Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Stakeholder Communication in 140 Characters or Less: A Study of Community Sport Foundations

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Community sport foundations (CSFs), like other non-profit organizations, are increasingly employing social media such as Twitter to communicate their mission and activities to their diverse stakeholder groups. However, the way these CSFs utilize social media for communicating such practices remains unclear. Through a mixed-method approach of content analysis of tweets from 22 CSFs established by English professional football clubs and interviews with key individuals within these CSFs (n = 7), this study examines the extent to which CSFs’ core activities are being communicated through Twitter and identifies the strategies employed for doing so. Reflecting the target audiences CSFs are seeking to reach through Twitter and the challenges associated with communication about projects involving marginalized groups, tweets largely concern programs related to sports participation and education. The most frequently employed communication strategy is to inform, rather than interact or engage with stakeholders. However, CSFs with higher organizational capacity attempt to go beyond mere informing towards engaging with stakeholder groups that relate to their social agenda, highlighting the importance of trained and dedicated social media personnel in optimizing CSFs’ use of Twitter for communication.

Résumé

Les fondations sportives communautaires (FSC), à l’instar d’autres organismes sans but lucratif, utilisent de plus en plus les médias sociaux comme Twitter, pour communiquer leur mission et leurs activités à leurs différents groupes d’intervenants. Les moyens que ces FSC utilisent pour communiquer ne sont toutefois pas clairs. Par l’intermédiaire d’une approche de méthode mixte d’analyse de contenu des tweets de 22 FSC établies par des clubs anglais de football professionnel et des entrevues menées auprès de représentants clés desdites FSC (n = 7), la présente étude évalue la mesure dans laquelle les activités de base des FSC sont communiquées par Twitter, et elle identifie les stratégies utilisées pour ce faire. Reflétant les publics cibles que les FSC tentent d’atteindre par Twitter et les défis associés à la communication de projets impliquant des groupes marginalisés, les tweets portent surtout sur des programmes associés à la participation et à l’éducation sportives. La stratégie de communication la plus souvent employée sert à informer plutôt qu’à interagir ou dialoguer avec les intervenants. Les FSC possédant une forte capacité organisationnelle tentent cependant d’aller plus loin et d’engager des groupes d’intervenants associés à leur programme social, soulevant ainsi l’importance de posséder du personnel des médias sociaux formé et spécialisé capable d’optimiser l’usage que les FSC font de Twitter pour communiquer.

Zusammenfassung

Gemeindesport-Stiftungen nutzen, genau wie andere gemeinnützige Organisationen, vermehrt soziale Medien wie Twitter, um ihre diversen Stakeholder-Gruppen über ihren Zweck und ihre Aktivitäten zu informieren. Allerdings ist die Art und Weise, in der diese Stiftungen soziale Medien zur Mitteilung ihrer Praktiken nutzen, bislang unklar. Mittels der Anwendung eines Mixed-Methods-Ansatzes auf die Inhaltsanalyse von tweets von 22 Gemeindesport-Stiftungen, die von englischen professionellen Fußballvereinen gegründet wurden, und von Interviews mit wichtigen Personen innerhalb dieser Stiftungen (n = 7) untersucht die vorliegende Studie den Umfang, in dem die Kernaktivitäten der Stiftungen über Twitter mitgeteilt werden, und ermittelt die dabei angewandten Strategien. Die tweets betreffen weitgehend Programme für Sportbeteiligung und Sportunterricht und spiegeln die Zielgruppen wieder, die die Stiftungen über Twitter zu erreichen versuchen, sowie die Probleme im Zusammenhang mit der Kommunikation über Projekte, die Randgruppen involvieren. Die häufigst angewandte Kommunikationsstrategie ist die Weitergabe von Informationen, nicht der Austausch mit den Stakeholdern. Jedoch versuchen Gemeindesport-Stiftungen mit größerer Organisationskapazität, über die bloße Informationsweitergabe hinaus den Kontakt zu Stakeholder-Gruppen zu pflegen, die sich mit ihrer sozialen Agenda identifizieren, was die Bedeutung von ausgebildetem und speziell vorgesehenen Social-Media-Personal für die optimale Nutzung von Twitter zur Kommunikation hervorhebt.

