalence of previously identified communicative and advocacy constructs in a nonprofits social media messages; and an inductive analysis that explores the unique features and dynamics of social media-based advocacy (Guo & Saxton, 2014). The message analysis is broken down into information, community, and action. The information function covers tweets containing information about the organizations activities, highlights from events, and other news. The community function covers the tweets the serve to interact, share, and converse with an online community. The action function covers tweets that aim to get followers to do something for their organization. This can be donating, buying a t-shirt, attending an event, anything to engage in advocacy campaigns (Guo & Saxton, 2014). The main study behind this research is the Kony 2012 Video by Invisible Children. Drawing on insights from this analysis, they present their findings in a pyramid model of social media-based advocacy that entails a three-state process of Reaching out to people, keeping the flame alive, and stepping into action. One of the chief dynamic features of social media is statuses and updates. For the Kony 2012 example, we can follow the reaching out to people from how many retweets, statuses, followers, etc. for how they reached out beyond their organization to gain followers. This also covers the community function of a nonprofit using twitter. Any nonprofit can do this, which is the beauty of social media because it is free. Reaching out to people is the bottom of the pyramid because it is the basis for what is to come. A nonprofit needs to reach out to people before they can keep the flame alive, or have people step into action. After a nonprofit reaches out, then they can proceed to the next step in the pyramid, keeping the flame alive. Keeping the flame alive for Kony was made possible by using the

information and action function of twitter, by posting facts and what people can do to help. Guo & Saxton (2014) also advise nonprofits to keep the flame alive by being up to date. Any new news your nonprofit has, you should tweet about it. People are going to donate when they know how their money is used. If the nonprofits can keep the flame alive, it will help more people to step into action, which leads to the top of the pyramid. The last part of stepping into action for Kony 2012, was by asking people to share which is free, and other things such as buying a Kony 2012 sticker, t-shirt, button, etc. This research study was mainly focused on twitter, which is why I wanted to include it in my research to analyze other forms of social media besides twitter to see if it follows the same pyramid model of social media-based advocacy on other forms of social media such as Instagram and Facebook. I want to be able to analyze each post to see if it fits into the pyramid, as well as which message function it responds to (information, community, or action). Guo & Saxton (2014) created a basis to how I will look and analyze the social media effects within a nonprofit, and how I will break down the message analysis. The biggest difference with my study and theirs is that I will be breaking it down by each social media. I will make a table (for each nonprofit I study) of the social media category, with charts of how they used each information, community, and action, and how the pyramid was used as well. Auger (2013) explored and assessed the uses of social media (Facebook, Twitter and YouTube) for advocacy by nonprofit organizations with diametrically opposed points of view on two social issues of pro-gun/gun control issue and the pro-choice/pro-life issue, and the indication of that nonprofit advocacy to ethically persuade people to their point of view. Both of these case studies rely heavily on public support to make it

happen, which is why it is important to see the messages each are conveying. The study relied heavily on message structure in garnering support for advocating issues. It is important to recognize this for nonprofits because each have an issue they are advocating for, as nonprofits are known as the voice of the people. The pro-gun studied the National Rifle Association, and the gun control was the Brady Campaign. The Pro-choice was Planned Parenthood and pro-life choice was the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC). All of these were chosen from the most active organizations reflecting from a Google search. The study was based on the activity posted, shared, liked, tweeted, and broken down into characteristics and purpose. The captions were the messages studied on YouTube. The messages were broken down into three categories from Lovejoy and Saxton (202), of information, community, and action. The characteristics were broken down based no propaganda and advocacy. The propaganda characteristics were things such as complex issue described as cause & effect, concealing source of messenger, use of authority figures, and emphasis on conflict rather than cooperation. The advocacy characteristics were based on facts & figures, provision of information, involves the economy, refers to politics & legislation, promotes personal benefit or effect, tradition, heritage, history, community/group identity, humor, shock, and empathy (Auger, 2013). Each nonprofit was tallied at which messages they used. These two approaches of propaganda and advocacy are important to address the different characteristics used because it shows the ethos, pathos, and logos covered in each of the messages characteristics. People want to see more advocacy characteristics, not propaganda. Propaganda messages make people think they are being played; advocacy makes you want to make a difference. Controversial topics covered are important to study how the

