Perceptions of Corporations on Facebook: An Analysis of Facebook Social Norms

by Dr. Mihaela Vorvoreanu, Ph.D., Purdue University and Society for New Communications Research Fellow

Overview
In the past couple of years, Facebook has been undergoing an evolution from an exclusive social network for college students to a social network open for all, including businesses. With the opening of Facebook to populations other than college students and to businesses, we begin to see public relations, marketing, and advertising on Facebook. Facebook natives, the college students who first used the network, have collectively created a set of social norms and expectations, Facebook culture. This paper explores the question of how corporations can practice public relations on Facebook while being sensitive to Facebook culture and help to preserve it. The paper presents original empirical research with college students about their social norms and their perceptions of corporations on Facebook.

Public Relations and Social Norms on Facebook

While Facebook has existed since February 2004 (Phillips, 2007), it wasnt until late 2007 that it really opened for business. Facebook has been partly supported by advertising since its early days, but in November 2007 Facebook began to focus on encouraging companies to engage in this popular and growing social network, which counts more than 150 million active users as of early 2009 (Facebook, 2009). In November 2007, Facebook introduced the highly controversial Beacon advertising system. The controversy over Beacon overshadowed the launch of Facebook pages, which are distinct, customized profiles designed for businesses, bands, celebrities and more to represent themselves on Facebook (Pearlman, 2007). By November 2007, Facebook natives, the college students who had used Facebook since its inception, had developed a culture around the use of Facebook and social norms that guide online interaction. Companies wishing to engage in public relations and marketing efforts on Facebook have to be mindful of Facebook culture, and their communication with the public must conform to Facebook social norms. Failure to adapt communication efforts to the local social norms presents the risks of failed communication efforts, being labelled as spam, and, in the long run, damaging Facebook culture. But, what are Facebook social norms? How does Facebook culture
JOURNAL OF NEW COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH | Vol. IV Issue 1 - Spring/Summer 2009 | 67

relate to corporate presence and public relations efforts? What is considered appropriate and inappropriate engagement between organizations and the public in the culture of Facebook natives? This research project set out to explore these questions. The questions about Facebook social norms are explored in the theoretical context of relationship building. Relationship management, one of the major theoretical approaches to public relations (Ledingham, 2006), focuses on building and maintaining relationships between organizations and the public. The relationship management literature discusses the desirability of mutually beneficial organization-public relationships, and suggests relationship cultivation strategies, but so far has not considered the questions of timing and context. Is relationship cultivation an activity organizations and the public should engage in all the time, across all contexts? Are all relationship cultivation strategies appropriate at all times and in all contexts? This research project begins investigating these issues in the cultural context of Facebook. To provide the necessary background, the next sections provide information on the state of Facebook usage by both individuals and companies and reviews literature about relationship management and online public relations.

Facebook Usage
Facebook is the worlds top social network (Arrington, 2009a) with 150 million users in February 2009 (Facebook, 2009). In the United States, Facebook is not quite as popular as MySpace, although growth rates indicate that Facebook is likely to overtake MySpace among United States Internet users as well (Arrington, 2009b). Although it is clear that Facebook has enough users in the United States and worldwide to make it a social phenomenon worthy of scholarly attention, its popularity is not the only or the main reason why this research project focuses on Facebook. Facebooks history presents a unique situation that has led to the emergence of a well-defined Facebook college culture. For the first year and a half of its existence, Facebook was a social network exclusive to college students (Phillips, 2007). Facebooks popularity among college students has been extremely high, with an 85% penetration rate as early as September 2005 (Arrington, 2005), and with college students still being the largest Facebook user demographic (Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2009). The existence of a well-defined Facebook culture with specific norms for social interaction makes Facebook an interesting example to study for several reasons. First, Facebook culture raises the issue of culturally
68 | JOURNAL OF NEW COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH | Vol. IV/Issue 1 - Spring/Summer 2009

appropriate online public relations. With more than half of the 100 leading U.S. retailers having Facebook pages as of September 2008 (Rosetta, 2009), it becomes important to find out how those pages affect Facebook culture, how they fit in, whether these public relations efforts are appropriate and effective. Second, Facebook presents a fascinating example of local, specific cultures, and social norms that develop around the use of social media tools. If the emergence of different social norms around different social media is indeed a trend, the practice of public relations online will have to include ethnographic approaches and extremely high cultural sensitivity, even when dealing with the same public. It is possible that members of the same public have different social norms for interaction on Facebook than Twitter or blogs. Public relations practitioners will have to learn what relationship cultivation strategies work in each online social environment at any given point, as well as when, and how, to engage in dialogue with publics. The conceptual starting point for these public relations efforts and issues is relationship management, explained next.