Resumen

Las fundaciones deportivas comunitarias (CSF, por sus siglas en inglés), al igual que otras organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro (NPO, por sus siglas en inglés), emplean cada vez más los medios sociales, tales como Twitter, para comunicar su misión y sus actividades a sus diversos grupos interesados. Sin embargo, la forma en la que estas CSF utilizan los medios sociales para comunicar dichas prácticas sigue sin ser claro. Mediante un enfoque con método mixto de análisis de contenido de tweets de 22 CSF establecidas por clubes de fútbol ingleses profesionales y de entrevistas con individuos claves de dichas CSF (n = 7), el presente estudio examina la medida en que las actividades fundamentales de las CSF están siendo comunicadas a través de Twitter e identifica las estrategias empleadas para hacerlo. Reflejando las audiencias objetivo a las que tratan de llegar las CSF a través de Twitter y los desafíos asociados a la comunicación sobre proyectos que implican a grupos marginados, los tweets se refieren en gran medida a programas relacionados con la participación deportiva y la educación. La estrategia de comunicación empleada con más frecuencia es informar, en lugar de interactuar o relacionarse con las partes interesadas. Sin embargo, las CSF con mayor capacidad organizativa tratan de ir más allá de la mera información implicando a los grupos interesados que tienen relación con su agenda social, subrayando la importancia de personal de medios sociales dedicados y formados en la optimización del uso de Twitter para comunicarse por parte de las CSF.

Chinese

与其他非盈利组织(NPO)一样,社区体育基金会(CSF)正越来越采用Twitter等社交媒体与各种利益相关方群体沟通其使命和活动。然而,仍不太清楚这些CSF采用社交媒体来以沟通此类做法的方式。通过对英国职业足球俱乐部22家CSF的tweets进行的混合内容分享分析方法,以及这些CSF主要人员的采访(n = 7),本研究探求通过Twitter沟通CSF核心活动的范围,同时确定为此所采用的策略。这反映出CSF正在寻求通过Twitter覆盖目标受众,就项目展开沟通相关的挑战涉及边缘化群体,推文主要涉及体育参与和教育相关的计划。最常采用的沟通策略是通知,而不是与利益相关方交互或互动。然而,组织能力更高的CSF不仅仅尝试进行通知,而是与利益相关方群体沟通社会日程、突出经培训的专门社交媒体人员在优化CSF使用Twitter进行沟通方面的重要性。

