Katılımcılık, Geribildirim ve Cevap Verebilirlik Boyutlarıyla Facebook’un Kurumsal İletişimde Etkileşimli Bir Mecra Olarak Kullanım Yetersizliği: Türkiye Menşeli Hava Yolları Şirketleri Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme

Öz

İnternet ve Web tabanlı uygulamalarla hız kazanan teknolojik gelişmeler, iletişimin boyutunu değiştirmiş ve etkileşimli bir iletişim ortamını ortaya çıkarmıştır. Kuşkusuz bu durum kurumlarla hedef kitleleri arasındaki ilişkilerin geliştirilmesi için de yeni olanaklar sunmaktadır. Bugün sosyal medyanın özellikle de sosyal paylaşım ağlarının, hayatın her alanına nüfuz etmesiyle birlikte kurumla hedef kitleleri arasında daha etkileşimli bir iletişimin gerçekleşmesi mümkün hale gelmiştir. Bu nedenle sosyal paylaşım ağlarının başında gelen Facebook’un kurumsal iletişim aracı olarak etkileşimli bir şekilde nasıl kullanılması gerektiğinin belirlenmesi oldukça önem taşımaktadır. Bunun için de öncelikle Facebook’un kullanım amacının ve paylaşılan içeriklerin belirlenmesi gerekmekte daha sonra ise etkileşim unsurunun araştırılması gerekmektedir. Bu nedenle Türkiye’de faaliyet gösteren yerli sermayeli havayolu şirketlerinin Facebook kullanımlarının ortaya konulmasının amaçlandığı çalışma iki aşamadan oluşmaktadır. Çalışmanın ilk aşaması olan, Facebook’un kurumlar tarafından daha ziyade tanıtım ve promosyon amaçlı olarak kullanıldığına yönelik tespit, “Türkiye’deki havayolu şirketlerinin Facebook’u kurumsal amaçlı olarak kullanımı” başlığı ile araştırmacı tarafından yayımlanmıştır (Türk, 2018). Bir takip çalışması niteliğinde olan, çalışmanın ikinci kısmını oluşturan bu araştırmada ise Facebook’un etkileşimli bir mecra olarak kullanılmasındaki yeterliliğin tespit edilmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Altı hava yolu şirketinin kurumsal Facebook hesapları; nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden içerik analizi tekniği ile analize tabi tutulmuş ve toplanan veriler betimsel istatistiğe başvurma yoluyla değerlendirilmiştir. Buna göre; kurumların paylaştıkları içeriklerle kullanıcıları katılımcılığa teşvik etmede, onlara sorular sorarak geri bildirim döngüsünü sağlamada ve onlardan gelen soru ve yorumlara cevap vermedeki yetersizliklerinden dolayı Facebook’u etkin ve yeterince etkileşimli bir mecra olarak kurumsal iletişimde kullanamadıkları sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Etkileşim,katılımcılık,geribildirim,cevap verebilirlik,Facebook

Inadequate Use of Facebook as an Interactive Tool with the Dimensions of Participation, Feedback and Responsiveness for Corporate Communications: A Survey on Airline Companies with Domestic Capital in Turkey

Öz

Technological developments have grown quickly, thanks to the internet and web-based applications. They have changed the means of communication and created an interactive environment that enables new ways of developing relationships between corporations and their target groups. Today, social media, especially social networking sites, have penetrated into every area of social life, creating even more interactive communication between corporations and target groups. Thus, it is useful to determine how Facebook, the largest and most popular social networking site, can be best used by corporations as an interactive medium. For that reason, firstly the purpose of Facebook use and contents of Facebook posts need to be examined and then the interactivity component should be researched. That is why the study, which aims to examine Facebook use by airline companies with domestic capital operating in Turkey, has been arranged in two parts. The first part of the study, entitled “A content analysis of Facebook posts by airlines companies”, was published by the researcher and revealed that Facebook was mostly used for publicity and promotion (Türk, 2018). As a follow-up study, this study is the second part, whose aim is to determine whether Facebook is used interactively. The Facebook accounts of six different airline companies were analyzed through a content analysis technique and the data colleted  were analyzed through descriptive statistics. The results reveal that corporations are unable to use Facebook adequately for corporate communications, since they are ineffective in encouraging users to participate in Facebook with the contents they share, to provide a cycle of feedback by asking questions and to respond to the questions and comments of the users.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Interactivity,participation,feedback,responsiveness,Facebook

