Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
4 Integrating Social Media in NGO
Strategic Communication
Lessons From Dutch NGOs’
Communication Practices
Delia Dumitrica
The adoption of social media by non-governmental organizations (hereafter
NGOs) has been praised as a low-cost yet impactful communication strat-
egy to engage different publics and stakeholders, from funders and volun-
teers to the wider public opinion. However, most current empirical research
on NGO social media uses in the field of public relations (PR) focuses on
select channels, with little attention to how they intersect and become inte-
grated into the organization’s larger communication ecosystem. This chapter
argues that the integration of social media in NGO strategic communication
should be addressed in a more holistic manner, addressing recent prompts
to consider social media adoption in relation to organizational strategies,
governance, and contextual environment (Janssen Danyi & Chaudhri, 2018;
Nah & Saxton, 2013; Saxton & Guo, 2014). To exemplify this approach,
this chapter presents an exploratory study of social media use by Dutch
social change NGOs working in areas such as social justice, environmental-
ism, LGBTQ rights, refugees, literacy, and participatory democracy.
Methodologically, the study juxtaposes a content analysis of social media
with findings from ten in-depth interviews with NGO representatives. Where
content analysis can provide insights into how NGOs use specific social
media channels to communicate with their publics and stakeholders, inter-
views are able to place the adoption of new platforms into the wider com-
munication strategy of an organization, shedding light on factors influencing
this adoption. This triangulated approach reveals that social change NGOs
in the Netherlands deploy a mix of traditional and new media channels
in an effort to adapt to the shifting practices of the larger communication
ecosystem. Importantly, some channels such as email newsletters, leaflets, or
advertising can remain invisible when researchers focus exclusively on the
online presence of an organization. The chapter recommends that the study
of social media in NGOs’ strategic communication should be approached as
in flux, shaped by context-specific factors such as the availability of human
and financial resources, collaborations, mission, etc. and inserted within
the larger, multichannel communication practices of the organization. This
approach affords more nuanced insights into the strategic communication
practices of NGO social change initiatives.
DOI: 10.4324/9781003188636 -6
74 Delia Dumitrica
NGO’s Social Media Use: The Public Relations Approach
NGOs refer to organizations with a legal status that is mainly characterized
by their nonprofit and voluntary orientation, thus making these organiza-
tions distinct from the government and the corporate sector (Ricciutti &
Caló, 2018). Furthermore, social change NGOs are animated by a desire to
transform civil society in a democratic and often participatory manner. This
means they engage various publics, from journalists or funders to (potential)
volunteers or the public at large. Communication processes—both external
and internal to the organization—thus lie at the heart of an NGO’s social
change strategy. Regardless of mission or size, NGOs have to be attuned
to general communication practices within their particular environment
(Campbell & Lambright, 2018).
In the field of PR, the integration of new media in NGOs’ communication
practices has been placed under the banner of dialogue and interactivity
(Taylor & Kent, 2014), promising the development of a new culture based
on technologically mediated “engagement, participation and dialogue”
(Greenberg & MacAulay, 2009, p. 67). NGOs’ subsequent adoption of
social media was largely assessed through the same dialogical lens. Several
studies examined the use of one or two social media channels in order to
identify the presence and potential of two-way communication with dif-
ferent types of publics (Auger, 2013; Bortree & Seltzer, 2009; Edwards &
Hoefer, 2010; Inauen & Schoeneborn, 2014; Kim et al., 2014; Lovejoy
et al., 2012; Lovejoy & Saxton, 2012; Namisango & Kang, 2019; Waters
& Jamal, 2011; Waters et al., 2009). Lovejoy and Saxton’s (2012) typology
of functions of social media communication—inform, build, and maintain
community and mobilize publics for action—provided a subsequent frame-
work for further analysis of the integration of these channels into NGOs’
communication practices. Overall, the findings of the dialogical approach
have highlighted that organizations tend to use these channels in a broad-
casting manner, to promote themselves or inform publics of their activities.
A second relevant approach in the PR study of social media use by NGOs
examines the factors influencing technological adoption. Informed by
resource dependence theories, such studies seek to identify (mostly via sur-
veys) the organizational dimensions conducive to the adoption and effective
(i.e., dialogical) use of social media (Adjei et al., 2016; Nah & Saxton, 2013;
Seo et al., 2009; Svensson & Hambrick, 2015). In general, findings suggest
that new media adoption hinges upon the presence of a dedicated commu-
nication and marketing team within NGOs.
One limitation of the public relations literature is the tendency to decon-
textualize the use of a social media channel and examine it as if it were
the only communicational tool of the organization. The (relatively easy)
access to an organization’s online presence, along with the simple coding
tool provided by Lovejoy and Saxton (2012), have boosted the popular-
ity of content analyses in the study of NGOs’ use of social media. Yet, in
Social Media in NGO Strategic Communication 75
practice, NGOs juggle multiple online and offline channels to communicate
with their audiences. Different channels are seen as more appropriate for
reaching out to different publics (Auger, 2013; Guidry et al., 2017; Kim
et al., 2014). This suggests the need for a more holistic approach to address
the relation between new communication technologies such as social media
and an organization’s communication needs, strategy, and practices.