Relationship Management
The relational approach to public relations has developed in recent years into a major theoretical perspective (Ledingham, 2008). Relationship management drew initially upon interpersonal communication to identify and define the nature and key attributes of relationships between organizations and their publics (see, for example, Thomlison, 2000). Once the relationship approach was explicated and positioned as a viable theory of public relations (Broom, Casey, & Ritchey, 1997, 2000; Ledingham, 2003, 2006), most scholarly research focused on identifying and measuring the core attributes of organization-public relationships such as trust, control mutuality, satisfaction, commitment, investment, involvement, openness, and others (Broom, et al., 1997; Bruning, 2002; Bruning & Ledingham, 1998, 1999, 2000; Grunig, 2002; Grunig & Huang, 2000; Hon & Grunig, 1999; Huang, 2001; Jo, 2006; Kim, 2001; Ledingham & Bruning, 1998, 2000). Based on this research, public relations scholars and practitioners have a shared and agreed upon understanding of organization-public relationships as multi-dimensional, measurable concepts. The existing body of research has also documented the desirability and positive outcomes of mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and publics (Bruning, 2002; Bruning & Ledingham, 1998, 2000; Grunig & Huang, 2000; Ledingham & Bruning, 1999) and has identified relationship maintenance (Grunig & Huang, 2000; Hon & Grunig, 1999), or cultivation (Grunig, 2006; Ki & Hon, 2009), strategies such as access, positivity, openness, sharing of tasks, networking, and assurances. In a related line of
JOURNAL OF NEW COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH | Vol. IV Issue 1 - Spring/Summer 2009 | 69

work, Kent and Taylor (1998, 2002) have proposed dialogue as a theoretical framework to guide the creation and maintenance of relationships between organizations and publics. Research suggests that the purpose of public relations is relationship cultivation, and scholars and practitioners alike seem to agree that longterm, mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics are highly desirable. However, one question previous research has not addressed is that of timing and context. Are public relations supposed to be engaging with all stakeholder groups, using all available channels, all of the time? When is relationship cultivation and dialogue appropriate and, are some relationship cultivation strategies more appropriate than others in certain contexts? Relationship management as a public relations theory is quite elegant and parsimonious; as a public relations practice, it presents many contingencies and complexities that still need to be explored. This need provides the rationale and theoretical context for this studys investigation of how native Facebook culture relates to organizational attempts at public relations on Facebook. Previous research about online public relations has mostly focused on Web sites, and there are few, if any, research-based insights about public relations on social networks. The next section reviews some of the existing research on online public relations and considers what insights might be applicable to social networks.

Public Relations Online

Most previous public relations research has studied different types of Websites: Corporate Websites are the most popular choice of research focus (Callison, 2003; Esrock & Leichty, 1998, 2000; Gustavsen & Tilley, 2003; Hachigian & Hallahan, 2003; Huizingh, 2000; Maynard & Tian, 2004; Robbins & Stylianou, 2003), but researchers have also looked at political, government, and national Websites (Benoit & Benoit, 2000; Brunn & Cottle, 1997; Chadwick, 2001; Curtin & Gaither, 2003; Jackson & Purcell, 1997; Klotz, 1998; McKeown & Plowman, 1999; Niven & Zilber, 2001; Purcell & Kodras, 2001; Reavy, 1997), activist Websites (Kent, Taylor, & White, 2003; Taylor, Kent, & White, 2001), and Websites of nonprofit organizations (Kang & Norton, 2004). Most of the studies mentioned here use content analysis to examine the types of content and features available on Websites. To date, there are no similar studies of organizational Facebook pages that can provide insight into how organizations use these tools to build relationships with publics. Several studies (Kent, et al., 2003; Taylor & Kent, 2004; Taylor, et al., 2001) have used Kent & Taylors (1998) framework to investigate the presence and use of dialogic features on various Websites and found that
70 | JOURNAL OF NEW COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH | Vol. IV/Issue 1 - Spring/Summer 2009

organizational Websites fall short of their dialogic potential. These studies authors urge organizations to engage in more dialogue with publics. Another research framework for investigating online relationship building is Website Experience Analysis (Vorvoreanu, 2007, 2008). This framework maps out the experience of interacting with public relations Websites and enables researchers to evaluate a publics experience with a given Website. However, given fundamental differences between organizational Websites and social networking sites, there is no basis for assuming that the findings about public relations on Websites would apply to Facebook. Websites, as well as blogs (Catalano, 2007) are the online equivalent of an organizations headquarters. Organizations are expected to use their online headquarters to represent themselves and to engage in relationship building with stakeholders. A visitor to an organizations Website or blog expects to interact with the organization. Social networking sites such as Facebook are very different in both structure and purpose. Social networking sites are not any one organizations or individuals turf. They enable individuals and organizations to create their online homes or profiles, but with the purpose of interacting with others and of creating and displaying connections among users (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). Individuals use Facebook to maintain relationships within their social network (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007; Stern & Taylor, 2007) and to create and express their identities online (Stern & Taylor, 2007; Zhao, Grasmuck, & Martin, 2008). As opposed to a visitor to an organizations Website, a Facebook user does not log in to Facebook with the expectation to interact with an organization. So, although the technology makes it possible for organizations to interact with publics on Facebook, the social norms and expectations of Facebook culture create a context radically different from Web sites and blogs. No scholarly research about public relations or marketing on Facebook or other social networks could be identified. Existing publications such as the book Facebook Marketing (Holzner, 2009) or the self-published e-book The Facebook Marketing Bible (Smith, 2008) offer step-by-step advice on how to set up a Facebook presence, and they rely on knowledge of the Facebook interface and on personal experience, not on empirical research. The present study represents one of the first steps to understand the complexities of organization-public relationship building on Facebook and it does so by addressing the following research questions: How does Facebook culture relate to corporate presence and public relations efforts? What is considered appropriate and inappropriate engagement between corporations and publics in the culture of Facebook natives?