Kaynakça

1. Adamson, A. P. (2008). BrandDigital. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillian.
2. Ariel, Y., & Avidar, R. (2015). Information, interactivity, and social media. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 23(1), 19–30.
3. Altunışık, R., Coşkun R., Bayraktaroğlu S., & Yıldırım E. (2012). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri (7th ed.). Sakarya, Turkey: Sakarya Kitabevi.
4. Avidar, R. (2013). The responsiveness pyramid: Embedding responsiveness and interactivity into public relations theory. Public Relations Review, 39, 440–450.
5. Berger, B. K., & Dong-Jin, P. (2003). Public relation(ship)s or private controls? Practitioner perspectives on the uses and benefits of new Technologies. New Jersey Journal of Communication, 11(1), 76–99.
6. 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.
7. Breakenridge, D. K. (2008). PR 2.0:New media, new tools, new audiences. New Jersey, NJ: Pearson Education.
8. Brubaker, P. J., & Wilson, C. (2018). Let’s give them something to talk about: Global brands’ use of visual content to drive engagement and build relationships. Public Relations Review,44, 342–352.

9. Davis D. (1982). Determinants of responsiveness in dyadic interaction. In W. Ickes & E. S. Knowles (Eds.), Personality, roles, and social behavior (pp. 85–139). New York, NY: Springer.
10. Oxford Dictionaries. (2017). Etkileşimin tanımı. Retrieved from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/ definition/english/interactivity
11. Facebook. (2017a). Facebook istatistikleri. Retrieved from https://newsroom.fb.com/company-info/ Facebook. Facebook. (2017b). Facebook özellikleri. Retrieved from http://newsroom.fb.com/products/
12. Flew, T. (2002). New media: An introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
13. Freeman, B., & Chapman, S. (2012). Measuring interactivity on tobacco control websites. Journal of Health Communication, 17(7), 857–865.
14. Grunig, J. E. (2002). Qualitative methods for assessing relationships between organizations and publics. Retrieved from https://www.instituteforpr.org//wp-content/uploads/2002_AssessingRelations.pdf
15. Grunig, J. E. (2009). Paradigms of global public relations in an age of digitilization. PRism, 6(2), 1–19.
16. Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, A. (1992). Models of public relations and communication. In J. E. Grunig, D. M. Dozier, W. P. Ehling, L. A. Grunig, F. C. Repper & J. White (Eds.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 285–325). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
17. Handley, A., & Chapman, C. C. (2011). Content rules: How to create killer blogs podcasts, videos, ebooks, webinars (and more) that engage customers and ignite business. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
18. Hether, H. J. (2014). Dialogic communication in the health care context: A case study of Kaiser Permanente’s social media practices. Public Relations Review, 40, 856–858.
19. Hopkins, M. (2012). The planetary bargain: Corporate social responsibility matters. London, UK: Routledge.
20. Karakoç, E., & Gülsünler, M. (2012). Kullanımlar ve doyumlar yaklaşımı bağlamında Facebook: Konya üzerine bir araştırma. Akdeniz İletişim, 18, 43–57.
21. Karasar, N. (1984). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi, kavramlar – ilkeler – teknikler (23rd ed.). Ankara, Turkey: Nobel Yayınevi.
22. Kelleher, T., & Miller, B. M. (2006). Organizational blogs and the human voice: Relational strategies and relational outcomes. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 11(2), 395–414.
23. Kent, M. L. (2010). Directions in social media for professionals and scholars. In R. Heath (Ed.), The Sage handbook of public relations, (pp. 643–655), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24. Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the world wide web. Public Relaitons Review, 24(3), 321–334.
25. Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 28(1), 21–37.
26. Kent, M. L., Taylor, M., & White, W. (2003). The relationship between web site design and organizational responsiveness to stakeholders. Public Relations Review, 29, 66–77.
27. Kiousis, S. (2002). Interactivity: A concept explication. New Media & Society, 4(3), 355–383.