From Social Media Channels to the Communication Ecosystem
To outline such a holistic approach, this chapter draws inspiration from the
related field of grassroots collective action, as this field has adopted a more
comprehensive view to the communication strategy deployed by citizens and
NGOs involved in civic mobilization processes. Such research has revealed
that, in practice, such communication strategies rely upon a mix of new
and old media that reflects the wider hybrid media system within which
they operate (Chadwick, 2013; Treré, 2018). Citizen mobilizers and NGOs
alike often switch between channels, while each channel can fulfill differ-
ent communicational and organizational roles. For example, email can be
a means of information (both internally, among staff, and externally, with
other stakeholders) and a means of decision-making (where feedback thus
received cements the action the organization will take). Thus, communica-
tion strategies in grassroots collective action have to remain fluid, changing
with the life cycle of the mobilization process and the type of action per-
formed (Mattoni & Treré 2014).
Furthermore, in hybrid media systems, social actors have to constantly
mediate between the pressure to adapt to the medium’s logic and the need
to appropriate the medium for their own purposes. Blending remains a
keyword in this process: different messages, media, and practices of use are
mixed and adapted to different goals and forms of action (Morell, 2012).
Thus, communication strategies develop within a larger communication
ecology or ecosystem (Bastos et al., 2015; Mattoni, 2017; Mattoni & Treré,
2014; Treré & Mattoni, 2016). The terms “ecology” and “ecosystem” point
to the interrelation “among social activities, information technologies, and
communication formats” (Treré & Mattoni 2016, p. 294). In its dictionary
version, ecosystem refers to “the complex of living organisms, their physi-
cal environment, and their interrelationships in a particular unit of space”
(Encyclopædia Britannica, 2019). When borrowed in the discussion of com-
munication media, the term thus evokes the idea of a complex system with
interrelated elements.
Adopting an ecosystem approach to NGOs’ social media use can thus
address calls to the communication mix in relation to organizational strate-
gies, governance, and contextual environment (Janssen Danyi & Chaudhri,
2018; Nah & Saxton, 2013; Saxton & Guo, 2014). Even though not all
NGOs share the mobilizing aim of collective action, communication with
different publics remains at the heart of their activities. Starting from the
76 Delia Dumitrica
assumption of an NGO’s communication as an ecosystem orients research
toward capturing the “communicative complexity” (Treré & Mattoni, 2016,
p. 301) within and outside of the NGO, eschewing dichotomies such as
online/offline, new/old (media). Furthermore, such an approach entails a
sensitivity to multiple media formats and fluid media practices within the
organization as well as between the organization and its multiple stakehold-
ers (Mattoni & Treré, 2014).
The Dutch NGO Sector: An Overview
To illustrate the ecosystem approach, this chapter builds on an exploratory
study of the adoption of social media by Dutch social change NGOs. In the
Netherlands, this sector has had a rich tradition of social welfare delivery,
being among the largest in the world (Brandsen & Pape 2015; Burger &
Veldheer, 2001; Burger et al, 1999; Schulpen, 2016). Referred to as the
“societal midfield” (van Doorn quoted in Brandsen & Pape, 2015), Dutch
NGOs remain generally focused on service delivery in areas such as educa-
tion, health, or social housing (Burger & Veldheer, 2001). In turn, such orga-
nizations have enjoyed dedicated public funding—although this has tended
to benefit larger organizations in the field of aid and development, such as
Oxfram Novib, ICCO, Hivos, or Cordaid. Between the 1960s and 1990s,
these large organizations have received a fixed percentage of Dutch public
international aid (Koch & Loman, 2009). Smaller NGOs, on the other hand,
had to tap into smaller and more fragmented public funding schemes.
The neoliberal policy turn (1980s–1990s) in the Netherlands has also
affected NGOs, pressuring them to adopt a “managerial” ethos and to look
for private funding (Koch & Loman, 2009; Brandsen & Pape, 2015; Schul-
pen, 2016). As a result, “many nonprofit organizations were forced to reor-
ganize, professionalize, merge, or commercialize” (Burger & Veldheer, 2001,
p. 227). Furthermore, under the banner of terms such as “active citizenship”
and “do-democracy,” the government coupled administrative decentraliza-
tion and the retreat of the welfare state with the promotion of volunteerism
as a sign of “good citizenship” (Verhoeven & Tonkens, 2013).
Today, NGOs remain a substantial sector of the Dutch economy. In addi-
tion to public funds, corporations now provide around 60% of the rev-
enues of the Dutch NGO sector, although this tends to favor specific sectors
like sports and recreation (Meijer et al., 2006). In addition, around 87%
of Dutch households donate to the NGO sector (primarily health, environ-
ment, and international aid), both financially and in-kind (Bekkers et al.,
2015; Schuyt et al., 2013; Ugur, 2018). National donation campaigns have
a long-standing history (Wiepking & van Leeuwven, 2013), while door-to-
door solicitations remain the most popular way of donating, although online
and text messaging donations are also growing (Bekkers et al., 2015).