JOURNAL OF NEW COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH | Vol. IV Issue 1 - Spring/Summer 2009 | 71

Methodology
To collect data that would help answer the research questions, six focus groups were conducted over a span of 3 months during the fall of 2008 with a total of 35 college students enrolled at a southeastern university. The students were recruited through fliers posted on campus and were awarded a monetary reward for their participation. After seeing the fliers, participants who contacted the researcher were asked to complete an online survey with demographic and Facebook usage data, and to provide contact information so a focus group could be scheduled. Out of 53 students who completed the online survey, 35 were able to participate in the focus groups. Of the 35 participants, 21 were female and 14 were male, with ages ranging between 18 and 28 years old. The mean age of the participants was 20 years old. Nine participants were African American and 26 were Caucasian. Four participants were freshmen, 10 were sophomores, 13 were juniors, 6 were seniors and 2 were graduate students pursuing Masters degrees. The students represented several majors, although almost half of the participants were communication majors. All but one participant were current Facebook users. The participants frequency of Facebook use ranged from 3 to 5 times a week to 10 times a day, with most participants reporting they checked Facebook several times a day. Of the 34 participants who used Facebook, 20 said they enjoyed using it very much, 13 somewhat enjoyed using it, and 1 had neutral feelings. Each focus group lasted about 75 minutes, and consisted of discussion of eleven questions about students perceptions of corporations using Facebook. The focus groups were audio-recorded and a professional service was used for transcribing the conversations. The researcher read the transcripts several times until several major themes emerged. The themes, presented next, provide valuable insights into the social norms of Facebook as they relate to public relations and reveal what types of interactions Facebook natives perceive as appropriate and useful, or not.

Results and Interpretation

Seven major themes that pertain to the question of appropriate engagement between organizations and individuals on Facebook were identified in the focus group answers. The themes are weaved here into a narrative that progresses from perceptions of corporations being on Facebook to perceptions of engagement, relationships, and conversations between corporations and individuals on Facebook.

72 | JOURNAL OF NEW COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH | Vol. IV/Issue 1 - Spring/Summer 2009

Exclusivity Lost
A major theme that emerged early on in all focus group discussions was a sense of sadness, annoyance, and nostalgia over lost exclusivity. Students perceive Facebook as a college network, and they have negative feelings toward Facebook being open to high-school students and then to everyone with an email address. At the same time, there is a sense of inevitability, so students put up with the presence of corporations on Facebook just as they tolerate the presence of high school students, younger siblings, and parents: When Facebook started, it was just college students and a way to get to know other college students in their area. Ive been on it for five years now and that was before high school students could get on to it and I got angry when high schools were allowed on to it but there was nothing we could do. When they opened Facebook up to everybody obviously corporations came aboard

Purpose: To Digitally Hang Out

The reason why students use Facebook was brought up frequently in the focus groups as an argument why there is little, if any, interest in interacting with organizations on Facebook. Students use Facebook mainly to keep in touch with friends and acquaintances they have met previously as one participant put it, to digitally hang out. This finding is consistent with previous research on Facebook usage (Ellison, et al., 2007; Stern & Taylor, 2007). Shopping, customer service, or engagement in any interactions other than personal communication with friends are not part of the students usual Facebook routine. This participants comment illustrates the perception that corporations presence on Facebook is somewhat inappropriate because it is not aligned with the purpose of using Facebook: It seems weird to me that corporations are on there. When I think of Facebook I think of a social network and keeping up with your friends and things like that. I dont think that is what Facebook is for; They should do that on another venue. It doesnt make me angry but I think it is just strange that they are on there because they are not personally networking with their friends, they are just trying to sell and they have other motives.
JOURNAL OF NEW COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH | Vol. IV Issue 1 - Spring/Summer 2009 | 73

Although, as other themes also show, students seem uninterested to interact directly with corporations on Facebook, there is room for corporate presence if it helps them accomplish the purpose of keeping in touch with friends through gifts and applications. An over-abundance of applications and gifts on ones profile is considered really lame. They take up space and people who like apps are usually annoying. However, students embrace certain applications that can deliver witty or funny messages, such as the bumper sticker application. When further prompted, students start to remember the presence of brands, products, or corporate messages on such applications. However, they are not perceived as inappropriate, because they help Facebook users accomplish the purpose of interacting with their friends. Closely related to the main purpose of using Facebook is another important Facebook activity, illustrated in the next theme.