messages are reaching their audiences. I wanted to include this study in my research, because as I study nonprofits, I want to address the ethos, pathos, and logos behind the messages. It is easier to get pathos whenever you are addressing the audience via social media, but logos and ethos are harder. Ethos is important because you do not want to be considered propaganda and lose followers. The logos is harder because you need to look at the way arguments, such as controversial issues in this study, are being formatted via social media. It is easy for a nonprofit to reach an emotional appeal, like this study showed us, but I want to study more in depth of how the nonprofits are reaching logos and credibility via social media. Part of researching how a nonprofit utilizes social media, starts with how do nonprofits pick which social media to use. Moores (2014) article gives insight to nonprofits on how to choose the social media communication tools to successfully get your mission across. The nonprofit used in this case study is Charity: Water, which is one of the most popular nonprofit groups on twitter. Charity: Water focuses on providing developing countries with clean water. Charity: Water has a great twitter presence by using digital engagement, like a Twestival which is a social-media fueled event that raised $260,000. The organizations twitter feed reflects its youthful energy by posting photos of children drinking from newly drilled wells and goofy, attention-getting fare, such as a breakdancing contest for staff members. Like I have previously mentioned, Networking in nonprofits is what brings success. By Charity: Water posting pictures from the immediate effects of where the donors dollar is going, to what amazing and caring staff is behind the project, brings in and builds relationships to keep the flame going. The biggest advice for a nonprofit and recommendations for first time social media users is to

know your audience, front to back (Moore, 2014). It is easy to jump on the bandwagon of Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter, but know your audience before you do so, and have a plan. The social network you use should be efficient. You should be able to tie your charitys mission into every post on that social media platform. The article recommends starting at different platforms. First tier, start with Facebook and Twitter, second tier start with YouTube, and lastly the third tier of Pinterest, Instagram, and LinkedIn (Moore, 2014). This allows you to start addressing your network with the biggest and largest tiers first, then once you gain your audience, address the other social media platforms. A great example from this text is the Pinterest example. Charity: Water has a Pinterest board called A Pinch of Inspiration, with each quote reflecting its mission. Another great example from this article is the use of Google +, which the Wounded Warrior Project uses the hangout feature, so veterans can interact and mentor one another (Moore, 2014). This article provides great examples for nonprofits to start reaching out to people that they cannot directly engage in a conversation with, for example if you are raising money: use Facebook. If you are trying to reach women: use Pinterest because 86% of Pinterest users are female. If you are trying to tell a charitys story with visuals: Use Instagram, Pinterest, Vine because it is like your elevator pitch telling your story in a short, visual way. This article is useful in utilizing how nonprofits are using social media to engage their audience. I want to look at how nonprofits are using the different tiers, if they are using all tiers or jumping tiers-and if this has an affect on their nonprofits. I also want to see if each tier is up-to-date because I think that gives credibility and transparency with how nonprofits are utilizing social media. I plan to analyze who the nonprofits are addressing through each tier, for example, who their