Such studies of Dutch NGOs however rarely focus on communication pro-
cesses. This chapter thus takes an exploratory approach to this problematic,
Social Media in NGO Strategic Communication 77
building upon existing studies suggesting organizations are likely to rely
upon different media channels during campaign periods, while broadcasting
remains crucial to their communication practices. This is not surprising, as
the Dutch media system is characterized by the prominence of broadcasting
as a source of news (Reuters Institute, 2018), which is echoed by a handful
of empirical studies on digital activism (Bekkers et al., 2011; Dumitrica &
Achterberg, 2017). When it comes to social media use, Dutch NGOs tend to
associate these channels with collaboration, as a means to connect and inter-
act with their publics. Yet, NGOs also struggle with implementing social
media into their overall communication programs (Sheombar et al., 2015).
Methodology
The chapter builds upon interviews with and content analysis of ten social
change NGOs in the Netherlands. The organizations were identified by con-
sulting two government publications (Burger & Dekker 2001; Gemeente Den
Haag, 2013). The sample was heterogeneous in type of organization, spe-
cialization, geographical scope, and history (see Table 4.1 ). While small, the
sample enabled an exploratory mapping of social media use by Dutch NGOs.
The interviews were conducted between 2015 and 2018, seven by phone
and three in person (for one NGO, we interviewed two different members).
Interviewees were involved in organizational communication, in roles such
as social media officer, PR officer, or communication advisor. The interviews
lasted between one and two hours. Introduced as an inquiry into social
media use by Dutch NGOs, each interview started with questions about
the history of the respective organization and its main programs. The next
section focused on the use of social media, with particular attention to
the NGO’s relation with various stakeholders—such as journalists, politi-
cians, or volunteers. Finally, respondents were asked their opinion about the
advantages and disadvantages of social media use in their NGOs. Impor-
tantly, participants were asked to connect social media use to the larger
communication infrastructure of the organization.
In response to the public relations literature reviewed earlier, a content
analysis of the NGOs’ online presence was added. The analysis, focused on
the interactive elements of websites and social media channels, was done
independent of the interviews, in order to allow comparisons between the
findings obtained through each of the two data collection methods. This
stage of the analysis thus started from the NGOs’ websites, moving along
to the other public online communication channels linked from there. For
websites, the analysis captured the structure of the homepage, with attention
to the presence of interactive elements (e.g., opinion poll, donate button) and
social media icons. For the social media channels, the analysis recorded the
metrics made available by the platform, along with elements such as latest
content (e.g., latest uploaded video on YouTube, number of Facebook posts
in the last month).
78 Delia Dumitrica
Table 4.1 Dutch NGOs interviewed in this project
Type Specialization Geographical scope Founded Respondent Pseudonym
Meer Democratie Nonprofit Participatory National 2015 Respondent 1
democracy
Transnational Nonprofit research and advo- Social justice International 1974 Respondent 2
Institute cacy institute
Stichting Petities Nonprofit Participatory National 2004 Respondent 3
democracy
Ons Geld Stichting Nonprofit organization Economic change National 2013 Respondent 4
associated with a citizen Respondent 5
initiative
Milieudefensie Nonprofit association with Environment National 1971 Respondent 6
55,000 members
Federatie Community-based nonprofit Environment Local 2006 Respondent 7
Broekpolder
COC Nederland Federation of nonprofits LGBTQ National/ 1946 Respondent 8
international
Stichting Lezen and Nonprofit Literacy National 2006 Respondent 9
Schrijven
Stichting Vluegeling Emergency relief fund Conflict areas and National/ 1956 Respondent 10
(nonprofit) refugees international
Social Media in NGO Strategic Communication 79
From Social Media Use to Mapping Communication Ecosystems
In PR research, NGOs’ use of social media is often examined in terms of
the organization’s ability to shift from one- to two-way communication.
One-way communication refers to the use of communication technologies
to broadcast a social actor’s idea or plans. The features of web 2.0—namely,
“openness for collaboration and interactivity” and “a requirement for
authenticity instead of pre-packaged imagery and content” (Macnamara,
2010, pp. 26–27)—recommend new forms of communication and sociality
based upon dialogue and interaction. Two-way communication is seen as
leading to relationship and community-building, and thus more desirable
for engaging an organization’s stakeholders (Cho et al. 2014; Harrison
et al., 2017).
In line with the two-way communication paradigm, the content analy-
sis revealed that the ten Dutch social change NGOs seamlessly blended
different channels within existing websites. All homepages featured social
media icons, alongside tools such as newsletter subscriptions, donation or
membership buttons, or, in a few cases, opinion polls and even a quiz. At
a bare minimum, the online communication ecosystem of organizations—
regardless of scope or size—used a website, a Facebook page, and a Twit-
ter account. Recent trends of favoring visuals over text online were also
reflected here, both in terms of using still and moving images in websites and
on social media accounts and in terms of experimenting with Instagram and/
or YouTube accounts (Guo & Saxton, 2018; Saxton & Waters, 2014). One
organization used podcasts, one had a blog, two offered RRS (or web) feeds
(however, these did not seem to work), and three had LinkedIn accounts.