Arabic

مؤسسات رياضة المجتمع (CSF)، مثل المنظمات الغير ربحية الأخرى (NPOs)، تستخدم بشكل متزايد وسائل التواصل الإجتماعي مثل تويتر لنقل المهمةا لخاصة بهم وأنشطتهم لمجموعات أصحاب المصالح المتنوعة. مع ذلك، فإن طريقة هذه المؤسسات (CSF) في إستخدام وسائل التواصل الإجتماعي لتوصيل مثل هذه الممارسات لا تزال غير واضحة. من خلال نهج مختلط من أسلوب تحليل المحتوى من تغريدات من 22 من (CSFs) التي وضعتها أندية المحترفين لكرة القدم الإنجليزية والمقابلات مع الأفراد الأساسيين في هذه المؤسسات (CSF) (ن = 7)، تبحث هذه الدراسة إلى أي مدى يتم الإبلاغ عن أنشطة المؤسسات (CSF) الأساسية من خلال تويتر وتحديد الإستراتيجيات المستخدمة للقيام بذلك . يعكس الجمهور المستهدف وتسعى المؤسسات (CSF) الوصول إليها عن طريق تويتر والتحديات المرتبطة بالتواصل حول المشاريع التي تشمل الفئات المهمشة، التغريدات إلى حد كبير تسبب قلق للبرامج المتصلة بالمشاركة الرياضية والتعليم. معظم إستراتيجية التواصل المستخدمة في كثير من الأحيان هي الإخبار، بدلا” من التفاعل أو التواصل مع أصحاب المصلحة. مع ذلك، المؤسسات (CSF) مع إرتفاع القدرة التنظيمية تحاول الذهاب أبعد من مجرد الوشاية نحو الإنخراط مع مجموعات أصحاب المصالح التي تتعلق بجدول إجتماعي، تسليط الضوء على أهمية موظفي وسائل التواصل الإجتماعي المدربين والمتفانين في عملهم في إستخدام الأمثل للمؤسسات (CSF) من تويتر للتواصل.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abeza, G., & O’Reilly, N. (2014). Social media platforms’ use in building stakeholder relationships. Journal of Applied Sport Management, 6(3), 103–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abeza, G., O’Reilly, N., Séguin, B., & Nzindukiyimana, O. (2015). Social media scholarship in sport management research: A critical review. Journal of Sport Management, 29(6), 601–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abzug, R., & Webb, J. N. (1999). Relationships between nonprofit and for-profit organizations: A stakeholder perspective. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(4), 416–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anagnostopoulos, C., Byers, T., & Shilbury, D. (2014). Corporate social responsibility in professional team sport organizations: Towards a theory of decision-making. European Sport Management Quarterly, 14(3), 259–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anagnostopoulos, C., & Shilbury, D. (2013). Implementing corporate social responsibility in English football: Towards multi-theoretical integration. Sport, Business, and Management: An International Journal, 3(4), 268–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andriof, J., & Waddock, S. (2002). Unfolding stakeholder engagement. In J. Andriof, S. Waddock, B. Husted, & S. S. Rahman (Eds.), Unfolding stakeholder thinking: Theory, responsibility and engagement (pp. 19–42). Sheffield: Greenleaf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auger, G. A. (2013). Fostering democracy through social media: Evaluating diametrically opposed non-profit advocacy organizations’ use of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. Public Relations Review, 39(4), 369–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auger, A. G. (2014). Rhetorical framing: Examining the message structure of nonprofit organizations on Twitter. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 19, 239–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babiak, K., & Thibault, L. (2009). Challenges in multiple cross-sector partnerships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(1), 117–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balduck, A. L., Lucidarme, S., Marlier, M., & Willem, A. (2015). Organizational capacity and organizational ambition in nonprofit and voluntary sports clubs. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(5), 2023–2043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bason, T., & Anagnostopoulos, C. (2015). Corporate social responsibility through sport: A longitudinal study of the FTSE100 companies. Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal, 5(3), 218–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beasley, T. M., & Schumacker, R. E. (1995). Multiple regression approach to analyzing contingency tables: Post hoc and planned comparison procedures. The Journal of Experimental Education, 64(1), 79–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Ner, A., & Van Hoomissen, T. (1991). Nonprofits in the mixed economy: A demand and supply analysis. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 62(4), 519–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bingham, T., & Walters, G. (2013). Financial sustainability within UK charities: Community sport trusts and corporate social responsibility partnerships. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 24(3), 606–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruns, A., Weller, K., & Harrington, S. (2014). Twitter and sports: Football fandom in emerging and established markets. In K. Weller, A. Bruns, J. Burgess, M. Mahrt, & C. Puschmann (Eds.), Twitter and society (pp. 263–280). New York: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnett, C. (2009). Engaging sport-for-development for social impact in the South African context. Sport in Society, 12, 1192–1205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. A., Lambright, K. T., & Wells, C. J. (2014). Looking for friends, fans and followers? Social media use in public and nonprofit human services. Public Administration Review, 74(5), 655–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Choosing among five traditions. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, L., Edwards, C., Fraser, K. L., Gudelsky, S., Holmquist, J., Thornton, K., et al. (2010). Adoption of social media for public relations by non-profit organizations. Public Relations Review, 36(1), 90–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DCMS. (2012). Plans for the legacy from the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/plans-for-the-legacy-from-the-2012-olympic-and-paralympic-games. Accessed 27 July 2016.

