Running head: GETTING OUT THE MESSAGE

Getting Out the Message: How Nontraditional Communication Methods from Nonprofit Organizations Affect Message Perception David Owens-Hill Queens University of Charlotte APA says no date here but I think it should be included. Just IMO

Running head: GETTING OUT THE MESSAGE

Abstract Nonprofit organizations rely on communication with their constituents for donations of money and human resources. This paper examines how traditional and nontraditional communication techniques sent from a nonprofit are interpreted by the recipient of each message. It also explores the translation of the messages from both the receivers and senders perspectives as consumer and vested role-player, respectively. By exploring the results of how messages are perceived in this field in rich detail, nonprofits can more effectively leverage technological advances to further their missions and spread their philosophy. I content that by using these media to further the mission of the group, nonprofit employees are socially constructing and legitimating their careers via nontraditional media. This is great. But you should summarize your methodology.

Running head: GETTING OUT THE MESSAGE

Communicating to a Tech Savvy Audience Nonprofit organizations are fighting wars on multiple fronts. In addition to competing for limited fiscal and community resources, their constituency of established, generally older and more traditionally minded members of the community are being rapidly replaced by new bloodyoung members who are accustomed to a method of communication more immediate and less structured than their older counterparts. Innovation, once the buzz-word du jour of corporations reaching for a humanistic face, has reached far into the nooks and crannies of established and upstart nonprofits that must utilize every resource available to further their mission and spread their philosophy. Improving communication to a new generation of consorts via the digital means to which they are accustomed is therefore critical to the success of nonprofit organizations. Communicating a traditional message in a nontraditional format and retaining message fidelity are challenging propositions. Is it possible for communicators in nonprofit organizations to relay the same information to an external audience using new media and nontraditional methods? I will study the ways in which these media affect the discourse between organization and audience and evaluate effectiveness of messaging by interviewing the staff at a particular nonprofit organization to determine the baseline messaging for their communicative distributions of materials. I will then track these materials, either sent via traditional or nontraditional methods to their constituents, and will inquire how the message was translated by the recipient. Very good and clear. I anticipate finding discrepancies between message sender and message receiver based on fundamental differences in communication styles and cultural differences, but

Running head: GETTING OUT THE MESSAGE

also anticipate some degree of fidelity in translation. My assumption is that, by providing rich text descriptions of the information found via qualitative analysis of the senders and receivers messages rather than simply recapitulating existing quantitative data, patterns will emerge that provide context to the information being studied.

Literature Review It is vitally important when researching this method to understand the realities, socially constructed and otherwise, of the message senders within nonprofit organizations. Why bother sending the message? Why not just exist and hope that the audience comes to you? Nonprofit employees are generally not offered the same fiscal rewards as their for-profit counterparts, and thus choose a career trajectory aligned with meaningful worka callingas opposed to monetary gain (Should be in alphabetical order. Magee first. -1 APA error Manzo, 2004; Magee, 2004). The fidelity of the message presented from a nonprofit, therefore, is essential to the employees socially constructed worth; if the organization is successful, the employee is successful. It is this urge to communicate this intertwined organizational/personal philosophy that affects the concentration of the message presented. This is an interesting idea. I would cite your work below here. Conversely, it is important to understand the recipients translation of the message presented and work backward to understand the accuracy of the message received. Explain this a bit more. Nonprofit Communication is Inherently Different than Business Communication The for-profit world emphasizes quantitative results over the spreading of philosophyits often money over subject matter. These for-profit organizations are, of

Running head: GETTING OUT THE MESSAGE

course, interested in achieving accurate communication and minimizing inadvertent miscommunication in support of internal and external communication of business plans and actions, (Brewer & Holmes, 2009, p. 481), but are not necessarily as interested in finding a calling. Smith, Arendt, Lahman, Settle & and (-1 APA error) Duff (YEAR -1 APA error) explain that these [nonprofit communicators] remain committed to work that lies in direct contrast to traditional careers focused on external success (p. 29). They rationalize this contrary action by explaining that nonprofit employees simply seek meaningful work (p. 28) and that, by framing their nonprofit careers in spiritual terms of calling, service, sacrifice, and personal rewards. . . participants [can] make sense of and legitimate their nonprofit career choices, even when those choices are contrary to traditional career conceptualizations (p. 33). The message is synonymous with the philosophy of the organization, and thus the message senders legitimatization of their career and lifestyle is inextricably linked with the message being broadcast. The Struggle for Viability in Nonprofit Organizations As the introduction of this paper suggested, nonprofits face a series of challenges unlike those of their corporate counterparts. By their very definition, they are charged with constantly finding new sources of funding and funneling revenue back toward programming. Because of this, fiscally responsible organizations . . . engage in extensive communications with broader audiences as they try to remain in contact with potential donors, sponsors, and volunteers because of the lack of resources and funding (Henley & Guidry, 2004, p. 2). The more transparent this communication, the more effective it will be. The culture of the organization should be to communicate clearly Hall, as cited in Seeshadri & and Carstenson (1959),I would put it here for clarity states,
Admin 12/19/09 8:29 PM Deleted:

Running head: GETTING OUT THE MESSAGE

culture is communication and communication is culture need a page number here.(1959).