Self-presentation
An important part of online social networking is the creation of a personal profile, an online representation of ones self. Consistent with previous research (Zhao, et al., 2008), participants in this research study indicated that they sometimes become fans of products or organizations because their likes and dislikes are important parts of their identity: If I like something, Ill become a fan of something and then I want to publicly articulate it on Facebook, said one focus group participant. Similarly, Facebook can be a way to show off what you have its part of who you are. I like to show off my game collection. The interweaving of corporate presence or discourse was not perceived as inappropriate if it was part of ones self-presentation efforts. However, it should be noted that quite a few participants stated they never become fans of corporations, and were not even aware of the existence of corporate pages on Facebook.

Facebook is Personal
Another major theme that follows closely from students descriptions of their purpose for using Facebook is that all interaction on Facebook is, and should be, personal. Students perceive Facebook as their personal fun space and wish to keep it separate from the professional, business, and other aspects of their lives. This is the reason why students are extremely disturbed
74 | JOURNAL OF NEW COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH | Vol. IV/Issue 1 - Spring/Summer 2009

by instances of potential employers evaluating them based on their Facebook profiles and activity: Its almost an invasion of privacy type thing. Like, I have a private Facebook account solely for the purpose that I dont want people I dont know looking at my information or looking at my pictures, especially when it comes to corporations. My personal life is different from my professional life; you know what I mean? So if they saw pictures of me that they would think that were incriminating - I dont have anything really incriminating on it - but if they saw a picture that was inappropriate, thats not how I would conduct myself in a professional setting, you know what I mean? So I dont think it is necessarily relevant. Because Facebook is a space for personal interactions, students do not perceive it as an appropriate medium to communicate with organizations about commercial or business transactions. They prefer using telephone, email, or forms on official organizational Websites to interact with corporations. Any communication that does not come from an individual and is not personal is considered inappropriate. Students are open to the possibility of interacting with employees of corporations, but only if these interactions are personal and authentic, not scripted. At the same time, they believe it is not feasible for a large corporation to engage with each member of their public on an individual basis. Even when accepting the scenario of interacting with individual employees, students insist that they should be the ones initiating the conversation. Having a representative of a company, or even worse a faceless corporation write on your wall, or, in student parlance, being Facebooked by a faceless corporation would be freaky, and perceived as inappropriate, or downright spam. Overall, students are quite suspicious of interacting with large corporations, but have very different attitudes towards small businesses and non-profit organizations.

Small Businesses Can Keep it Personal

In stark contrast with the focus group participants aversion towards interacting with large corporations on Facebook is their embracement of small businesses and non-profits. Several students reported friending small business owners and interacting with them on a regular basis, whether it was checking their pages for inventories, sending greeting cards on holidays, writing on their wall, or conversing about products. When it came to small
JOURNAL OF NEW COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH | Vol. IV Issue 1 - Spring/Summer 2009 | 75

businesses, students did not manifest suspicion towards their motivation to make a profit, and several stated that they actually enjoyed supporting them: But Id friend small shops because they have a face. If its Sony I couldnt care less but a small indy company, I support that; but something big and obnoxious like Microsoft, I dont care, not at all. I like to help small companies get their name out because you know you have an effect on them. However, the students made it clear that they felt they had a personal relationship with the small business owner, not the business itself, and felt they knew them and sometimes their families personally: they blog pictures of their kids, said one focus group participant when explaining why he engages with the owners of a small independent company. Several participants had very positive feelings towards engaging with small business owners on Facebook and perceived those interactions as appropriate and within the scope of Facebook. Students also had quite positive feelings towards non-profit organizations, with whom they became familiar through the causes application. However, the acceptance of non-profit organizations seemed to reflect a social-desirability bias: I feel bad not clicking I support breast cancer [research]. Students said they regularly express support for a good cause, but not go as far as interacting with the non-profit organization or donating money, partly because they did not think Facebook was a safe medium for credit card transactions. So far, the major themes that have emerged from focus group discussions revealed the students purpose for using Facebook, the types of interactions they find appropriate (personal), and their attitudes toward small businesses and non-profits. The last two themes address engagement in conversations with large corporations and perceptions of large corporations on Facebook.

Large Corporations: Engagement, Relationships, Conversation

Overall, the focus group participants agreed that they had no interest in engaging in conversations or relationships with large faceless corporations on Facebook. They perceived Facebook relationships between themselves and large corporations as neither possible nor desirable. Their understanding of relationships between organizations and individuals was that corporations wish to maintain loyal customers. They did not necessarily mind this profitmaking purpose, but did not see a place for it on Facebook and preferred to be left alone:
76 | JOURNAL OF NEW COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH | Vol. IV/Issue 1 - Spring/Summer 2009