Overall, however, Facebook remained the most popular social media plat-
form in terms of numbers of followers ( Figure 4.1 ).
This blending of the different channels was also visible on the social media
accounts of these organizations. While NGOs may use each channel for a
different strategic purpose such as community-building, information provi-
sion, or calls to action (Auger, 2013; Guidry et al., 2017), cross-promotion
of the same content can amplify reach and strengthen brand identity. The
Dutch NGOs in this study circulated virtually the same content across these
different social media channels. Facebook posts and tweets mirrored each
other, providing links to the website that hosted longer versions of the mes-
sages. YouTube videos and Instagram photos were also recycled in websites,
Facebook, and Twitter posts.
Understanding why this happened and how it fit with the organization’s
overall strategic communication was however difficult to establish on the
basis of a content analysis alone. The interviews, however, placed social
media use within the organization’s communication ecosystem. Similar to
Chadwick’s (2013) argument that organizations adapt to a hybrid media
system, the respondents in this study painted a picture of complementar-
ity and multifunctionality of the different communication channels used
80 Delia Dumitrica
Social media followers across the sample
Schng Vluectheling
Schng Lezen en Schrijven
COC
Federae Broekpolder
Milieudefensie
Schng Ons Geld
Schng Pees
Transnaonal Instute TNI
Meer Democrae
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Twier followers Facebook followers YouTube subscribers Instagram followers
Figure 4.1 Social media followers across the sample.
Note: Federatie Broekpolder uses Flickr, not Instagram.
intheir respective social change NGOs. The interviews thus revealed orga-
nizations’ reliance on communication channels not captured by the (albeit
limited) content analysis performed here—such as e-newsletters, leaflets, or
even telephone calls. In the Dutch context, they foregrounded the NGOs’
ongoing reliance on offline communication, mass media amplification, and
advertising in addition to their online communication ecosystem. Further-
more, the interviews also added context on factors shaping the integration of
(new) social media channels in existing communicational practices: resource
availability, the organization’s own mission and goals, and the communica-
tion preferences of the multiple publics and stakeholders that organizations
serviced.
Offline Communication Still Matters
Even though the focus of the study was on social media use, it turned out
that offline communication remained important in one way or another for
almost all of the organizations in the sample. Such offline communication
can often disappear from sight in studies focused on an organization’s use
of a specific social media platform like Twitter or Facebook. In the case of
the Dutch NGO employees interviewed here, lobbying and advocacy, per-
sonal contacts and face-to-face discussions with politicians and policymak-
ers, and physical events were seen as a crucial part of the organization’s
strategic communication. For Federatie Broekpolder—a small community
association born out of the desire to protect a recreational area—the volun-
teer tent in the recreational area was a central site of recruiting volunteers. In
Social Media in NGO Strategic Communication 81
other cases, although not asked specifically about offline means of commu-
nication, respondents spontaneously defined telephone calls, letters, fliers,
brochures, or posters as their most used communication channels in their
NGOs, highlighting the importance of analogue communication channels
in managing the relation with various types of stakeholders. Fliers and bro-
chures, for instance, were used in face-to-face events. Particularly in the case
of organizations dealing with social groups less likely to engage in extensive
use of online channels, telephone and letters were still widely used. Respon-
dent 7 (Federatie Broekpolder) explained: “[W]e also have a public that is a
bit older and don’t have [access to] a website or social media, although that
is decreasing, of course.”
The Benefits of Mass Media Coverage
In addition to this reliance on a mix of online and offline communication
channels, all social change NGOs spoke of the crucial amplification role
that mass media provided them. NGOs often “face an uphill and uneven
struggle for publicity” (Powers, 2015, p. 434). This may motivate them to
pursue good relations with journalists, but also to their online communi-
cation ecosystem to “become their own news providers” (Powers, 2015,
p. 434).
In the case of the Dutch NGOs in this study, obtaining media cover-
age was an important status-marker, as well as a boost in the number of
stakeholders. All NGOs sought to cultivate relationships with journalists,
often by phone or by email, and sent press releases regularly. Twitter, the
website, and the newsletter were also means through which organizations
cultivated their relationship with journalists, leading to press coverage.
Respondent 2 (Trans-National Institute) explained:
If we have a press event .. . I would probably just use email and our
website, not necessarily Twitter. Twitter is more for us that when we
have a press event happening or a public event that is also of interest to
policy-makers, we would be tweeting from that event.
Bigger organizations, with a dedicated press ofcer, also organized press
events, performed fact-checking, or provided background research for
journalists. Respondent 1 (Meer Democratie) explained: “We have quite
good contacts in politics, we are interviewed quite a lot in the media—and
that’s how you do it.” For Ons Geld Stichting, the big break in enrolling
stakeholder support had come from the unexpected coverage of their cause
by one of the most popular Dutch TV talk shows: “The next day I was
launched into this stream of happenings. . . . It was so revolutionary, that
this would stat the movement, because for the rst time . . . this topic was
talked about in a way that was entertaining and that really reached the big
masses” (Respondent 4, Ons Geld Stichting).