28. Lange, P. G. (2007). Publicly private and privately public: Social networking on YouTube. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 13(1), 361–380.
29. Lipsman, A., Graham, M., Mike, R., & Sean, B. (2012). The power of “like”. Journal of Advertising Research, 52(1), 40–52.
30. 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.
31. McAllister-Spooner, S. M. (2009). Fulfilling the dialogic promise: A ten-year reflective survey on dialogic Internet principles. Public Relations Review, 35, 320–322.
32. McMillan, S. J. (2002). A Four-part model of cyber-ınteractivity. New Media & Society, 4(2), 271–291.
33. McMillan, S. J., & Hwang, J. S. (2002). Measures of perceived interactivity: An exploration of the role of direction of communication, user control, and time in shaping perceptions of interactivity. Journal of Advertising, 31(3), 29–42.
34. Men, L. R., & Tsai, W. S. (2014). Perceptual, attitudinal, and behavioral outcomes of organization–public engagement on corporate social networking sites. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 417–435.
35. Newhagen, J. E. (2004). Interactivity, dynamic symbol processing and the emergence of content in human communication. The Information Society, 20, 393–396.
36. Quiring, O. (2009). What do users associate with ‘interactivity’?: A qualitative study on user schemata. New Media & Society, 11(6), 899–920.
37. Powell, T. E., Boomgaarden, H. G., De Swert, K., & de Vreese, C. H. (2015). A clearer picture: The contribution of visuals and text to framing effects. Journal of Communication, 65(6), 997–1017.
38. Rafaeli, S. (1988). Interactivity. From new media to communication. In R. P. Hawkins, J. M. Wiemann & S. Pingree (Eds.), Advancing communication science: Merging mass and interpersonal processes (pp. 110–134). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
39. Rafaeli, S., & Ariel, Y. (2007). Assessing interactivity in computer-mediated research. In A. N. Joinson, K. Y. A. McKenna, T. Postmes & U. D. Reips (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Internet psychology (pp. 71–89). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
40. Reber, B. H., & Kim, J. K. (2006). How activist groups use websites in media relations: Evaluating online press rooms. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18, 313–333.
41. Richards, R. (2006). Users, interactivity and generation. New Media & Society, 8(4), 531–550.
42. Saffer, A. J., Sommerfeldt, E. J., & Taylor, M. (2013). The effects of organizational Twitter interactivity on organization–public relationships. Public Relations Review, 39, 213–215.
43. Şener, G. (2009). Türkiye’de Facebook kullanımı araştırması. inet-tr’09 - XIV. Türkiye’de İnternet Konferansı Bildirileri, İstanbul, Turkey.
44. Theunissen, P., & Wan Noordin, W. N. (2012). Revisiting the concept “dialogue” in public relations. Public Relations Review, 38(1), 5–13.
45. Tufan, F. (2014). New possibilities provided by social networks to radio broadcasting practices: R@DIO 2.0. Journal of Media Critiques, 1, 87–101.
46. Tokol, T. (2010). Pazarlama Araştırması. Bursa, Turkey: Dora Yayıncılık.
47. Türk, E. (2018). Türkiye’deki havayolu şirketlerinin Facebook’u kurumsal amaçlı olarak kullanımı. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Elektronik Dergisi, 6, 1277–1298.
48. Vendemia, M. A. (2017). When do consumers buy the company? Perceptions of interactivity in company-consumer interactions on social networking sites. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 99–109.
49. 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, 102–106.
50. Waters, R. D., & Jamal, J. Y. (2011). Tweet, tweet, tweet: A content analysis of nonprofit organizations’ Twitter updates. Public Relations Review, 37, 321– 324.
51. 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.
52. Watkins, B. A. (2017). Experimenting with dialogue on Twitter: An examination of the influence of the dialogic principles on engagement, interaction, and attitude. Public Relations Review, 43, 163–171.
53. Wright, D. K., & Drifka, M. (2009). An analysis of the increasing impact of social and other new media on public relations practice. 12th Annual International Public Relations Research Conference, Miami, Florida.
54. Yang, A., & Taylor, M. (2010). Relationship building by Chinese ENGO’s websites: Education, not activation. Public Relations Review, 36(4), 342–351.