  • Doherty, A., Misener, K., & Cuskelly, G. (2014). Toward a multidimensional framework of capacity in community sport clubs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(2), 124S–142S.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagleman, A. N. (2013). Acceptance, motivations, and usage of social media as a marketing communications tool amongst employees of sport national governing bodies. Sport Management Review, 16(4), 488–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Earnheardt, A. C., Haridakis, P., & Hugenberg, B. (2012). Sports fans, identity and socialization: Exploring the fandemonium. UK: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • EFL. (2015). Football League Trust Annual Report. Available at: http://www.efl.com/global/trustannualreport.aspx. Accessed 1 July 2016.

  • Eisinger, P. (2002). Organizational capacity and organizational effectiveness among street-level food assistance programs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(1), 115–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emery, R., & Weed, M. (2006). Fighting for survival? The financial management of football clubs outside the ‘top flight’ in England. Managing Leisure, 11(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etter, M. (2014). Broadcasting, reacting, engaging—three strategies for CSR communication in Twitter. Journal of Communication Management, 18(4), 322–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Filo, K., Lock, D., & Karg, A. (2015). Sport and social media research: A review. Sport Management Review, 18(2), 166–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Football League Trust. (2015). Tackling society’s greater goals. Available at: http://www.football-league.co.uk/documents/flt-annual-report-201314-final-041214549-2123850.pdf. Accessed 5 May 2015.

  • Garcia-Perez, M. A., & Nunez-Anton, V. (2003). Cellwise residual analysis in two-way contingency tables. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(5), 825–839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York, NY: CBS College Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guo, C., & Saxton, D. G. (2014). Tweeting social change: How social media are changing nonprofit advocacy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(1), 57–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habibi, M. R., Laroche, M., & Richard, M. O. (2014). The roles of brand community and community engagement in building brand trust on social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 152–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, M., Andrukow, A., Barr, C., Brock, K., de Wit, M., Embuldeniya, D., et al. (2003). The capacity to serve. A qualitative study of the challenges facing Canada’s nonprofit and voluntary organizations. Toronto: Canadian Centre for Philanthropy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, E. M., & Svensson, G. P. (2015). Gainline Africa: A case study of sport-for-development organizations and the role of organizational relationship building via social media. International Journal of Sport Communication, 8(2), 233–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayhurst, L., & Frisby, W. (2010). Inevitable tensions: Swiss and Canadian sport for development NGO perspectives on partnerships with high performance sport. European Sport Management Quarterly, 10(1), 75–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hovemann, G., Breitbarth, T., & Walzel, S. (2011). Beyond sponsorship? Corporate social responsibility in English, German and Swiss top national league football clubs. Journal of Sponsorship, 4, 338–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, E. S. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamali, D., & Keshishian, T. (2009). Uneasy alliances: Lessons learned from partnerships between businesses and NGOs in the context of CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(2), 277–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, H., & James, L. (2012). It’s not just a game: Community work in the UK football industry and approaches to corporate social responsibility. The ESRC Centre for business relationship, accountability, sustainability and society. Cardiff University.