82 Delia Dumitrica
Using Advertising
Finally, the complementarity of the different communication channels used
by NGOs was also evidenced in organization’s reliance on advertising. This
reliance is quite easy to miss by looking solely at an NGO’s online presence.
The interviews revealed that several organizations used targeted advertising
on Facebook or Instagram, but also purchased advertising space in Dutch
newspapers. This advertising was not, however, aimed primarily at fundrais-
ing, but rather at amplifying particular campaigns and mobilizing publics to
participate (even though fundraising might have been one element of such
campaigns).
Stichting Vluegeling, for example, ran a controversial ad in a local free
newspaper. The ad turned an anti-immigration message on its head, direct-
ing audiences to a dedicated website presenting a petition in support of refu-
gee aid. Respondent 10 remember that “it created a lot of talk, and that was
our goal.” Other organizations were experimenting with Facebook targeted
ads, either to elicit a particular response from supporters or to recruit new
ones. Although in general Facebook ads were less expensive than newspaper
ads, they also came with their own problems:
It costs a lot of money. ... Six years ago, people looked at social media
like “oh, you can have communication for free with lots of people.” But
that’s simply not true. It does cost. ... [I]n the end we are paying with our
privacy.
(Respondent 8, COC)
Different Channels, Different Communication Goals
The adoption of new social media functionalities such as Facebook ads was
strategically approached with an eye to how such channels could help the
organization’s mission and goals. The Dutch social change NGOs in this
study often talked about how different channels addressed different commu-
nicational needs, thus targeting different stakeholders. For example, every-
one saw websites as a point of entry into the organization for any interested
stakeholder, as well as a repository of information:
For most people who have not heard of our organization, if they search
on the web, this will be the first port of call. ... The website provides
a first glimpse into who we are and what we stand for, what we try to
reach.
(Respondent 2, Trans-National Institute)
The website was the place where the organization made issue-specic opin-
ion pieces, commentary, or background research available, subsequently
sharing this content via social media.
Social Media in NGO Strategic Communication 83
Somewhat surprisingly, given the recurrent framing of social media as “par-
ticipatory media” (Ciszek, 2013), websites were seen by several respondents
in our sample as having an active, mobilizing role, particularly in its relation-
ship to the newsletter (by providing people with an option to register for
it). In line with Seo and Vu’s (2020) findings in the context of transnational
organizations, Dutch NGOs in this sample saw their websites as the most
important form of reaching out to stakeholders and enrolling their support.
Different social media platforms were also ascribed different roles in rela-
tion to the organization’s mission and programs. Echoing Lovejoy and Sax-
ton’s (2012) proposal that “dialogue is simply one essential piece of the
communication puzzle, and that information may always be the ‘base’ form
of communication” (p. 349), the NGOs in this sample regarded these com-
munication channels as multipurpose. Information provision was seen as the
means of establishing a common ground with publics, a common ground
upon which the organization could subsequently build stronger social ties
with their stakeholders. Respondent 4 (Ons Geld Stichting) explained that
the website’s informative role was the first step to mobilization: “[T]he idea
is that through knowledge, people become a catalyst for action ... not
only in the sense of going on to the streets ... but also to change the way
we think.” By contrast, social media channels like Facebook were used to
engage the wider community and to offer them a platform for discussion.
Staying on Top of Fashions and Trends
The interviews further complexified the results of the content analysis of
online communication by revealing the tension between organizations’ desire
to stay relevant by incorporating the newest communication channel of the
day and their available resources for communication. Respondent 8 (COC
Nederland) recounted the organization’s experiment with Facebook ads:
It is necessary to ... present yourself on all those different social media
channels, because otherwise you ... aren’t visible enough.
The ten NGOs in the sample were aware of and tried to respond to trends
and fashions in the use of communication channels in the Netherlands and
abroad (Sheombar et al., 2015). Ideas such as “if you do not have a web-
site, you do not exist,” “journalists and politicians are the key audience of
Twitter,” “Facebook is for the general public,” “Instagram use is going up,”
“youth prefer Instagram,” or “Snapchat and WhatsApp are growing fast”
were frequently brought up in the interviews.
Social media adoption by NGOs is shaped by organizational features
(e.g., strategies, governance, leadership, capacity, and resources) along with
external resource environments (Nah & Saxton, 2013; Seo & Vu, 2020).
The explanations offered by the Dutch NGOs in this study confirmed the
importance of the external resource environment, speaking to perceived
84 Delia Dumitrica
pressures to go where the different publics (e.g., beneficiaries, journalists,
politicians, etc.) are in order to remain relevant within the broader com-
munication ecosystem.
Addressing Multiple Publics: The Use of Campaigns
Where the two-way communication paradigm in the public relations lit-
erature often assesses NGOs’ social media adoption against their ability
to engage in a dialogue with their publics, it was precisely this dialogical
dimension that post most problems for the Dutch NGOs in this study. While
respondents were familiar with the wider discourses about the participatory
nature of social media, their practical experience had taught them restraint
(see also Kenix, 2008; Obar, 2014). The potential was there, but mobilizing
people for action or even getting new supporters was often difficult and
required more than reliance on social media channels. For instance, face-to-
face events or the amplifying role of mass media often seemed more effective
at bringing in more support from the wider audience.