message is for (women, men), if it is telling a story like on Instagram, what influences their messages like who they are speaking to, etc. This article provides insight for me to base my study on each tier and provides an easy way for me to measure the success. When we say social media, we usually think of things like Twitter, Instagram, or Facebook, but there are so many other social media options out there for nonprofits to utilize. One in particular that I found is under the radar is LinkedIn. An article by Witzig, Spencer, and Galvin (2012), focuses on the use of LinkedIn for nonprofits. LinkedIn is a powerful marketing tool that can be used to attract customers, build customer loyalty, and extent a brand. This is important in the nonprofit field, because nonprofits are all about building relationships and extending their network. LinkedIn is a free way to do this. As this study indicates, 1 in every 10 donors makes his or her contribution online (Witzig, Spencer, and Galvin, 2012). LinkedIn could be an important tool for nonprofits to connect to donors to keep that flame going. Not only is LinkedIn a more professional way to connect to donors, but also to volunteers. LinkedIn can match a person based on the causes/previous volunteer experience to like or join other motivational causes similar to previous experience. So if your nonprofit has a LinkedIn page, it can connect others to your organization and expand your network ad well as volunteers and supporters. This article specifically studied the frequency with which nonprofit organizations displayed the LinkedIn logo on their websites higher than the number of Fortune 200 or Inc. displaying their logos. It compared the nonprofits with the Fortune 200 companies, because larger for-profit organizations have more access to marketing strategies, unlike nonprofits. The results indicated that 93% of the Forbes 200 Nonprofits had pages on LinkedIn, only 12% had logos on the website, and 39% has CEO on

LinkedIn. This study pertains to my study as well because now that I see the benefits of using LinkedIn for nonprofits networking, as well as how it can gain donors and volunteers, I will analyze if the nonprofits have a LinkedIn button on their page, as well as if they have a LinkedIn page with followers. I want to look at if the CEO is on LinkedIn, as well as current and previous employers. I will study the frequency similar to the other studies in my literature review, and tally what a nonprofit has from LinkedIn because it is social media tool that is not as frequent as Twitter or Facebook, but I think can really benefit a nonprofits success, and I want to see which nonprofits are already successful in using LinkedIn as a communication tool. According to a survey by the blog About Micro-Philanthropy, found in Carroll s (2008) article, People are 100 times more likely to donate when asked by a friend or a family member, rather than an anonymous solicitation. This article focuses on a case study of SixDegree site, which is a site that sets up badges that show their name, cause, and why they are raising money, which then you can immediately donate too. This all started from Kevin Bacon, a celebrity who wanted to start the cause from a previous life experience. The article studies how the success of SixDegree is straight celebrity appeal, because once Kevin Bacon started it, so did Nicole Kidman, Rosie ODonnell and other recognizable names. Bacon also promoted the nonprofit website at things such as the Tonight Show, Concerts, and Sundance Film Festival. Along with celebrities, an every day women in Baltimore started a Reality Charity to raise money the old fashioned way by talking to friends and family, and was able to raise money as well. The results were no where near as much money as Kevin Bacon, which is why I wanted to use this study to recognize how nonprofits may use celebrities in social media techniques as a

communication tool. I wanted to use this study as another category of analysis. When I am analyzing the social media used by the nonprofits, I will have a column on the charts named celebrities, with sub columns such as testimonies, experiences, direct effects (like if they personally use the nonprofit, like Fox and Parkinsons), etc. This will be geared towards if and how the nonprofit utilizes celebrities in their social media as a subcategory, and how it effects the total communication of a nonprofit. Methodology Moores textual analysis (2014) studied how one nonprofit, specifically, Charity: Water, which is one of the most popular nonprofit groups on twitter, and how they specifically target people to use social media. Moore studied the tweets, retweets, followers, and also something in particular found from this research was the nonprofits use of Twestival, which is a social-media fueled event, which raised $260,000 (Moore, 2014). Doing a textual analysis study allowed Moore to find the twestival and how that specific nonprofit was utilize social media for a communication tool, by first defining which platforms of social media were being used by the nonprofit (Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, Google +, and LinkedIn), then breaking it down by what the texts were geared toward. He found that the nonprofits were utilizing social media to find supporters, sign petitions, building a brand, and advocacy. He determined these results by collecting the information such as tweets posted, Facebook posts, and what Instagram pictures were posted. He mainly searched for a way to how the posts made were tied back to the mission. Auger (2013) studied how nonprofits foster democracy through social media by textual analysis. Auger focused on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube to determine the