  • Kolyperas, D., Anagnostopoulos, C., Chadwick, S., & Sparks, L. (2016). Applying a communicating vessels framework to CSR value co-creation: Empirical evidence from professional team sport organizations. Journal of Sport Management,. doi:10.1123/jsm.2016-0032.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolyperas, D., & Sparks, L. (2011). Corporate social responsibility communications in the G-25 football clubs. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 10(1/2), 83–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koschmann, A. M., Kuhn, T., & Pfarrer, D. M. (2012). A communicative framework of value in cross-sector partnerships. Academy of Management Review, 37(3), 332–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laroche, M., Habibi, M. R., Richard, M. O., & Sankaranarayanan, R. (2012). The effects of social media based brand communities on brand community markers, value creation practices, brand trust and brand loyalty. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1755–1767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liket, C. K., & Maas, K. (2015). Nonprofit organizational effectiveness analysis of best practices. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(2), 268–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, S. J., & Peña, J. (2011). Are you following me? A content analysis of TV networks’ brand communication on twitter. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 12(1), 17–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. (2002). Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research, 28(4), 587–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovejoy, K., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Information, community, and action: How nonprofit organizations use social media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(3), 337–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovejoy, K., Waters, R. D., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Engaging stakeholders through Twitter: How nonprofit organizations are getting more out of 140 characters or less. Public Relations Review, 38(2), 313–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mamic, L. I., & Almaraz, I. A. (2013). How the larger corporations engage with stakeholders through Twitter. International Journal of Market Research, 55(6), 851–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, M. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family Practice, 13(6), 522–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meng, M. D., Stavros, C., & Westberg, K. (2015). Engaging fans through social media: Implications for team identification. Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal, 5(3), 199–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Misener, K., & Babiak, K. (2015). A new ‘arena’: Social responsibility through nonprofit community sport. Paper presented at the North American Society for Sport Management Conference, June 2–6, Ottawa, Canada.

  • Misener, K., & Doherty, A. (2009). A case of organizational capacity in nonprofit community sport. Journal of Sport Management, 23(4), 457–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Misener, K., & Doherty, A. (2013). Understanding capacity through the processes and outcomes of interorganizational relationships in nonprofit community sport organizations. Sport Management Review, 16(2), 135–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Misener, K., & Doherty, A. (2014). In support of sport: Examining the relationship between community sport organizations and sponsors. Sport Management Review, 17(4), 493–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nah, S., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Modeling the adoption and use of social media by non-profit organizations. New Media & Society, 15(2), 294–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. New York (NY): Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, N., Berger, I., Hernandez, T., Parent, M., & Sequin, B. (2012). Understanding adolescent sport participation through online social media. Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal, 2(1), 69–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parganas, P., Anagnostopoulos, C., & Chadwick, S. (2015). “You’ll never tweet alone”: Managing sports brands through social media. Journal of Brand Management, 22(7), 552–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poynter, R. (2010). The handbook of online social media research: Tools and techniques for market researchers. UK: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, M. (2009). For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 856–862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinton, S., & Fennemore, P. (2013). Missing a strategic marketing trick? The use of online social networks by UK charities. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 18(1), 36–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, A., Roche, N., Jones, C., & Munday, M. (2016). What is the value of a Premier League football club to a regional economy? European Sport Management Quarterly. doi:10.1080/16184742.2016.1188840.