Furthermore, organizations were aware of the multiple stakeholders they
were addressing via social media platforms, and as such were developing
strategies for navigating multiple audiences (Marwick & boyd, 2010). One
such notable strategy brought forth by the interviews was the development
of a program- or campaign-specific online presence. The limited content
analysis performed here could not capture the emergence of affiliated web-
sites or social media accounts. Bigger organizations seemed to be more
involved in running different campaigns, often running in parallel, as well
as programs targeting different stakeholders. Respondent 8 (COC Neder-
land) spoke of how the different campaigns put forth by the organization
were often treated as “brands” getting their distinct online presence. Respon-
dent 6 (Milieudefensie) elaborated the communication strategy for each of
the four projects the organization was running at the time of the interview.
One, for example, included a petition, a dedicated newsletter, and a Facebook
page—all where distinct from the organization’s own communication strat-
egy. Thus, although an organization might not be dialogic in one website or
social media account, they could opt for this strategy as a component of a
specific campaign or program.
This mix of communication channels was, thus, constantly changing in
relation to current affairs, but also to the NGO’s specific agenda. Respon-
dent 10 (Stichting Vluegeling) explained that their organization was always
revising its communication strategy, looking into how new communication
channels can support its mission, strategy, and goals.
Conclusion
This chapter highlights the importance of studying social media use
within the context of NGOs’ communication ecosystems. Empirically,
Social Media in NGO Strategic Communication 85
the chapter took an exploratory approach to mapping how Dutch social
change NGOs integrate social media in their communication practices.
Theoretically, the chapter juxtaposed a multi-sited, ecosystem lens to the
prevailing PR paradigm examining the dialogical use of one or two social
media channels. The findings of ten in-depth interviews with communica-
tion officers or advisors were compared with those of a content analysis
of the organizations’ online presence in order to understand what can
be learned about NGOs’ social media use with each method. The com-
parison brought forth a more nuanced picture of social media adoption
as strategically inserted within the organization’s wider communication
ecosystem. While being present on Facebook or Twitter was certainly
important for the organizations in the sample, such channels were only
a component of their online communication visible by means of a con-
tent analysis. In fact, organizations seamlessly blended online and offline
communication, recognizing the importance of seemingly outdated tech-
niques such as calling supporters on the phone, spreading leaflets, or
sending e-newsletters.
The communication ecosystem approach was also useful in drawing
attention to the fluidity of organizations’ communication mix. The organi-
zations in this sample were monitoring the larger communicative practices
of the general public and experimenting with the newest popular platform
in order to remain relevant. Of relevance here was the practice of develop-
ing campaign-specific brands with their dedicated online channels. These
could be easily missed by focusing solely on an NGO’s official Facebook or
Twitter account.
Not all experiments with campaign brands or social media adoption were
successful. The interviews were able to add richness to the content analy-
sis of an organization’s online presence by bringing forth the importance
of existing capitals—social, financial, symbolic—in an NGO’s willingness
and capability to experiment with new communication channels and genres.
Furthermore, the interviews revealed how external factors such as current
affairs or partnerships and collaborations with other civil society actors
were also shaping NGOs’ communication strategies. Yet, even for NGOs
with dedicated communication teams, the investment required to include
additional social media channels in the communication mix stretched the
organization’s human and financial resources.
The ecosystem approach illustrated here also brought forth the ongoing
centrality of mass media and of face-to-face communication with decision-
making elites. In interviews, NGO representatives brought up the role of
mass media coverage or advertising in the successful mobilization of their
stakeholders. This appears consistent with the larger communication eco-
system in the Netherlands, where mass media remain important to citizens’
information and socialization practices. Social media use does not take
place in a vacuum. It develops within and remains tributary to the organiza-
tion’s communication ecosystem. This suggests that the integration of new
86 Delia Dumitrica
communication channels remains fluid, changing with needs and resources,
but also with the life cycle of a program or campaign. Capturing this fluidity
in a way that pays heed to the contextual factors shaping it requires a multi-
sited and nuanced approach in the study of social change NGOs’ strategic
communication.
References
Adjei, D. K. A., Annor-Frempong, F., & Bosompem, M. (2016). Use of social
networking websites among NGOs in the Greater Accra Region of Ghana. Public
Relations Review, 42(5), 920–928.
Auger, G. A. (2013). Fostering democracy through social media: Evaluating diametri-
cally opposed nonprofit advocacy organizations’ use of Facebook, Twitter, and
YouTube. Public Relations Review, 39, 369–376.
Bastos, M. T., Mercea, D., & Charpentier, A. (2015). Tents, tweets, and events: The
interplay between ongoing protests and social media. Journal of Communication,
65(2), 320–350.
Bekkers, V., Beunders, H., Edwards, A., & Moody, R. (2011). New media, micromo-
bilization, and political agenda setting: Crossover effects in political mobilization
and media usage. The Information Society, 27(4), 209–219.
Bekkers, R. H. F. P., Schuyt, T. N. M., & Gouwenberg, B. M. (2015). Giving in
the Netherlands: Donations, bequests, sponsoring and volunteering. Amsterdam:
Reed Business.