Running head: GETTING OUT THE MESSAGE

Defining Traditional and Nontraditional Communication Tradition is defined by Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary as an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought action or behavior. For the sake of this study, traditional communication has been defined as face-to-face interactions, printed material (i.e., letters, solicitation and donation materials) and phone calls. Emphasis has been placed on interpersonal communication techniques. These ancient forms of communication, news, and entertainment are. . . important in building brand awareness (Marken, 2009, p. 11) but stand in stark contrast to nontraditional communication techniques which, in this study, are represented by email communications, social media, and user generated content (UGM). Social media and UGM are technology driven platforms where people share opinions, insights, experiences, and perspectives with others (Marken, 2009, p. 10). While face-to-face sessions give people the opportunity to ask questions, offer opinions, and give feedbackunique advantages over even the best print publications. . . and email messages (Howard, 1996, p. 12), nontraditional communication is, according to Lev Grossman from Time Magazine italicize titles, a tool which brings together the small contributions of [many] people (as cited in Feng & Li, 2009, p. 24). Traditional communication techniques may well be important as nonprofit organizations engage in extensive communications with broader audiences (Seshadri & Carsetnson, 2007, p. 77), but according to Hall (1959) as cited in Seshadri & ditto above Carstenson so wait, is 1959 Hall or Seshadri? If its cited in S&C then give that year cuz thats the one on the reference list.the style of communication is more important than the substance of the message. Need page number. -1 APA error I will explore the role this style plays in spreading nonprofit messaging and, by extension, the

Running head: GETTING OUT THE MESSAGE

role it plays in all organizations where high-regard is placed on obtaining a sense of purpose through work.

Theoretical Framework This study employs a social constructionist view to examine how an audience receiving nontraditional messages from nonprofit organizations decodes and interprets the messages as calls to action. The respondents were asked not only to interpret the messages they received, but their responses were coded to determine how they construct the reality of the messaging as it pertains to their lives and their actions. To more accurately refine and explain this approach, an interpretive framework will be overlaid with quantitative research to provide richness of context from both message senders and respondents. In addition, this research will pay special attention to symbolic interpretation to answer the fundamental question: if a message is delivered sans context, is it possible to extract meaning from it? Very good! Further, because of the humanist nature of the work performed by these organizationsbest summarized by Smith, Arendt, Lahman, Settle & and Duff as rooted in spirituality and Christian ideals. . . Americans [taking] care of those in need (2006) give page number for quote!the respondents are accustomed to answering questions honestly and transparently. This experience will be both helpful and mildly deceptive. It will be important in the quantitative section of this study to carefully examine the answers provided and evaluate coded responses for jargon incongruent with actual experience.

Running head: GETTING OUT THE MESSAGE

In the interest of full disclosure, it is important to note that, as the research, I am beholden to a nonprofit university for an annual salary, and I have worked for various nonprofits in both social and arts/cultural fields. I have constructed a reality much like that of the subjects I have chosen to study. I feel the lure of crafting a career in favor of pursuing the betterment of society, even at the risk of lower fiscal and practical reward. That said, according to information published in 2001 by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, I am one of nearly 12.5 million U.S. citizens employed by nonprofit organizations domesticallya number that roughly equals 9.5% of total employment in the United States1. Clearly, the need to examine information coming from a group this large is evident. Great!

Research Questions RQ1: Are the nonprofit messages delivered via nontraditional methods perceived and acted upon differently than those delivered in traditional methods? RQ2: To what extent do nonprofit consumers perceive the messaging from nonprofit communication departments delivered via nontraditional methods as accurate representations of the philosophy of the organization and thus the sender? These are excellent RQs! Great incorporation of SCR

Methodology 1 According to U.S. Census information published in 2001 by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. employment in the for-profit sector grew 1.8% from 122.6 million to 131.8 million legally employed citizens. In the same period of time, nonprofit employment grew 2.5% from 11.3 million to 12.5 million legally employed citizens.