  • Rybalko, S., & Seltzer, T. (2010). Dialogic communication in 140 characters or less: How fortune 500 companies engage stakeholders using twitter. Public Relations Review, 36(4), 336–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saxton, G. D., & Waters, R. D. (2014). What do stakeholders like on Facebook? Examining public reactions to nonprofit organizations’ informational, promotional, and community-building messages. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(3), 280–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharpe, E. K. (2006). Resources at the grassroots of recreation: Organizational capacity and quality of experience in a community sport organization. Leisure Sciences, 28(4), 385–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, S., & Allen, J. (2006). “It basically is a fairly loose arrangement … and that works out fine, really”. Analysing the dynamics of an inter-organizational partnership. Sport Management Review, 9(3), 203–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen, B., & Bissell, K. (2013). Social media, social me: A content analysis of beauty companies’ use of Facebook in marketing and branding. Journal of Promotion Management, 19(5), 629–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sparvero, E., & Kent, A. (2014). Sport team nonprofit organizations: Are sports doing well at “Doing Good”? Journal of Applied Sport Management, 6(4), 98–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stavros, C., Meng, M. D., Westberg, K., & Farrelly, F. (2014). Understanding fan motivation for interacting on social media. Sport Management Review, 17(4), 455–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svensson, P. G., & Hambrick, M. E. (2016). ‘‘Pick and choose our battles’’—Understanding organizational capacity in a sport for development and peace organization. Sport Management Review, 19(2), 120–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svensson, G. P., Mahoney, Q. T., & Hambrick, E. M. (2015). Twitter as a communication tool for nonprofits: A study of sport-for-development organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(6), 1086–1106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, P. (2011). Torkildsen’s sport and leisure management (6th ed.). Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research methods: The search for meanings. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, A.-J., Martin, A. J., Gee, S., & Eagleman, A. N. (2014). Examining the development of a social media strategy for a national sport organisation. Journal of Applied Sport Management, 6(2), 42–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorpe, H., & Rinehart, R. (2012). Action sport NGOs in a neo-liberal context: The cases of Skateistan and Surf Aid International. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 37(2), 115–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Puyvelde, S., Caers, R., Du Bois, C., & Jegers, M. (2012). The governance of nonprofit organizations: Integrating agency theory with stakeholder and stewardship theories. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(3), 431–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, M., Kent, A., & Vincent, J. (2010). Communicating socially responsible initiatives: An analysis of US professional teams. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 19(4), 187–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walters, G., & Chadwick, S. (2009). Corporate citizenship in football: Delivering strategic benefits through stakeholder engagement. Management Decision, 47(1), 51–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walters, G., & Panton, M. (2014). Corporate social responsibility in professional football. Soccer and Society, 15(6), 828–846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walters, G., & Tacon, R. (2010). Corporate social responsibility in sport: Stakeholder management in the UK football industry. Journal of Management and Organisation, 14(4), 566–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watanabe, N., Yan, G., & Soebbing, P. (2016). Major league baseball and Twitter usage: The economics of social media use. Journal of Sport Management, 30(2), 207–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waters, R. D., & Feneley, K. L. B. (2013). Virtual stewardship in the age of new media: Have nonprofit organizations’ moved beyond Web 1.0 strategies? International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 18(3), 216–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waters, R. D., & Jamal, J. Y. (2011). Tweet, tweet, tweet: A content analysis of nonprofit organizations’ Twitter updates. Public Relations Review, 37(3), 321–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waters, R. D., & Williams, J. M. (2011). Squawking, tweeting, cooing, and hooting: Analyzing the communication patterns of government agencies on Twitter. Journal of Public Affairs, 11(4), 353–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wicker, P., & Breuer, C. (2013). Understanding the importance of organizational resources to explain organizational problems: Evidence from nonprofit sport clubs in Germany. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 24(2), 461–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Molde University College, Molde, Norway

    Christos Anagnostopoulos

  2. University of Central Lancashire, Larnaca, Cyprus

    Christos Anagnostopoulos

  3. University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

    Leah Gillooly

  4. Coventry University, Coventry, UK

    David Cook

  5. University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece

    Petros Parganas

  6. University of Salford, Salford, UK

    Simon Chadwick

Authors
  1. Christos Anagnostopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Leah Gillooly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David Cook
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Petros Parganas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Simon Chadwick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christos Anagnostopoulos.

Appendix

Appendix

Interview Questions

  1. 1.

    Reaching stakeholders through Twitter concerns largely ‘sports participation’ and ‘educational’ programs/initiatives, and less so ‘social inclusion’ and ‘health’-related programs. Why do you think that’s the case?

  2. 2.

    It does not seem to be much of difference on the frequency on ‘tweeting’ between on-season and off-season. What, you think, is the reason why?

  3. 3.

    Much of the ‘tweeting’ done through the Foundation is about ‘informing’ the followers, rather than ‘interacting’ or ‘engaging’ with these stakeholders. What would be an explanation behind?

  4. 4.

    How would you describe the organizational capacity (resources) available to your Foundation in terms of utilizing Twitter?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Anagnostopoulos, C., Gillooly, L., Cook, D. et al. Stakeholder Communication in 140 Characters or Less: A Study of Community Sport Foundations. Voluntas 28, 2224–2250 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9802-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9802-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation