Engagement across three social media platforms: An exploratory study of a cause-related PR campaign

Public Relations Review

Volumn 39, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 526-533

  Paek, Hye Jin ^a   Hove, Thomas ^a   Jung, Yumi ^b   Cole, Richard T ^b  

^a Hanyang University   (South Korea)

^b MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Behavioral outcome; Cause related PR campaign; Child advocacy; Engagement; Social media

Indexed keywords

EID: 84888440571     PISSN: 03638111     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.09.013     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Baron R.M., Kenny D.A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Archives of Internal Medicine 1986, 51:1173-1182.
2. Briones R.L., Kuch B., Liu B.F., Jin Y. Keeping up with the digital age: How the American Red Cross uses social media to build relationships. Public Relations Review 2011, 37:37-43.
3. Bronner F., Neijens P. Audience experiences of media context and embedded advertising: A comparison of eight media. International Journal of Market Research 2006, 48(1):81.
4. Calder B.J., Malthouse E.C., Schaedel U. An experimental study of the relationship between online engagement and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Interactive Marketing 2009, 23(4):321-331.
5. Centers for Disease Control. (n.d.). CDC - ACE Study - Adverse Childhood Experiences. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/ace/index.htm.
6. Couldry N., Livingstone S.M., Markham T. Media consumption and public engagement: Beyond the presumption of attention 2010, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY.
7. Eighmey J. Profiling user responses to commercial web site. Journal of Advertising Research 1997, 37(3):59-66.
8. Eyrich N., Padman M.L., Sweetser K.D. PR practitioners' use of social media tools and communication technology. Public Relations Review 2008, 34:412-414.
9. FedEx/Ketchum From social media to social business: The 2012 FedEx/Ketchum social business benchmarking study. Findings report 2012, Retrieved from http://www.2012socialbusinessstudy.com/pdf/shareable/FedEx_Findings_Report.pdf.
10. Fisher R.A. Frequency distribution of the values of the correlation coefficient in samples of an indefinitely large population. Biometrika 1915, 10:507-521.
11. Grunig J.E. Defining publics in public relations: The case of a suburban hospital. Journalism Quarterly 1978, 55:109-118.
12. Jun J. How climate change organizations utilize websites for public relations. Public Relations Review 2011, 37:245-249.
13. Kent M.L. Critical analysis of blogging in public relations. Public Relations Review 2008, 34:32-40.
14. Loechner J. Social media marketing trends and frustrations. [Web log post] 2012, October 10, Retrieved from http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/184679/social-media-marketing-trends-and-frustrations.html?edition=52250#ixzz2FliMaO37.
15. MacKinnon D.P., Lockwood C.M., Williams J. Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research 2004, 39:99-128.
16. Men L.R., Tsai W.-H.S. How companies cultivate relationships with publics on social network sites: Evidence from China and the United States. Public Relations Review 2012, 38:723-730.
17. Papacharissi Z., Rubin A.M. Predictors of Internet use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 2000, 44:175-196.
18. Porter L., Sweetser K., Chung D. The blogosphere and public relations: Investigating practitioners' roles and blog use. Journal of Communication Management 2009, 13:250-267.
19. Reber B.H., Kim J.K. How activist groups use websites in media relations: Evaluating online press rooms. Journal of Public Relations Research 2006, 18:313-333.
20. Rubin A.M. Uses and gratifications: An evolving perspective. The Sage Handbook of media processes and effects 2010, 147-159. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. R.L. Nabi, M. Oliver (Eds.).
21. Seo H., Kim J., Yang S. Global activism and new media: A study of transnational NGOs' online public relations. Public Relations Review 2009, 35:123-126.
22. Smitko K. Donor engagement through Twitter. Public Relations Review 2012, 38:633-635.
23. Sommerfeldt E.J., Kent M.L., Taylor M. Activist practitioner perspectives of website public relations: Why aren't activist websites fulfilling the dialogic promise?. Public Relations Review 2012, 38:303-312.
24. Valenzuela S., Park N., Kee K.F. Is there social capital in a social network site? Facebook use and college students' life satisfaction, trust, and participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2009, 14:875-901.
25. Waters R.D., Burnett E., Lamm A., Lucas J. Engaging stakeholders through social networking: How nonprofit organizations are using Facebook. Public Relations Review 2009, 35:102-106.
26. Waters R.D., Jamal J.Y. Tweet, tweet, tweet: A content analysis of nonprofit organizations' Twitter updates. Public Relations Review 2011, 37:321-324.
27. Waters R.D., Tindall N.T.J., Morton T.S. Media catching and the journalist-public relations practitioner relationship: How social media are changing the practice of media relations. Journal of Public Relations Research 2010, 22:241-264.
28. Wright D.K., Hinson M.D. Examining how social and emerging media have been used in public relations between 2006 and 2012: A longitudinal analysis 2012, Retrieved from http://www.prsa.org/Intelligence/PRJournal/Documents/2012WrightHinson.pdf.
29. Yeon H., Choi Y., Kiousis S. Interactive communication features on nonprofit organizations' webpages for the practice of excellence in public relations. Journal of Website Promotion 2005, 1:61-83.