As far as someone calling me or sending me a Facebook message, I would prefer to go into the store, get my stuff and thats it. There is a point where you are building a relationship and then it gets annoying. So I wouldnt be interested in talking to a corporation unless I had a problem. Beyond customer service, students expressed no interest in engaging with large corporations on Facebook. However, their feelings of aversion and annoyance quickly shifted to enthusiasm whenever a focus group participant mentioned monetary incentives. Given the financial situation of most college students, the no engagement with corporations rule would be gladly broken in exchange for special discounts and coupons. Students unanimously agreed that discounts and coupons, especially if they were exclusive to Facebook users, would motivate them to join groups and become fans of corporate Facebook pages. Special deals for Facebook users appeared to be one way to regain that lost sense of exclusivity discussed in the first theme. An important aspect of engagement with corporations was the presence of advertisements on the right-hand side of the screen. Focus groups participants were ambivalent about the advertisements. On the one hand, they understood why they were there, and preferred that advertising rather than user fees finance Facebook. On the other hand, many students reported being blind to advertisements, and ignoring that part of the screen altogether. The students who did notice the advertisements were also split into two opinion camps. One camp found the advertisements irrelevant and labelled them as scams or the equivalent of late-night infomercials. Some said they would not click the ads for fear of being taken to a site that would infect their computer with a virus. In the other camp were Facebook users who had been served targeted advertisements that they found relevant to their interests on more than one occasion. These students were perplexed and confused about how the process worked, but said they did look at the ads because they had been relevant or useful in the past. Overall, even students who found advertising an inevitable annoyance considered this form of communication between corporations and publics more appropriate than other, more dialogic forms of interaction. This preference could be explained by the fact that advertising is a well established form of corporate communication, one that students are familiar with and can easily separate from other, more engaged forms of interaction that tend to blur the boundaries between personal and commercial discourse. Students hung on with passion to the idea of separating the personal, professional, commercial, and family aspects of their lives, and advertisements allow them to do that in the context of Facebook. The clear delimitation of advertising as a genre as well as the visual separation of
JOURNAL OF NEW COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH | Vol. IV Issue 1 - Spring/Summer 2009 | 77

advertisements from the stream of Facebook content made advertising a much more acceptable form of communication than conversations with corporations. Students attitudes towards engagement with corporations are closely related to the last major theme of the focus groups, that of perceptions toward corporate presence on Facebook.

Perceptions of Corporate Presence on Facebook

There are certain social media such as Twitter that are perceived as the desirable, cutting-edge place to be. The positive perceptions associated with the medium often spill over onto its users. Focus group participants reasoned that many corporations join Facebook in an attempt to be cool and cutting-edge, but they did not think this was a successful strategy and were turned off by corporations trying too hard to be cool: I think another reason why corporations are on Facebook is because it is the new and upcoming thing that students are getting involved in and corporations are thinking they should be getting involved in it, too. I dont know how old Twitter is and that kind of thing but everyone is becoming more knowledgeable with technology and that kind of thing and Facebook is the newest cutting edge thing. Students unanimously understood that because Facebook has a very large number of users corporations were attracted to join in for marketing and advertising purposes. Whenever they tried to think from the corporations point of view, they agreed that it made business sense for corporations to be on Facebook. However, when they looked at corporate presence on Facebook from their own point of view, they did not find Facebook presence an appropriate strategy: Why would you be on there if youre not going to socialize? Simply being on Facebook did not lend a corporation any advantage in terms of perceptions. Students did not feel they could trust corporations more because they were on Facebook, or that corporations with Facebook presences were more open than others. They did not consider themselves more likely to engage, purchase, or interact with a corporation simply because it had a Facebook presence. When asked about perceptions related to the organization-public relationship dimensions of trust, openness, involvement, investment, and dialogue, students did not report being impressed by corporations Facebook presence. On the contrary, students were suspicious of corporations motives and felt corporations were intruding
78 | JOURNAL OF NEW COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH | Vol. IV/Issue 1 - Spring/Summer 2009

on their territory. Many students did not believe in the possibility of having an open and honest dialogue with a corporation on Facebook, and they believed that any negative comments would be deleted. Students did not express interest in too much openness or dialogue on Facebook, as this statement illustrates: It may be more open but I wouldnt want it on Facebook. I dont want that much information from a company that I didnt want to look at. I want to be able to get that information if I want it but I dont want it on the Facebook page. In summary, the seven major themes that emerged from the focus group discussions present a complex picture of the ways in which Facebook culture relates to corporations on Facebook. The dominant feeling is that corporations, just as other non-college populations, are not welcome on Facebook, and students regret losing the sense of exclusivity on Facebook. Corporate presence is acceptable on Facebook if it helps users accomplish their main purposes for using Facebook in the first place: digitally hanging out and self-presentation. The only accepted communication tone on Facebook is the personal one, and organizations that are able to engage in personal communication, such as small business owners, are embraced on Facebook. Although students understand the business reasons for large corporations presence on Facebook, they do not find this medium appropriate for engaging with corporations, have little, if any interest in doing so, and the mere presence of corporations on Facebook does not contribute to positive perceptions of organization-public relationship dimensions. There are however, inherent contradictions in students answers that provide important clues about appropriate and inappropriate corporate communication on Facebook. The implications of these findings for public relations practice and theory are discussed next.