Running head: GETTING OUT THE MESSAGE

10

Subheads in this section below might have been helpful. The act of confirming message fidelity across any mediumtraditional, electronic or otherwiseseems straightforward; ask the message sender what they were trying to say, then ask the message receiver what he or she understood the message to mean, and finally compare the two responses. This approach, though seeming effective, relies on the predication outlined by Joshua Meryowitzs metaphor of communication-as-vessle (1999) in which he states: It is a metaphor in which a medium is regarded as a container for sending or storing content. It leads people to ask: What is the content? How did the content get there? How accurately does the media content reflect reality? How do people interpret the content? What effects does the content have?. . . we all have a sense that a message that someone loves us has power and meaning apart from whether we receive it in face-to-face interaction, by letter, by phone, by e-mail, or by videotape (p. 45). Great. But life outside this metaphor is a bit more complex. Messages are often sent in complexly coded scenarios involving both words and supporting images that distort the intended message due to altering speeds of recognition of the various parts of the message. Essentially, the images are processed faster than the words, leading to an alternate understanding of the presented material (Hantsch, Jescheniak, & Schriefers, 2009). How, then, are we to establish our baseline? This study will examine one series of messages being communicated in traditional and nontraditional media being transmitted from one nonprofit organization to one nonprofit consumer. For the experiment, I established a relationship with the Marketing Director at a nonprofit arts organization in the Southeast with 18 staff members. Molly works from an established solicitation schedule to dictate the frequency and message of each

Running head: GETTING OUT THE MESSAGE

11

outgoing communication to her organizations donor base. Each of these communications was categorized as invitation to event/call to action, request for resources/donation, or general information/dont forget were here, and advanced copies of the message along with supporting graphics package were made available to the research team. I chose four samples to research from this pool based on a simple criterion: the message had to be delivered to a certain number of consumers via traditional media-phone calls, direct mailings, letters and sent to other consumers entirely via nontraditional-media. Messages that were sent to the same recipient via both channels were eliminated as well as messages sent only traditionally or nontraditionally. Records were kept as to which consumers received which message via which medium. Great. I interviewed Molly along with Executive Director Susan, Outreach Director Denise, and Development Director Sarah to establish an ideal result for each communication. For the sake of this research, Marketing Director represents the individual responsible for implementing approved communication strategies; Outreach Director represents the individual responsible for implementation of strategies centering around community relations and volunteerism; Development Director represents the individual responsible for fundraising, donation solicitation, and fiscal policy adherence; and Executive Director represents the individual responsible for overall day-to-day operations, board integration in operations and staff management. These interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded for certain keywords including donation, volunteer, attend, and engage. After each message was distributed, I interviewed the recipients of each message with a schedule similar to that used for the nonprofit staff members.

Running head: GETTING OUT THE MESSAGE

12

Each message was coded using the same keywords, but the questions were phrased to ascertain the recipients willingness to do the actions described by the keywords. The two sets of coded information were then compared against each other, and similarities were measured. In addition to this qualitative measure of success, the nontraditional messages were tracked using readily available statistic software to measure read-rates on emails sent, reposts on Twitter and similar social network sites (including Facebook, MySpace, Orkut and LinkedIn). These experiments and interviews were conducted over the course of one year. Respondents to survey information were only tracked by age and a unique identifying number. One year?! Wow!

Conclusion This study uses a social constructionist view to determine how recipients of nonprofit communication interpret the messages being presented and analyzes the effectiveness of similar messages sent via traditional and nontraditional communication techniques. Further, I examined the role of the sender in constructing the message from the viewpoint of an individual who uses the externally facing message as a legitimizing factor in an environment that operates in defiance of the standard money-as-reward model. I determined social constructionism to be the most appropriate vehicle to study the realities of this interpretive communication because of the humanist and ultimately social-psyche nature of the phenomenon being studied. I believe it is ultimately the message recipients reality constructed by the expectations set from within their own mores and from those in their spheres of influence that cause a translation of the

Running head: GETTING OUT THE MESSAGE

13

messages resulting in action, donation or volunteerism. Excellent! Further, the medium usednontraditional or traditionalspeaks directly to the frames that the recipient uses to construct his or her reality. Those who are always on will presumably prefer nontraditional media that speak to their pace and willingness to align their actions around reciprocal flows of information. By understanding how to use these emerging technologies to reach these individuals, nonprofit organizations can more effectively receive the support essential to their survival fiscally and in human resourcing.

Limitations and Areas for Future Study This study is far from all-inclusive. There are many types of nonprofit organizations with diverse communication styles. In addition, it would be short-sighted to ignore ever-emerging forms of nontraditional communication that have yet to obtain measurable results. Consumer-generated media are evolving rapidly and could potentially play a role in the way nonprofits communicate. Its interesting to note that all nonprofit employees interviewed about the meaning of messages sent in this study were female. The leadership staff for the nonprofit studied happened to be exclusively female; 80% of the Executive Directors listed in the Arts & Science Council of Charlotte-Mecklenburgs fiscal year 2010 Basic Operating Grant support listings (the entity and grant type charged with funding organizations similar to our case study) are male (Arts & Science Council, 2009). Future studies should pay special attention to the male to female distribution of leadership positions and theories of gender differences in communication. Good. This study also applies, to a lesser extent, a secondary symbolic interpretation lens to provide context to the social constructionist theory. By examining the variables that
Admin 12/19/09 8:39 PM Deleted: ,