Bortree, D.S., & Seltzer, T. (2009). Dialogic strategies and outcomes: An analysis
of environmental advocacy groups’ Facebook profiles. Public Relations Review,
35(3), 317–319.
Brandsen, T., & Pape, U. (2015). The Netherlands: The paradox of government–
nonprofit partnerships. Voluntas, 26, 2267–2282.
Burger, A., & Dekker, P. (2001). The nonprofit sector in the Netherlands. Working
document 70. Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau, Den Haag. Retrieved December
27, 2019, from https://www.scp.nl/english/Publications/Publications_by_year/
Publications_2001/The_nonprofit_sector_in_the_Netherlands
Burger, A., Dekker, P., Toepler, S., Anheier, H. K., & Salamon, L.M. (1999). Chapter 7:
Netherlands. In L. M. Salamon, H. K.Anheier, R. List, S.Toepler, S.W. Sokolowski, &
Associates (Eds.), Global civil society: Dimensions of the nonprofit sector (pp.
145–162). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies.
Burger, A., & Veldheer, V. (2001). The growth of the nonprofit sector in the Nether-
lands. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30(2), 221–246.
Campbell, D., & Lambright, K. (2018). Nonprofit organizations’ use of the internet
and social media. In A. Farazmand (Ed.), Global encyclopaedia of public admin-
istration, public policy, and governance. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.
1007/978-3-319-31816-5_3302-1
Chadwick, A. (2013). The hybrid media system. Politics and power. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Cho, M., Schweickart, T., & Haase, A. (2014). Public engagement with nonprofit
organizations on Facebook. Public Relations Review, 40, 565–567.
Ciszek, E. (2013). Advocacy and Amplification: Nonprofit Outreach and Empower-
ment Through Participatory Media. Public Relations Journal, 7(2), 187–213.
Social Media in NGO Strategic Communication 87
Dumitrica, D., & Achterberg, E. (2017). Digital activism and the civic subject
position: A study of the Ons Geld (Our Money) citizen initiative in the Nether-
lands. In P. Parychek & N. Edelmann (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International
Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government CeDEM17 (pp. 229–242).
Washington: Los Alamitos.
Edwards, H.R., & Hoefer, R. (2010). Are social work advocacy groups using web 2.0
effectively? Journal of Policy Practice, 9(3–4), 220–239.
Encyclopædia Britannica (2019). Ecosystem. Published February 13, 2019. Retrieved
July 24, 2019, from https://www.britannica.com/science/ecosystem
Gemeente Den Haag (2013). Guide to International Organisations in The Hague.
The Hague.
Greenberg, J., & MacAulay, M. (2009). NPO 2.0? Exploring the web presence of
environmental nonprofit organizations in Canada. Global Media Journal—Canadian
Edition, 2(1), 63 - 88.
Guo, C., & Saxton, G. D. (2018). Speaking and Being Heard: How Nonprofit Advo-
cacy Organizations Gain Attention on Social Media. Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Quarterly, 47(1), 5–26.
Guidry, J. P. D., Jin, Y., Orr, C. A., Messnera, M., & Meganck, S. (2017). Ebola on
Instagram and Twitter: How health organizations address the health crisis in their
social media engagement. Public Relations Review, 43, 477–486.
Harrison, V.S., Xiao, A., Ott, H. K., & Bortree, D. (2017). Calling all volunteers:
The role of stewardship and involvement in volunteer-organization relationships.
Public Relations Review, 43(4), 872–881.
Inauen, S., & Schoeneborn, D. (2014). Twitter and its Usage for Dialogic Stakeholder
Communication by MNCs and NGOs. In R. Tench, W. Sun, & B. Jones (Eds.),
Communicating Corporate Social Responsibility: Perspectives and Practice (pp.
283–310). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.
Janssen Danyi, C., & Chaudhri, V. (2018). Strategic social media management for
NGOs. In J. Servaes (Ed.), Handbook of Communication for Development and
Social Change. Singapore: Springer.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7035-8_72-1
Kenix, L. J. (2008). Nonprofit organisations. Perceptions and uses of the Internet.
Television and New Media, 9(5), 407–428.
Kim, D., Chun, H., Kwak, Y., & Nam, Y. (2014). The employment of dialogic prin-
ciples in website, Facebook, and Twitter platforms of environmental nonprofit
organizations. Social Science Computer Review, 32(5), 590–605.
Koch, D. J., & Loman, B. (2009). Geographical choices of Dutch NGOs: Orthodoxies
and realities. In P. Hoebink (Ed.), The Netherlands yearbook on international
cooperation 2008 (pp. 51 – 82) . Assen: Van Gorcum.
Lovejoy, K., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Information, community, and action: How
nonprofit organizations use social media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Com-
munication, 17, 337 - 353.
Lovejoy, K., Waters, R. D., & Saxton, G. (2012). Engaging stakeholders through
Twitter: How nonprofit organizations are getting more out of 140 characters or
less. Public Relations Review, 38, 313–318.
Macnamara, J. (2010). Public relations and the social: How practitioners are using,
or abusing, social media. Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, 11(1), 21–39.
Marwick, A., & boyd, d. (2010). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter
users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New media & society, 13(1),
114–133.
88 Delia Dumitrica
Mattoni, A. (2017). A situated understanding of digital technologies in social move-
ments: Media ecology and media practice approaches. Social Movement Studies,
16(4), 494–505.
Mattoni, A., & Treré, E. (2014). Media practices, mediation processes, and mediati-
zation in the study of social movements. Communication Theory, 24(3), 252–271.
Meijer, M., de Bakker, F. G., Smit, J. H., & Schuyt, T. (2006). Corporate giving in
the Netherlands 1995-2003: Exploring the amounts involved and the motivations
for donating. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing,
11(1), 13–28.
Morell, M. F. (2012). The Free Culture and 15M movements in Spain: Composition,
social networks and synergies. Social Movement Studies, 11(3–4), 386–392.
Nah, S., & Saxton, G. D. (2013). Modeling the adoption and use of social media by
nonprofit organizations. New Media & Society, 15(2), 294–313.
Namisango, F., & Kang, K. (2019). Organization-public relationships on social
media: The role of relationship strength, cohesion and symmetry. Computers in
Human Behavior, 101, 22–29
Obar, J. A. (2014). Canadian advocacy 2.0: An analysis of social media adoption and
perceived affordances by advocacy groups looking to advance activism in Canada.
Canadian Journal of Communication, 39(2), 211 - 233.
Powers, M. (2015). Contemporary NGO–journalist relations: Reviewing and evalu-
ating an emergent area of research. Sociology Compass, 9(6), 427–437.
Reuters Institute (2018). Media Monitor 2018. Retrieved July 24, 2019, from
https://www.cvdm.nl/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Mediamonitor-2018-Reuters-
Institute-Digital-News-Report-Nederland-2018.pdf
Ricciutti, E., & Calò, F. (2018). NGOs and governance. In A. Farazmand (Ed.), Global
encyclopaedia of public administration, public policy, and governance. Cham:
Springer. https://doi-org.eur.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_3213-1
Saxton, G. D., & Guo, C. (2014). Online stakeholder targeting and the acquisition
of social media capital. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Marketing, 19(4), 286–300
Saxton, G. D., & Waters, R. D. (2014). What do stakeholders like on Facebook?
Examining public reactions to nonprofit organizations’ informational, promo-
tional, and community building messages. Journal of Public Relations Research,
26(3), 280 – 299.
Schuyt, T.N.M., Gouwenberg, B.M., & Bekkers, R.H.F.P. (2013). Giving in the Neth-
erlands 2013: Donations, Bequests, Sponsorship and Volunteering. Amsterdam:
Reed Business.
Schulpen, L. (2016). The NGO funding game. The case of the Netherlands. Nijmegen:
CIDIN, Radboud University.
Seo, H., & Vu, H. T. (2020). Transnational nonprofits’ social media use: A survey of
communications professionals and an analysis of organizational characteristics.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(4), 849–870.
Seo, H., Kim, J. Y., & Yang, S. (2009). Global activism and new media: A study
of transnational NGOs’ online public relations. Public Relations Review, 35(2),
123–126.
Sheombar, A., Urquhart, C., Ndhlovu, T., & Ravesteijn, P. (2015). Social Media in the
Context of Development: A Case Study of Dutch NGOs. ECIS 2015 Completed
Research Papers. Paper 167. Retrieved July 23, 2019, from http://aisel.aisnet.org/
ecis2015_cr/167
Social Media in NGO Strategic Communication 89
Svensson, P.G., Mahoney, T. Q., & Hambrick, M. E. (2015). Twitter as a communi-
cation tool for nonprofits: a study of sport-for-development organizations. Non-
profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(6), 1086–1106.
Taylor, M., & Kent, M. L. (2014). Dialogic engagement: Clarifying foundational
concepts. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 384–398.
Treré, E. (2018). The sublime of digital activism: Hybrid media ecologies and the new
grammar of protest. Journalism & Communication Monographs, 20(2), 137–148.
Treré, E., & Mattoni, A. (2016). Media ecologies and protest movements: Main
perspectives and key lessons. Information, Communication & Society, 19(3),
290–306.
Ugur, Z. B. (2018). Donate more, be happier! Evidence from the Netherlands. Applied
Research Quality Life, 13(1), 157–177.
Verhoeven, I., & Tonkens, E. (2013).Talking active citizenship: Framing welfare state
reform in England and the Netherlands. Social Policy & Society, 12(3), 415–426.
Waters, R.D., & Jamal, J.Y. (2011). Tweet, tweet, tweet: A content analysis of non-
profit organizations’ Twitter updates. Public Relations Review, 37(3), 321–324.
Waters, R.D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A., & Lucas, J. (2009). Engaging stakeholders
through social networking: How nonprofit organizations are using Facebook.
Public Relations Review, 35(2), 102–106.
Wiepking, P., & van Leeuwen, M. H. D. (2013). Picturing Generosity: Explaining
the Success of National Campaigns in the Netherlands. Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Quarterly, 42(2), 262–284.