Discussion and Limitations

Though it may seem that the Facebook college culture is an unfriendly context for corporate public relations, this studys findings offer several insights into ways of practicing culturally appropriate public relations and marketing on Facebook. The students main concerns were against aggressive and invasive corporate communication efforts that would invade their personal communication space and pollute it with spam. The students talked about several opportunities for engagement with corporations, but the dominant agreement was that they wanted to engage on their own terms and
JOURNAL OF NEW COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH | Vol. IV Issue 1 - Spring/Summer 2009 | 79

expected corporations to be available and accessible, but not in your face. One major opportunity for corporations on Facebook is to help users represent themselves to others online. In a consumerist society, people often define themselves by their likes, dislikes, and ownership of material possessions. Corporations that make it easy and attractive for users to express their tastes and affiliations can become a visible part of Facebook users profiles. Another opportunity for corporations is to enable users to accomplish their main purpose for using Facebook, that of keeping in touch with friends and acquaintances. Through the subtle but creative use of gifts and applications, corporations can be a part of the communication among Facebook friends. Facebook also presents direct marketing opportunities for engaging the college-age market. Providing deals and discounts while creating a sense of exclusivity for Facebook users is a tactic that all students were enthusiastic about. Finally, although students prefer a personal tone for Facebook communication, their expectations for interactions with large corporations are somewhat different. Students questioned the feasibility of personal engagement with members of a large corporations public and expressed tolerance and even interest toward more traditional modes of corporate communication, such as advertising. As far as engaged interaction goes, whether for customer service purposes or for discussing policies and issues, the participants agreed that other communication channels, such as the official corporate Website, email, and telephone, are more appropriate than Facebook. In terms of relationship management and dialogic approaches to public relations, these research findings translate into the conclusion that within the Facebook college culture, Facebook is not regarded as an appropriate context for in-depth, engaged dialogue between organizations and their publics. The focus group results present Facebook as an appropriate medium for marketing and advertising, and specifically for increasing awareness of a company, product, or brand. The results suggest that relationship cultivation strategies and dialogue are not always appropriate, and that organizations need to choose wisely the contexts and channels for engaging with publics. Organizations also need to be aware that in some contexts it is more beneficial to the relationship with a certain public to respect the conversation space by staying out of it. Before translating this studys implications into practice, it is important to be aware of its limitations. First, this study attempted to gain an understanding of the Facebook college culture. However, the small sample of students from the same university might not be representative of Facebook college culture. Further research is needed to establish whether these insights
80 | JOURNAL OF NEW COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH | Vol. IV/Issue 1 - Spring/Summer 2009

are applicable at a wider scale to the culture of all students in the United States who use Facebook. A second limitation is, that even if these insights could be generalized to the Facebook college culture, there are other age and interest groups on Facebook who might use it differently and might have created their own culture, with different social norms. Their expectations and perceptions of corporate communication on Facebook might be very different from those of college students. Further research is needed to identify the various Facebook cultures and gain in-depth understanding of their social norms. Third, culture is a dynamic, living system that changes and evolves over time. As time passes and new groups of people join Facebook they will not, for example, experience the sense of lost exclusivity, because they were not aware of a time when Facebook was an exclusive college network. The results of this study represent a snap shot of where Facebook college culture might be at the time of the research. The social norms and expectations of this group of users are likely to carry on and influence others who become assimilated in Facebook culture, so they carry some relevance for the future. However, new groups of users, time, and new experiences, will change Facebook culture. It is important for communication researchers and professionals to stay aware of these cultural shifts and continue the effort to understand the culture and social norms each public develops on Facebook, as well as other social media.

Conclusion
This studys goal was to gain an understanding of Facebook college culture as it relates to public relations, and to grasp the social norms that determine expectations of appropriate and inappropriate communication between organizations and publics on Facebook. Focus group research provided insights into these research questions. Although students who participated in this research were suspicious of large corporations on Facebook and did not manifest interest in engaging in dialogue with them, they did talk about several opportunities for appropriate corporate communication on Facebook. As opposed to large corporations, students were much more welcoming of small businesses on Facebook and perceived that communication with small business owners can fit in well with the personal tone of Facebook communication. The studys results have direct implications for public relations, marketing, and advertising professionals who seek to reach the collegeage audience on Facebook. The results also suggest important issues for public relations research, namely the need to explore the question of when relationship cultivation strategies and dialogue are appropriate, and when the
JOURNAL OF NEW COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH | Vol. IV Issue 1 - Spring/Summer 2009 | 81

relationship between an organization and a public might benefit from lack of engagement. Much more research is needed to explore these theoretical questions as well as the various cultures that develop around different social media. The most important insight to take away from this study is the awareness of the social norms publics develop in social media and the importance for communication practitioners to understand them before deciding whether and how to engage with publics online.

82 | JOURNAL OF NEW COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH | Vol. IV/Issue 1 - Spring/Summer 2009

References
Arrington, M. (2005). 85% of College Students Use Facebook. Techcrunch. Retrieved 09/15/2008, from http://www.techcrunch.com/2005/09/07/85-of-college-students-usefacebook/ Arrington, M. (2009a). Facebook now nearly twice the size of MySpace worldwide. Techcrunch. Retrieved 2/06/2009, from http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/01/22/ facebook-now-nearly-twice-the-size-of-myspace-worldwide/ Arrington, M. (2009b). Social networking: Will Facebook overtake MySpace in the U.S. in 2009? Techcrunch. Retrieved 02/06/2009, from http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/01/13/ social-networking-will-facebook-overtake-myspace-in-the-us-in-2009/ Benoit, W. L., & Benoit, P. J. (2000). The virtual campaign: Presidential primary Websites in Campaign 2000. American Communication Journal, 3(3). Retrieved Date Accessed| from http://acjournal.org/holdings/vol3/Iss3/rogue4/benoit.html boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230. Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (1997). Toward a concept and theory of organizationpublic relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9(2), 83-98. Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (2000). Concept and theory of organization-public relationships. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management. A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 3-22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bruning, S. D. (2002). Relationship building as retention strategy: Linking relationship attitudes and satisfaction evaluations to behavioral outcomes. Public Relations Review, 28(1), 39-48. Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (1998). Organization-public relationships and consumer satisfaction: The role of relationships in the satisfaction mix. Communication Research Reports, 15(2), 198-208. Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (1999). Relationships between organizations and publics: Development of a multi-dimensional organization-public relationship scale. Public Relations Review, 25(2), 157-170. Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (2000). Perceptions of relationships and evaluations of satisfaction: An exploration of interaction. Public Relations Review, 26(1), 85-95. Brunn, S. D., & Cottle, C. D. (1997). Small states and cyberboosterism. Geographical Review, 87(2), 240-258. Callison, C. (2003). Media relations and the Internet: How Fortune 500 company Web sites assist journalists in news gathering. Public Relations Review, 29(1), 29-41. Catalano, C. C. (2007). Megaphones to the Internet and the world: The role of blogs in corporate communications. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 1(4), 247262. Chadwick, A. (2001). The electronic age of government in the Internet age. Information, Communication and Society, 4(3), 435-457. Curtin, P. A., & Gaither, T. K. (2003). International agenda-building in cyberspace: A study of Middle East government English-language Websites. Public Relations Review, 30(1), 25-36. Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook friends: Social capital and college students use of online social networking sites. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 12(4), 1143-1168. Esrock, S. L., & Leichty, G. B. (1998). Social responsibility and corporate Web pages: Selfpresentation or agenda setting? Public Relations Review, 24(3), 305-319. Esrock, S. L., & Leichty, G. B. (2000). Organization of corporate Web pages: Publics and functions. Public Relations Review, 26(3), 327-344.
JOURNAL OF NEW COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH | Vol. IV Issue 1 - Spring/Summer 2009 | 83

Facebook. (2009). Facebook Statistics. Retrieved 02/05/2009, 2009, from http://www. facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics Grunig, J. E. (2002). Qualitative methods for assessing relationships between organizations and publics. Institute for Public Relations. Retrieved Date Accessed| from http://www. instituteforpr.com Grunig, J. E. (2006). Furnishing the edifice: Ongoing research on public relations as a strategic management function. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(2), 151-176. Grunig, J. E., & Huang, Y.-H. (2000). From organizational effectiveness to relationship indicators: Antecedents of relationships, public relations strategies, and relationship outcomes. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 2353). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gustavsen, P. A., & Tilley, E. (2003). Public relations communication through corporate Websites: Towards an understanding of the role of interactivity. PRism, 1(1). Retrieved Date Accessed| from http://www.praxis.bond.edu.au/prism/papers/refereed/paper5.pdf Hachigian, D., & Hallahan, K. (2003). Perceptions of public relations Web sites by computer industry journalists. Public Relations Review, 29(2), 43-62. Holzner, S. (2009). Facebook marketing: Leverage social media to grow your business. Indianapolis, IN: Que Publishing. Hon, L., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. Institute for Public Relations. Retrieved Date Accessed from http://www.instituteforpr. com/pdf/1999_guide_measure_relationships.pdf Huang, Y.-H. (2001). OPRA: A cross-cultural, multiple item scale for measuring organizationpublic relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13(1), 61-90. Huizingh, E. K. R. E. (2000). The content and design of Web sites: An empirical study. Information and Management, 37(3), 123-134. Jackson, M. H., & Purcell, D. (1997). Politics and media richness in World Wide Web representations of the former Yugoslavia. Geographical Review, 87(2), 233-253. Jo, S. (2006). Measurement of organization-public relationships: Validation of measurement using a manufacturer-retailer relationship. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(3), 225-248. Kang, S., & Norton, H. E. (2004). Nonprofit organizations use of the World Wide Web: Are they sufficiently fulfilling organizational goals? Public Relations Review, 30(3), 279-284. Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the World Wide Web. Public Relations Review, 24(3), 321-334. Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 28(1), 21-37. Kent, M. L., Taylor, M., & White, W. J. (2003). The relationship between Web site design and organizational responsiveness to stakeholders. Public Relations Review, 29(1), 63-77. Ki, E.-J., & Hon, L. (2009). A measure of relationship cultivation strategies. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21(1), 1-24. Kim, Y. (2001). Searching for the organization-public relationship: A valid and reliable instrument. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 78(4), 799-815. Klotz, R. (1998). Virtual criticism: Negative advertising on the Internet in the 1996 Senate races. Political Communication, 15(3), 347-365. Ledingham, J. A. (2003). Explicating relationship management as a general theory of public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15(2), 181-198. Ledingham, J. A. (2006). Relationship management: A general theory of public relations. In V. Hazleton & C. H. Botan (Eds.), Public relations theory II (pp. 465-483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