Running head: GETTING OUT THE MESSAGE

14

drive one to action, it is possible to eliminate the symbological ?? symbolic? references to good deeds that occasionally drive a non-interested party to make philanthropic gestures. Hopefully, by accounting for this factor, I can spot trends to differentiate between donations of time and money because of social pressure on the donor. Gender and age were recorded in this study but not factored into the overall results. As Han finds in his article New Media Use, Sociodemographics, and Voter Turnout in the 2000 Presidential Election, (2008) the older the participant, the less time spent using computers and surfing the internet (p. 70). One limitation and possible area of future study could examine if age plays a significant role in the understandings of messages sent using these tools. A future study could parlay the language of Uses and Gratifications Approaches theory (Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1974) to determine how consumers prefer to receive messages from the nonprofits they choose to support. Such an examination could lead to more effective communication from nonprofit organizations. Good.

The Ongoing Discussion Could have expanded this discussion a bit more to further recap/ discuss the implications to society, workers/individuals. The material discussed in this study is applied to a very specific demographic but has broader reach than the space of this report can allow. Social media, consumer-generated content and communication will continue to converge and re-shape the landscape of communication studies indefinitely. As more and more new technologies develop, I predict Meryowitzs communication-as-vessel metaphor will appear more and more archaic. As message transmitters and receivers, I

Running head: GETTING OUT THE MESSAGE

15

believe weve uncovered channels of communication that run in both directions and rarely in a straight line. Its this series of transmissionsseemingly haphazard, yet interconnectedthat we will use to construct our reality going forward. I love this! I might steal it!!

Running head: GETTING OUT THE MESSAGE

16

References Arts & Science Council of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. (2009). 2009-2010 grants to organizations. Retrieved from: http://www.artsandscience.org/images/stories/GrantsFunding/Grantrecipients/FY1 0CCIGrantstoOrganizations.pdf Brewer, E., & Holmes, T. (2009). Obfuscating the obvious. Journal of Business Communication, 46(4), 480-496. Feng, B., & Li, H. (2009). An analysis of consumer generated medias application in multicultural public relations practice. China Media Research, 5(4), 20-30. Grossman, L. (2006). Times person of the year: You. Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1596514,00.html Hall, E. (1959) The Silent Language. New York: Doubleday. Han, G. (2008). New media use, sociodemographics, and voter turnout in the 2000 presidential election. Mass Communication & Society, 11, 62-81. doi:10.1080/15205430701587644 Hantsch, A., Jescheniak, J., & Schriefers, H. (2009). Distractor modality can turn semantic interference into semantic facilitation in the picture-word interference task: Implications for theories of lexical access in speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(6), 1443-1453. Henley, T, & Guidry, M. (2004) Online communication in nonprofit organizations. Paper presented at the DMEF Sixteenth Annual Robert B. Clarke Direct/Interactive Marketing Educators Conference, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved from http://www.the-dma.org/dmef/proceedings04/7-Henley.pdf

Running head: GETTING OUT THE MESSAGE

17

Howard, C. (1996). Face-to-face communications: Payback is worth the effort. Public Relations Quarterly, 11-14. Katz, E., Blumler, J., & Gurevitch, M. (1974). Uses and gratifications research. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509-523. Magee, J. (2004). A fair wage: Nonprofit workers earn the same as their for-profit counterparts. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 2(1), 11. Manzo, P. (2004). The real salary scandal: It isnt that some nonprofit CEOs make big bucks. Its that most nonprofit employees are paid too little. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 2(3), 65. Marken, G. (2009). Social media. . .the hunted can become the hunter. Public Relations Quarterly, 52(4), 9-12. Meryowitz, J. (1999). Understandings of media. ETC.: A Review of General Semantics, 56(1), 44-53. Seshadri, S. & Carstenson, L. (2007). The perils of e-mail communications in nonprofits. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 18(1), 77-99. doi:10.1002/nml Smith, J., Arednt, C., Lahman, J., Settle, G., & Duff, A. (2006). Framing the work of art: Spirituality and career discourse in the nonprofit arts sector. Communication Studies, 57(1), 25-46. doi:10.1080/10510970500481672 Traditional. (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (11th Ed.),. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/traditional U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2001) Employment in the nonprofit sector. Nonprofit Almanac: Facts and Findings, 1-3. David:

Running head: GETTING OUT THE MESSAGE

18

I think you did an excellent job with this paper. It is very well written, clear and articulate. You cover all of the necessary parts of the assignment and I really like this topic. Remind me to forward you an article I just read about this this morning! Please see my notes above re: areas for slight improvement, but you really did a great job with this! Great work! Kim Grade: A (95)-4 APA errors = 91