most active organization for two controversial issues. One of the issues is Gun Control, which he analyzed The National Rifle Association and the Brady Campaign. The second controversial issue was Pro-choice/Pro-Life, which he studied Planned Parenthood and National Right to Life Committee. Auger analyzed the literature used on activity posted, shared, liked, tweeted, re-tweed, for both characteristics and purpose. Additionally he analyzed the captions to videos uploaded on YouTube, for message characteristics. He focused on studying the pathos, or evoked emotion, in the posts, as well as the type of spokesperson and ethos (credibility). Two trained coders using a 28-item codebook analyzed a total of 235 textual items. 60 items per organization were analyzed, consisting of 20 most recent tweets, 20 most recently uploaded videos, and up to 24 posts on Facebook. All of the posts were selected from a two-week period. Augers study shows how I can evaluate the messages used to communicate by using coding. I also wanted to take away how Auger broke down his methodology into coding, by looking for the frequency in the characteristics of messages, as well as looking at an even time frame of events, like the 20 most recent posts, 20 from Facebook, and 20 YouTube. Guo and Saxton (2014), created a textual analysis of nonprofits. Guo and Saxton used a sample with requirements compromising the 188 Civil Rights and Advocacy organizations in 2011. To be evaluated, the nonprofit had to have a 501c, four years with an IRS Form 990, and receive public support greater than $500,000 and total revenue of more than $1,000,000. The study collected two types of data. The first set was an adoption of popular social media tools, which was done through a review by queries on Google, twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and LinkedIn interfaces, which collected basically if nonprofit has a social media site or not. The second type of data was specifically

gathered off of Twitter because it is an open application of program interface, meaning the communication can come from both sides, like using a hash tag to talk. The communication is done by the nonprofit and the audience, but not limited to friends or followers. Twitter allows for a larger group to be reached and more two-way communication. Guo & Saxton analyzed over a time period of one month, April 2012. The analysis plan was done on both organizational-level and message-level analysis. The organizational level analyzed the organizations adoption rates for social media, meaning did they have a social media site for each category or not, along with frequency of use (how often they were posting). The whole purpose was to see how that organization reached advocacy from messages, in other words did they reach their followers and relate the posts to the nonprofits mission. For example, the nonprofit could reach advocacy by posting about making a donation or to fight for a specific cause. They used quantitative textual analysis by using the categories of social media based on forms of communication and categories of advocacy tactics, which basically means connections. Advocacy tactics (or connections) coded by how many followers, friends, retweets, etc., anything to reach the audience. Qualitative analysis came from identifying categories of communication and advocacy practices that are newly emergent in nonprofits social media efforts, like what they were posting, was it a picture of a patient in need or a dog, what did they say along with this post, any characteristic used to get the message across The results found that 93% of the organizations in their sample are using social media in some capacity (Guo & Saxton, 2014), meaning they have a Facebook or Twitter page. Facebook was used by nearly 87%, Twitter 80%, Slightly less than 72% use YouTube, and 42% utilize

other social media platforms like Google+ and LinkedIn. The percents shown were literally just a direct percent of who used that social media site in nonprofits. In a textual analysis study by Sisco and McCorkindale (2013), which analyzed the top 20 breast cancer charities during the month of January 2011,the transparency and credibility of breast cancer nonprofits are participant on social media, specifically Facebook and Twitter. This analysis focused on how nonprofit social media sites affect perceptions of credibility and transparency. The sampling was the textual of the Facebook and Twitter pages. The study had strict coding procedures to see the followers, tweets, number of dialogic tweets, etc. The transparency is defined as being honest, open, consistent, and willing to listen. They found these results by looking at responses, like if they responded to people who post on their page, how often they post, are they up-todate, and are they reaching out to the followers. The second aspect of transparency was to see if the Nonprofits were relevant, verifiable, clear, timely, and accessible, which was measured on a scale based on source credibility and content credibility. The source credibility stems from who was posting, if they were a verifiable employee, was the post timely and easily accessible. The content credibility focused on if the posts were relevant and clear to understand. In order to be able to successfully and thoroughly examine the nonprofits for my study, I must employ the methodologies listed above. Doing a textual analysis will allow me to answer how nonprofits are utilizing social media as a communication tool. Results For my textual analysis, I gathered the Forbes 2014 Top 50 Nonprofits list and created my criteria of all the nonprofits I use must have each of the following social

media sites: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, YouTube, and LinkedIn. I analyzed this listed to see if each nonprofit had the following social media sites, and cut out the nonprofits that did not qualify for my study.

Forbes Top 50 1 2. Etc.

Facebook

Twitter

Instagram

Pinterest

YouTube LinkedIn

In order to fully analyze each of the top 50 nonprofits utilizing social media in the same mindset, I analyzed each of the nonprofits social media sites into tiers and time spent on each tier based on importance. The first tier, being the most important, consisted of Facebook and Twitter. Facebook and Twitter are the most important because I believe they the most popular used social media sites, and when people say social media, they tend to think of these two sites. I will spend the most time allotted on Facebook and Twitter by searching through the past year of information. I will start from April 2014, and search all the way until April 2013. I choose this time because it is current, as well as an easily accessible starting point. The second tier consisted of Instagram and Pinterest. I will focus on the same year of April 2014, and search back through April 2013. The last tier of LinkedIn will be spent searching for common characteristics, like if they have a page, if CEO has a page, etc., not based on time, but more just communication characteristics. I want LinkedIn to be in its own tier because I consider it a more professional form of social media. LinkedIn is not used in the same way that Facebook and Twitter are used, along with the second tier sites, which is why it should be in its own

category/tier. I broke down these tiers based on my opinion of popularity based on my experiences of working with social media sites. I think Facebook and Twitter are comparable, along with Pinterest, Instagram, and YouTube, and lastly LinkedIn. I think it will be easier to arrange and analyze the data for each of the tiers, versus looking at all social media at once. I also think that breaking these social media sites into these tiers will allow for easier distinction, because for example Facebook and Twitter reach a wider variety, more information can be posted, more likes, etc. Verse Pinterest and Instagram, which are more pictures, along with YouTube being a video. Pinterest, Instagram, and YouTube are more visuals to capture the Nonprofits mission and vision, rather than promote and express like Facebook and Twitter. Lastly, LinkedIn is a whole separate tier because it is based on a professional network. You wont see the same information on LinkedIn as you do on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram etc., as well as LinkedIn is one page, not based on previous postings. There are a few words in my study that need to be defined before going further. First is frequency, which I define as how often they are using social media, like the number of friends, number of posts, basically the quantitative findings. Next is communication as defined as how they are reaching out to their followers (what are their posts saying, who is posting, etc.). I use frequency and communication as the two characteristic categories I am analyzing for each tier. Two other words that need defined, are under the Communication Characteristics chart. The first one is Transparency, which I define as the organization being honest, open, timely, which will be judged based on characteristics of verifiable tweets (is the information accurate), is it timely (do they respond to peoples posts), is the most recent information (like tweets, wall posts, any

social media post) up to date, and is it accessible (is all the nonprofits info on the site such as telephone, address, people to contact, etc.). Credibility is the other communication characteristic that needs defined. I define credibility as accuracy and trustworthiness. Credibility is key when using social media because not only does it build relationships and network, but allows followers to have trust in that nonprofit. I measure credibility by if the posts are interactive. Is someone on the other end having a two-way conversation on the social media? Each social media tier will be broken down as the charts below. I will first put a checkmark for if they are communicating in these categories, then write down patterns in the messages that I am seeing, such as the different words used, are they looking for people to respond or share the post, basically any communication characteristic to see how they are utilize social media as a communication tool. After the study is over, I will analyze my research to find the patterns across all media, such as buzzwords and key findings.

Name of Nonprofit-Tier One (Facebook and Twitter) Frequency Number of friends Number of Posts How often are they posting? How many Likes? How many shares? Number of hashtags used Communication How do they relate to the mission Most recent post about Posts about donating Posts about Coming to Events Posts about sharing personal stories Posts responding to others (+/-)

Over all number of Tweets Number of Retweets

Transparency Credibility About section up to date What are they retweeting What are people sharing

Name of Nonprofit-Tier Two (Instagram, Pinterest, and YouTube) Frequency Number of friends Number of Posts How often are they posting? How many Likes? How many shares? Number of hashtags used Overall number of pins Overall numbers of videos Number of views on the videos Communication How do they relate to the mission Most recent post about Posts about donating Posts about Coming to Events Posts about sharing personal stories Posts responding to others (+/-) Transparency Credibility About section up to date What are some of the most popular pictures or videos posted What are people sharing What are the videos of Words on captions

Name of Nonprofit-Tier Three (LinkedIn) Frequency Number of connections Number of likes How many employees are on LinkedIn CEO on LinkedIn Donate button Volunteer button Communication How do they relate to the mission Most up-to-date info Posts about how to donating Posts about how to Coming to Events Posts about volunteering Posts responding to others (+/-) Transparency Credibility About section up to date How to get involved Is the mission/vision stated Are people writing about them

After gathering my data, I analyzed the results to see what was the most common ways each tier of social media were being utilized by nonprofits, and how this is used as a communication tool. Measuring frequency compared to what communication was used can allow me to see if they correlate. If the more posts, followers, etc. the nonprofit has, do they have better communication? Are they responding to more? My results will show the frequency and communication go hand in hand when evaluating how nonprofits utilize social media as a communication tool.

Conclusion In conclusion to my textual analysis study, I found that most nonprofits were utilizing social media as a communication tool for gaining supporters and donors. The first tier, Facebook and Twitter, was mainly used for retweets and like pages for people to share stories. The most frequency associated with the first tier was the number of friends or followers. The most common communication characteristic was related to posts about what that nonprofit does, or why to become a donor. The second tier used pictures for communication mostly to gain emotional pathos to followers, because it was a visual aid rather than just words. The last tier, LinkedIn, was not as common as the other social media sites, and was rarely used. My results showed that the most common way social media was used, was to gain support of the nonprofit, as well as seeking donations. It does not surprise me with this data, but I would like to further my research by now turning the study away from a textual analysis, but to survey the nonprofits and find out how they are gaining support and donors, why they word the messages the way they do, and how much money actually comes in from donations on social media. Now that my results showed me nonprofits are utilizing social media as a communication tool to seek donations and supporters, I would like to analyze how much social media is bringing in compared to other ways of gaining supporters.

References Auger, G. A. (2013). Fostering democracy through social media: Evaluating diametrically opposed nonprofit advocacy organizations use of Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. Public Relations Review, 39(4), 369-376. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.07.013 Carroll, P. B. (2008, July 14). Charity Cases. Wall Street Journal - Eastern Edition. p. R11. Fussell Sisco, H., & McCorkindale, T. (2013). Communicating 'pink': an analysis of the communication strategies, transparency, and credibility of breast cancer social media sites. International Journal Of Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Marketing, 18(4), 287-301. doi:10.1002/nvsm.1474 Guo, C., & Saxton, G. (2014). Tweeting Social Change: How Social Media Are Changing Nonprofit Advocacy. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(1), 57-79. Kanter, B., & Fine, A. H. (2010). The networked nonprofit [electronic resource] : connecting with social media to drive change / Beth Kanter, Allison H. Fine ; foreword by Randi Zuckerberg. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass, c2010. Moore, C. (2014). Choose the Social-Media Networks That Fit Your Charity's Mission. Chronicle Of Philanthropy, 26(6), 39-40.

Witzig, L., Spencer, J., & Galvin, M. (2012). ORGANIZATIONS' USE OF LINKEDIN: AN ANALYSIS OF NONPROFITS, LARGE CORPORATIONS AND SMALL BUSINESSES. Marketing Management Journal, 22(1), 113-121.