84 | JOURNAL OF NEW COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH | Vol. IV/Issue 1 - Spring/Summer 2009

Ledingham, J. A. (2008). A chronology or organization-stakeholder relationships with recommendations concerning practitioner adoption of the relational perspective. Journal of Promotion Management, 14(3 & 4), 243-262. Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (1998). Relationship management in public relations: Dimensions of an organization-public relationship. Public Relations Review, 24(1), 5565. Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (1999). Time as an indicator of the perceptions and behavior of members of a key public: Monitoring and predicting organization-public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 11(2), 167-183. Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (2000). A longitudial study of organization-public relationship dimensions: Defining the role of communication in the practice of relationship management. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 55-69). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Maynard, M., & Tian, Y. (2004). Between global and glocal: content analysis of the Chinese Web Sites of the 100 top global brands. Public Relations Review, 30(3), 285291. McKeown, C. A., & Plowman, K. D. (1999). Reaching publics on the Web during the 1996 presidential campaign. Journal of Public Relations Research, 11(4), 321-347. Niven, D., & Zilber, J. (2001). Do women and men in Congress cultivate different images? evidence from congressional Web sites. Political Communication, 18(4), 395-405. Pearlman, L. (2007). Facebook Ads. The Facebook Blog. Retrieved 11/03/2008, from http:// blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=6972252130 Pew Internet and American Life Project. (2009). Social networks grow: Friending mom and dad. Retrieved 02/06/2009, from http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1079/social-networksgrow Phillips, S. (2007). A brief history of Facebook. The Guardian. Retrieved 11/03/2008, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/jul/25/media.newmedia Purcell, D., & Kodras, J. E. (2001). Information technologies and representational spaces at the outposts of the global political economy: Redrawing the Balkan image of Slovenia. Information, Communication and Society, 4(3), 341-369. Reavy, M. (1997). Presidential Web sites as sources of information. Electronic Journal of Communication, 7(3), online. Robbins, S. S., & Stylianou, A. C. (2003). Global corporate Web sites: An empirical investigation of content and design. Information and Management, 40(3), 205-212. Rosetta. (2009). Social media study shows 59% of retailers now using Facebook. Retrieved 02/06/2009, from http://www.rosetta.com/WhoWeAre/News/Pages/ViewPress. aspx?itemid=162 Smith, J. (2008). The Facebook marketing Bible: 37+ ways to market your brand, company, product, or service inside Facebook. Retrieved November 15, 2008, from http://www. insidefacebook.com Stern, L. A., & Taylor, K. (2007). Social networking on Facebook. Journal of the Communication, Speech & Theatre Association of North Dakota, 20, 9-20. Taylor, M., & Kent, M. L. (2004). Congressional Web sites and their potential for public dialogue. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 12(2), 59-76. Taylor, M., Kent, M. L., & White, W. J. (2001). How activist organizations are using the Internet to build relationships. Public Relations Review, 27(3), 263-284. Thomlison, T. D. (2000). An interpersonal primer with implications for public relations. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 177-203). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

JOURNAL OF NEW COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH | Vol. IV Issue 1 - Spring/Summer 2009 | 85

Vorvoreanu, M. (2007). Website Experience Analysis: A new research protocol for studying relationship building on corporate Websites. Journal of Website Promotion, 3(3 & 4), 222-249. Vorvoreanu, M. (2008). Web site public relations: How corporations build and maintain relationships online. Youngstown, NY: Cambria Press. Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S., & Martin, J. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 18161836.

Dr. Vorvoreanu is an assistant professor in the College of Technology at Purdue University. She studies the socio-cultural impact of new communication technologies. Before joining Purdue, Dr. V was an assistant professor in the Department of Communication Studies at Clemson University, SC, and the Department of Communication at the University of Dayton, Ohio. While at Clemson and UD respectively, Dr. V taught various public relations and communication courses, and did academic research in the area of public relations and new Web technologies. Dr. V holds a Ph.D. in Communication from Purdue University. Originally from Romania, Dr. V now lives with her husband, Krishna Madhavan, and cat, Pooky, in West Lafayette, IN.

Acknowledgments
The author would like to acknowledge the research support of undergraduate student Amanda Jernigan and of the Society for New Communications Research.

86 | JOURNAL OF NEW COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH | Vol. IV/Issue 1 - Spring/Summer 2009