Public participation on social network sites

Universiteit Gent Faculteit Letteren en Wijsbegeerte Academiejaar 2013-2014

Public  participation  on  social  network  sites   How organisations can use social media for increasing stakeholder engagement

Marie-Aline Kruydt Supervisor: Prof. dr. Olaf Du Pont

Masterproef voorgelegd aan de Faculteit Letteren en Wijsbegeerte voor het behalen van de graad van Master in de Meertalige Bedrijfscommunicatie

Acknowledgements     Writing a dissertation is considered a solo operation, but anybody who has ever written one knows it is impossible without the support and help of a small army of people. I owe my greatest gratitude to my supervisor, prof. dr. Olaf Du Pont, not only for playing an important role in the outline and content of this dissertation, but also for showing interest in my personal experiences during my internship. He succeeded in encouraging me every single Skype meeting, which is – in my opinion – a very valuable skill. I also want to thank all of my colleagues of my internship at Infopunt Project Gent-Pieters. They welcomed me with open arms and made every possible effort to make my time at the Infopunt agreeable and valuable. I learned a lot, both about communication and about myself during my internship, and that could not have been possible without them. A special word of thanks goes to Gisèle Rogiest, my supervisor at Infopunt Project Gent Sint-Pieters, who offered me the opportunity to be involved in a complicated, yet interesting communication environment. In addition, I want to express my gratitude to my family, especially my parents, who gave me the chance to enrol for an additional year and who supported me in every possible way. Also Kwinten, who did more for me the past years than I could possibly imagine, earns a special expression of gratitude. I owe my appreciation, to Ans and Greet, for being respectively the best proofreader and dissertation buddy ever. Finally, I owe my appreciation to my friends and classmates, who reminded me that there is more to this world than studying, and who made this year the most amazing and memorable closure of my student days.

2

Abstract   This dissertation was written as part of an internship at the communications department of Project Gent Sint-Pieters. For any project with a great impact on the neighbourhood and on a variety of stakeholders, transparent communication, dialogue and stakeholder participation is indispensable. The recent rise of social media offers organisations the opportunity to engage their stakeholders. However, given the novelty of social network sites, online communication management is often instinct-driven. With this research, we want to verify assumptions about organisational use of social media and gain insight in dialogical communication, relationship building and participation via social media. These goals result in two main research questions: Q1: What is the importance of stakeholder dialogue and participation? Q2: How can social media enable participation? In addition, we applied the theoretical insights to two case studies, the Facebook pages of Project Gent Sint-Pieters and of CU2030 Utrecht. We thoroughly analysed the profile and posts of Project Gent Sint-Pieters and compared the results to those of CU2030 Utrecht, in order to answer a third research question: Q3: How well is the Facebook page of Project Gent Sint-Pieters performing and how could they improve their performance? We found that the advantages of stakeholder participation outweigh the disadvantages and risks. Social media can play an important role in increasing dialogue and participation. The new technologies enable organisations to gain more visibility, to share information on a lowcost medium with a high reach, and to build online relationships with their stakeholders. If an organisation employs social network sites, it is crucial that they fully integrate them in the communication mix.

3

With regard to the case studies, we discovered that CU2030 Utrecht is better at engaging its stakeholders. PGSP could easily add certain features and apply specific techniques to increase engagement on their page. PGSP should seize their Facebook profile as an opportunity to position the project and to interact with their stakeholders. Instead, Facebook is now employed as a channel for knowledge transfer, a function which is already fulfilled by the website. What seems to be overlooked by both pages, is the importance of CSR-related messages. CSR posts can increase openness, transparency and eventually trust in the organisation. Especially for organisations that might have a negative image in the eyes of certain stakeholder groups, it is crucial to build trust among stakeholders. In conclusion, the Facebook pages of PGSP and CU2030 are both heading in the right direction. In addition, both pages are carefully interacting with their public, but do not often actively invite opinions or views of their followers. They have reached a certain level of dialogue, but they could both do more efforts to enable active participation through their pages.

4

Table  of  contents   INTRODUCTION  ...............................................................................................................................  7   RESEARCH  CONTEXT  AND  AIMS  ......................................................................................................  8   STAKEHOLDER  PARTICIPATION  AND  SOCIAL  CAPITAL  ......................................................................  9   1.   STAKEHOLDER  NETWORKS,  DIALOGUE,  AND  PARTICIPATION  ....................................................................  9   1.1   Stakeholders  .........................................................................................................................  9   1.2   Dialogue  and  participation  .................................................................................................  10   1.2.1  

Concepts  and  advantages  ...........................................................................................................................  10  

1.2.2  

Methods  ......................................................................................................................................................  12  

2.   STAKEHOLDER  PARTICIPATION  ON  SOCIAL  MEDIA  .................................................................................  15   2.1   Social  media  ........................................................................................................................  15   2.2   Social  media  in  organisations  .............................................................................................  16   2.2.1  

Organisational  activity  on  social  media  .......................................................................................................  16  

2.2.2  

Dialogic  relationship  building  on  social  media  ............................................................................................  18  

2.2.3  

Conditions  and  restrictions  .........................................................................................................................  19  

2.2.4  

Practical  tips  for  organisational  use  of  social  media  ...................................................................................  21  

METHODOLOGY  ............................................................................................................................  23   PROJECT  GENT  SINT-­‐PIETERS  .........................................................................................................  24   1.   COMMUNICATION  AND  PARTICIPATION  .............................................................................................  24   1.1   Stakeholder  strategies  and  communication  goals  ..............................................................  24   1.1.1  

Positioning  of  the  project  ............................................................................................................................  26  

1.1.2  

Knowledge  and  information  transfer:  informing  and  persuading  ...............................................................  26  

1.1.3  

Enabling  dialogue:  dialogising  and  formation  .............................................................................................  27  

1.2   Communication  channels  ....................................................................................................  29   CASE  STUDIES  AND  DISCUSSION  ....................................................................................................  33   1.   FORMAL  ASPECTS  ..........................................................................................................................  33   1.1   Voluntary  disclosure:  openness  and  transparency  .............................................................  33   1.2   Involvement  ........................................................................................................................  34   2.   CONTENT  ANALYSIS  ........................................................................................................................  36   2.1   Quantitative  ........................................................................................................................  36   2.1.1  

Stakeholder  engagement  ............................................................................................................................  36  

2.1.2  

Number,  frequency,  and  length  ..................................................................................................................  39  

2.1.3  

Timing  ..........................................................................................................................................................  40  

5

  2.2   Qualitative  ..........................................................................................................................  43   2.2.1  

Types  of  content  ..........................................................................................................................................  43  

2.2.2  

Goals  of  content  ..........................................................................................................................................  44  

2.2.3  

Characteristics  of  content  ...........................................................................................................................  48  

CONCLUSION  AND  RECOMMENDATIONS  ......................................................................................  52   BIBLIOGRAPHY  ..............................................................................................................................  54  

 

List  of  tables  and  figures    

TABLE  1:  ADVANTAGES  AND  DISADVANTAGES  OF  CITIZEN  PARTICIPATION  IN  DECISION-­‐MAKING  ..............................  12   TABLE  2  ESTIMATE  OF  BENEFITS  AND  COSTS  OF  SOCIAL  PARTICIPATION  ...............................................................  14   TABLE  3  DISCUSS  VERSUS  DEBATE  STRATEGY  ..................................................................................................  18   TABLE  4  STRENGTHS  AND  WEAKNESSES  OF  ORGANISATIONAL  USE  OF  FACEBOOK  ..................................................  21   TABLE  5  FORMAL  ASPECTS  OF  DISCLOSURE  ....................................................................................................  33   TABLE  6  FORMAL  ASPECTS  OF  INVOLVEMENT  .................................................................................................  35   TABLE  7  METRICS  TO  ASSESS  STAKEHOLDER  ENGAGEMENT  ...............................................................................  36   TABLE  8  STAKEHOLDER  ENGAGEMENT  BY  METRICS  OF  BONSON  AND  RATKAI  (2013)  ............................................  38   TABLE  9  PRESENCE  OF  CONTENT  TYPES  .........................................................................................................  43   TABLE  10  SUCCESS  AND  USE  OF  CONTENT  TYPES  .............................................................................................  44   TABLE  11  TYPOLOGY  OF  TOPICS  (BONSON  &  RATKAI  2013)  .............................................................................  49   TABLE  12  TOPICS  PER  FACEBOOK  PAGE  .........................................................................................................  50  

  FIGURE  1  CORE  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  SOCIAL  MEDIA  ........................................................................................  15   FIGURE  2  CONTINUUM  OF  ORGANISATIONAL  ENGAGEMENT  ON  SOCIAL  MEDIA  .....................................................  16   FIGURE  3  COMMUNICATION  GOALS  AND  SUBGOALS  ........................................................................................  25   FIGURE  4  SOCIAL  MEDIA  ACCORDING  TO  VAN  RULER’S  COMMUNICATION  STRATEGIES  ..........................................  31   FIGURE  5  AGE  PGSP’S  FACEBOOK  FANS  ........................................................................................................  32   FIGURE  6  AVERAGE  ENGAGEMENT  PER  POST  ..................................................................................................  37   FIGURE  7  AVERAGE  ENGAGEMENT  PER  POST  PER  DAY  ......................................................................................  40   FIGURE  8  ENGAGEMENT  RATE  PER  DAY  COMPARED  TO  AVERAGE  ENGAGEMENT  RATE  ............................................  41   FIGURE  9  ENGAGEMENT  PER  HOUR  ..............................................................................................................  42   FIGURE  10  PROPORTIONS  RELEVANT,  SHARED,  AND  PROMOTIONAL  CONTENT  .....................................................  49  

6

Introduction   During the last decade, the use of social network sites has been drastically increasing. This increase also applies to the organisational use of social media. The new media not only offer organisations the opportunity to share knowledge and information, but also to actively involve their stakeholders in decision-making processes. The aim of this paper is to help organisations understand the features of dialogical communication, relationship building and participation via social media, and how they can activate their stakeholders. For this purpose, we will combine insights from a variety of fields, such as social capital theory, actor network theory, stakeholder and conversation management, and non-profit and government communication. We will examine how organisations can or should make efforts in terms of relationship building and engagement on social media. The focus specifically lies on how Facebook can be used to its full potential by organisations. The theory will be applied to two case studies, in order to determine which goals and strategies are successful.

7

Research  context  and  aims   This thesis was written as part of my internship at Infopunt Project Gent Sint-Pieters. Project Gent Sint-Pieters evolves around the transformation of the Gent-Sint-Pieters station and the surrounding neighbourhood. The Infopunt is responsible for the communication of the entire project towards a wide variety of stakeholders. Furthermore, they enable participation of those stakeholders in the decision-making of the project. Participation is indispensable for long-term infrastructure projects with an enormous impact on its environment. Therefore, the Infopunt was interested to learn if and how social media, more specifically Facebook, can be employed to enable and increase participation. This interest resulted in three general research questions: Q1: What is the importance of stakeholder dialogue and participation? Q2: How can social media enable participation? Q3: How well is the Facebook page of Project Gent Sint-Pieters performing? How could they improve its performance? First, we will discuss the importance of stakeholder participation and creating social capital. The next step is to investigate whether internet-based participation is desirable, and more specifically how Facebook can and should be used, according to scientific research, to increase participation and engagement. Secondly, we will describe how Project Gent Sint-Pieters currently communicates. This involves a description of communication goals, target groups and channels. Thirdly, we will thoroughly analyse the Facebook posts of Project Gent SintPieters on a quantitative and a qualitative level, and compare them to the results of the Facebook page of CU2030 Utrecht, a page concerning the infrastructure project in Utrecht. The theory gathered from the literature review and the findings about the performances of the Facebook pages of Project Gent Sint-Pieters and CU2030 Utrecht will be combined in a set of guidelines, added as an appendix. These guidelines are constructed especially for Project Gent Sint-Pieters, but can be applied to a wide range of organisations aiming at increasing stakeholder dialogue and participation via Facebook.

8

Stakeholder  participation  and  social  capital   Traditional hierarchical organisational decision-making is gradually evolving into new

governance, which consists of “the creation, execution, and implementation of activities backed by the shared goals of citizens and organisations” (Bingham et al. 2005:548). However, practice is leading theory in developing processes for the new governance. Therefore, it is useful to gain insight into stakeholder management, dialogue and participation and the importance of building social capital. Moreover, we will explore how social media can contribute to engaging stakeholders.

1. Stakeholder  networks,  dialogue,  and  participation     1.1

STAKEHOLDERS  

Stakeholders are “the network of individuals, communities, and organisations that make up a region, from the person on the street to neighbourhood civic organisations, to local government departments working in league with academic institutions and private sector companies” (Devine-Wright et al. 2001:162). Within the stakeholder network, the interrelated actors play different key roles: prime movers or leaders, representative spokespersons, intermediaries or bridging institutions, and the gateway (Devine-Wright et al. 2001). The credibility, consistency and equitability of these role-players need to be assessed constantly, because poor performances will likely have a negative impact on the functioning of the network (Devine-Wright et al. 2001). It should be kept in mind that many discrete networks are connected at different levels. While older stakeholder models identify the legitimate stakeholders and determine their influence on the organisation, more recent models question the empirical status of stakeholders (Crane & Livesey 2003). Two different stakeholder concepts can be distinguished: the network model and the differentiated stakeholder model. In the network

model, stakeholders are not only related to the organisation, but also to each other, by forms of interaction. This means that the organisation is not the central node in the network because the network can be entered simultaneously from different perspectives (Crane & Livesey 2003). The differentiated stakeholder model acknowledges intra-stakeholder differences.

9

Even though stakeholder groups share interest in the same issue, their interest might not be identical. The relationships between stakeholders are seen as “a complex interplay of shifting, ambiguous, and contested relationships between and within diverse organisations” (Crane & Livesey 2003:8). Building a network consisting of social relationships between stakeholders and organisations eventually results in social capital (Ellison et al. 2014, Devine-Wright et al. 2001). Social capital is “the benefit one receives from one’s relationships with other people” and can be converted to other forms of capital, including intellectual capital (McCorkindale 2010:3, Ellison et al. 2014). It is critical to stakeholder dialogue because it offers insight into the choice of which stakeholders to invite (Devine-Wright et al. 2001). It is important to assess the status of social capital in the region of your organisation, by answering these questions (Devine-Wright et al. 2001): 1. Which voluntary networks of association currently exist in your region? 2. What norms and levels of trust exist between individuals and organisations within these networks? 3. Are there any gaps in these networks and how did they come to exist? 4. Do specific individuals/organisations play key roles in the network? 5. How well are these roles performed? 6. Which role does information technology currently play in furthering social capital?

1.2

DIALOGUE  AND  PARTICIPATION  

1.2.1 Concepts  and  advantages   With regard to stakeholder strategy, a meaningful distinction can be made between one-way and two-way communication. One-way or top-down communication can denote token

participation and merely educates the public to accept decisions that have already been made (Evans-Cowley et al. 2010, Crane & Livesey 2003). When organisations nonetheless choose for one-way communication, they can either standardise or customise their messages (Crane & Livesey 2003). The first type demands thorough insight into the stakeholders’ needs, while the second type answers to different needs and conflicting interests (Crane & Livesey 2003).

10

Contrary to one-way communication, ethical communication management is two-way or dialogical and preferably symmetrical. This means that the dialogue is cooperative and not dominated by one side (Bonson & Ratkai 2013; Evans-Cowley et al. 2010; Grunig & Hunt 1984, quoted in Crane & Livesey 2003). According to dialogic theory, the participation process itself is more important than the outcome: the core is open and negotiated discussion, rather than agreement (Bonson & Ratkai 2013). Organisations and stakeholders try to persuade each other to change. The organisation invites negotiation with the stakeholders to explore their concerns about the company and to make them accept change when necessary. Dialogical, symmetrical communication matches the stakeholder involvement CSR

communication model by Morsing & Schultz (2006).1 This model involves the stakeholders and allows them to suggest corporate action and to actively participate (Morsing & Schultz 2006). Participation thus entails empowering all citizens to influence decisions which affect them. The core of participation is “sharing power in decision making, encouraging citizen autonomy and independence, and providing a process for developing the common good through civic engagement” (Bingham et al. 2005:548). The level of control that is granted to the participants reflects the participation level. It is a continuum from information-based or feedback-only options to highly interactive participant self-determination (Evans-Cowley & Hollander 2010). High interactivity has a positive effect on relationship building and reputation, yet the most important aspect in regard to relationship building is quality and credibility (McCorkindale 2010). The main reason to enable public participation is that stakeholders are more likely to support an implementation when they are involved in the decision-making (Evans-Cowley et al. 2010). A higher level of participation thus results in less hostility, or as Irvin and Stansbury (2004:55) phrase it:

With citizen participation, formulated [decisions] might be more realistically grounded in citizen preferences, the public might become more sympathetic evaluators of the tough decisions [that have to be made], and the improved support from the public might create a less divisive, combative populace to […] regulate.

1

CSR stands for Corporate Social Responsibility. 11

Irvin and Stansbury (2004) give an extensive overview of advantages and disadvantages of public participation in government decision-making. Their list, depicted in table 1, can be applied to any type of organisation which has to make decisions with a direct impact on its neighbourhood. Advantages  of  citizen  participation  in  decision-­‐making  

Decision  process  

Outcomes    

To  citizen  participants   Education:  informing  and  involving  citizens   makes   them   understand   technical   difficulties   and   see   holistic,   community   wide  solutions   Persuade  and  enlighten  government   Gain  skills  for  activist  citizenship   Break   gridlock:   balanced   input   leads   to   compromises  and  solutions   Gain  some  control  over  policy  process   Better   policy   and   implementation   decisions  

To  organisation   Education:   gain   insight   into   citizens’   opinions  

Persuade  citizens   Gain  legitimacy  of  decisions   Break   gridlock:   gain   support   to   change   directions  and  achieve  outcomes   Avoid  litigation  cost   Better   policy   and   implementation   decisions  

Disadvantages  of  citizen  participation  in  decision-­‐making   Decision  process  

Outcomes  

To  citizen  participants   Time  consuming   Pointless  if  decision  is  ignored    

To  organisation   Time  consuming   Costly   May   backfire,   creating   more   hostility   towards  organisation   Worse  policy  decision  if  heavily  influenced   Loss  of  decision-­‐making  control   by  opposing  interest  groups     Possibility  of  bad  decision  that  is  politically   impossible  to  ignore     Less   budget   for   implementation   of   actual   projects  

Table 1: Advantages and disadvantages of citizen participation in decision-making

1.2.2 Methods   The stakeholder involvement model consists of inviting and establishing frequent, systematic and proactive dialogues with stakeholders. This implies that merely informing and surveying are not sufficient; the stakeholders need to be actively involved in order to develop positive support (Morsing & Schultz 2006). There are four general thumb rules for participation in public involvement processes (Chess & Purcell 1999):

12

1. Begin participation early and invest in advance planning 2. Adapt traditional participatory forums to meet desired process and outcome goals, and involve experts from outside agencies to provide technical assistance 3. Include a mix of participatory methods, a so-called “multichannel approach” (KING 2010) 4. Collect feedback on the public participation effort In addition, it is crucial to involve a representative group of stakeholders, to create transparency in the ultimate decision making process, and to provide access to all relevant information and to a sufficient amount of resources to support the group process (Tuler & Webler 1999, quoted in Robinson 2002; Irvin & Stansbury 2004). The facilitator who leads the participation needs to be unbiased and competent (Irvin & Stansbury 2004). The general task of the facilitator(s) is to understand the role of stakeholders as a node in their own network, to be sensitive to the active role of stakeholders in meaningmaking and to comprehend the resulting provisional and ambiguous qualities of the meaning made (Crane & Livesey 2003). They have to encourage constructive personal behaviour, by promoting respect, honesty, openness, understanding, listening and trust (Tuler & Webler 1999, quoted in Robinson 2002). No matter how well these strategies are applied, eventually, the possibility of achieving significant and satisfying outcomes depends on the locale (Irvin & Stansbury 2004). Table 2 summarises indicators to estimate the desirability of public participation for organisations with a finite budget (Irvin & Stansbury 2004). The more high benefit and low cost indicators are present, the more desirable public participation is, and vice versa. The low benefit and high cost indicators in italics can be overcome with the use of social media.

13

 

High  

Benefits  

Costs  

Low  

The  issue  is  gridlocked  and  a  citizen  mandate  is   The   agency   has   had   prior   success   in   needed  to  break  the  gridlock   implementing   policy   without   citizen   participation  (the  voting  process  is  sufficient)   Hostility   towards   organisation   is   high,   and   the   The  public  is  generally  not  hostile  towards  the   agency   seeks   validation   from   community   organisation     members  to  successfully  implement  policy   Community   representatives   with   particularly   The   population   is   large,   making   it   difficult   for   strong   influence   are   willing   to   serve   as   involved  stakeholders  to  influence  a  significant   representatives   portion  of  the  population   The   group   facilitator   has   credibility   with   all   The  decisions  of  the  group  are  likely  to  be  the   representatives   same  decisions  produced  by  the  organisation   The   issue   is   of   high   interest   to   stakeholders     and   may   be   considered   at   “crisis   stage”   if   actions  are  not  changed   An   acquiescent   public   is   reluctant   to   get   Citizens   readily   volunteer   for   projects   that   involved   in   what   is   considered   the   job   of   the   benefit  the  entire  community   organisation   The   region   is   geographically   large,   which   Key   stakeholders   are   not   too   geographically   makes  regular  face-­‐to-­‐face  meetings  difficult     dispersed/participants   can   easily   reach   meetings   Many   competing   factions   and   socioeconomic   The   community   is   homogenous:   the   group   groups  require  a  very  large  participatory  group   requires   fewer   representatives   of   interest   groups   Low  income  residents  are  key  stakeholders  for   Citizens   have   enough   income   to   attend   the   issue   at   hand   and   should   be   included,   but   meetings   without   harming   their   ability   to   cannot  because  of  work  and  familial  priorities   provide  for  their  families   Complex   technological   knowledge   is   required   The   topic   does   not   require   representatives   to   before  participants  can  make  decisions   master  complex  technical  information  quickly     The  public  does  not  recognise  the  issue  under     consideration   as   a   problem,   nor   are   potential   alternatives  familiar  to  the  public   Table 2 Estimate of benefits and costs of social participation

14

2. Stakeholder  participation  on  social  media   It is clear that building social capital is of high importance for organisations. Research shows a strong relationship between the use of social network sites and increased levels of social capital (McCorkindale 2010, Ellison et al. 2014). Therefore, it is useful to examine the capability of social media to enable participation.

2.1

SOCIAL  MEDIA  

Social media are all internet applications where users, both organisations and their target groups, create content themselves (KING 2010). The web-based platforms support interaction via the site and offer the technology to share opinions, experiences and perspectives (GIS 2011, Ellison et al. 2014). The main difference with traditional media is that social media are not broadcast mediums (GIS 2011).

online  basis  

content  created  by  users  

enable  interacion  

Figure 1 Core characteristics of social media

Five basic social media tools can be differentiated (GIS 2011):2 1. Social networks: websites used to connect and interact with other individuals 2. Media-sharing networks: websites which enable users to share photos and videos and allows users to comment 3. Blogs: content-managed websites which present their entries in reverse and allow visitors to comment 4. Wikis: web-based applications which allow users to edit a web page and to add content 5. Forums: online applications for theme discussions between participants

2

 In  this  research,  the  terms  ‘social  media’  and  ‘social  network  sites’  will  be  used  as  synonyms.    

15

41% of the US general population is active on a social network site, compared to three quarters the Americans between 19 and 29 (McCorkindale et al. 2013). The number of users of social network sites, Facebook more specifically, is even higher in Belgium: 5,6 million Belgians are on Facebook (BSMM 2014). 72% of the Flemish population has a Facebook profile. 81% of 24-35-year-olds, 59% of 55-64-year-olds and 55% of people over the age of 65 own a Facebook account (Ilegems 2014). Almost 75% of all users checks Facebook daily.

2.2

SOCIAL  MEDIA  IN  ORGANISATIONS  

Organisations are increasingly feeling pressure to provide a broader range of information to a wider range of stakeholders, and to communicate more proactively and frequently with stakeholders (Crane & Livesey 2003, KING 2010). Social media offer a variety of solutions for this pressure. Information sharing and dialogic relationship building are the two primary purposes of social media (Lovejoy & Saxton 2012, GIS 2012). They enable a wide dissemination of messages and foster participation, feedback, and interaction through various communication channels (Ellison et al. 2014). The web-based tools also allow immediacy of service, around-the-clock availability, relief for other channels, greater effectiveness, massive scalability, cost reduction and customer insight (Oracle 2012). Additional possibilities are monitoring issues, constructing a knowledge network and managing expectations about the organisation (KING 2010). Here, we will especially pay attention to the usefulness of and methods for relationship building and participation via social media. 2.2.1 Organisational  activity  on  social  media  

Passive  

monitor  

Acive  

signpost/   support  

respond  

Engaged  

discuss  

debate  

Figure 2 Continuum of organisational engagement on social media

16

Organisations can be active on social media on different levels, regardless of their objectives. There is a continuum from passive to engaged, with active in between (GIS 2011). Firstly,

passive presence on social media mainly entails monitoring what is being said about the organisation. This landscaping can be used for strategic planning of future communication and to estimate the necessary resources to become active. Secondly, active presence on social media means posting (links to) information to help people, answer questions or to correct inaccuracies. The important aspect of active presence is to always identify yourself as an employee of the organisation. Thirdly, engaged presence includes setting up a group on a social network site and regularly introducing content for discussion. ‘Engaged’ organisations need to take responsibility to be a good custodian (GIS 2011). More specifically, this means posting regularly, moderating comments and reading all messages.

Setting up a group or page on a social network belongs either to the discuss strategy or the

debate strategy (GIS 2011:15-16). Both strategies are compared in table 3.  

Activity  

Potential   objectives  

Benefits  

Risks  

Discuss  

Debate  

Set  up  a  group  on  a  social  networking  site   Start  discussion  threads   Feed  in  content  to  a  website/  post  content  on   social  media  site   Departmental-­‐developed   (factual)   tool   dropped  on  to  the  site   Feedback  on  services  

Set  up  a  group  on  a  social  networking  site   Regularly  introduce  content  for  discussion   Instigate   an   iterative   discussion   with   input   from  government   Open  up  material  for  comments  

Consultation     Increase  reach  of  information     Identifying   gaps   in   service   delivery   or     information  provision   Facilitate   discussion   across   different     organisations   Move   resource-­‐intensive   offline   tasks   to   Move   resource-­‐intensive   offline   tasks   to   online  self-­‐help  communities   online  self-­‐help  communities   Seek  input  to  solutions  from  the  public     Seek  input  to  solutions  from  the  public   Reach  specific  audiences  on  specific  issues     Benefit   from   the   credibility   of   non-­‐ Benefit   from   the   credibility   of   non-­‐ government   channels   by   providing   facts   and   government   channels   by   providing   facts   and   support   support   Complaints   are   an   opportunity   to   truly   Complaints   are   an   opportunity   to   truly   engage   with   stakeholders   and   gain   valuable   engage   with   stakeholders   and   gain   valuable   feedback   feedback   Possible  manipulation  by  interest  groups   Possible  manipulation  by  interest  groups   Reactions   are   difficult   to   analyse   due   to   lack   Reactions   are   difficult   to   analyse   due   to   lack   of  context  or  accuracy   of  context  or  accuracy   May  generate  abundance  of  responses     May  generate  abundance  of  responses   May  conflict  with  existing  possibilities     May  conflict  with  existing  possibilities  

17

 

Risk   Mitigation  

Could  create  expectations  that  results  provide   a  mandate  for  action     Providing   feedback   on   specific   issues   needs   active  management     Heated   nature   of   debate   may   prompt   participants  to  say  the  wrong  things   Clarify  how  long  discussions  will  be  active   Clarify  how  long  discussions  will  be  active   Understand  the  audience  of  the  host  site   Identify   the   level   of   information   about   respondents  that  will  be  required  for  analysis   Contingency   planning   to   accommodate   large   Contingency   planning   to   accommodate   large   number  of  responses   number  of  responses   Select   pre-­‐/post-­‐moderation   approach   and   Have   dedicated   resource   to   actively   manage   ensure  that  participants  understand   online  debate   Make  objectives     Ensure  terms  of  use  and  handle  objectionable   Establish   and   communicate   clear   posting   content   guidelines  and  rules   Clarify  how  policies  will  be  applied   Clarify  how  policies  will  be  applied   Table 3 Discuss versus debate strategy

2.2.2 Dialogic  relationship  building  on  social  media   Using social media entails recognising stakeholders as partners and co-creators, since Web 2.0 applications transform users from consumers of content to active participators and creators (Bonson & Ratkai 2013). The new media give organisations the chance to engage personally with their stakeholders via interaction and dialogue, especially with “individuals that might otherwise not participate” (Lovejoy & Saxton 2012, Evans-Cowley et al. 2010:401). 56% of consumers who interact with an organisation on social media feel a stronger connection with that brand (Brickfish 2014). The choice of platform depends on the desired quality of interaction and on the demographics of the audience. These new technologies allow for a new generation of practices of public participation, especially because it enables asynchronous communities to interact, with a low interaction cost: “An active participatory environment that uses internet has the potential to engage the public and may therefore facilitate knowledge retention and use by the public” (Evans-Cowley et al. 2010:400, Ellison et al. 2014). Traditional public meetings, by contrast, limit the time and extent to which one can learn about a complex issue (Evans-Cowley et al. 2010). In addition, research has proven that satisfaction and commitment levels of technology-based public meetings are higher (Evans-Cowley et al. 2010).

18

Of all social media platforms, Facebook seems to be the most popular platform for interaction between organisations and stakeholders (GIS 2012). It is, however, important to keep abreast of newly emerging channels (GIS 2012). Research proves that Facebook should be used as one part of a larger group of participatory techniques, but that it is currently mainly employed to help citizens gain knowledge about planning processes and projects. It is a well-suited medium for increasing bridging social capital. Bridging ties are usually weaker relationships that connect different clusters within a network, propagate novel information and create diverse perspectives across those groups (Ellison et al. 2014). Facebook is nonetheless also capable of supporting strong ties or bonding relationships that consist of more iterative interactions, high levels of trust, support and intimacy (Ellison et al. 2014). The strength of ties is signalled by content, frequency of interaction and length of the message (Ellison et al. 2014). 2.2.3 Conditions  and  restrictions   Researchers agree that social media can play an important role in stakeholder dialogue and participation. There are, however, several conditions and restrictions to the possibilities of social media: 1. The majority of studies has found that people use Facebook especially to communicate with friends and not with organisations (Vorvoreanu 2009, McCorkindale 2010). They will, however, like organisations when something is in it for them, such as incentives or information (Vorvoreanu 2009, McCorkindale et al. 2013). Other reasons fans indicated to follow a page are ‘just for fun’, ‘the existing membership of a friend’, and ‘because somebody asked them to’ (McCorkindale et al. 2013). However, the most important factors to like a page are personal relevancy of the organisation and the importance of the organisation to their network (McCorkindale et al. 2013). Therefore, it is crucial to create a Facebook page that offers certain advantages or is of specific personal relevance.

19

2. Different studies revealed that the value of input via social media is identical to traditional input. However, several researchers state that the quantity of input is higher via traditional channels, and that traditional participants are more knowledgeable and engaged, while other studies found otherwise (Evans-Cowley & Hollander 2010, Robinson 2002, KING 2010). 3. The challenges of using high-tech software can hinder its implementation. Citizens who are less knowledgeable about new technologies should be kept in mind: the validity they ascribe to new interfaces will be smaller. (Evans-Cowley et al. 2010). 4. Online participation tools are most useful as a supplement to traditional approaches, not as replacement, but as a part of a broader participatory process. (Evans-Cowley et al. 2010). 5. Internet tools are more useful for some forms of public participation than others. Since all social media technologies are relatively new, planners are still learning what platforms are more useful for which types of participation. 6. The risk of increased stakeholder involvement is that when stakeholder dialogue is superficially employed, it might result in cynicism, distrust and a negative image (Crane & Livesey 2003). Even when genuinely adopted, it could lead to cacophony and contradiction, and even fragmentation within the organisation. As a summary, the major strengths and weaknesses of social media are presented in table 4 (KING 2010, McCorkindale 2010, GIS 2011, GIS 2012, McCorkindale et al. 2013). Strengths  

Weaknesses  

Mainstream,  easy  access    

Challenging   to   build   and   maintain   visibility   amidst  the  existing  volumes  of  media   Wide   range   of   interactive   features,   supporting   Limited  control  over  third-­‐party  adverts   more  involved  relationships  with  stakeholders   Free   and   straightforward,   improve   long-­‐term   Certain   organisations   might   be   unwelcome   on   cost-­‐effectiveness  of  communication   some  channels  

20

Useful   for   profile   building,   information   updates,   Inappropriate   posts   can   create   legal   and   consultation   and   deliberation,   content   and   reputational  risks     community  management3   Possible  to  develop  specialist  applications   Platforms   might   be   open   to   manipulation   by   interest  groups   Broaden  and  deepen  networks   Anti-­‐groups  can  easily  organise  themselves   Improve   accessibility   of   corporate   User   generated   content   may   be   difficult   to   check   communication   for  accuracy   Meet  public  expectations  of  modern  service  and   Information   on   organisational   Facebook   pages   enhance  reputation   might   lack   credibility   in   the   eyes   of   the   stakeholders   Promote  organisational  transparency   Comments   may   unintentionally   inflame   a   situation   Ability   to   adjust   and   refocus   communication   Possibility   of   greater   resource   requirements   than   more  quickly     expected   Increase  the  speed  of  public  feedback  and  input   Without   appropriate   planning,   organisations   might   be   unable   to   meet   information   management  obligations.   Reach  specific  audiences  on  specific  issues   No  steady  platform:  changing  lay  out  and  format     Reduce   dependence   on   media   and   counter     inaccurate  press  coverage   Gain  insight  in  neighbourhood  sentiment     Opinions   and   suggestion   are   visible   for   all     participants   Possibility  to  show  what  is  done  with  opinions       Avoiding   false   consensus   and   group   polarisation,     also  on  later  physical  meetings   Table 4 Strengths and weaknesses of organisational use of Facebook

  2.2.4 Practical  tips  for  organisational  use  of  social  media   Social network sites are great tools for social grooming (Ellison et al. 2014). Starting and maintaining relationship efforts means involving stakeholders in the organisational activities and asking for network assistance (Waters et al. 2009). However, many companies do not fully make use of Facebook’s potential to enable two-way communication, transparent disclosure and building relationships (Waters et al. 2009, McCorkindale 2010).4

3

 A  social  media  page  initiated  by  an  organisation  might  be  a  catalyst  for  the  creation  of  online  communities.   Such  communities  can,  in  their  turn,  become  an  authoritative  voice  that  advises  its  members,  but  can  also  offer   the  opportunity  to  address  rumours  and  to  monitor  the  sentiment  and  opinions  of  stakeholders  (GIS  2012).     4  Giving  a  complete  overview  of  how  to  incorporate  and  use  Facebook  on  a  practical  level  would  lead  us  too   far.   However,   we   added   a   thorough   set   of   guidelines,   applied   to   the   case   of   Project   Gent   Sint-­‐Pieters,   as   an   appendix.  

21

If organisations want to use social media, they have to incorporate it consciously in their communication strategy (KING 2010, McCorkindale et al. 2013, Chow 2014). When social media are fully integrated in the communication mix, they can be employed more differentially and efficiently (KING 2010, Chow 2014). A multiple-step guide to integrate social media in an organisation’s communication mix is added as an appendix (KING 2010, KING & RPA n.d.). Organisations must remember that the existence of connections on Facebook does not suffice to create social capital; simply relying on the medium does not guarantee good relationships (Ellison et al. 2014). On the contrary, inactivity of a page could turn off potential users (McCorkindale 2010). Instead, all parties need to display relationship maintenance behaviours and explicitly signal attention cues. In practice, this can be done by responding to questions, congratulating and sympathising with others, signalling attention, building trust and creating expectations for reciprocal attention (Ellison et al. 2014).

22

Methodology   Our research consists of two parts. In the first part, we will evaluate Project Gent Sint-Pieters’ communication goals, stakeholder strategies and communication channels. Infopunt Project Gent Sint-Pieters created a Facebook page in April 2013, with the support of communications agency Talking Heads. The overall performance of the Facebook page is monitored by Talking Heads, but this analysis will give a more in-depth view of the overall performance, of the content that is posted and on the levels of interaction and dialogue with the stakeholders. In the second part of this research, we will analyse both formal aspects and content of two case studies: the Facebook pages of Project Gent Sint-Pieters (henceforth also PGSP) and CU2030 Utrecht. CU2030 is a similar project to PGSP which evolves around the improvement of the Utrecht station and its neighbourhood. The Infopunt considers the project of Utrecht and its communication efforts a good example.5 With this case study, we try to objectify or disprove the gut feeling that CU2030 Utrecht is a textbook example of communication and participation via social media. We analysed the Facebook posts of PGSP and CU2030 that were uploaded in April, May, and June in order to keep the sample size manageable (42 posts from PGSP, 72 posts from CU2030 Utrecht). On a formal level, we examined what efforts are made to be open and transparent and to involve stakeholders. The list of formal elements was composed of tips and findings retrieved from the literature review. For the research on the level of content, all of the posts were listed in an Excel file and analysed on a quantitative and qualitative level. Quantitatively, we examined the stakeholder engagement rate, and the frequency, length and timing of the posts. Qualitatively, we examined the types of the post, the goals (information sharing, community building, calls-toaction), and the characteristics of the content (general characteristics; relevant, shared, promotional content; disclosure and legitimacy; and social sentiment mapping). The results were compared to either other research results or theoretical ideals, in order to assess the performances of PGSP and CU2030. 5

 An   additional   reason   to   compare   the   Facebook   pages   of   PGSP   and   CU2030   Utrecht   is   the   similarity   of   the   projects:   they   are   long-­‐term,   occur   in   the   heart   of   a   city,   and   aim   at   improving   the   railway   station   and   the   surrounding  area.  Moreover,  they  both  recognise  the  importance  of  participation  and  have  a  similar  number  of   fans  on  each  Facebook  page.  

23

Project  Gent  Sint-­‐Pieters   Project Gent Sint-Pieters is the collective term for the renovation of the railway station GentSint-Pieters and the surrounding area. The project is a collaboration between six partners: NMBS, Infrabel, Eurostation, De Lijn, Agentschap Wegen en Verkeer, and Stad Gent. The main goal is to transform the 100-year-old railway station into a central hub of public transport with a capacity of 60,000 rail passengers per day. More specifically, the train tracks and the underlying area will be drastically renovated, new bus and tram stations will be built, and an underground parking will accommodate 10,000 bicycles and 2,700 cars. In addition, several Kiss and Ride zones will be created, several real estate development projects will be executed and a nearby natural area will be opened in order to compensate the infrastructural interventions in the neighbourhood. The project was started in 2006 and is scheduled to be finished in 2024.

1. Communication  and  participation   Because of the large dimensions and the abundance of stakeholders of the project, transparent and timely communication is indispensable.

PGSP makes an effort to increase both

transparency and stakeholder engagement. We will discuss current and possible stakeholder strategies and communication goals and the channels which are currently employed to reach those goals. Furthermore, we will elaborate on the current use of the Facebook page of the project. 1.1

STAKEHOLDER  STRATEGIES  AND  COMMUNICATION  GOALS  

Literature about infrastructure projects proves that there is a clear lack of attention to collaboration between the stakeholders and the project itself, and to the dynamics of stakeholder engagement (Veenswijk 2013). Stakeholders can be defined as all internal and external factors that are involved in a project and influence the process and the image of the project via interaction (Veenswijk 2013). Since the choice of stakeholder strategy depends on both the target group and the project phase, the first important step is mapping the stakeholders. Talking Heads (2012) has listed the stakeholders of PGSP (in alphabetical order):

24

Cyclists   Disabled  people   Emergency  services   Future  users  of  project  development   Intermediaries  and  key  actors   Investors   Local  inhabitants   Local  merchants  and  business  

Motorists   Pedestrians   People  interested  in  PGSP   Press   Students/schools   Taxis   Users  of  public  transport    

Several of these interest groups are organised in organisations such as neighbourhood and district associations, the bicycle federation, the federation of train, tram, and bus travellers, the senior council, organisations of disabled people, project developers and social housing. It should be kept in mind that stakeholders not only occupy an explicit position, but that there is a twilight zone with underlying views, motives, and interests (Veenswijk 2013). Realising interaction between the stakeholders is one of the three main communication objectives of infrastructure projects (KING 2010). The others are positioning of the project itself, and transferring knowledge and information about the project (KING 2010). Figure 3 depicts an overview of the communication objectives and subgoals.

Posioning   Project  narraive:   transforming/   developing/   conserving  

Knowledge   transfer  

informing  

persuading  

Interacion  

dialogising  

formaion  

depends  on  project   profile:  missionary/ support/   arena/technical  

Figure 3 Communication goals and subgoals

 

25

1.1.1 Positioning  of  the  project   The stakeholder groups discussed previously play an important role in the framing of the project. Media and interest groups can easily influence the image of the project (Veenswijk 2013). Moreover, the framing or image that is built during the project can strengthen or hinder the ties between different parties (Veenswijk 2013). Therefore, it is essential to communicate a coherent and collectively supported goal and meaning of the project with all of the partners. A united project narrative can positively influence the stakeholder interaction (Veenswijk 2013). One way to create this unified account is to implement a communication board of all project partners and relevant stakeholders, and employ this to attain coherency in communication and contacts. In the case of PGSP, Infopunt Project Gent Sint-Pieters fulfils this function. Positioning the project can be seen as communicating a specific project narrative. There are three main project narratives: transforming, developing and conserving (Veenswijk 2013). The selection of a project narrative depends on the project profile, which is determined by how internal and external stakeholders relate to each other and by how the project advances (Veenswijk 2013). Examples of project profiles are the support model, the missionary model and the arena model (Veenswijk 2013). PGSP, however, fits into the technical model. This implies that the renovations are considered necessary and that the project is government initiated (Veenswijk 2013). In the case of PGSP, the most meaningful project narrative seems to be the transforming one, which emphasises the new and improved aspects of the subject. 1.1.2 Knowledge  and  information  transfer:  informing  and  persuading   Van Ruler (1998, in KING 2010) describes four basic communication strategies, of which two involve a one-way knowledge and information transfer about the project. The first strategy is

informing, comparable to the stakeholder information strategy coined by Morsing and Shultz (2006). The focus lies on objective communication and classic briefing and mainly consists of one-way communication (KING 2010, Morsing and Shultz 2006). This is an ideal main strategy for projects with little resistance and low involvement of stakeholders.

26

A second one-way communication strategy is persuading, and can be compared to the stakeholder response strategy of Morsing and Schultz (2006) (KING 2010). This strategy focuses on positively influencing the stakeholders’ opinion and is characterised by a campaignlike approach. This strategy considers stakeholders to be influential but only passively responding to corporate initiatives (Morsing & Schultz 2006). Persuading is especially useful during realisation phases when trying to communicate to a large group or during initiation phases, in order to sell the decisions to the stakeholders (KING 2010). The persuading strategy should, however, be employed with caution. Research has revealed that it is possibly more advisable to formulate a message in terms of ‘what is or could be lost’. This strategy is called loss framing and more often yields desirable results (Veenswijk 2013). 1.1.3 Enabling  dialogue:  dialogising  and  formation   Research showed that communication with stakeholders is generally issue driven and that the public reacts to plans or provisional decisions instead of being given the space to actively participate (Veenswijk 2013). This often results in dissatisfaction and a lack of confidence (KING 2009). Stakeholder dialogue can prevent such issue driven communication. The focus of dialogizing lies on an open exchange of thoughts and ideas and avoids influencing. It is based on equality and is especially useful for brainstorming and as a means to explore what stakeholders expect and demand of the project (KING 2010). All dialogue has common elements (Bonson & Ratkai 2013): 1. Including as many stakeholders as possible 2. Engaging them as human beings and not as representatives of stakeholders 3. Listening and answering 4. Constructing an environment that allows stakeholders to speak sincerely

Formation, the fourth communication strategy, is centred on collaboration with the parties involved and the formation of coalitions between parties (KING 2010). The goal is to unify the concerns of several stakeholder groups that are directly involved. This strategy is typically employed in projects that meet resistance and that have great interests on the line (KING 2010). Because of the large number of stakeholders that are affected by PGSP, there has been quite some resistance against certain decisions. Therefore, formation is a very important

27

strategy for PGSP. The benefits of real participation are an increase of public support, of clarity for the stakeholders, a more useful input and less chance of delay. There is, however, no guarantee that everyone agrees with the decisions (KING 2010). There are various criteria to assess the effectiveness of participatory techniques of organisations. Poisner (1996, quoted in Carr & Halvorsen 2001) listed seven criteria.6 1. Representativeness of participants It should be kept in mind that representativeness can be assessed on different levels such as demographic aspects, political persuasion, duration of interest and status as opinion leader (Carr & Halvorsen 2001). In the case of PGSP, a meaningful basis for stakeholder groups is their reason for interest. PGSP’s participants of events such as feedback groups do not seem to represent all significant sectors of the community. For instance, students and local merchants are not always represented. In other studies as well, the lack of representatives seems to be the biggest issue (Carr & Halvorsen 2001). However, students can be reached via the Facebook page and school visits, and there is often telephonic contact with merchants, so overall, the relevant stakeholder groups seem to be represented in the case of PGSP. This is important to achieve goals of democratic, community oriented participatory techniques. 2. Discussion of the common good Discussions do not always focus on the common good. Even though this is the intention, people present are often more concerned with their personal or neighbourhood interests. 3. Identification of underlying values and beliefs As for the third criterion, the stakeholders are given the opportunity to explain their concerns, but values and beliefs are rarely explicitly acknowledged.

6

 To   assess   these   criteria   precisely,   thorough   knowledge   of   the   organisation   and   its   context   is   indispensable.   We   tried   to   judge   the   seven   criteria   for   PGSP,   but   due   to   the   limited   time   to   become   familiar   with   the   organisation,  a  correct  judgement  cannot  be  guaranteed.    

28

4. Face-to-face interaction Due to the variety of channels that are used to communicate, which will later be discussed in more detail, participants are able to both communicate in person as online. 5. Citizens versus direct representatives PGSP undertakes efforts to enable individuals to voice their concerns or opinions. On the one hand, people regularly contact the Infopunt with questions and problems. During the feedback sessions to, individual citizens are present. On the other hand, Infopunt has regular contact with representatives of stakeholder groups, such as neighbourhood organisations or cyclist federations. This is mainly necessary because of the size and variety of the stakeholder groups. 6. Encouraging dialogue PGSP certainly encourages dialogues, especially by providing different types of channels and occasions. It could, however, be argued that more tools could be employed and dialogue could be more explicitly encouraged. 7. Inculcating civic virtue This last criterion is less relevant and difficult to assess.

1.2

COMMUNICATION  CHANNELS  

As was mentioned previously, Infopunt Project Gent Sint-Pieters is the entity responsible for the communication of PGSP. The Infopunt can be considered as a communication channel itself: it is accessible during office hours for anyone to ask information about the project and is the contact point for people with problems regarding the project. A large variety of mediums are used to communicate to different stakeholders and to build relationships, both offline and online.

29

The choice of channels depends on the target audience, the message and the expected quality of interaction and the communication strategy. It is advisable to offer a multichannel choice and to manage all channels in a common manner (Oracle 2012). PGSP uses, amongst others, press, newsletters, information letters, brochures, meetings and information markets as channels for informing stakeholders. These are typical informing channels (KING 2010, Morsing & Schultz 2006). It should be noted that information markets are preferable to information meetings because the last could mobilise more resistance via group polarisation: people who are undecided often join the perceived majority, a phenomenon called social validation (Veenswijk 2013, KING 2009, KING 2010). Information markets are more spread in time and therefore avoid assembling opponents only. Possible channels for the formation strategies are feedback groups, debate meetings and guided discussions (KING 2010). In addition, several market researches and surveys have been conducted to examine opinions and issues about the project. These are typical tools employed in the stakeholder response strategy (Morsing & Schultz 2006). Next to this inexhaustive list of offline channels, PGSP employs several online communication channels: a website and a Facebook page. The website is used for informing and one-way communication. With regard to the level of the communication goals for infrastructure projects, Facebook is most appropriate for interaction with stakeholders and for positioning. On the level of strategies, it is a perfect medium for two-way communication and influencing two characteristics of the formation strategy of Van Ruler (KING 2010). In addition, the Facebook page increases PGSP’s visibility, builds, expands and maintains a network and is an ideal platform for sharing (Talking Heads 2013). Nonetheless, PGSP should avoid pitfalls such as posting irrelevant information, creating misunderstandings, and having to monitor the page 24/7 (Talking Heads 2013). PGSP opted not to create a Twitter profile, mainly because they have access to the platform via the partners of the project and Facebook offers a richer media experience than Twitter (Lovejoy & Saxton 2012).

30

Figure 4 Social media according to Van Ruler’s communication strategies

Ultimately, the usefulness depends on the goals you want to achieve and the audience you want to reach via Facebook. The main objectives of PGSP’s Facebook page are to profile the Infopunt as a centre of knowledge, to gather data about target groups and to optimise communication. Additional goals are increasing brand recognition and networking (Talking Heads 2012b). Facebook is seen as a tool to assure PGSP’s own voice on social media, since a variety of blogs and websites mention PGSP, often in a rather negative manner (Talking Heads 2012b). In addition, Facebook is an official platform for dialogue, for answering questions and responding to issues and criticism to enable discussions between proponents and opponents (Talking Heads 2010). Ultimately, PGSP uses Facebook mainly as a knowledge database and to respond to questions and criticism. As for the audience, PGSP mainly targets local residents, users of public transport, motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, students, and the disabled. The secondary target audience of the Facebook page of PGSP are investors, press, merchants and people with a general interest in the project. Since fans rarely indicate their reason of interest, it is not possible to assess whether the page reaches its target audience without an extensive survey. What we do know is that the Facebook page reaches a relatively young audience, as is shown in figure 4: almost

31

30% is aged between 25 and 34, 25% is 18-24 years old. In addition, 63% of the audience are men. While participatory techniques such as surveys, conversations with community groups and community dinners also attract a mainly male audience, the age of participants to such events is much higher: 57-66 years old, while the community average is actually lower (Carr & Halvorsen 2001).

13-­‐17   18-­‐24   25-­‐34   35-­‐44   45-­‐54   55-­‐65   65+  

Figure 5 Age PGSP’s Facebook fans

32

Case  studies  and  discussion  

1.   Formal  aspects   1.1

VOLUNTARY  DISCLOSURE:  OPENNESS  AND  TRANSPARENCY    

According to social legitimacy theory, there is a social contract between the company and society (Bonson & Ratkai 2013). This is particularly the case for Project Gent Sint-Pieters, which directly influences the lives of many stakeholders. The social contract entails voluntary disclosure of content (Waters et al. 2009). Disclosure not only applies to content; it is also important to be open and transparent on formal level. Table 5 lists formal aspects of disclosure and indicates their presence on the Facebook pages of PGSP and CU2030. This list is applicable to any type of social media page. Aspect   Official  logo  

About-­‐section  

Hyperlink   Category   Administrators   Policy  

Disclaimer  

Followed  

Explanation   CU2030   PGSP   Functions   as   a   visual   cue   for   profiling   the   organisation   as   an   official   organisation   (Waters   et   al.   2009,   McCorkindale   2010,   Kok  2011,  Chow  2014)   A   detailed   description   of   the   organisation,   its   history,   mission,   History?   programmes   and   services,   target   audience   and   personal   Target   Target   relevance   (Waters   et   al.   2009,   McCorkindale   2010,   audience?   audience?   McCorkindale  2013,  Tabsite  Blog  2014)   Personal   History?   relevance?   Link  to  the  official  website  or  other  channels  (Waters  et  al.  2009,   KING  &  RPA  n.d.)   A  correct  category  indication  enables  relevant  functions  on  the   Facebook  page  (Tabsite  Blog  2014)   A   list   of   individuals   who   are   responsible   for   maintaining   the   Facebook  page  humanises  the  profile  (Waters  et  al.  2009)   A   policy   statement   about   the   use   of   the   page   provides   assurance   and   sets   rules   that   are   especially   useful   when   discussions  are  organised  (McCorkindale  2010)   A  disclaimer  is  a  statement  that  specifies  the  scope,  obligations,   and  rights  of  the  organisation  (McCorkindale  2010).  A  disclaimer   is,   for   instance,   useful   to   clarify   that   the   organisation   has   no   obligation  to  apply  suggestions.     A   list   of   people/organisations   that   you   follow   leads   to   social   network  building  (McCorkindale  2010).  This  list  is  automatically   enabled  on  Facebook.  

✔  

✔  

✔  

✔  

?  

?  

✗  

✗  

✗  

✗  

✗  

✗  

✔  

✔  

Table 5 Formal aspects of disclosure

33

Waters et al. (2009) analysed 275 random incorporated non-profit organisations on the presence of these aspects, and found that disclosure is taken seriously: 97% lists the administrators of the Facebook profile 71% uses the organisational logo 43% provides a mission statement 37% names organisational representatives 22% explains the history of the organisation The Facebook pages of PGSP and CU2030 perform very similarly. The about-section of PGSP is more extensive and thorough, but improvement is still possible: the history of the project and the target audience can be added. This also goes for CU2030 Utrecht; the history, target audience and personal relevance of the page are not addressed. An interesting difference between both pages is the category. PGSP is listed as a government association, while CU2030 Utrecht is indicated as home improvement. Both define a part of the project well (government sponsored and aimed at improving the neighbourhood) but neither offers a complete definition. The choice of category is limited by Facebook.

1.2

INVOLVEMENT  

Stakeholder theory centres on concepts as participation, dialogue and involvement (Morsing & Schultz 2006). Certain formal characteristics can help to involve the fans of a page:

Aspect  

Explanation  

CU2030  

Contact   information  

An   application   of   access   is   a   straightforward   maintenance   strategy  (McCorkindale  2010)   An   organisational   calendar   of   events   gives   followers   a   clear   overview   of   both   online   and   offline   participation   events   (Waters   et   al.   2009).   There   are   free   calendar   apps   for   Facebook.     Using  @tags  in  answers  and  reactions  creates  a  more  personal   response  (Tabsite  Blog  2014)   A   minifeed   with   important   or   recent   posts   proves   that   the   page   has   been   updated   recently   (McCorkindale   2010).   Such   a   minifeed  is    more  usual  on  blogs  than  on  Facebook   Allowing   comments   contributes   to   openness   (McCorkindale   2010).   The   comment   function   is   automatically   enabled   on   Facebook.  

✔  

✔  

✔  

✗  

✗  

Occasionally  

✗  

✗  

✔  

✔  

Calendar  

Tags   Recent  posts   Comment   function  

PGSP  

34

7

Discussion   application  

Multimedia  

Discussion   apps   increase   openness   (McCorkindale   2010).  They   can   be   very   useful   to   channel   and   organise   discussions,   as   opposed  to  poorly  organised  posts  on  the  wall.     The   presence   of   multimedia   can   have   a   positive   effect   on   relationship   building   and   reputation   (McCorkindale   2010).   A   video  box  can  easily  be  enabled  via  Settings  >  Apps.  Additional   multimedia  are  added  within  the  posts  themselves.  

✗  

✗  

Only  in-­‐ post,  no   apps  

Only  in-­‐ post,  no   apps  

Table 6 Formal aspects of involvement

Waters et al. (2009) discovered that, contrary to disclosure, few methods are applied which allow followers to become more involved in the organisation: 63% mentions a generic e-mail address 9% provides a phone number 8% provides a calendar The same trend appears in our cases. PGSP and CU2030 both mention detailed contact information. In addition, the comment function is automatically enabled on Facebook. Neither page has a feed with recent posts or a discussion application. Especially the discussion application would be useful for PGSP: it can be used to organise themed discussions, with clear topic indications and that are active for a limited period of time. Furthermore, the pages could appear more dynamic with, for instance, a video box displaying the introduction film of the project. Another point that could be improved is the use of tags. When replying to a Facebook reaction, the response can be personalised by tagging the person who is being replied to. That person will then be notified about your reaction. A final element that can be added is the event calendar. CU2030 Utrecht uses such a calendar for announcing events. It thus functions as a call to action and plays an important role in involving fans.

7

 There   used   to   be   a   Discussion   tab   on   Facebook   but   it   was   removed   in   October   2011   in   order   to   move   all   discussions  to  the  Facebook  Wall.  There  are  however  different  discussion  applications  that  can  be  installed  on   a  Facebook  page.  An  example  is  https://apps.facebook.com/discussionforpages/.  Added  apps  can  be  managed   on  your  profile  >  Settings  >  Apps.    

35

2. Content  analysis   2.1

QUANTITATIVE  

In order to analyse the Facebook content of PGSP and CU2030 Utrecht on a quantitative level, we examined several aspects of the posts on the Facebook walls: the extent of stakeholder engagement, the average number of posts per week and the frequency of posts, the timing of the posts and the length of the posts. 2.1.1 Stakeholder  engagement     Bonson and Ratkai (2013:787) developed a set of metrics “to assess reactivity, dialogic communication and stakeholder engagement” on Facebook. These metrics, schematised in table 7, consist of three aspects: popularity, commitment and virality or respectively the number of likes, comments and shares on Facebook. Name  

Sign  

Formula  

Popularity  

P1   Number  of  posts  with  likes/total  posts  

    Commitment  

P2   P3   C1  

    Virality  

C2   C3   V1  

   

V2   V3  

Measures  

Percentage   of   the   total   posts   that   have   been  liked   Total  likes/total  number  of  posts   Average  number  of  likes  per  post   (P2/number  of  fans)*1000   Popularity  of  messages  among  fans   Number   of   posts   with   comments/total   Percentage   of   the   total   posts   that   have   posts   been  commented  on   Total  comments/total  posts   Average  number  of  comments  per  post   (C2/number  of  fans)*1000   Commitment  of  fans   Number  of  posts  with  shares/total  posts   Percentage   of   the   total   posts   that   have   been  shared   Total  shares/total  posts   Average  number  of  shares  per  post   (V2/number  of  fans)*1000   Virality  of  messages  among  fans   Table 7 Metrics to assess stakeholder engagement

At the moment of this research, there were 823 fans on PGSP’s Facebook page and 776 on CU2030’s page. The results were compared to the research of Bonson and Ratkai (2012), who observed 314 companies and analysed the Facebook pages of the top 10. The number of likes is important because a person who likes a post builds awareness of that message among their own network and it is potentially a public display of brand affiliation (McCorkindale et al. 2013).

36

30  

Engagement  rate  

25   20  

Average  number   of  comments  per   post  

15  

Average  number   of  shares  per  post  

10  

Average  number   of  likes  per  post  

5   0   PGSP  

CU2030   Figure 6 Average engagement per post

On the PGSP page, each post was liked at least once. On average, posts were liked 10 times. 8 Also in the CU2030 page, each post was at least liked once, but the average number of likes per post was twice as high: 20 likes. Only 2 fans on average liked the posts of the top ten of Bonson and Ratkai (2010). The popularity rate of messages among fans on PGSP’s profile is 12, compared to 25 for CU2030, and 2.1 for Bonson and Ratkai’s top ten. There is no clear cause for the large differences between these values. These results show that CU2030 is twice as popular among fans than PGSP, but that PGSP is still more popular than the top ten pages of Bonson and Ratkai. The most likely reason for the high popularity of the pages is that followers are actively looking for or interested in information about the projects. It should also be kept in mind that the likes on a post do not only come from fans of the page, but also from people who were reached via likes, comments and shares of the fans. The proportion of likes of fans and non-fans can be found in the Facebook data insights export. The commitment of fans is substantially lower on the pages of PGSP and CU2030 than on the top ten pages: on average, there are 1.4 comments per PGSP post, 3 per CU2030 post, while there were 123 comments per post on the top 10 pages (Bonson and Ratkai 2012). 52% of PGSP’s posts are commented on, which is slightly less than the 59% of CU2030 and 61% of the 8

 On   the   page   of   PGSP,   there   was   one   exceptionally   scoring   post   that   attained   127   likes   (compared   to   an   average  of  10  likes.  In  order  to  avoid  distortion  of  the  results,  this  post  was  disregarded  to  measure  popularity.    

37

10 companies (Bonson and Ratkai 2012). These results show that the posts of PGSP are the least successful (on the level of comments). On CU2030’s page, more posts are commented on and more reactions per post are given. Bonson and Ratkai’s top ten easily performs better. However, value C3 reveals that this is due to the higher number of fans: the commitment of fans of PGSP is almost 7 times higher than on the top ten pages, and the commitment of CU2030 fans is more than 10 times higher. The same pattern occurs for the virality aspect. 23% of the posts of PGSP were shared, versus 34% of the top ten companies. CU230 scores remarkably higher, with 59% of its posts shared. There is an average of 0.8 shares per post of PGSP, 2.3 per post of CU2030, which is low compared to the 29 shares per post of the top ten. However, PGSP (1) scores better than the top 10 (0.1) for the virality of messages among fans. CU2030’s virality rate is even higher (0.3). In summary, PGSP’s posts are the least viral. CU2030 Utrecht has the most shared posts, but the top ten of Bonson and Ratkai has the highest number of shares per post.  

Popularity  

  P1   PGSP   100.0%   CU2030   100.0%   Top  10   93.0%  

P2   9.8   19.9   1.7  

Commitment   P3   12.0   25.6   2.1  

C1   52.4%   59.0%   61.0%  

C2   1.38   2.9   123.0  

C3   1.7   3.7   0.3  

Virality   V1   23.8%   59%   34.0%  

V2   0.8   2.3   28.6  

Interactivity   V3   1.0   3.0   0.1  

I1   13.8%   21.2%   -­‐  

I2   44.4%   26.5%   -­‐  

Table 8 Stakeholder engagement by metrics of Bonson and Ratkai (2013)

In addition to the three aspects (popularity, commitment and virality), we also examined the frequency of PGSP’s and CU2030’s reactions to comments to gain more insight into the dialogue on the Facebook pages. PGSP reacts to almost 14% of the comments by fans (I1). CU2030 Utrecht makes more effort to respond: 21% of the reactions of their fans are replied. This corresponds to the results of Brickfish (2014): on average, brands only answer 20% of messages which require a response. The question is what messages on the pages of PGSP and CU2030 need to be addressed: organisations should decide whether they want to engage based on what they can gain from it (GIS 2012). Moreover, it can be inappropriate to answer due to legality or impartiality. We assume that at least the negative comments have to be answered and therefore examined the percentage of negative reactions that were answered by PGSP and CU2030. PGSP reacts to 44% of negative comments, CU2030 to 26%.

38

The importance of answering to the fans’ reactions might be underestimated. Timely answers contribute to a well-perceived customer service. 80% of the companies believe they offer a superior service on social media, while 92% of the customers disagree (Brickfish 2014). 83% expects an answer within the same day, 43% even within the hour, while it takes a company 15 hours to answer on average. 71% of followers who receive a quick and effective response are more likely to recommend that organisation to others (Brickfish 2014). 2.1.2 Number,  frequency,  and  length   Over the course of 3 months (91 days, 13 weeks), PGSP posted 42 times, which results in 3.2 posts per week on average. CU2030 uploaded 71 posts, or 5.5 posts per week. For this type of organisation, it is ideal to post 3 times per week on average (Talking Heads 2013). This is confirmed by Rawlinson (2012:13): “Posting one to four times produces 71% higher user engagement than five or more post in a given week”. Posting an excessive number of messages can have negative effects: followers do not read the posts, unfollow the organisation, or even contact someone to complain (McCorkindale et al. 2013). Even though the number of posts of CU2030 is almost twice the number of PGSP, the fans do not seem to perceive it as excessive, given the number of likes, shares and comments. The average number of posts per week of the pages seems to work, but the posts could be better spread in time. On PGSP’ profile, there are several time intervals of 5 or 6 days while on other occasions there are 3 posts per day, and on CU2030’s page even 4 posts per day. Rawlinson (2012:12) found that posting 2 times per day is a maximum: “Engagement rates are 40% higher when there are less than three posts per day of a given brand”. In theory, posts should be kept short. Rawlinson (2012) found that posts shorter than 80 characters result in a 27% higher engagement rate. Other sources recommend a maximum of 3 to 4 sentences (Talking Heads 2013). The average length of the posts of PGSP is 2 sentences. The 10 most engaging posts on the page consist of 2 sentences, confirming the expectations. Also the ten most engaging posts of CU2030 Utrecht contain between 1 and 4 sentences.

39

2.1.3 Timing   Research has showed that the best days to post on Facebook are Thursdays and Fridays because the engagement rate is 18% higher than average (Rawlinson 2012). On Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, the engagement rate is 3.5% below average (Rawlinson 2012). However, these findings do not conform to the results of PGSP and CU2030. We determined the average engagement rate for each day by dividing the sum of the likes, shares and comments from each post on one day by the number of posts on that day. Because PGSP posted only one item on a Saturday and one on a Sunday throughout the three-month period, the weekends were disregarded. CU2030 too only posted once on a Sunday. PGSP uploaded most posts on Tuesdays (11), followed by Mondays and Wednesdays (both 8), Fridays (7) and Thursdays (6). CU2030 posted most on Wednesdays (20), followed by Mondays, Tuesdays and Fridays (13), and the least on Thursdays (11). The results of both pages (Figure 5) confirm the theory that Friday is the most engaging day, while Wednesday is the least engaging. The pages should avoid posting important information on Wednesdays, while Fridays would be the optimal day to post. On Tuesdays, the performances are slightly above average.

40   35   30   Average  number  of   comments  per  post  

25   20  

Average  number  of   shares  per  post  

15   10  

Average  number  of   likes  per  post  

Monday  

Tuesday  

Wednesday  

Thursday  

CU2030  

PGSP  

CU2030  

PGSP  

CU2030  

PGSP  

CU2030  

PGSP  

CU2030  

0  

PGSP  

5  

Friday  

Figure 7 Average engagement per post per day

40

30   23,5   20,3   20   12,5   10  

9,7   9,7  

0,5  

PGSP  

0   Monday  

Tuesday  

Wednesday  

Thursday  

Friday  

CU2030  

-­‐10  

-­‐20  

-­‐30  

-­‐16,3  

-­‐13,6   -­‐19,4  

-­‐29   Figure 8 Engagement rate per day compared to average engagement rate

Interestingly, the results of Monday- and Thursday-posts of both pages strongly differ. While the engagement rate of Thursday-posts of PGSP is average, those of CU2030 score almost 30% below average. The Monday-posts of PGSP engage 16% below average, confirming the theory. However, the content posted by CU2030 on Mondays scores 13% above average. The cause for the deviation of the expectations and the differences between both pages is unclear. There can be differences dependent on the sector: for instance, Facebook pages of the retail industry and of the business and finance sector peak on Wednesdays (Rawlinson 2012). However, this does not explain the differences between PGSP and CU2030, which both belong to the same sector of public infrastructure projects. There neither seems to be a correlation between the engagement rate and the type of the posts (for instance status, photos, photos with text, videos). The lack of correlation may however be caused by the fact that a vast majority (60% of PGSP, 52% of CU2030) of posts consist of text and photos.

41

We have also considered the specific timing of the posts, because posting outside of business hours would lead to 20% higher engagement rates (Rawlinson 2012). Surprisingly, the time of the posts only explains the higher engagement in the case of CU2030. As is shown in figure 7, the later CU2030 posts content, the higher the engagement. The content of PGSP, however, engages a constant number of people, regardless the time. Most likely, the deviation is content related.

80   70  

PGSP  

engagement  

60   CU2030   UTRECHT  

50   40  

Lineair  (PGSP)  

30   Lineair   (CU2030   UTRECHT)  

20   10   0   8  

9  

10  

11  

12  

13  

14  

15  

16  

17  

18  

19  

20  

21  

Time   Figure 9 Engagement per hour

42

2.2

QUALITATIVE  

2.2.1 Types  of  content   Waters, Burnet, Lamm and Lucas (2009) argued that usefulness of websites, including social network sites, can be measured by the message dissemination. Examples of types of content provided are photos, videos, and audio files from the organisation or its supporters; links, for instance to external news items; announcements and answers to questions; press releases; and campaign summaries. Waters et al. (2009) analysed the content of 275 random legally incorporated non-profit organisations. McCorkindale (2010) conducted similar research about public Facebook pages of the Fortune 50 companies with 100 or more participants. Table 9 shows what proportion of the pages they analysed posts the different types of content.

Waters  et  al.  (2009)   McCorkindale  (2010)  

Photos  

Videos  

Audio  

Announce -­‐ments  

Links  (news,   other  pages)  

56%   66%  

24%   31%  

1%   -­‐  

44%   -­‐  

54%   36%  

Discussion   Campaign   boards   summaries  

74%   -­‐  

20%   -­‐  

Press   releases  

5%   -­‐  

Table 9 Presence of content types

Even though none of the researches we consulted reported the average proportion of different types of content on one Facebook page, it is clear that photos, videos and links are the most widespread content type. 61% of the posts of PGSP and 53% of the CU2030 posts are photos with a description. 33% (CU2030) and 20% (PGSP) consist of thumbnails with a description and a link. The other types of content on the PGSP Facebook page occur less often: video with text, video with text and links, statuses (text only), and photo(s) without text. However, research showed that the most frequently occurring types of content are not necessarily the most engaging: status only posts, single photos and albums (without any text) result in the highest engagement rates (Rawlinson 2012). Statuses with links and links with thumbnails engage the lowest number of fans. Links, photos with links and videos lie in between (Rawlinson 2012). It is clear that PGSP and CU2030 could post more statuses and plain links to increase stakeholder engagements.

43

Most  to  least   engaging     (Rawlinson  2012)   1.  status   2.  photo(s)   9

3.  links   4.  photo(s)  +  links  

5.  videos   6.  status  +  link   7.  link  +  thumbnail  

Most  to  least  used     PGSP  

Most  to  least  used      CU2030  Utrecht  

1.  photo(s)  +  text  (61%)   1.  photo(s)  +  text  (53%)   2.   photo(s)/thumbnail   +   text   +   link   2.   photo(s)/thumbnail   +   text   +   link   (20%)   (33%)   3.  photo(s)  (10%)   3.  video  (thumbnail)  +  text  +  link  (7%)   3.  status    (5%)   4.   video   +   text     (2%)          4.         video  +  text  (4%)   4.   video   (thumbnail)   +   text   +   link                                   (2%)   -­‐   5.  photo(s)  (3%)   -­‐   -­‐   -­‐   -­‐   Table 10 Success and use of content types

2.2.2 Goals  of  content   Companies that are active on social media sites use the platforms as strategic, interactive stakeholder engagement tools and particularly for attaining a deeper level of engagement with the public than is possible with traditional media (Bonson & Ratkai 2013, Lovejoy and Saxton 2012, GIS 2011). Therefore, the general goal of using social media sites is stakeholder engagement, building relationships and having conversations. It is established that social media provide an opportunity for interpersonal engagement, interactivity and dialogue (Lovejoy and Saxton 2012). There is not only a multiplicity of practical tips to increase the engagement level, but also a diversity of recent typologies which have been coined as frameworks to analyse the content goals set by organisations to increase stakeholder engagement. Examples are the information-community-action model (Saxton and Lovejoy 2012); the action-awareness-appreciation model (Talking Heads 2013); and the relationship model (McCorkindale et al. 2013).

9

 Because  links  generally  are  not  very  engaging,  it  is  important  to  note  that  when  links  are  posted,  it  is  better  to   copy   full   links   instead   of   shortened   URLs.   Indicating   the   link’s   final   destination   results   in   a   16%   higher   interaction  rate  than  shortened  URLs  (Darell  2013).  

44

Lovejoy and Saxton (2012) developed a typology of organisational microblogging functions that can be applied to different platforms. There are three functions: informing, community building and incite action or respectively information sources, community builders, and promoters and mobilisers (Lovejoy & Saxton 2012). These functions often recur in other models, either in an identical or more implicit manner.

a. Information/awareness   Informing “involves spreading information about the organisation, its activities, or anything of potential interest to followers” (Lovejoy & Saxton 2012:341). This category is very similar to the “awareness” function of which the goal is to inform local residents and other stakeholders (Talking Heads 2013). The informing/awareness function should ideally occur in 20% of the messages (Talking Heads 2013). However, in both the results of Lovejoy and Saxton’s research, conducted on Twitter, and on the Facebook page of PGSP, the proportion lies between 50 and 60%. On the Facebook page of CU2030, almost 40% of the posts raise awareness of the project. Appreciation can be considered as a specific type of information. It aims at not merely informing but convincing the stakeholders and is the third communication goal discussed by Talking Heads (2013), besides awareness (discussed previously) and action (discussed below). Examples of the appreciation goal are press releases, project introduction, proceedings, connections with partners and reactions to questions (Talking Heads 2013). Even though the main goal of the appreciation goal is defined as “informing”, the term implies “a favorable critical estimate” (Merriam-Webster 2014). Therefore, while analysing the Facebook posts, we considered informing posts with a (implicit) positive sentiment and posts that increase the appreciation of the project itself as examples of the appreciation function. 8% of the posts of PGSP and CU2030 were purely appreciation enhancing. 14% (PGSP)/11% (CU2030) of the posts were raising both appreciation and awareness and 4% of the PGSP posts increases appreciation, awareness and entailed a call to action.10

 For  example:  appendix  1  

10

45

b. Community   Community building centres on fostering relationships, creating networks, and building communities through content that promotes interactivity and dialogue: “The heart of this function are dialogic messages and those that attempt to build a community of follower via ‘bonding’ messages […] and acknowledgement [messages]” (Lovejoy & Saxton 343). Different types of relationships can be built between an organisation and its key public: professional, personal and community relationships (McCorkindale et al. 2013). The first type of relationship maintains a professional, business-like style and focuses on delivering services to the public. A personal relationship centres on building trust and displaying the willingness to invest resources (time, energy and emotions). A community relationship revolves around being an open and engaging organisation that actively supports or sponsors important community events (McCorkindale et al. 2013). Research revealed that Facebook is used for personal reasons, such as keeping up with current friends, family members and co-workers, and for entertainment or distraction (McCorkindale et al. 2013). In addition, users of Facebook show no interest in engaging in conversations or relationships with large, faceless corporations (Vorvoreanu 2009). This implies that aiming to build professional relationships on Facebook is ineffective. Organisations should attempt to construct either personal or community relationships. Especially in the case of PGSP and CU2030, community relationships seem useful, since the project itself is an important community event that should be open and engaging. It is important to listen to and participate in conversations because this can lead to improved relationships (McCorkindale et al. 2013). About 25% of the posts of PGSP are community builders, which is similar to the results of Lovejoy and Saxton (2012). CU2030 posts only half of that amount of community building content: 13%. Different strategies can be employed as community builders, for example “recognition and thanks”, and “acknowledgements of current and local events” (Lovejoy & Saxton 2012:344).11

 For  example:  appendix  1  

11

46

A more commonly used strategies for community building is response solicitation, which occurs in 10% of the posts of PGSP, or in 30% of the community builders. Surprisingly, CU2030 Utrecht posts less explicit response solicitations: only 1% of all posts, or 7% of the community builders are response solicitations. Finally, the most important strategy of community building is conversing: 60% of the community building activities of PGSP, and even 92% of CU2030’s community building posts consist of engaging in dialogue.

c. Action   The third primary function is action, or “messages that aim to get followers to ‘do something’ for the organization […]. It involves the promotional and organizational uses of social media messages where […] users are seen as a resource that can be mobilized to help the organisation fulfil its mission” (Lovejoy & Saxton 2012:345). The function described here is identical to the action function discussed by Talking Heads (2013). They state that 20% of all content should be evoking action (Talking Heads 2013). Examples of action posts are participation surveys and invitations for visits, information sessions, and other events. This was the case for 15% of the messages analysed by Lovejoy and Saxton (2012). However, PGSP rarely posts mere calls to action. CU2030 also only posted 6% calls to action. Instead, the calls to action are often combined with awareness/information (PGSP: 19% and CU2030: 15%) or with both appreciation and awareness (PGSP: 5% and CU2030: 2%). The different strategies for the action functions include promoting events and products, calls for volunteers/employees, lobbying and advocacy and joining other sites.12 Specific call-to-action strategies are added as appendix.

 For  example:  appendix  1  

12

47

2.2.3 Characteristics  of  content   Besides the goals of the content that is posted on social network sites, the content itself has certain characteristics. Some of them are more general, while others define content according to certain typologies. Examples of the general qualities of the content: 1. Quality, authenticity and credibility of the content: indicate the strength of the performance of an organisation on social media (McCorkindale 2010, Kok 2011) 2. Intelligibility: communication on a human scale is indispensable to keep fans attracted to the page 3. Unity: it is important that all partners of the project communicate the same general goal and ascribe the same meaning to the project (Veenswijk 2013) 4. Usefulness: people only follow pages that are useful for them (Waters et al. 2009) 5. Moderation: the organisation is responsible for moderating discussions between proponents and opponents (Talking Heads 2012)

a. Relevant,  shared  and  promotional  content   A first typology to classify content is the division between relevant, shared and promotional content (Tabsite Blog 2014). Firstly, relevant content aims at building brand recognition and adding value to the organisation. This does not mean that it only contains serious information; the content can be creative and resourceful. Examples are links to interesting articles, survey questions, relevant quotes, recent local events, and relevant tips (Tabsite Blog 2014). Secondly, ideas and posts from others which are shared, is shared content. The goal is to foster goodwill and bring the awareness of the organisation to fans of other organisations. Specifically, others’ events can be promoted, pages of other organisations can be tagged and any posts that fans would find interesting can be shared (Tabsite Blog 2014). Thirdly, promotional content entails endorsement of new products, services, and events (Tabsite Blog 2014). The 70-20-10 rule states that the ideal proportions between these types of content are 70% relevant, 20% shared, and 10% promotional content. Interestingly, the results from the Facebook pages from PGSP and CU2030 slightly deviate from this rule. Both pages contain

48

approximately 80% relevant content. While PGSP’s posts are 17% shared, CU2030 hardly has any shared content. 17% of CU2030’s posts are promotional. The remaining 3% of CU2030 are a combination of relevant and promotional content, and 4% of PGSP is promotional content. In conclusion, the content of PGSP lies closer to the ideal than the content of CU2030.

CU2030   relevant   shared  

PGSP  

promoional   relevant  +  promoional   Theory  

0%  

20%  

40%  

60%  

80%  

100%  

Figure 10 Proportions relevant, shared, and promotional content

b. Voluntary  disclosure  and  legitimacy  theory   As was mentioned previously, there is a social contract between a company and society that morally obliges organisations to disclose any information, especially CSR-related information (Bonson & Ratkai 2013). Uploading a higher number of CSR posts is expected to help gain social legitimacy, which is crucial for projects with a high impact on their living environment. Bonson and Ratkai (2013) propose the following subjects as indications of social legitimacy and voluntary disclosure: Sign   CSR1   CSR2   CSR3   CSR4   Marketing   CS   Other  

Measures  (number  of  wall  posts  about  these  topics)   Environmental  issues   Social/human  resources/career  issues   Financial  reporting,  financial  transparency  issues   Governance   Marketing/selling/products   Customer  support/customer  service   Not  covered  by  the  above  categories   Table 11 Typology of topics (Bonson & Ratkai 2013)

49

35% of the content analysed by Bonson and Ratkai (2013) is CSR-related. McCorkindale (2010) conducted similar research and discovered that 21% of the pages referred to social responsibility. Over the course of three months, neither PGSP nor CU2030 posted CSRrelated content. This is rather surprising: because the projects evolve around environmentally friendly transport, we expected to find at least CSR1-posts. Instead, almost 55% (CU2030)/60% (PGSP) of the posts belong to the “other” category, 25% (CU2030)/20% (PGSP) to marketing (promoting events and the project itself) and vice versa for customer support and service.   Bonson  &  Ratkai  (2013)   PGSP   CU2030  

CSR1   0%   0%  

CSR2   0%   0%  

CSR3   35%   0%   0%  

CSR4   0%   1%  

Marketing   CS   41%   3%   19%   24%   24%   20%  

Other   21%   57%   55%  

Table 12 Topics per Facebook page

CSR-related content can be helpful to increase the organisations’ image. CSR is associated with positive organisational values, and the more organisations expose their ethical and social ambitions, the more they will attract the stakeholders’ critical attention (Morsing & Schultz 2006). This attention can be employed to raise awareness about the goals and the utility of the project, especially on the environmental level.

c. Social  Sentiment  Mapping   Content on social media is built by all of the users. The comments on Facebook posts offer a great opportunity for social sentiment mapping, or gaining insight into the stakeholders’ positive, neutral and negative opinions about the organisation (Willaerts 2010, Veenswijk 2013, Bonson & Ratkai 2013). The stakeholders’ moods can be derived from their comments. Note that analysing the sentiment in the comments is no exact science and that one comment can be interpreted in multiple manners. Bonson and Ratkai (2013) analysed 100 active organisational Facebook accounts and found that 65% of the comments were positive, 28% were neutral and only 7% were negative. They conclude that, even though individuals can have a negative impact on an organisation’s reputation, the fear of negative feedback many companies have is unjustified (Bonson & Ratkai 2013).

50

We analysed the sentiment of the reactions to the posts of PGSP and CU2030. Half of the reactions on PGSP’s and CU2030’s page were neutral. 30% (CU2030)/25% (PGSP) of the comments are positive and 20% (CU2030)/25% (PGSP) are negative.13 The proportion of negative comments is higher than in the research from Bonson and Ratkai (2013). Nonetheless, keeping in mind that CU2030 and PGSP are not a normal brand and that their Facebook pages have an important function as contact medium, it is a success that almost three quarters of the reactions are neutral or positive.14

13

 For  example:  appendix  3    Note   that   the   stakeholders’   sentiments   cannot   be   exclusively   measured   on   Facebook.   Talking   Head   (2013)   found   that   other   media   such   as   news   reports,   and   blogs   and   websites   from   interest   groups   often   reflect   a   negative  or  neutral  mood,  while  they  are  not  very  present  on  PGSP’s  Facebook  page  as  an  official  group.     14

51

Conclusion  and  recommendations   The aim of this paper was to answer three main research questions: Q1: What is the importance of stakeholder dialogue and participation? Q2: How can social media enable participation? Q3: How well is the Facebook page of PGSP performing and how could they improve their performance? In order to answer these questions, we conducted an extensive literature research and analysed two case studies. We found that dialogical, symmetrical communication is important to create more public support. This does not necessarily mean that everyone agrees with the decisions; the focus lies on the process of sharing knowledge and engaging the people affected by the decisions. Social media can play an important role in increasing dialogue and participation. The new technologies enable organisations to gain more visibility, to share information on a low-cost medium with a high reach, and to build online relationships with their stakeholders. It is crucial that, if an organisation employs social network sites, they fully integrate them in the communication mix. A multichannel approach is after all the most effective way to reach a varied audience. With regards to the case studies, we discovered that the performances of the Facebook page of PGSP and CU2030 are quite similar. In general, PGSP should seize their Facebook profile more as an opportunity to position the project (applying the transforming project narrative) and to interact with their stakeholders (both for dialogising and formation). Instead, Facebook is now employed as channel for knowledge transfer, a function that is already being fulfilled by the website. On the formal level of disclosure, PGSP performs slightly better than CU2030. However, they could still elaborate on the history and the target audience in the description. On formal level of involvement, the results are opposite. PGSP could add an event calendar, a video box, a minifeed, and especially a discussion application. Such an application enables organised discussions apart from the Facebook wall. 52

Regardless of the formal aspects, the engagement of posts on the CUS2030 page is clearly higher than those of PGSP. To improve the engagement, PGSP should spread their posts better, post on Tuesdays and Fridays (and avoid Mondays and Wednesdays), and post after business hours. In addition, statuses and pictures without descriptions generally score higher than other types of posts. It is very important to assure that the Facebook pages offer added value or advantages to its followers. Organisations should dare to promote events via their page, organise contests, and focus on calls-to-action and community builders. What seems to be overlooked by both pages is the importance of CSR-related messages. CSR posts can increase openness, transparency and eventually trust in the organisation. Especially for organisations that might have a negative image in the eyes of certain stakeholder groups, it is crucial to build trust among stakeholders. The social media manager should also beware of the proportions of relevant, shared and promotional content, and monitor the stakeholders’ sentiments by overseeing their comments and responds. It is especially important to address negative reactions in a timely and polite manner. Overall, we can conclude that public participation is essential for organisations such as Project Gent Sint-Pieters. Social media offer an opportunity to involve groups of stakeholders that might not be reached via traditional media. The Facebook pages of PGSP and CU2030 are both heading in the right direction. However, PGSP must make more efforts to engage more people. In addition, both pages are carefully interacting with their public, but do not often actively invite opinions or views of their followers. They have reached a certain level of dialogue, but they can both do more efforts to enable active participation via their pages.

Word count: 11.000 words (excluding tables and figures)

53

Bibliography    

1. Communication,  Stakeholder  dialogue,  and  public  participation   BINGHAM  ET  AL.  2005   Bingham, L.B., T. Nabatchi & R. O’Leary. 2005. The New Governance. Practices and processes for stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government. Public Administration Review 65(5): 547-558. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00482.x/full   BONSON  &  RATKAI  2013   Bonson, E. & M. Ratkai. 2013. A set of metrics to assess stakeholder engagement and social legitimacy on a corporate Facebook page. Online Information Review 37(5): 787803. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=17096134   CARR  &  HALVORSEN  2001   Carr, D.S. & K. Halvorsen. 2001. An evaluation of three democratic community based approaches to citizen participation: surveys, conversations with community groups, and community dinners. Society and Natural Resources 14:107-126. www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/089419201300000526   CHESS  &  PURCELL  1991   Chess, C. and K. Purcell. 1999. Public Participation and the Environment: Do we know what works? Environmental Science and Technology 33(16): 2685-2692. http://sth.sagepub.com/content/30/2/223.refs   CRANE  &  LIVESEY  2003   Crane, A. & S. Livesey. 2003. Are you talking to me? Stakeholder communication and the risks and rewards of dialogue. In J. Andriof, S. Waddock, S. Rahman and B. Husted (eds.), Unfolding stakeholder thinking 2: relationships, communication, reporting and performance. Sheffield, Greenleaf. 39-52. http://www.academia.edu/3598325/Are_you_talking_to_me_Stakeholder_communica tion_and_the_risks_and_rewards_of_dialogue   DEVINE-­‐WRIGHT,  FLEMING  &  CHADWICK  2001   Devine-Wright, P., D. Fleming & H. Chadwick. 2001. Role of social capital in advancing regional sustainable development. Impact assessment and project appraisal 19(2): 161-167. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3152/147154601781767096

54

  ELLISON  ET  AL.  2014   Ellison, N.B., J. Vitak, R. Gray & C. Lampe. 2014. Cultivating social resources on social network sites: Facebook relationship maintenance behaviors and their role in social capital processes. Journal of computer-mediated communication 19(4): 855-870. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcc4.12078/abstract   EVANS-­‐COWLEY  &  HOLLANDER  2010   Evans-Cowley, J. & J. Hollander. 2010. The new generation of public participation: internet based participation tools. Planning Practice and Research 25(3): 397-408. http://people.stfx.ca/x2009/x2009hpn/Internet%20Participation%20Tools.pdf   IRVIN  &  STANSBURY  2004   Irvin, R.A. & J. Stansbury. 2004. Citizen Participation in Decision Making: is it worth the effort? Public Administration Review 64(1): 55-65. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00346.x/abstract   KRISTEN  LOVEJOY,  GREGORY  D.  SAXTON.  2012.     Lovejoy, K. & G.D. Saxton. 2012. Information, Community, and Action: How nonprofit organizations use social media. Journal of computer-mediated communication 17(3): 337-353. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01576.x/full   MORSING  &  SCHULTZ  2006   Morsing, M. and M. Schultz. 2006. Corporate Social Responsibility Communication: stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review 15(4): 323-338. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2006.00460.x/full   MTB  2012 MTB (Braem, Cailliau, Gaudissabois, Leus, Van den Driessche, Van Onverbeke, Verbeke). 2012. Sporen naar later. Onderzoeksproject communicatie Project Gent Sint Pieters.   ROBINSON  2002   Robinson, L. 2002. Enabling change: Qualities of effective participatory processes. http://www.enablingchange.com.au/Effective_participation.pdf        

55

VORVOREANU  2009   Vorvoreanu, M. 2009. Perceptions of Corporations on Facebook: An analysis of Facebook Social Norms. Journal of New Communications Research 5(1): 67-86. http://scholar.google.be/scholar_url?hl=nl&q=http://www.academia.edu/download/ 31105094/JNCRIV.2009_Corporations_on_Facebook.pdf&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm39RtdSLpSZg M7C8ohfLdNsFK8RmA&oi=scholarr&ei=MJnaU52jLeup0AX3rIDgBg&ved=0 CB0QgAMoADAA

2. Practical  insights  for  managing  social  media   BRICKFISH  2014   Brickfish 2014. Why the smartest brands race to respond to consumers on social media. (Infographic). Retrieved on 5 -7-2014. https://10social.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/socialcustomerservice.png CHOW  2014   Chow, T. 2014. Social Media. Visie en aanpak. Krachten gebundeld, gedurfd anders digitaal sociaal. Retrieved on 8-6-2014. http://www.gent.be/sharedocs/Stad_Gent_visienota_Social_Media.pdf GIS  2012   Government Digital Service. 2012. Social media guidance for civil servants. UK Government ICT strategy. Retrieved on 10-7-2014. https://webtoolkit.govt.nz/files/Social-Media-in-Government-Hands-on-Toolboxfinal.pdf   GIS  2011     Government Information Services. Department of Internal Affairs. 2011. Social Media in Government. High-level guidance and hands-on toolbox. Retrieved on 10-7-2014. https://webtoolkit.govt.nz/files/Social-Media-in-Government-High-level-Guidancefinal.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/62361/So cial_Media_Guidance.pdf

56

KING  &  RPA  N.D.   Kennis in het groot & Rijksprojectacademie. N.d. 24 uur online kennisdelen: zes handige online middelen en sociale media voor bouw- en infraprojecten uit ’24 uur online kennisdelen’. Retrieved on 28-6-2014. http://neerlandsdiep.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/24-uur-online-tips-voor-6-onlinemiddelen-en-social-media-King-RPA-.pdf KING  2010     Kennis in het groot. 2010. Sociale media en infrastructurele projecten. Retrieved on 28-6-2014. http://neerlandsdiep.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/King_social_Media_totaal.pdf   KING  2009   Kennis in het groot. 2009. Communicatie: Projectcommunicatie. Retrieved on 28-62014. http://neerlandsdiep.nl/wpcontent/uploads/2014/05/boekje_projectcommunicatie_tot aal.pdf KOK  2011   Kok, D. 2011. Hoe meet je aanwezigheid op sociale media? Retreived on 29-6-2014. http://www.gemeente.nu/Home/Nieuws/2011/10/Hoe-meet-je-aanwezigheid-opsocial-media-GEMNU055116W/ MCCORKINDALE  2010   McCorkindale, T. 2010. Can you see the writing on my wall? A content analysis of Fortune 50’s Facebook social networking sites. Public Relations Journal 4(3): 1-13. http://www.prsa.org/Intelligence/PRJournal/Documents/2010McCorkindale.pdf MCCORKINDALE  ET  AL  2013   McCorkindale, T., M.W. Distaso & H.F. Sisco. 2013. How Millennials are engaging and building relationships with organizations on Facebook. The Journal of Social Media in Society 2(1): 66-87. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/259563684_How_Millennials_are_engaging _and_building_relationships_with_organizations_on_Facebook MERRIAM-­‐WEBSTER  2014   Appreciation. 2014. In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved on 5-7-2014 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/appreciation

57

ORACLE  2012     Oracle. 2012. Eight steps to great customer experiences for government agencies. Retrieved on 4-7-2014. http://www.oracle.com/us/products/applications/8-steps-cust-exp-gov-wp-1560471.pdf RAWLINSON  2012   Chris Rawlinson. 2012. Data report: Strategies for effective Facebook wall posts, a statistical review. Buddy Media. Retrieved on 6-7-2014. http://www.slideshare.net/chrisrawlinson/buddymedia-strategies-for-effectivefacebook-wall-posts TABSITE  BLOG  2014   Tabsite Blog. 2014. 12 Point Facebook page checklist for page admins (infographic). Retrieved on 24-7-2014. https://www.tabsite.com/blog/12-point-facebook-page-checklist-for-page-adminsinfographic/ TALKING  HEADS  2013   Talking Heads. 2013. Project Gent Sint-Pieters: Content coaching sessie & Evaluatiesessie.   TALKING  HEADS  2012   Talking Heads. 2012. Manuele Audit & Strategische werkmeeting Project Gent SintPieters VEENWSIJK  2013   Veenswijk, M. 2013. Kennis in het groot. Projectmanagement. Handreiking stakeholderstrategie bij vitale infraschakels. Landelijk Tunnelregisseur Rijkswaterstaat en Rijksprojectacademie. Retrieved on 28-6-2014. http://neerlandsdiep.nl/wpcontent/uploads/2014/05/King_publicatie_Handreiking_st akeholderstrategie_bij-vitale_infraschakels.pdf   WATERS  ET  AL.  2009   Waters, R.D., E. Burnett, A. Lamm & J. Lucas. 2009. Engaging stakeholders through social networking: how non-profit organizations are using Facebook. Public Relations Review 35(2): 102–106. http://academic.csuohio.edu/kneuendorf/c63310/ArticlesFromClassMembers/Julie.pd f WILLAERTS  2010   Willaerts 2010. Conversity Model. Retrieved on 24-6-2014. http://conversity.be/en/

58

Universiteit Gent Faculteit Letteren en Wijsbegeerte

Academiejaar 2013-2014

!"#$%&'()*+%&%()+%,-',-'.,&%)$'-/+0,*1'.%+/.' How organisations can use social media for increasing stakeholder engagement !""#$%&'#()

Marie-Aline Kruydt

Supervisor: Prof. dr. Olaf Du Pont

Masterproef voorgelegd aan de Faculteit Letteren en Wijsbegeerte voor het behalen van de graad van Master in de Meertalige Bedrijfscommunicatie

*+,-.)/0)1/23.234)

) !"#$%&!'(#)*(*#+#(*,''!-+#+,.)(///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////(0! "##$%&'(!)*!$("+#,$-!.....................................................................................................................................................!/! "##$%&'(!0*!&"1"!.............................................................................................................................................................!2! "##$%&'(!/*!'%1$34'$5!................................................................................................................................................!/6! ( '+#1!2!-'
(/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////(34! 4773-1$,,'%8!'%97#:%1!#37;$<1!8$%1!-'%1=#'$1$3-!.......................................................................................!20! 1">$%#">>$1!..................................................................................................................................................................!2/! $4",:"1'$!........................................................................................................................................................................!22! ?';,"8$-!............................................................................................................................................................................!26! ! '!+(.5(16,*!&,)!'(/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////(73(

2

#5+67-.4)+28)8+3+)8944.:3+39/2) !77.2895);<).5+67-.4) !""=#'&!*&>$)) Project Gent Sint-Pieters: Young life at Overmeers! The swan couple has six cygnets! CU2030 Utrecht: This and next weekend […], we will work like the devil on and around tracks 2 and 3. […] We are working on broader tracks ánd on the eastern station square. CU2030 Utrecht: Good news for all pedestrians between Mediamarkt and Vredenbrug. The pedestrian crossing is open, walking around is not longer necessary. ) =#'>?$&*&>$)!$%)*@!$A()

Project Gent Sint-Pieters: This afternoon, we reached 760 likes. So thank you 760 times, dearest Facebookfriends!

!'A$>BC#%?#D#$*)>E)'F==#$*)!$%)C>'!C)#G#$*() Project Gent Sint-Pieters: Tonight South-Korea – Belgium! The construction site is cheering along. Are you? CU2030 Utrecht: Will it be Esther, Bas, Marcel, Sophie, Hans, Peter, Dennis, or Paul? Or someone completely different? There is a lot of choice. Choose on May 22. Thursday, May 22, there are elections for the Dutch members of the European parliament. A polling station is installed in the hall of Utrecht centraal. Also in the Beatrix building and on the Jaarbeursplein, you can cast your vote.

'!CC)*>)!'*&>$) Project Gent Sint-Pieters: What do you think about the renewed track 12? Read the opinion of Gentcement in this article: [link]. Project Gent Sint-Pieters: By bike from Gent Sint-Pieters to Drongen via the new bycicle lane. You could try it with Bluebike: [link]. CU2030 Utrecht: Curious to see the inside of the City Office? View the pictures here: [link]. 3

CU2030 Utrecht: From 2017 onward, the North Building will be the place to live, work, stay, share knowledge, and network. Come to see the presentation on Tuesday evening. More info here: [link].

(>'&!C)(#$*&D#$*)D!""&$?)

Postitive Neutral

Negative

PGSP CU2030 PGSP CU2030 PGSP

Beautiful project! A very nice solution! Strange history…why has it been placed? And how many solar panels? And how much would they bring in? This is hilariously badly/inconveniently placed, and as for concept as 20th century as possible. Never heard of sightlines? Which bicyclist can see the traffic light at the side of the Voskenslaan at that height/position????????????????????? CU2030 Goodness, is this really an accomplishment to be pleased with? In 2 years time, 100 houses can be built! Here, a road has been replaced three times, to the great dissatisfaction of the town centre traffic.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) !7..2895)H<)%+3+)

)

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

!77.2895)I<)&23.:J9.K)) Interview, conducted on 4-7-2014, with Ann Manheave, the person responsible for public participation in the area of Station Gent Sint-Pieters. ;L >7) K.-M.) 6+29.:.2) 7:/,.:.2) NO--9.) ,.K/2.:4) 3.) ,.3:.MM.2) .2) 8.) 7+:39197+39.) J+2) 8.),OO:3,.K/2.:4)3.)J.:P:/3.2Q) Allerlei verschillende methodieken: buurtwandelingen, klankbordgroepen, dialoogcafés, debatten; huiskamergesprekken, wijk van de maand, enquêtes (off- en online) HL B/:83).:)/7)893)6/6.23)J/-8/.28.)P.7+:39197..:8)8//:),OO:3,.K/2.:4R)/0)M+2)8.) 7+:39197+39.)2/P)J.:,.3.:8)K/:8.2Q) Voor de buurt rond het station is dat afhankelijk van de zone. Zones B en C zijn in het bezit van Stad Gent. De participatie van de buurtbewoners in die zones loopt goed. De particpatie in zone A is problematischer. Die is in het bezit van de partners en zij staan nogal weigerachtig tegenover participatie. Het grootste probleem is dat er bij de start van het project te weinig participatie was. Dit komt vooral doordat het op dat moment, rond 2003, veel minder ingeburgerd was. Particpatie bestaat eruit dat je je eigen kennis in vraag stelt. Bovendien moeten ze ook snappen dat participatie niet betekent dat je zomaar moeten doen wat de participanten vragen. Aan de andere kant heeft het ook niet veel zin om mensen te laten particperen als je al concreet weet wat je wilt. IL B.-M.)M+2+-.2)K/:8.2).:)P.,:O9M3)/6),OO:3,.K/2.:4)3.),.3:.MM.2Q) We gebruiken nooit uitsluitend internet omdat nog altijd niet iedereen graag het internet gebruikt. Wanneer we iets organiseren maken we dat wel bekend via sociale media van collega’s. Een mooi voorbeeld daarvan is het onderzoek dat we voerden voor PGSP in 2011. We onderzochten hoe de bewoners wilden dat het openbaar domein wordt ingevuld. We organiseerden een workshop. Er waren een 30- à 40-tal deelnemers, wat vrij weinig is. Het valt ons op dat hoe actiever de deelname is die je vraagt, hoe minder deelnemers erop afkomen. We besloten om naast de workshop ook een internetenquête te versturen. Daar bereikten we tussen de 400 en 500 participanten. Dat was overigens een breder publiek dan enkel buurtbewoners (o.a ook pendelaars,…) Het publiek dat we met de internetenquete bereikten was ook een stuk jonger dan het publiek dat we bereiken via de traditionele kanalen.

37

Omdat we op dat moment nog geen eigen kanalen hadden op sociale media, vroegen we aan endorsers om de enquete via twitter,… te delen. Omdat het de eerste keer was dat we dit soort enquête rondstuurden en het dus eerder om een soort proefproject ging, maakten we geen reclame voor de enquete in print media. Het is dus een succes dat we toch zo veel respons hebben gehad. We nemen nu nog altijd online enquetes af via Limeserver. Dat gaat vooral om specifieke onderwerpen en problemen voor een heel specifieke groep. Naast de aankodigingen via sociale media bussen we vaak in de buurten waarvoor de enquêtes relevant zijn. We geven de bewoners de link voor de online versie maar voorzien ook papieren versies. We krijgen nog altijd veel respons op papier, zelfs van participanten waarvan we weten dat ze actief zijn op het internet. SL @/.)K/:8.2)8.)M+2+-.2)P.M/T.2Q) Dat is vooral afhankelijk van het onderwerp en van de doelgroep. Ook de bewegingsruimte voor de beslissingen speelt een rol. Concreet beslissen we vooral op basis van ervaring. UL B/:8.2)4/19+-.)6.89+)V4W43.6+3941XY)P.,:O9M3)92)8.)1/66O291+39.)92)J.:,+28)6.3 7+:39197+39.Q) Sociale media worden meestal gebruikt om de evenementen bekend te maken. In het kader van Wijk van de maand richten we ook voor elke wijk een Facebookpagina op. Binnenkort komt er dus een pagina voor de wijken in de stationsbuurt. Ik denk wel dat die Facebook een meerwaarde kan bieden voor de buurt. Op de pagina zal er informatie gedeeld worden en zal er ook ook reclame gemaakt worden voor de evnementen. We volgen het stadsbeleid voor sociale media voor de pagina. Het grootste verschil tussen deze pagina en de pagina van het infopunt is dat die van het Infopunt vooral gericht zijn op informatiedelen, terwijl die van de buurt vooral gericht zal zijn op participatie. ZL B.-M.)8/.-P:/.7.2)V,9NJ//:,..-8)-..039N841+3.P/:9.[2Y)T9N2).:)6+MM.-9NM).2)6928.: 6+MM.-9NM)3.),.:.9M.2Q) Door de combinatie van verschillende kanalen kunnen we zo goed als alle doelgroepen bereiken. Als er groepen zijn die we minder kunnen bereiken, zijn dat waarschijnlijk studenten en in sommige gevallen oudere mensen. We vinden het wel belangrijk om de studenten bij het project te betrekken. Hun mening is van belang omdat zij de toekomst zijn. Bovendien zijn ze soms deel van het probleem, en kan communicatie met hen bepaakde problemen oplossen. Project Gent Sint-Pieters zelf heeft wel een vrij goed contact met studenten

38

\L B+3) T9N2) 8.) ,.-+2P:9NM43.) 6/.9-9NMX.8.2R) 7:/,-.6.2) /0) J+-MO9-.2) ) 92) J.:,+28) 6.3) 9247:++M).2)7+:39197+39.)J9+)4/19+-.)6.89+Q) Wanneer sociale media gecombineerd worden met de traditionele kanalen zijn er niet echt grote valkuilen. Het grootste probleem, van alle geschreven communicatie, is dat er soms niet genoeg nuance kan gelegd worden. Voor alle problemen of onderwerpen waarbij de context belangrijk is en helder moet worden uitgelegd is het dus beter om persoonlijke ontmoetingen te organiseren. ]L A+2)8.)927O3)89.)N.)M:9NP3)J9+)4/19+-.)6.89+).J.2)2O339P)T9N2)+-4)8.)927O3)89.)N.)M:9NP3 J9+)3:+8939/2.-.)M+2+-.2Q) De input van traditionele kanalen en online kanalen is evenwaardig. Bij online ondervragingen maken we altijd ruimte voor reacties. ^L A+2)N.)..2)J//:,..-8)P.J.2)K+22..:)4/19+-.)6.89+)2O339P)K+:.2)/6)8. 7+:39197+39.) 3.)J.:P:/3.2Q) Zie voorbeeld enquête ;_L AO22.2) 3:+8939/2.-.) M+2+-.2) J//:) 7+:39197+39.) 2/P) /7) T91XT.-0) 43++2R) /0) 94) X.3 2//8T+M.-9NM) 8+3) T.) K/:8.2) ++2P.JO-8) 6.3) /2-92.) M+2+-.2) T/+-4) 4/19+-.) 6.89+Q) `/O8.2) 4/19+-.) 6.89+) 8.) 3:+8939/2.-.) M+2+-.2) 92) 8.) 3/.M/643) J/--.89P) MO22.2 J.:J+2P.2Q)B++:/6)K.-a29.3Q) De complementariteit van traditionele en nieuwe kanalen is essentieel. Real life interactie blijft essentieel om voldoende nuance te kunnen leggen in de uitleg over bepaalde zaken.

39

(3+P.J.:4-+P)

40

U)6.9)c)S)NO-9)

89:;

(3+P.J.:4-+P)&20/7O23)":/N.13)?.23)(923b"9.3.:4) 2)*%/34$%-/'5*"67+' ''''''

&20/7O23)":/N.13)?.23)(923b"9.3.:4)c)":924.4)'-.6.2392+-++2)H;U)b)?.23)))

41

'

G//:43.--92P)&20/7O23)":/N.13)?.23)(923b"9.3.:4) Project Gent Sint-Pieters is de verzamelnaam voor alle werkzaamheden in en rond station Gent-Sint-Pieters. De werken begonnen in 2006 en het einde is gepland in 2024.. Het project is een samenwerking tussen zes partners: NMBS, Infrabel, Eurostation, De Lijn, Agentschap Wegen en Verkeer (het Vlaams Gewest) en Stad Gent. Het hoofddoel is om het station te transformeren tot een centrale en moderne toegangspoort tot Gent. Het historische stationsgebouw is officieel beschermd sinds 1995 en wordt dus volledig bewaard. Station Gent-Sint-Pieters is met 54.000 treinreizigers het drukste station van Vlaanderen Daarom wordt het station gemoderniseerd en zal het in de toekomst een capaciteit van 60.000 treinreizigers hebben. De nieuwe perrons worden 11 meter breed, het volledige station krijgt een glazen overkapping en onder de treinsporen komt er een open hal van 35.000 vierkante meter. Bovendien wordt het nieuwe station een verkeersknooppunt voor het openbaar vervoer. Er werden al een gloednieuw busstation en tramperron gebouwd en in de toekomst komen er nieuwe tramhaltes bij. Daarnaast is er een bewaakte, ondergrondse fietsenparking die tot 10.000 plaatsen wordt uitgebreid. Er komen ook verschillende Kiss&Ride-zones en de taxi’s krijgen een nieuwe standplaats. In de zones rond het station is er ruimte vrijgemaakt voor projectontwikkeling (kantoren, appartementen, sociale woningen en handelszaken). Ten slotte werd natuurpark Overmeers opengesteld in het kader van het project. Project Gent Sint-Pieters heeft een grote impact op verschillende stakeholdersgroepen: omwonenden, lokale handelaars, pendelaars, automobilisten, fietsen, voetgangers, bus- en tramreizigers, studenten en scholen. Het is dus van groot belang om alles aspecten van het project op een heldere wijze te communiceren; dat is de taak van Infopunt Project Gent SintPieters. Het Infopunt wordt bemand door twee medewerkers van Stad Gent, een medewerker van Eurostation en een medewerker van De Lijn. Het kantoor, dat zich naast het station bevindt, is toegankelijk voor iedereen met vragen over het project. Daarnaast behandelt het Infopunt ook telefonisch en via e-mail veel vragen of meldingen van problemen. Er wordt echter ook op een proactieve manier gecommuniceerd. Het Infopunt stelt nieuwsbrieven en bewonersbrieven op, houdt een website een Facebookpagina bij, en organiseert informatiemarkten, informatiemomenten, klankbordgroepen en werfbezoeken. Naast de communicatie zijn de medewerkers van het Infopunt ook actief in allerlei werkgroepen rond Project Gent Sint-Pieters. Een voorbeeld daarvan is de werkgroep Minder Hinder, die als doel heeft om de overlast die ontstaat door het project tot een minimum te beperken. 42

*+M.27+MM.3) In het verleden voerden studenten Meertalige Bedrijfscommunicatie onderzoek naar de communicatiestrategieën en –kanalen van Project Gent Sint-Pieters. Daaruit bleek dat het voor het project sterk aan te raden was om actief te zijn op sociale media. In samenwerking met het Gentse communicatiebureau Talking Heads heeft Project Gent Sint-Pieters een Facebookpagina opgericht in april 2013. Nu de pagina iets meer dan een jaar in gebruik is, wil het Infopunt achterhalen of Facebook echt een nuttig communicatiekanaal is voor het project en of/hoe ze het platform optimaal (kunnen) gebruiken. Daarom bestond mijn hoofdtaak eruit om onderzoek te voeren naar het gebruik van sociale media voor ingrijpende, infrastructurele projecten. Dit hield vooral literatuurstudie en case studies in en resulteerde in mijn scriptie. In functie van het onderzoek mocht ik, na me in te werken in de materie, de Facebookpagina helpen beheren. Hiervoor stelde ik een contentkalender op met berichten die op de pagina geplaatst kunnen worden. Die lijst bestaat uit posts die gelinkt zijn aan bepaalde evenementen en specifieke data, maar ook uit ‘tussendoortjes’ die op elk moment online geplaatst kunnen worden. Deze kalender werd toegevoegd als bijlage. Naast posts bedenken, mocht ik ook interageren met mensen die berichten of reacties plaatsten op de pagina. Daarnaast heb ik ook kunnen bijdragen tot de website. Die werd, eveneens in samenwerking met Talking Heads, enkele jaren geleden opgericht. Op dit moment is de website wat verouderd, vooral op vormelijke en structureel niveau. Daarom heb ik een site map opgesteld met een volledig nieuwe structuur. Voor bepaalde onderdelen van de website heb ik ook voorbeelden opgezocht/gemaakt van vormelijke vernieuwing. Met het team hebben we twee keer intensief vergaderd om de voorstellen te bespreken en aan te passen. Nadien werd er een offerte aangevraagd om de kost van de potentiële wijzigingen in kaart te brengen. Het Infopunt had die offerte nog niet ontvangen op het moment dat mijn stage eindigde, waardoor ik niet op de hoogte ben van de veranderingen die effectief zullen worden doorgevoerd. Verder mocht ik af en toe bijspringen voor de offline interactie. Zo heb ik telefoons en e-mails beantwoord en de vragen in kwestie toegevoegd aan de database. Ik heb ook zes werfbezoeken begeleid en de inhoud van het project uitgelegd aan geïnteresseerden die het Infopunt bezochten. Het Infopunt wordt door toeristen vaak verward met een toeristisch centrum. Als gevolg kwamen er regelmatig toeristen langs met vragen over Gent of over het openbaar vervoer. Deze communicatie verliep meestal in het Engels maar ook af en toe in het Frans.

43

Een andere taak die ik regelmatig kon uitvoeren was het schrijven van teksten, artikels en verslagen. Een eerste voorbeeld daarvan is het herwerken van de brochures. Project Gent Sint-Pieters geeft een brochure uit die opgemaakt wordt door het Infopunt. Binnenkort wordt de kennismakingsbrochure vernieuwd. Daarom mocht ik nieuwe foto’s en een andere structuur voorstellen en wat aanpassingen maken aan de tekst. Ook de Engelse brochure mocht ik op taalvlak verbeteren. Verder heb ik ook teksten voor de nieuwsbrieven, bewonersbrieven en een persbericht opgesteld en beelden gekozen die bij die teksten passen. Ten slotte mocht ik een artikel schrijven over Project Gent Sint-Pieters en participatie, dat verscheen in het magazine van De Lijn. Ik woonde ook verschillende vergaderingen bij waarvoor ik notuleerde en achteraf een verslag opstelde. Wanneer er groepen op werfbezoek gaan bij Project Gent Sint-Pieters, komen zij eerst langs bij het Infopunt voor een inleidende presentatie. Tijdens mijn stage kwam er een Noorse delegatie langs, waardoor ik de Engelse PowerPointpresentatie mocht updaten. Daarnaast heb ik ook een nieuwe, Nederlandstalige, PowerPointpresentatie opgesteld. Hierbij moest ik rekening houden met de huisstijl van Project Gent Sint-Pieters. Tot slot mocht ik brainstormen over een evenement voor de opening van het nieuwe perron 11/12. Project Gent Sint-Pieters wil een feestelijke opening voor het nieuwe perron in januari 2015. Omdat ze nog helemaal geen zicht hadden op budget, moest ik verschillende scenario’s bedenken. Ik heb mijn ideeën gepresenteerd tijdens de teammeeting, maar voorlopig is er nog geen beslissing gevallen over het concept van het evenement.

#J+-O+39.) In het algemeen ben ik vrij tevreden over mijn stage, vooral omdat ik veel verschillende taken heb mogen uitvoeren. Het grootste nadeel van die veelheid aan taakjes is wel dat ik niet de kans kreeg om aan een groot, overkoepelend project of actie te werken dat ik van begin tot einde kon meemaken. In plaats daarvan werkte ik telkens aan kleinere taken, zoals bijvoorbeeld de website of de opening van perron 11/12, waarvan ik geen concrete resultaten zag. De complexe structuur van Project Gent Sint-Pieters heeft ook een grote impact op de werking van het Infopunt. Naast de verschillende partners (NMBS, De Lijn, Infrabel, Eurostation, Vlaams Agentschap Wegen en Verkeer en Stad Gent) moet er ook rekening gehouden worden met allerlei verschillende belangengroepen, zoals buurtverenigingen, Trein-Tram-Bus, organisaties rond de projectontwikkeling, organisaties rond buurtparticipatie, enzovoort.

44

Dit heeft als gevolg dat elk woord dat gecommuniceerd wordt gewikt en gewogen moet zijn, want alles ‘ligt gevoelig’. Daardoor had ik vaak het gevoel dat er niet optimaal gewerkt kon worden in het Infopunt. Zo duurde het bijvoorbeeld telkens heel lang voor alle partijen hun mening hadden gedeeld over een klein artikeltje dat in de nieuwsbrief zou verschijnen. Bovendien werden teksten dan zodanig aangepast dat de taalkundige kwaliteit eronder leed. Een ander negatief gevolg is dat er, naar mijn mening, soms te lang gewacht wordt om te communiceren over een bepaald probleem. Soms kwam dit doordat het Infopunt te weinig informatie kreeg van andere partijen, maar soms was dit ook uit angst om partijen op de tenen te trappen. Een voorbeeld: tijdens mijn stage werd de bouwvergunning van de Queen Towers, een van de bouwprojecten in de K. Fabiolalaan ingetrokken. Het Infopunt was hiervan op de hoogte enkele dagen voor het in de pers kwam. Toch kozen ze ervoor om niets met die informatie te doen, omdat het bouwproject voor heel gemengde reacties zorgt. Uiteindelijk verscheen een heel klein artikeltje over de ingetrokken bouwvergunning in de nieuwsbrief (enkele weken nadat het in de pers aan bod kwam). Hier werd echter geen enkele nieuwe informatie aan toegevoegd. Het frustrerende aan die situatie was dat ik het gevoel had dat er niet voldoende met mijn output werd gedaan. In de meeste gevallen was mijn stagebegeleidster heel tevreden over de teksten die ik opstelde, maar die werden vaak in die mate gewijzigd dat het niet erg veel meer leek op het origineel. Daarnaast miste ik ook wat expertise over communicatie op het Infopunt. Niemand van de medewerkers had een communicatieopleiding gevolgd, maar waren allemaal toevallig op het Infopunt terecht gekomen. (Deze situatie is nu gewijzigd omdat er onlangs een nieuwe medewerker van De Lijn werd aangenomen). Voor belangrijke zaken, zoals het oprichten van de Facebookpagina of de website, wordt er beroep gedaan op externe communicatiebureaus. Natuurlijk hebben de medewerkers veel ervaring in verband met communicatie opgebouwd, maar op algemeen vlak konden ze me niet zoveel bijbrengen over communicatie. Qua communicatie toegespitst op infrastructurele projecten heb ik dan net weer wel veel bijgeleerd: de situatie met verschillende stakeholdersgroepen, partners en belangenverenigingen heeft me doen inzien hoe complex communicatie kan zijn, en dat het soms moeilijk of onmogelijk is om alles volgens het boekje toe doen.

45

Tot slot wil ik ook nog de werksfeer aanhalen. Hoewel het op persoonlijk niveau klikte met alle medewerkers, heb ik ondervonden dat de ingewikkelde structuur van het project ook een invloed heeft op de werksfeer. Zo vond ik dat er in het algemeen een nogal “can’t-domentaliteit” was: om te vermijden andere partijen op de tenen te trappen, werd er af en toe voor gekozen om niets te doen. Verder zorgt het feit dat elke medewerker een andere werkgever heeft er soms voor dat er te weinig aandacht besteed wordt aan het algemene belang van de stakeholder, en te veel aan de eigen werkgever in het goede daglicht plaatsen. Als gevolg trokken de medewerkers niet altijd aan dezelfde kant van het laken, wat af en toe voor spanningen zorgde. Ik kan besluiten dat Infopunt Project Gent Sint-Pieters een boeiende stageplaats was, zeker met het oog op overheidscommunicatie en projectcommunicatie waarbij veel verschillende stakeholders betrokken zijn die elk hun eigen belangen hebben. Af en toe miste ik interne expertise op vlak van communicatie, maar dat zorgde er ook voor dat ik veel inbreng had, bijvoorbeeld bij het herontwerpen van de website en het opstellen van de contentkalender. Bovendien heb ik ook meer over mezelf bijgeleerd. Zo heb ik ondervonden dat de mogelijkheid om creatief te zijn en een goede werksfeer onmisbaar zijn om me goed te voelen bij een job. Tot slot heb ik via mijn stageplek veel interessante mensen kunnen ontmoeten, die me elk op hun manier iets hebben kunnen bijbrengen.

46

d9N-+P.4) >7.292P4.J.2.6.23)7.::/2);;)e);H)VN+2O+:9)H_;UY)

%>#C(*#CC&$?)

3 3 3 3

Opening van spoor 11 en 12 bekendmaken aan a) pendelaars, b) buurtbewoners, c) andere belanghebbenden; in de loop van januari 2015 en de impact/gevolgen ervan communiceren

) '>$*#f*)

3

Betrokken partijen • Treinreizigers (belangrijkste doelgroep) • Buurtbewoners en inwoners van Gent • Projectpartners (NMBS, Infrabel, De Lijn, Eurostation, Agentschap wegen en verkeer, Stad Gent) • Huidige en toekomstige aannemers • Politici • Infopunt Project Gent Sint-Pieters

3

Beschikbare middelen • Communicatiekanalen: Nieuwsbrief, Website, Facebook, Metro, Stadsmagazine, Facebook van andere stadsdiensten, Station Gent Sint-Pieters (borden, werfdoeken + hal), brochures, kranten (persbericht), lokale televisie (AVS), Wikipedia, radiopubliciteit (REC), gadgets/relatiegeschenken, bedrijfsbezoek/opendeurdag, groepsgesprekken/infomomenten • Bestaande documentatie: masterplanning, nieuwsbrieven, toekomstbeelden • Evenementen: feestelijke opening, infomoment (?)

3

Beperkingen • Budget: ? • Termijn: december/januari

)

)

47

%>#C?=>#"!$!Cg(#) %/.-P:/.7)

•

<*/%-*/%=%>/*.'' 3'0/*1/-7/'(/-7/$))*.' 3.+"7/-+/-' ?(/-7/$/-@0//1A' 3'+,/*%.+/-'

• •

L""*+#/0,-/*.'' L""*+&,B%+O.''

• •

'

)

G.:K+1X392P)/J.:) 8/.-P:/.7)

4$>/B/-/' %-C,*B)+%/D' G/+' -"+' H)-' 7/' +%I7/$%I1/' 0E)+F.' %-' %+' C,*' E%-7/*' #/>*%I(/-' 7,,*' E/+' +E/B' */."$+))+' +/' +,-/-@' E/-' ,H/*+"%>/-' H)-' 7/' B//*0))*7/@,H/*+"%>%->' 5*%+%.&E/*' ,H/*' H)-'E/+'(*,I/&+'' !MN!' '

d.-+2P:9NM43.)T/:P)

J$,+' ,(' (/**,-.' >/*)1/-D' B%-7/*' H/*+*)>%->/-D' H$,++/'H/*#%-7%->'B/+'KJ'

G%-7/*' %-' H/*B%I7/-'

7/'

#""*+'

d>>%('@!""#$)) %/.-P:/.7) <*/%-*/%=%>/*.' 3 P/*1/-7/'(/-7/$))*.' 3 N+"7/-+/-' ?(/-7/$))*.@0//1*/%=%>/*.A' 3 <,/*%.+/-' L""*+#/0,-/*.' L""*+&,B%+O.'

A.:2,//841X+7)

J$,++/*'+*/%-H/*1//*'7)-1=%I',(/-%->'(/**,-.'::Q:8'

R/."$+))+'0/*1=))BE/7/-'S'+,/1,B.+($)--%->'0/*1/-'

"C!$$&$?)#$)!'*&#) T)+"B' 2))-7'H,,*)C' ' <0//' H,,*)C' '

1)-))$' U%/"0.#*%/C'

V)&/#,,1' 0/1/-' L/0,-/*.#*%/C'

7,/$>*,/(' #""*+#/0,-/*.'

P/#.%+/'!MN!'

' L""*+#/0,-/*.@' #""*+&,B%+O' '

'

!/*.#/*%&E+'

I,"*-)$%.+/-'

\-'7/'0//1'H,,*)C' '

<0%++/*'U2LN' V)&/#,,1'!MN!'

'

V)&/#,,1'!MN!'

T)>'H)-',(/-%->' '

!/*.#/*%&E+' V)&/#,,1'!MN!'

'

V)&/#,,1'!MN!'

' U)7%/-'

P/#.%+/'!MN!' U%/"0.#*%/C'

' R/%=%>/*.@' #""*+#/0,-/*.' R/%=%>/*.@' #""*+#/0,-/*.' ^,"*-)$%.+/-' R/%=%>/*.@' #""*+#/0,-/*.' R/%=%>/*.@' #""*+#/0,-/*.' ' '

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

T,/$' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

V//.+/$%I1/' ,(/-%->' ?SC,+,' B/+' #/$)->*%I1/' ' ))-0/=%>/-]'SC,+,F.'H,,*'/-'-)A' V,+,)$#"B'+,/H,/>/-' ' J/*.$)>I/'C//.+/$%I1/',(/-%->'B/+'C,+,F.'S'>*,+/'$%I-/-' ' +%B%->'-%/"0/'(/**,-.'

48

('#$!=&>);)V@&?@)dF%?#*Y)c)*@#D!<)(">>=B#?#$) a) Dagplanning 3 Op een zaterdag/zondag 3 Vooraf voldoende reclame maken in alle stations; metro; website; social media ! vragen om in te schrijven (gratis) op de website + station waar er opgestapt wordt 3 Verzamelen vanaf 13u30 in stationshal (stand van PGSP) o Slideshow van werffoto’s projecteren o Koffie/thee/koekjes voorzien (kan in samenwerking met Starbucks, Einstein coffee/Panos/Zest Fresh) 3 Om 14u vertrekken 2 feesttreinen vanop oude perrons o Een trein gaat naar het oosten van Vlaanderen: Gent ! Sint-Niklaas ! Antwerpen ! Leuven ! Brussel ! Gent (ca. 3u) Een trein rijdt via het westen van Vlaanderen:

Gent

!

Brussel

!

Oudenaarde !Kortrijk ! Roeselare ! Brugge ! Gent (ca. 3u) o In elke halte kunnen mensen opstappen. Elke trein kan ongeveer 500 passagiers vervoeren (wel voldoende wagons voorzien, want er moet ook ruimte zijn voor animatie) o Op de treinen is er catering en animatie " Twee kinderwagons: programma voor drie uur voorzien (evt. ook enkele ‘moni’s’ in de kindertrein, zodat de ouders naar andere wagons kunnen; schoenen laten uitdoen om zetels niet te beschadigen ! voor elk kind dik paar kousen voorzien) • snoepbar waar ze zakje kunnen vullen • kindergrime, neptattoos • goochelaar, poppenkast

49

Wagons voor volwassenen • In elke wagon andere muziekstijl voorzien (DJ? Live?) • Drank en snacks verkrijgbaar aan de deuren van elke wagon • Eventueel wagon uitbesteden aan cultuurcentra, musea, eventorganisator,… • Voor iedereen die opstapt een goodiebag voorzien met gadgets die reizen met het openbaar vervoer aangenamer maken: totebag, infobrochure PGSP, thermos, paraplu, boek, kabelorganizer, oordopjes, fietszadelhoes, fietsbel, fietsverlichting, notaboekje, balpen/potlood, USB-stick, muntjes/snoepjes/kauwgom, touchscreen handschoenen, bagagelabel, theezakjes/koffie,…. [kan in samenwerking met alle projectpartners] • per trein enkele “Ticket to ride” spelen verloten Om 17u komen de treinen aan, een op spoor 11, de andere op spoor 12. Het feest kan dan doorgaan op het perron. o Symbolische opening (lint knippen, laatste steen leggen,….) door burgemeester o (denken aan veiligheid voor de kinderen: voor hen eventueel activiteiten in de stationshal voorzien ! knutselhoek, springkasteel, zweefmolen, suikerspinkraam, kindertreintje op rails, poffertjeskraam, warme chocomelk …. evt. in samenwerking met kinderanimators van Kazou/OZ/….) o Perron 11/12: verwarming voorzien (gasbranders, vuurmanden,…), versiering (lampions, kerstlichtjes) o Warme dranken: thee/koffie, warme chocomelk, glühwein, soep o Snacks: pannenkoeken-/wafelkraam; croques; frieten… (kijken wat mogelijk is op het perron o Liveband/koor/acts/lichtshow o Photoboot: ingericht als oude wagon; accessoires zoals conducteursfluitje, machinistpet,…. Tijdens het evenement o VIPs als reporter ! brengen constant verslag uit op IG/Twitter/FB o Livefeed twitter/IG op scherm projecteren #gentsintpieters o Fotograaf en pers Rond 19u afronden Geschat budget: veel "

3

3

3 3

50

('#$!=&>)H)VD#%&FD)dF%?#*Y)c)*@#D!)(*!*&>$(dFF=*) 3 Evenement in en rond het station (werfbezoek + ‘walking dinner’ 3 Inschrijven per groep – vegetarische optie: ochtendtour (10u) – middagtour (11u, 12u, 13u) – namiddagtour (14u, 15u, 16u) – avondtour (17u, 18u, 19u) ! 10 groepen van 30 personen = 300 personen Opletten dat zowel buurtbewoners als pendelaars zich kunnen inschrijven. 3 Telkens een half uur voor de start van de tour wordt er afgesproken in het Infopunt. Deelnemers krijgen een drankje aangeboden en een tasje met infobrochure en enkele gadgets (zoals notaboekje, balpen, muntjes/snoepjes, paraplu + bellenblaas voor kindjes). Intussen wordt een slideshow van de werken geprojecteerd 3 De groep vertrekt naar het nieuwe perron ! kort informatie geven over het opbouwen (10min) Eerste stand met hapje, aangepast aan tour – daarna tour van stationsbuurt: uitleg met af en toe een tussenstop in een brasserie (5 tussenstops in totaal); afhankelijk van tour wordt er met andere brasseries samengewerkt; 1 tour duurt ongeveer 2u30min/3u (6 tussenstops incl. perron; 2 stops/uur van max 20min +20min verplaatsingstijd per uur) o Ochtendtour: ontbijtkoek & koffie/fruitsap/chocomelk op nieuw perron (samenwerking met Einstein, Starbucks,..) - pistolets - fruitsla – yoghurt – ei – muffin – … (invulling kan door plaats zelf). o Middagtour: aperitief en chipjes/nootjes op nieuw perron – hapje 1 – hapje 2 – ‘hoofdgerecht 1’ – ‘hoofdgerecht 2’ – dessert … (invulling kan door plaats zelf) o Namiddagtour: dessertje op nieuw perron – koffie met koekjes–– hartige pannenkoek - taart – scones – cake (invulling kan door plaats zelf) o Avondtour (idem middagtour) 3 Geschat budget: o 300 deelnemers – 6 tussenstop twv max. 7 euro p/p.: 12.600 euro o Gadgets: 2.400 o (werkuren en reclamekosten niet meegerekend) ('#$!=&>)I)VC>B)dF%?#*Y)c)*@#D!)(*!*&>$) 3 Cf. laatste deel scenario 1: ca. 500 personen 3 Iedereen verzamelt op het nieuwe perron: verwarming voorzien (gasbranders, vuurmanden,…), versiering (lampions, kerstlichtjes) 3 Burgemeester en VIPS (goodiebags?) komen toe met de trein (van Gent Dampoort), burgemeester opent perron officieel: lintje doorknippen van op de trein 3 Hapjes en drankjes : Snacks: pannenkoeken-/wafelkraam; croques; frieten… (kijken wat mogelijk is op het perron, Warme dranken: thee/koffie, warme chocomelk, glühwein, soep 3 Liveacts en muziek 3 Photoboot, rechstreeks geprojecteerd + IGfeed, Twitterwall 3 Fotograaf

'/23.23M+-.28.:)E+1.,//M)V0:+P6.23Y)

`'

*9692P)

>28.:K. *W7.) :7)

:'

8;@B/%'

.+)+".'

.+)7.$,,(' 7/' M/-+/-))*'

8'

P//1' H,,*)C'

C,+,'

T%)$,,>3 &)C/'

g'

:@I"-'

.+)+".'

#"../-' hE)*$/*,%'

;' :i@9i@:;'

C,+,'

_,H/'+E/' N)B#)'

k' :l@9l@:;'

C,+,'

M/-+./' V//.+/-'

C,+,'

)"+,H*%I/' =,-7)>'S' ,(/-' B,-"B/+/-7)>'

i' :g@9m@:;'

l'

@'

C,+,n.'

J,-&1/'

p'

@'

C,+,'

B,#%$%+/%+'

m'

@'

C,+,'

>$)=/-' H$,/*'

:9'

@'

C,+,'

d//841X+7) a%I-' I,"0' 1"%+/-' )$' %->/.B//*7' H,,*' 7/' N+)7.$,,(' H)-' 7/' M/-+/-))*[' 5,B' B,*>/-' B/+' E/+' ,(/-#))*' H/*H,/*' /-' #/1%I1' 7/' #/*/%1#))*E/%7' H)-' E/+' .+)+%,-' ,(' E++(b@@(*,I/&+>/-+.%-+(%/+/*.c#/@#/*/%1#))*E/%7@#".3/-3 +*)B'' K(' d7)+"Be' ,*>)-%./*/-' 0/' //-' 7%)$,,>&)CO' ,B' .)B/-' B/+'7/'#""*#/0,-/*.'7/'H,,*.+/$$/-'H,,*'7/'(*,I/&+/-'%-' 7/'V)#%,$))-'+/'#/,,*7/$/-c'\/7/*//-'%.'0/$1,Bf'5%I1'H,,*' B//*'%-C,*B)+%/',('d0/#.%+/ec'' J)-)C'H)-7))>'*%I7+'/*'//-'.E"++$/7%/-.+'+"../-'E/+'M/-+3 N%-+3!%/+/*..+)+%,-' /-' 7/' $"&E+E)H/-' H)-' hE)*$/*,%c' J,,*' B//*' %-C,' 1)-' I/' +/*/&E+' ,(' E++(b@@000cC$%#&,c&,B@-$@H/*H,/*3$"&E+E)H/-'' !*,I/&+' M/-+' N%-+3!%/+/*.' $,H/.' +E/' .)B#)f' /$/>/-E/%7'H)-'7/'H,/+#)$()*+6'H)-'j3B".%&'H%-7'I/'E%/*' E,/'I/'7/'ME/$)B&,'4*/-)'E/+'#/.+'1)-'#/*/%1/-'B/+'E/+' ,(/-#))*'H/*H,/*c'd$%-1'-))*'#/*%&E+',('0/#.%+/e' L/-' I%I' /*' B,*>/-' #%I' 0)--//*' 7/' #/$$/B)-' 7/' M/-+./' V//.+/-',CC%&%//$',(/-+['U//B'//-'1%I1I/',(',-=/'0/#.%+/' H,,*' B//*' %-C,*B)+%/' ,H/*' 7/' #/*/%1#))*E/%7c' d$%-1' -))*' #/*%&E+',('0/#.%+/e' 2,*>/-' %.' E/+' =,0/$' K(/-' 2,-"B/-+/-7)>' )$.' )"+,H*%I/' =,-7)>'%-'M/-+c'L/=,/1'E/+'M/-+./'&"$+"*/$/'/*C>,/7'B/+' E/+' ,(/-#))*' H/*H,/*c' L/1%I1' ,-=/' 0/#.%+/' H,,*' B//*' %-C,*B)+%/' ,H/*' 7/' #/*/%1#))*E/%7' H)-' E/+' .+)+%,-f' d$%-1' 0/#.%+/e' P%.+'I/'7)+Xc'^)&o"/.'J,&1/D'7/')*&E%+/&+'H)-'E/+'-%/"0/' M/-+3N%-+3!%/+/*.' .+)+%,-D' ,,1' E/+' -%/"0/' ,-7/*>*,-7./' .+)+%,-'H)-'4-+0/*(/-'&/-+*))$',-+0%/*(['' P%.+' I/' 7)+X' m9q' H)-' 7/' +*/%-*/%=%>/*.' -%/+' B/+' 7/' )"+,' -))*' E/+' .+)+%,-' 1,B+[' P/' E,(/-' 7)+' 0/' 7%+' (/*&/-+)>/' -,>' 1"--/-' H/*E,>/-' B/+' ,-=/' -%/"0/' C%/+./-.+)$$%->/-D' +*)BE)$+/.'/-'#".(/**,-.c' P%.+' I/' 7)+Xc' T/' >$)=/-' H$,/*' 7%/' %-' E/+' B%77/-' H)-' /$1' (/**,-'1,B+D'#/.+))+'"%+'g'$)>/-'>$).'H)-':k'B%$$%B/+/*'7%1' /-'k99'1%$,>*)B'(/*'H%/*1)-+/'B/+/*'1)-'7*)>/-[''

P%.+'I/'7)+X'7/'-))B'H)-'7/'<%B%&E/>3+"--/$')C1,B.+%>'%.' H)-' 7/' V%$%(%I-/-[' J,,*' 7/' P/*/$7+/-+,,-.+/$$%->' H)-' <%B%&E/>3 :m:gD' 0/*7' 7/' V%$%(%I-./' <%B%&E/>' B/+' )-7/*/' $/7/-' H)-' +"--/$' =%I-' .+)B' -))*' M/-+' >/E))$7' )$.' //-' r1,$,-%)$/' )++*)&+%/rc' <%B%&E/>' .+%/*C' %-' M/-+' ))-' +"#/*&"$,./c' 4$.' E/*7/-1%->' 1*//>'7/'-%/"0/'+"--/$'=%I-'-))Bc''

d..-8))

C,+,'.+)7.$,,(['

V)#%,$)$))-'

' j3B".%&@_,H/' +E/' .)B#)@*,7/' 7"%H/$.' (,.+/*'M/-+./' V//.+/-@L/$$/B )-' C,+,' ,(/-B,-"B/+/-7)>@)"+,H*%I /'=,-7)>' C,+,n.' 4-+0/*(/-' &/-+*))$b' C,+,'-%/"0/' C%/+./-.+)$$%->@ -%/"0/' #".(/**,-.DX' C,+,'>$)=/-' H$,/*' C,+,' <%B%&E/>+"--/$' S' E++(b@@000cC$) -7/*.+,7)6c/"@ $%H%->@C)&/3 C$)-7/*.3g;'

52

::'

@'

C,+,'

h$,o"/+'

:8'

@'

C,+,'

,"7' .+)+%,-'

:g'

@'

C,+,'

T/'_%-1'

:;'

@'

C,+,'

,"7' .+)+%,-'

:k'

@'

C,+,'

,"7' .+)+%,-'

:i'

@'

C,+,'

-%/"0' .+)+%,-'

:l'

@'

C,+,@' (,$$'

V$)-7*%)' ()$)&/'

:i'

@'

V,+,3 *//1.'

!MN!'

P%.+'I/'7)+X'E/+',"7/'.+)+%,-',-+0,*(/-'0/*7'7,,*'_,"%.' ,"7' h$,o"/+D'7%/',,1'E/+',"7/'(,.+>/#,"0',('7/'5,*/-B)*+D' .+)+%,-.>/#," E/+' R,BB/$)/*/' %-.+%+""+' ))-' 7/' h,"("*/' /-' 7/' N%-+3 0'S')-7/*/' 2%&E%/$.#*">',-+0%/*(['' >/#,"0/-' P%.+' I/' 7)+X' 7/' #/1/-7/' ""*0/*1+,*/-' H)-' E/+' N%-+3 !%/+/*..+)+%,-' %-' 899i' E/*,(>/#,"07' B,/.+' 0,*7/-' ""*0/*1+,*/-' ,B7)+'E%I'=,n-'g9'&/-+%B/+/*',H/*E/$7/['' P%.+' I/' 7)+X' E/+' >*,+/' 1)-+,*/-&,B($/s' ))-' E/+' N%-+3 !%/+/*..+)+%,-' )$' H/*.&E%$$/-7/' -)B/-' E//C+' >/E)7[' 4)-H)-1/$%I1' 1*//>' E/+' >/#,"0' rT/' _%-1r' )$.' 0/*1-))Bc' J4h' T/' J$))B./' ,H/*E/%7' -,/B7/' E/+' -)7%/-' 7/' -))B' rJ4h' J%*>%-%/' _,H/$%->' >/#,"0rc' L""*+#/0,-/*.' -,/B/-' E/+' >/#,"0',,1'0/$'E/+'_,H/$%-1>/#,"0',C'1,*+0/>'E/+'J4h' ?J$))B.'47B%-.+*)+%/C'h/-+*"BAc'' P%.+'I/'7)+X'.+)+%,-'M/-+'N%-+3!%/+/*.'.%-7.':mmk',CC%&%//$' //-' #/.&E/*B7' B,-"B/-+' %.[' T))*,B' 0,*7+' E/+' ,"7/' ,"7'.+)+%,-.3 .+)+%,-.>/#,"0' H,$$/7%>' >/t-+/>*//*7' %-' E/+' ,-+0/*(' H)-' >/#,"0' E/+'-%/"0/'.+)+%,-c'' P%.+' I/' 7)+X' 7/' B""*.&E%$7/*%->/-' %-' E/+' ,"7/' .+)+%,-.>/#,"0' )$$/*$/%' J$))B./' .+/7/-' H,,*.+/$$/-[' a/' 7%/-7/-',B'7/'#/=,/1/*.'H)-'7/'P/*/$7+/-+,,.+/$$%->'%-' H,,*#//$7' :m:g' %-' //-' ,,>,(.$)>' 1/--%.' +/' $)+/-' B)1/-' B/+' /-1/$/'.+/7/-' J$))-7/*/-c'G/*1/-'I%I')$$/'.+/7/-'?M/-+D'L*"../$D'5,*+*%I1D' \/(/*D' L*">>/D' K"7/-))*7/D' 2/&E/$/-D' K,.+/-7/D' 4-+0/*(/-D'T,,*-%1D'U)B/-D'L/*>/-'/-'_"%1A['' P%.+'I/'7)+Xc/*'//-'H,$$/7%>'-%/"0'.+)+%,-.($/%-'1,B+'))-' 7/' 1)-+' H)-' 7/' N%-+3T/-%I.$))-[' u*' =)$' *"%B+/' =%I-' H,,*' +,/1,B.+#//$7' 0)+/*()*+%I/-D' +/**).I/.' /-' =%+#)-1/-' 7%/' "%+1%I1/-' ,(' 7/' B,7/*-/'>/H/$'B/+'>/1$/"*7/'_uT3H/*$%&E+%->c' P%.+' I/' 7)+XV$)-7*%)' !)$)&/D' E/+' >/#,"0' ))-' E/+' G/-7*%1)($/%-' /-' 7/' h$/B/-+%-)$))-D' H*,/>/*' //-' E,+/$' 0).' B/+' B))*' $%/C.+' i99' 1)B/*.c' 2,B/-+//$' %.' 7%+' 7/' )7B%-.%+*)+%/H/' =/+/$' H)-' U2LN' K,.+3J$))-7/*/-' B))*' V$)-7*%)'!)$)&/' 0)+' /*' $)+/*' B//' =)$' >/#/"*/-' %.' -,>' ,-7"%7/$%I1c''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' S'(,$$' P/$1/'#/.+/BB%->'=,"'I%I'>/H/-'))-'E/+'>/#,"0[',(+%/.b' 1)-+,,**"%B+/.D' )(()*+/B/-+/-D' B"./"B@/s(,.%+%/*"%B+/D' E,+/$D' .&E,,$D' $)./*+)>D' #%#$%,+E//1D'0%-1/$&/-+*"BD'0/$$-/..&,B($/sD'' V,+,*//1.b'r7/'B/-./-'H)-'!MN!rb'C,+,'H)-'B/7/0/*1/*.D' )*#/%7/*.DXccB/+' //-' o",+/' #%I' ?)-+0,,*7/-' ,(' H*)>/-' =,)$.' r0)+' H%-7' I/' E/+' B//.+' "%+7)>/-7' ))-' E/+' (*,I/&+rD' r0))*' E/#' I/' E/+' B,/%$%I1' B//' >/E)7rD' r0)+' %.' I,"0' ()..%/rD'r0)+'B))1+'I,"'/&E+'#$%I@#,,.@#)->@cccrD'r-))*'0%/' 1%I1' I/' ,(rD' r0)+' =,"' I,"0' 7*,,B(*,I/&+@7*,,BI,#' =%I-rD' C,+,*//1.' rH/*+/$'//-.'%/+.',H/*'I/'&,$$/>)'vrD'r0)+'H%-7'I/'E/+'B//.+' ,(B/*1/$%I1'))-'!MN!rD'r0)+'H%-7/-'I/'H*%/-7/-'/*H)-'7)+' I/' ))-' !MN!' 0/*1+rDccccc' 3' 1%I1' #%IH,,*#//$7' -))*' 7/' V)&/#,,1()>%-)'H)-'G"B)-.',C'U/0'w,*1c'G/+'H,,*7//$'%.' 7)+' H*%/-7/-' H)-' 7/' >/t-+/*H%/07/' 7/' (,.+@()>%-)' ,,1' ="$$/-'$%1/-c'

53

":/6/39.,.:91X3.2)29.OK4,:9.0)

E!'#d>>A)#$)B#d(&*#)"?(")

Project Gent Sint-Pieters gaat groen! Vanaf nu drukken we een kleinere oplage van onze nieuwsbrief. We verdelen hem alleen nog bij de buurtbewoners en je kunt hem ook vinden in displays in het station Gent-Sint Pieters. Wil jij op de hoogte blijven van het project? Schrijf je dan hier in om drie keer per jaar de digitale versie van de nieuwsbrief te ontvangen: http://projectgentsintpieters.be/nieuwsbrief *B&**#=)"!=*$#=() Volg jij de veranderingen aan Station #GentSintPieters? Schrijf je hier in om een digitale nieuwsbrief te ontvangen: http://goo.gl/gCIQMW

E!'#d>>A)"!=*$#=() Wil jij op de hoogte blijven van de transformatie van Station Gent-Sint-Pieters en de omliggende buurt? Schrijf je hier in om drie keer per jaar boeiende informatie te ontvangen over Project Gent-Sint-Pieters: http://projectgentsintpieters.be/nieuwsbrief en volg het project op Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ProjectGentSintPietersPGSP @.:43:O13O:.:92P)K.,493.))

@>D# (geen keuzemogelijkheden, maar dit is te zien op de homepagina) a) b) c) d)

Introtekst en centrale foto Contact: adres – telefoon – emailadres – likeknop facebook Inschrijven nieuwsbrief Recentste nieuwtjes (blogvorm)

G>>=(*#CC&$?) "=>h#'t (keuzeopties met afbeeldingen weergeven + introductiefilm en – brochure hier plaatsen) a) Wat is Project Gent Sint-Pieters?: doelstellingen (hier ook links naar andere keuzeopties onder voorstelling project) – vervoersmiddelen - toekomstbeelden – beelden van al afgewerkte stukken – … b) Masterplanning: algemene interactieve tijdslijn (zowel wat nog moet gebeuren als wat al gebeurd is) – MP2011 – MP 2012 – MP2013 – MP 2014 (keuzeopties weergeven d.m.v. typerende foto’s)

54

c) Partners en budget: NMBS – Infrabel – Eurostation – De Lijn – Agentschap Wegen en Verkeer – Stad Gent d) Ontwerpers: jacques voncke - alain marguerit – poponcini & lootens – louis cloquet e) Projectontwikkeling: (keuzeoptie weergeven dmv foto’s) VAC – Queen Towers – Diamant - … (bij elk gebouw informatiefiche en ‘status’ toevoegen) d#=#&Ad!!=@#&% (interactieve foto waarbij verschillende vervoersmiddelen oplichten en icoontje wordt getoond – het vroegere “thema’s” komt ook hieronder) a) b) c) d) e) f) g)

Te voet: huidige situatie – toekomst Fiets: huidige situatie – toekomst Bus en Tram: huidige situatie – toekomst Trein: huidige situatie – toekomst Taxi: huidige situatie – toekomst Auto (parkeren + kiss&ride): huidige situatie – toekomst Minder Hinder

E>*>)#$)E&CD) a) Foto’s: likeknop facebook “Like ons en bekijk meer foto’s op facebook” – toekomstbeelden – afgewerkte projecten en openingen – werkzaamheden en werfbezoeken – Overmeers b) Filmpjes $&#FB() a) Nieuwtjes (blogvorm) b) Nieuwsbrieven (telkens voorpagina als link gebruiken) c) Persberichten !='@&#E) a) b) c) d) e) f)

Bewonersbrieven Jaarverslagen Klankbordgroep (verslagen en documenten) Minder hinder (verslagen en documenten) Participatieproject (verslagen en documenten) Presentaties project

E!i<)!C?#D#$#)"=>h#'*&$E>) c)d#=#&Ad!!=@#&%) c)*&D&$?) c)E!d&>C!!$)#$ rijsenbergwijk – fietsen en fietsenstallingen – hinder – buurtbewoners - projectontwikkeling '>$*!'*) a) Contactgegevens en openingsuren b) Contactformulier c) Noodnummers d) Team: foto en omschrijving + persoonlijk e-mailadres e) agenda(algemeen agenda tonen met data van info- en inspraakmomenten, klankbordgroepen, werfbezoeken, evenementen) ): werfbezoeken (info en inschrijfformulier en link foto’s) – evenementen en openingen (info en inschrijfformulier) f) Nuttige links

55

&$("=!!A) a) Agenda b) klankbordgroep (info en link documenten) – link naar archief ivm info en inspraak

C!gb>F*)#$)!$%#=#)B&h`&?&$?#$) ) 1. Homepagina b. c. d. e.

2. 3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Lay-out aanpassen, dynamischer, bijvoorbeeld: slideshow foto’s kader met informatie over het project recente nieuwtjes in blogvorm weergeven – “op de hoogte blijven van het project? Schrijf je in op onze digitale nieuwsbrief en like ons op Facebook om regelmatig updates te ontvangen” ! invulveld e-mailadres en Facebook likeknop f. kader met contactgegevens en openingsuren g. nieuw keuzemenu: home (geen aparte knop, maar in logo bovenaan link verwerken) – project – bereikbaarheid – foto & film – nieuws – archief – FAQ – contact en inspraak Project (algemene pagina): introductiefilm en introductiebrochure, keuzeopties Project (Wat is project Gent Sint-Pieters) a. Lay-out aanpassen (artikelstijl) b. Subtitels toevoegen en tekst herschrijven: eerst algemene, introducerende informaties – doelstellingen – toekomstbeelden – focus op verschillende vervoersmiddelen – wat is er al gebeurd - … Project (Masterplanning) a. Interactieve tijdslijn toevoegen (vanaf begin van project tot het verwachte einde), als je over de verschillende punten schuift met de muis, opent een kader met een datum, een foto en informatie over de werken b. Beeld toevoegen met link naar masterplanning 2011 – 2012 – 2013 – 2014 - 2015 c. Masterplanning 2014 en 2015 toevoegen Project (Partners en budget) a. Lay-out aanpassen: elke partner in een kolom met bovenaan logo en in kolom tekst b. Tekst herschrijven en budget van elke partner toevoegen Project (Ontwerpers) a. Lay-out aanpassen: elke ontwerper een kolom met bovenaan een foto (jacques voncke - alain marguerit – poponcini & lootens – louis cloquet) b. Bijhorende tekst over hun ontwerp voor station GSP en over voorgaande projecten. Project (Projectontwikkeling) a. Algemene pagina met info over de zones,… b. Keuzeopties toevoegen: foto’s van ontwerpen ! link naar pagina over elk ontwerp c. Bij elk gebouw een fiche toevoegen met informatie, ontwerper, functie, budget, status

56

8. Project (Minder hinder) a. Lay-out aanpassen (tekst herschrijven met tussentitels, foto’s, meer artikelstijl) 9. Bereikbaarheid (algemene pagina): dynamische luchtfoto toevoegen waarbij verschillende zones ( = thema’s) oplichten als je erover schuift: te voet, fiets, bus en tram, trein en station, taxi, auto 10. Bereikbaarheid (te voet) a. Huidige situatie: looproutes, kaartjes,… b. Toekomst: beelden met uitleg 11. Bereikbaarheid (fiets) a. Huidige situatie: kaartjes,… b. Toekomst: toekomstbeelden, foto’s afgewerkte fietsenstallingen en nieuwe fietspaden 12. Bereikbaarheid (bus en tram) a. Huidige situatie: kaart met toegankelijkheid, foto’s perron, nieuw busstation, lijnwinkel met contactgegevens, aanduiding ticketautomaten,… b. Toekomst: toekomstbeelden met uitleg 13. Bereikbaarheid (trein en station) a. Voor en na (adhv foto’s en toekomstbeelden) b. Toekomst: algemene beschrijving van hoe de perrons en het station eruit zullen zien 14. Bereikbaarheid (taxi) a. Huidige situatie: Kaartje toevoegen met huidige standplaats taxi (+telefoonnummers) - Tarieven, … rechtstreeks hierop plaatsen ipv apart bestand) b. Toekomst: beeld van Kiss&Ride met taxistandplaatsen 15. Bereikbaarheid (auto): 3 secties: toegangswegen – parkeren – Kiss&Ride a. Kaart met toegangswegen b. Parkeren: foto’s parking, tarieven, aanbiedingen, toegang,…. c. Kiss&Rides: foto + oriëntatiekaart d. Toekomst 16. Foto en film (“In beeld”) a. Algemene pagina: thumbnails foto-categorieën: toekomstbeelden – afgewerkte projecten en openingen – werkzaamheden en werfbezoeken – Overmeers; filmpjes aan een zijde plaatsen b. Facebook likeknop toevoegen c. Foto’s navigeerbaar maken met pijltjes 17. Nieuws a. Nieuwtjes in blogvorm structureren b. Nieuwsbrieven: telkens voorpagina met link naar nieuwsbrief c. Persberichten 18. Archief a. Bewonersbrieven b. Nieuwsbrieven c. Persberichten d. Jaarverslagen e. Klankbordgroep: verslagen en documenten f. Minder hinder: verslagen en documenten g. Participatieproject: verlagen en documenten h. Presentaties (nu onder ‘beelden’ en infomarkt) 57

19. FAQ a. algemene projectinfo – bereikbaarheid – timing – fabiolaan en rijsenbergwijk – fietsen en fietsenstallingen – hinder – buurtbewoners - projectontwikkeling b. (Ook Q&A naar hier verplaatsen) 20. Contact a. Contactgegevens en openingsuren b. Contactformulier c. Noodnummers: in een overzichtelijke tabel schikken d. Agenda: alle toekomstige inspraakvergaderingen, infomomenten en evenementen toevoegen (algemeen agenda tonen met data van info- en inspraakmomenten, klankbordgroepen, werfbezoeken, evenementen): e. werfbezoeken (info en inschrijfformulier en link foto’s) f. klankbordgroep (info en link documenten) g. evenementen en openingen (info en inschrijfformulier) h. link naar archief ivm info en inspraak i. Nuttige links (logo’s) j. Team: foto en omschrijving + persoonlijk e-mailadres toevoegen

Veel van de ideeën werden nog verder uitgewerkt of aangepast. Bovendien stelde ik ook een site map op, na overleg met de medewerkers van het Infopunt. Door de omvang van het bestand kon de site map hier niet worden toegevoegd

G>>=(*#CC#$)&$)d##C%)

58

59

!:39M.-4) $&#FB(d=&#E)!=*&A#C<)@#*)"#==>$)G!$)%#)*>#A>D(*) In juni is het zover: perron 12 komt opnieuw in dienst na de werkzaamheden van de voorbije maanden. Omdat de aansluiting op perron 11 veilig zou verlopen, moest het perron afgesloten worden. Het nieuwe perron is nog niet helemaal afgewerkt maar is nu al zo comfortabel mogelijk ingericht. De glazen overkapping, windschermen en een schuilhuisje zorgen ervoor dat de reizigers op een aangename manier op hun trein kunnen wachten. Bovendien is het perron vanaf nu veel toegankelijker met twee glazen liften, twee brede trappen en twee op- en neergaande roltrappen. Het nieuwe perron zal er heel wat moderner uitzien. De vloer bestaat uit stijlvolle graniet met een glazen middenstuk tussen perron 11 en 12. Het glas laat het licht door naar de onderliggende hal van 35.000 vierkante meter. De basis van de glazen vloer bestaat uit “bananenliggers”, lichte, gelaserde staalconstructies met een kromming onderaan. De bananenliggers zijn gemetalliseerd, waardoor roestwerende verf overbodig is. In het profiel komen kaders uit inox die het glas dragen. Het glas is gehard en gelaagd: er zijn drie lagen van telkens 15 millimeter. Daardoor kan het glas maar liefst 500 kilogram per vierkante meter dragen. De bovenste laag is gezuurd om een antisliplaag te vormen. De glazen vloer zal nog niet volledig afgewerkt zijn in juni. In de zomer worden er ook nog twee extra wachthuisjes en een kleine cafetaria geïnstalleerd. In september en oktober wordt de laatste hand gelegd aan de overkappingen. Om veiligheidsreden zal perron 11/12 voor korte periodes afgesloten worden tijdens die werkzaamheden. In januari wordt het volledige, 11 meter brede perron definitief geopend voor de reizigers.

Foto roltrappen: De roltrappen werden per boot getransporteerd van China naar Duitsland. In Duitsland werden ze geassembleerd en getest, waarna ze opnieuw uit elkaar werden gehaald om naar Gent te vervoeren. Foto graniet: Er wordt bewust gekozen voor duurzame materialen. De vloer van de perrons zal bestaan uit rode en grijze graniet, veel duurzamer en onderhoudsvriendelijker dan keramische tegels. Foto nieuw perron: Perron 12 is de perfecte combinatie van licht, ruimte en comfort. Foto bananenliggers

60

$&#FB#)@!C*#()G>>=)*=!D);)!E?#B#=A*) In het najaar worden er op lijn 1 Flexity trams ingezet die 11 meter langer zijn dan de huidige Hermelijntrams. Daarom kwamen er nieuwe, langere tramperrons voor lijn 1 aan het begin van de Fabiolalaan en bij het VAC. Dankzij de nieuwe perrons is de verkeerssituatie veiliger voor op- en uitstappende tramreizigers. G#=?F$$&$?)iF##$)*>B#=()?#('@>=(*) Op 14 mei 2014 heeft de Raad voor Vergunningsbetwistingen de vergunning voor de Queen Towers geschorst. De twee torens zouden zowel kantoorruimtes als appartementen bevatten. Op het moment van drukken wachtten we meer informatie af. *F&$)&$)@#CC&$?) Het hellende vlak links van de hoofduitgang van het station wordt omgebouwd tot een bloeiende tuin. Groenpartijen en een zigzagpatroon vormen een hedendaags geheel. De werken beginnen in augustus/september en zullen afgerond zijn voor het einde van het jaar. Fietsers kunnen de ondergrondse fietsenstalling bereiken via de helling voor het VAC.

"=>h#'*)?#$*)(&$*b"&#*#=(<)"=>h#'*)D#*)##$)CF&(*#=#$%)>>=)) ) &2)H__\),.P/22.2)8.)K.:M.2)92).2):/28)43+39/2)?.23b(923b"9.3.:4L)!+2P.T9.2)X.3)/6)..2) -+2P.3.:69N27:/N.13) P++3R) X.,,.2) 8.) ++27+4492P.2) ..2) P:/3.) 92J-/.8) /7) 8.) 89:.13.) /6P.J92PL) %++:/6) K.:8) ..2) M-+2M,/:8P:/.7) /7P.:91X3) /28.:) 967O-4) J+2) 43+8) ?.23R) P.-9NM39N89P) 6.3) 8.) ++2J+2P) J+2) 8.) K.:M.2L) >7) 89.) 6+29.:) 94) 8.) 1/66O291+39.) 3O44.2) 7:/N.137+:32.:4R)7/-93919R),OO:3,.K/2.:4).2)+28.:.),.-+2PX.,,.28.2),.3.:)P.43://6-9N28L) Project Gent Sint-Pieters wil het station en de stationsomgeving aanpassen aan de behoeften van de 21e eeuw. De herinrichting is een samenwerking tussen NMBS, Infrabel, Eurostation, De Lijn, Vlaams Gewest en Stad Gent. Samen bouwen ze aan een vlot bereikbare, leefbare en aangename stationsomgeving waarin alle vervoermiddelen volledig geïntegreerd zijn. Gent Sint-Pieters is dan ook een heel belangrijk knooppunt van openbaar vervoer. Het stationsproject heeft een grote impact door de aard en ligging van de werken, centraal in stedelijk woongebied. Daarom besliste Stad Gent een klankbordgroep op te richten: een primeur voor Gent.

61

Belangengroepen De klankbordgroep, een groep belanghebbenden die aangeven wat er leeft in de buurt, kwam voor het eerst samen in juli 2006, nog voor de aanvang van de werkzaamheden. De groep bestond toen uit een dertigtal vertegenwoordigers van allerlei belangenorganisaties. Voorzitter Herwig Reynaert legt uit: “De formule van een klankbordgroep was volledig nieuw. Ze biedt een forum voor projectpartners, politieke actoren en buurtbewoners om met elkaar in gesprek te gaan. Dat verhoogt niet alleen de betrokkenheid van de deelnemers, maar het vraagt ook hun engagement. Op de recentste bijeenkomsten waren er ongeveer 45 leden aanwezig. Zij helpen met het bepalen van de agendapunten en kunnen vragen stellen, problemen melden en hun mening delen. Een vergadering bestaat uit twee delen: een algemeen deel waarin de stand van zaken van het project en de werven aan bod komt en een thematisch deel waarin een bepaald thema wordt toegelicht, zoals mobiliteit of projectontwikkeling.” Wederzijds begrip Dankzij de vergaderingen kunnen alle belanghebbenden op de hoogte blijven van de veranderingen. Reynaert verduidelijkt waarom de klankbordgroep een succes is: “De leden hebben veel inspraak, maar dit betekent niet dat elke wens of suggestie zomaar ingewilligd wordt. Deelnemers krijgen vooral de kans om in dialoog te treden met de mensen achter het project. Op die manier worden misverstanden rechtgezet en kunnen beslissingen gemotiveerd worden. Ook problemen worden zo sneller gesignaleerd en opgelost. Soms zijn er specialisten aanwezig om technische aspecten te verduidelijken. De vergaderingen verhogen zeker het wederzijdse begrip en helpen oplossingen te vinden. We merken ook een mentaliteitsverschuiving op bij de projectpartners. Zij zijn zich steeds meer bewust van de noden van de omwonenden en proberen daar proactief op in te spelen, bijvoorbeeld door ‘minderhindermaatregelen’ te nemen. Zo hielden de projectpartners rekening met een doorgang voor voetgangers en fietsers die ze zo veilig mogelijk maakten door de breedte, signalisatie en tactiele begeleiding te maximaliseren.” Opvolging Van elke vergadering wordt een uitgebreid verslag gemaakt dat gemaild wordt naar de aanwezigen en verschijnt op de website. Alle vragen, suggesties en klachten worden bijgehouden, samen met het antwoord van de experts. “Op die manier proberen we alles zo consequent mogelijk op te volgen, iedereen een toereikend antwoord te bezorgen en problemen zo optimaal mogelijk op te lossen”, aldus Reynaert. Een mooi voorbeeld is de discussie over de bushaltes van De Lijn. Door de werkzaamheden waren bepaalde haltes niet meer bereikbaar met bus. Via de klankbordgroep werd aan De Lijn gevraagd om die beslissing toe te lichten. Samen met de leden werden verschillende reiswegen getest. Op basis

62

van de testritten kwam de klankbordgroep samen met De Lijn tot de conclusie dat dit inderdaad de beste oplossing was.

[Foto Minderhinder] Project Gent Sint-Pieters besteedt veel aandacht aan minderhindermaatregelen. De minderhinderwerkgroep komt tweewekelijks samen om de nieuwe werfsituaties voor te bereiden en de signalisatie te bespreken. Medewerkers van het project maken dagelijks een rondgang om de signalisatie na te kijken en om hinder te detecteren. Loop- en fietsroutes worden voortdurend geüpdatet op de website. Meer info? Surf naar www.projectgentsintpieters.be/communicatie/inspraak/klankbordgroep of mail naar [email protected]

63

(.3)/0)PO98.-92.4)

64

AUGUST  

2014

 

PUBLIC  PARTICIPATION  VIA  SOCIAL  MEDIA   A  guide  to  using  Facebook   Marie-­‐Aline  Kruydt  

B y   o r d e r   o f   I n f o p u n t   P r o j e c t   G e n t   S i n t -­‐ P i e t e r s                                               S u p e r v i s e d   b y   p r o f .   d r .   O l a f   D u   P o n t  

Foreword   This guide to using Facebook was constructed as part of my internship at Infopunt Project Gent Sint-Pieters and is joined to my dissertation that focussed on public participation via social media. Not only theoretical understandings but also insights derived from case studies are combined in these guidelines. In this guide, we specifically focus on how Facebook needs to be employed to increase dialogue with stakeholders. Besides practical tips, this also entails a reflection on the strategic communication goals of Project Gent Sint-Pieters: social media can only be meaningfully employed when they are completely integrated in the communication mix. This is by no means an exhaustive set of guidelines, nor is it an ultimate set. Facebook and social media in general are new technologies that change rapidly. What is applicable today may already be out-dated tomorrow. Moreover, social media strategies might differ strongly from organisation to organisation, and even from different objectives within one organisation. Nonetheless, the theoretical framework based on recent literature and research validates this manual for organisations such as Infopunt Project Gent Sint-Pieters. For the structure of these guidelines, we heavily relied on the High-level guidance report of the UK government information services. The insights of Talking Heads, the communication agency that helped creating the website and Facebook page of Project Gent Sint-Pieters also had a major contribution to the construction of this manual. For the theoretical basis of these guidelines, I refer back to my adjoining dissertation. A complete list of sources is enclosed at the end.

Marie-Aline Kruydt August 2014

66

Table  of  content  

  STRATEGY  CONTEXT  AND  AIMS  

67  

1.   CONTEXT   2.   STRATEGIC  VISION  AND  AIMS  

67   67  

COMMUNICATION  OBJECTIVES  

68  

1.   COMMUNICATION  OBJECTIVES   2.   S.M.A.R.T?  

68   69  

CRITICAL  SUCCESS  FACTORS  

72  

AUDIENCE  

73  

1.   PRIMARY  TARGET  GROUPS   2.   SECONDARY  TARGET  GROUPS  

73   73  

OPTIONS  APPRAISAL  

74  

BENEFITS  

75  

RISKS  AND  MITIGATION  

75  

RESOURCES  REQUIRED  

76  

PRACTICAL  TIPS  FOR  POSTING  ON  FACEBOOK  

77  

1.   2.   3.   4.  

77   78   78   79  

ROADMAP   POLICY  ELEMENTS   FORMAL  ASPECTS   POSTING  CONTENT  ON  FACEBOOK  

BIBLIOGRAPHY  

84  

66

Strategy  context  and  aims   1. Context   What is the context for this social media project? Project Gent Sint-Pieters (PGSP) is the name for the infrastructure transformation of the Gent-Sint-Pieters station. The work on the station and its neighbourhood affects a large diversity of people. Therefore, transparent and timely communication is crucial. Infopunt Project Gent Sint-Pieters, the body that is responsible for the communication of the

project, has erected a Facebook page in April 2013 as addition to the more traditional communication channels. Since traditional channels do not always reach younger target groups and are on certain levels more restricted than social media, PGSP’s Facebook profile is a meaningful addition to the communication mix.

2. Strategic  vision  and  aims   What are the strategic vision and aims that this work will contribute to? Infopunt Project Gent Sint-Pieters is merely the communication organ of the project. This means that the Infopunt does not make strategic decisions with regards to the project itself. Neither do they have a profit motive. There core task is twofold: communicating any relevant information about the project to different stakeholder groups and enabling dialogue and public participation in the decision-making process about issues related to PGSP. The Infopunt itself thus adopts a facilitator role and remains as impartial as possible.

In practice, the Facebook page is employed as a channel to share knowledge about the project. However, the medium offers a great opportunity to involve the people who are directly or indirectly affected by PGSP. The Infopunt therefore aims at public participation via social media. This means that stakeholders are afforded a certain level of control and are involved in the decision making process of PGSP. The ultimate goal of participation and interaction is gaining more support for certain decisions. Interaction in general also contributes to relationship building and the reputation of the organisation.

Communication  objectives   1. Communication  objectives   What are the specific communication objectives that will support delivery of the aims?

inform  various   target  groups  

create  and   broaden   support  

provide   qualita\ve,   integrated  and   proac\ve   communica\on  

create  a   posi\ve  image  

The six proposed communication goals on social media can be reduced to three core objectives: -­‐ knowledge transfer à information sources -­‐ interaction with stakeholders à community builders -­‐ positioning and inspiring à promoters and mobilisers

The general communication goals of Infopunt Project Gent Sint-Pieters are quite straightforward. The Infopunt was established in function of informing and communicating to the stakeholders. Stakeholders who understand certain decisions and goals of the project are more likely to be supportive. Transparency and openness also contributes to a more positive image. With regards to social media, the communication goals become more specific.

profiling  the   Infopunt  as  centre   of  knowledge  

gather  data  about   target  groups  

op\misa\on  of   communica\on  in   an  exis\ng   structure  

enhance   awareness  and   apprecia\on  of   target  groups  

create  higher   Facebook is especially useful for enabling twonetworking   involvement   way communication and for positively influencing the fans of the page with relevant information. The focus here lies on the community builders, which aim at creating interaction with the stakeholders;

Traditional communication channels for dialogical interaction, such as information meetings, usually reach an older audience. Conducting surveys, the Infopunt already experienced the fact that online tools give access to a younger public. This is also the case for Facebook: more than half of the current fans are aged between 18 and 34.

68

2. S.M.A.R.T?   Can these objectives be made S.M.A.R.T? S.M.A.R.T stands for

Specific Measurable Achievable Realistic Time-bound Knowledge transfer The degree in which information is spread that From   April   to   June   2014,   the   is posted on the Facebook can directly be posts  of  Project  Gent  Sint-­‐Pieters   measured with the reach of a post. Post reach is reached  546  people  on  average.     the number of people who have seen your post and is indicated below each post. The post counts as reaching someone when it is shown in the News Feed. The number counts for the first 28 days after a post was uploaded and include people viewing your post on desktop and mobile. The data can easily be downloaded from the Facebook page: Facebook data insight export > Key metrics > Lifetime post total reach In addition, popularity (based on likes) and virality (based on shares) give an insight into the level of information dissemination. The likes and shares per post are also displayed in the Facebook data insight export > lifetime post stories by act > like/share. Name  

Sign   P1  

Popularity  

P2   P3   V1  

Virality  

Formula   Number  of  posts  with  likes/total   posts   Total  likes/total  number  of  posts   (P2/number  of  fans)*1000  

V2  

Number  of  posts  with  shares/total   posts   Total  shares/total  posts  

V3  

(V2/number  of  fans)*1000  

Measures  

PGSP  

Percentage  of  the  total  posts  that   have  been  liked   Average  number  of  likes  per  post   Popularity  of  messages  among   fans   Percentage  of  the  total  posts  that   have  been  shared   Average  number  of  shares  per   post   Virality  of  messages  among  fans  

100%   9.8   12   24%   0.8   1  

69

Interaction with stakeholders The interaction with stakeholders can be From   April   to   June   2014,   PGSP’s   measured with total engagement and Facebook   posts   had   an   average   engagement   rate   of   12   (likes,   commitment. The average total engagement shares  and  comments).     rate of a post combines the number of shares, likes and comments. The rate can on its turn be compared to averages per day or per post type, in order to see what type and time of post is most popular. Commitment measures how many comments a post provokes. Half of the posts of PGSP have been commented upon. The number of comments per post can be consulted on the Facebook data insights export > lifetime post stories by act > comment. Total  engagement  per  day  (April  –  June  2014)   Average   engagement  per   post  

  Monday   Tuesday   Wednesday   Thursday   Friday  

Name  

Average  number  of   shares  per  post  

Average  number  of   comments  per  post  

8.8   11.3   7.4   11.2   12.9  

0.2   0.4   0.5   0.5   0.2  

1.1   1.4   1.8   0.3   2.0  

10.0   13.1   9.6   12.0   15.0  

Sign            C1  

Commitment  

Average  number  of   likes  per  post  

C2   C3  

Formula   Number  of  posts  with   comments/total  posts   Total  comments/total  posts   (C2/number  of  fans)*1000  

Engagement  rate   compared  to   average  (%)  

Measures   Percentage  of  the  total  posts  that  have   been  commented  on   Average  number  of  comments  per  post   Commitment  of  fans  

-­‐16.3   +9.7   -­‐19.4   +0.5   +25.6  

PGSP   52%   1.4   1.7  

Positioning and inspiring The image of Project Gent Sint-Pieters, or the The   comments   on   the   PGSP   place the project occupies in the stakeholders’ Facebook  page  are   mind, can be measured by the sentiment of -­‐ 23%  positive   stakeholders with regard to the project. Mind -­‐ 50%  neutral   that the sentiment of comments and messages -­‐ 27%  negative   of Facebook can hardly give an accurate and   complete insight into PGSP’s image: not only is Facebook a medium where negative opinions or issues can easily be voiced, but also every other channel needs to be taken into account. Only extensive image research gives a nuanced view of an image. Nevertheless, it can function as a first indicator of opinions about the project. Comments can be classified into three categories: positive, neutral or negative. The ratio between the different moods of the comments shows what sentiment is predominant among stakeholders. 70

The posts that are uploaded on the Facebook page can actively contribute to the image of the project by formulating messages in a positive or neutral manner. The large majority of the current posts are neutral. Brightening the page with a positive message once in a while could already positively influence the fans. Also appreciation- increasing posts can help. An example: this post informs that new lights have been placed at the bicycle racks. However, a more positive tone of voice could be adopted, for instance by emphasising that suggestions of fans are listened to and taken seriously. The advantage of the proposed metrics is that they can be applied on one post and on multiple posts at once. Applying of the metrics, such as sentiment annotation, are rather time consuming. In order to avoid time-consuming analysis on daily or weekly basis, it is always useful to track the performance of the Facebook page on the Facebook Insights section. Exporting the data allow to analyse the results in more detail. Addressing tips on how to export and analyse the file would lead us too far. Interesting manuals can be found on the World Wide Web.

71

Critical  success  factors   What are we hoping to achieve? Determining specific measurable goals is both the most crucial and the most difficult part of social media management. The most practical approach is to determine the current achievements of the Facebook posts and trying to improve these results. Another option to analyse a case study that serves as good example. The main goal is to engage the fans of the page. This entails: s\mula\ng  fans  to   like,  share,  and   comment  

encouraging  people   to  send  Facebook   messages  

crea\ng     discussions  

The number of likes, shares and comments is easy to track via Facebook data insights. Since there is no abundance of messages from fans on the page, it is fairly easy to manage them. The most challenging part is stimulating discussions. On the wall, this is possible by asking questions and posting polls. Another interesting manner to publish discussions is installing a

discussion application. There are multiple discussion and forum applications that can be downloaded and installed for free on Facebook. They allow you to organise discussions according to topic, manage the discussion and to limit them in time. Note that it might be useful to construct a users’ policy, in order to avoid offensive or inappropriate reactions.

A concrete success factor is attaining an increasing number of likes, shares, and comments. Ideally, the engagement rate of posts should score above average, and over a period of time, the average engagement rate should keep increasing. A second success factor is receiving an increasing number of messages, either via e-mail or

Facebook, that relate to certain current issues. Via these private messages, the senders can be guided to public forums, such as feedback groups or discussion apps on the Facebook page. This leads us to the third success factor: the successful implementation of a discussion application on the Facebook page.

72

Audience     Who are the audience for the Facebook page?

1. Primary  target  groups      

 Local  residents  

 

 commuters  

 

 

 

users  of  public   transport  

 students  and   educa\onal   establishments  

motorists  

 

bicyclists  and   pedestrians  

disabled  people  

2. Secondary  target  groups  

investors  

press  

people   with  a   general   interest  

local   merchants  

It is important to realise that the image of the project is strongly controlled by the stakeholders. Therefore, it is interesting to gain insight into attitudes, beliefs, wishes, behaviours and influences from each target group. On the one hand, desires and attitudes are explicitly mentioned or can be derived from opinions. It is important to pay attention to expressions of opinions and beliefs during discussions or in comments. On the other hand, the stakeholders themselves are not always aware of their underlying attitudes and belief.

Determining which target groups you want to reach on Facebook is one step, but reflecting on whom you can reach is even more important. As was mentioned before, Facebook enables Project Gent Sint-Pieters to reach an audience aged primarily between 18 and 34.

More   than   half   of   the   fans   on  PGSP’s    Facebook  page  is   between   18   and   34   years   old.  

The page is most likely to attract people who -­‐ show a general interest in the project -­‐ are actively searching for information about the project -­‐ are so closely involved that the project affects their daily routine (commuters and local inhabitants) The challenge is to reach people who need to be informed about certain aspects of the

project, but are not looking for information. Examples are motorists, users of public transport, and cyclist who need to be informed about changed traffic situations, bus stops and tram stops. Reaching these target groups is possible via alternative channels such as pamphlets on places they pass by, messages in (local and train) newspapers, city magazines, other traditional media, and school information sessions. Via these media, they can be allured to the Facebook page.

Options  appraisal     Which channels have been considered for enabling public participation? So far, public participation has been limited to offline channels. An example is the feedback group that is organised several times per year. The group consists of 45 participants, among others citizens, representatives of neighbourhood committees, representatives of the different partners of the project, and politicians from the local government. All members can add issues to the agenda. However, the feedback groups mainly consist of an older audience. New members can join the feedback group once in a while, but due to logistic reasons, 45 participants is a maximum at this time.

Facebook offers an opportunity to assemble a larger and more varied public to

participate in the decision-making process. Moreover, not all of the participants have to be available at the same place at the same time. On Facebook, public dialogue and participation can either take place on the Facebook Wall or on a forum (=Discussion Application).

Benefits   What benefits can be identified? Advantages  of  citizen  participation  in  decision-­‐making  

Decision  process  

Outcomes    

To  citizen  participants   Education:  informing  and  involving  citizens   understand   technical   difficulties   and   see   holistic,  community  wide  solutions   Persuade  and  enlighten  government   Gain  skills  for  activist  citizenship   Break   gridlock:   balanced   input   leads   to   compromises  and  solutions   Gain  some  control  over  policy  process   Better   policy   and   implementation   decisions  

To  organisation   Education:   gain   insight   into   citizens’   opinions   Persuade  citizens   Gain  legitimacy  of  decisions   Break   gridlock:   gain   support   to   change   directions  and  achieve  outcomes   Avoid  litigation  cost   Better   policy   and   implementation   decisions  

Advantages  of  citizen  participation  on  Facebook   Benefit  from  the  credibility  of  non-­‐government  channels  by  providing  facts  and  support   Complaints  are  an  opportunity  to  truly  engage  with  stakeholders  and  gain  valuable  feedback   Reach  specific  audiences  on  specific  issues   Gather  people  without  restrictions  such  as  time  and  place   Tools  are  available  to  facilitate  participation  on  Facebook  

Risks  and  mitigation   Disadvantages  of  citizen  participation  in  decision-­‐making   Decision  process  

Outcomes  

To  citizen  participants   Time  consuming   Pointless  if  decision  is  ignored    

To  organisation   Time  consuming   Costly   May   backfire,   creating   more   hostility   toward  organisation   Worse  policy  decision  if  heavily  influences   Loss  of  decision-­‐making  control   by  opposing  interest  groups     Possibility  of  bad  decision  that  is  politically   impossible  to  ignore     Less   budget   for   implementation   of   actual   projects  

75

Risks  of  citizen  participation  on  Facebook   Possible  manipulation  by  interest  groups  

Risks  mitigation   Clarify  how  long  discussions  will  be  active  

Reactions   are   difficult   to   analyse   due   to   lack   of   Understand  the  audience  of  the  host  site   context  or  accuracy   May  generate  abundance  of  responses     Contingency   planning   to   accommodate   large   number  of  responses   May  conflict  with  existing  possibilities     Select   pre-­‐/post-­‐moderation   approach   and   ensure   that  participants  understand   Could   create   expectations   that   results   provide   a   Make  objectives   mandate  for  action   Providing   feedback   on   specific   issues   needs   active   Ensure   terms   of   use   and   handle   objectionable   management   content   Heated   nature   of   debate   may   prompt   participants   Identify  the  level  of  information  about  respondents   to  say  the  wrong  things   that  will  be  required  for  analysis     Have  dedicated  resource  to  actively  manage  online   debate     Establish  and  communicate  clear  posting  guidelines   and  rules     Clarify  how  policies  will  be  applied  

 

 

                     

Resources  required   What skills, experience and resource will be needed to implement this approach?

Budget  for   external   guidance  and   research  of   effec\veness  

Budget  for   social  media   account   management  

A  Facebook   profile  and   knowledge  of   Facebook  

Time  to   manage   Facebook  and   discussions  

Several questions need to be asked with regards to these resources: how much on-going resources will be necessary to maintain the approach, are they available, will the delivery of the resources be largely in-house or will an external provider be required?

76

Practical  tips  for  posting  on  Facebook       1. Roadmap   1. Invest in a strong online infrastructure, including a website and mobile friendly content. 80% of your followers will see your post on a mobile device.

7. Examine how existing communities can be meaningful for your organisation. 8. Construct a policy to teach employees and users how to behave on the page.

2. Reflect on your stakeholders and on which communication channels you can reach them.

9. Become familiar with the platform. Experienced users have a greater output.

3. List measurable objectives and assess the benefits and costs of the selected mediums.

10. Don’t be afraid to lose control of information on social media.

4. Monitor what is being said about the organisation on different mediums. 5. Assign web care tasks to employees and realise that social media or online 24/7. 6. Provide sufficient resources and sufficient data processing capacities in the communications team.

11. Only become active on social media if you can stay active. Inactivity can turn off potential followers. 12. Respond personally to followers’ reactions and show them how you deploy their answers. 13. Refer to you social media profile(s) on other mediums, for instance on the website, newsletters, information brochures, and e-mail signatures.

77

2. Policy  elements   Employee  access   • blurred  lines  between  personal  and  professional  use  can  make  it  difficult  to  set  boundaries  

Employee  conduct   • credibility:  be  accurate,  fair,  and  thorough   • consistency:  honesty,  professionalism,  encouraging  construc\ve  cri\cism   • responsiveness:  answer  in  \me   • integra\on:  align  different  mediums   • disclose  your  posi\on  as  representa\ve  of  the  organisa\on   • monitor  the  ac\vity  on  your  page  

Legal  issues  and  security   • Abide  laws  with  regard  to  privacy,  freedom  of  speech,  freedom  of  informa\on,  public  records  management,  public   disclosure,  and  accessibility  

Acceptable  use  and  security   • social  media  use  is  for  business  communica\on  and  for  fulfilling  job  du\es,  in  accordance  with  corporate  goals,  and   not  for  personal  use  

Content   • rules  from  minimal  editorial  sepngs  to  content  crea\on  

Ci\zen  conduct   • rules  that  steer  the  behaviour  of  followers  of  the  page  

3. Formal  aspects   Several formal aspects of a profile/page on social media can serve as organisational disclosure. 1. Add an official logo. This assures the recognisability as an official page. 2. Choose the category.

correct

organisation

3. Add a link to the official website.

5. List the administrators of the Facebook profile. 6. Add a detailed description of the organisation. -­‐ general description -­‐ mission -­‐ programmes and services -­‐ history of the organisation -­‐ target audience of the page -­‐ personal relevance of the page for its users

4. Provide detailed contact information.

78

7. Add a disclaimer to define the organisation’s obligations and rights. 8. Display a list of people and pages you follow. 9. Add a policy statement about the use of the page.

11. Add useful applications. -­‐ event calendar to promote offand online events -­‐ video box to promote the organisation at first glance -­‐ discussion application to organise and manage discussions.

10. Enable the comment function.

4. Posting  content  on  Facebook   Making a post ICP-principle 1. Inspiration: generating new ideas 2. Copywriting: filtering ideas and writing 3. Publication: organised in content calendar Time, frequency and length 1. Post minimum one and maximum four times per week: when posts and messages are perceived as excessive, the followers will ignore them, unfollow the organisation or complain. 2. Spread the posts in time: two posts per day is a maximum. 3. KISS (Keep It Short and Simple): posts of 80 characters or less are more engaging. 4 sentences are a maximum 4. Post on Thursdays and Fridays, these are the most engaging days. Avoid posting on Mondays and Wednesdays, these are the least engaging days 5. Post outside of business hours (via scheduling posts). Avoid posting before noon.

Content types 1. Status only (most engaging). 2. Photo only (2nd most engaging): the perfect size is 800x600. 3. Links only (3d most engaging): do not post shortened links, the engagement is higher when it is clear where the link will direct the user to. 4. Photo with links 5. Video 6. Status with links 7. Thumbnails with links 8. Audio 9. Announcements 10. Press releases 11. Campaign summaries

79

Content characteristics

General qualities 1. Quality, authenticity and credibility of the content: indicate the strength of the performance of an organisation on social media. 2. Intelligibility: communication on human scale is indispensable to keep fans attracted to the page.

general goal and ascribe the same meaning to the project. 4. Usefulness: people only follow pages that are useful for them. 5. Moderation: the organisation is responsible for moderating discussions between proponents and opponents.

3. Unity: it is important that all partners of the project communicate the same Focus on positioning the project The Facebook page is now mainly being used for knowledge transfer (raising awareness and appreciation), while this function is already being fulfilled by the website. Followers are more likely to pull out when the content on both mediums is too similar. Positioning the project means communicating about objectives concerning accessibility, environment, approach, innovation, safety, creativity, and the relation to other projects. Employ the transforming project narrative to position the project, by emphasizing the transformational and improved aspects of the project. Examples are: - Broadened tracks - New glass covering - New, 35,000m2 hall - Increased capacity of the station - The new parking space for cars and bicycles

Post CSR-related messages (35%): Corporate Social Responsibility evolves around the socially ethical behaviour of companies. Posting CSR-related content shows transparency and openness, which can build trust in the organisation and increase its social legitimacy. There are four main CSR-related topics: - Environmental issues - Social issues, human resources, and career issues - Financial reporting and transparency - Governance

80

Focus on interaction

Interaction evolves around dialogising and formation. Increasing stakeholder involvement, dialogue with stakeholders and public participation is possible by posting community builders and calls-to-action/promoters/mobilisers. The ultimate goal is to create and maintain a relationship between the organisation and its stakeholders,

Community builders: being open, engaging, and actively supporting/sponsoring important community events, and posting content that promotes interactivity and dialogue. - acknowledgement of current and local events - response solicitation - recognition and thanks - conversing Calls-to-action: promotional and organisational use of social media - inviting stakeholders to fill in surveys, to visit the organisation, to attend information sessions and events - encouraging to like, share and comment increases the engagement rate

-

-

-

-

-

-

use key words such as ‘caption this’, ‘thumbs up’, and ‘yes or no’, but avoid words as ‘click’, ‘submit’, ‘check’, and ‘shop’ post indicators of promotions such as ‘giveaway’, ‘winner’, and ‘win’ Ask questions, posts ‘fill-in-theblanks’ and ‘finish this sentence’. Ask your questions at the end of a post to reach optimal engagement rates Use interrogatives: the use of interrogative keywords such as where, when, would, should, how, and what, signals interest in the followers’ opinions Give examples and suggestions, or provide templates, when asking questions Use emoticons

81

Balanced content Relevant  content  

Shared  content  

Promo\onal  content  

• 70%  

•   20%  

•   10%  

• building  awareness  and   recogni\on  

•   foster  goodwill  and  bring   awareness  of  your   organisa\on  to  others  

•   endorsement  of  new   products,  services  and   events  

• ar\cles,  survey  ques\ons,   relevant  quotes;  recent   local  events,  relevant  \ps  

•   ideas  and  posts  from   others,  promote  others’   events,  tag  other  pages,   share  any  post  that  your   fans  might  find  interes\ng   (  Posi\ve  or  neutral   endorsers  strengthen  the   visibility  of  the   organisa\on  and  provide   alterna\ve  sources  of   informa\on)  

Responding to comments 1. Use @tags (of the first name) to notify and personally address the person who you are answering to 2. Congratulate and sympathize with others 3. Respond in time: at least within the same day, ideally within the hour 4. Respond politely 5. It is not always necessary to respond: the organisation decides which comments should be addressed, based on what they can gain from it, the appropriateness on the levels of legality and impartiality 6. When a comment is that inappropriate that it has to be deleted, explain why you delete the comment. 7. Activate replies to comments: allows a nested view and allows users to react to specific comments

82

8. Reaction flow

Monitoring   • detec\ng  sugges\ons  and   reac\on,  either  proac\vely   (tools  such  as  engagor)  or   reac\vely  (manual)  

Evalua\ng   • is  it  a  posi\ve  men\on,   troll,  joke,  complaint,   wrong  informa\on?    

Response   •   confirm,  monitor,  correct,   acknowledge,  solve   • when  the  ques\on  is  too   complicated  or  personal,   ask  to  send  a  private   message  and  mo\vate  why   you  ask  the  person  to  send   a  pm.    

A variety of reaction flow charts can be found here: http://paulscommunicatieblog.blogspot.be/2012/05/reactieschema-voor-beheerders-van.html

Monitoring and evaluating Set measurable goals and renew them periodically

Pitfalls

Total engagement: likes + shares + comments - Average of April, May, and June: 15 likes + shares + comments per post - Popularity à average number of likes per post (13) - Commitment à average number of comments per post (1.4) - Virality à average number of shares per post (0.8)

Avoid misunderstanding

Issues addressed: number of questions and complaints that were answered / total number of questions and complaints Social Sentiment Mapping: monitoring the stakeholders’ tone of voice by analysing their comments

Posting irrelevant information

Avoid distraction of employees Being online 24/7 Communicating too slowly: timely communication is important. A common pitfall is to postpone communicating about a situation until you have more certainty about the situation. It is better to engage in “process communication” and to communicate what you do know

Number of new fans/month

83

Bibliography   BINGHAM  ET  AL.  2005   Bingham, L.B., T. Nabatchi & R. O’Leary. 2005. The New Governance. Practices and processes for stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government. Public Administration Review 65(5): 547-558. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00482.x/full   BONSON  &  RATKAI  2013   Bonson, E. & M. Ratkai. 2013. A set of metrics to assess stakeholder engagement and social legitimacy on a corporate Facebook page. Online Information Review 37(5): 787803. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=17096134   CARR  &  HALVORSEN  2001   Carr, D.S. & K. Halvorsen. 2001. An evaluation of three democratic community based approaches to citizen participation: surveys, conversations with community groups, and community dinners. Society and Natural Resources 14:107-126. www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/089419201300000526   CHESS  &  PURCELL  1991   Chess, C. and K. Purcell. 1999. Public Participation and the Environment: Do we know what works? Environmental Science and Technology 33(16): 2685-2692. http://sth.sagepub.com/content/30/2/223.refs   CRANE  &  LIVESEY  2003   Crane, A. & S. Livesey. 2003. Are you talking to me? Stakeholder communication and the risks and rewards of dialogue. In J. Andriof, S. Waddock, S. Rahman and B. Husted (eds.), Unfolding stakeholder thinking 2: relationships, communication, reporting and performance. Sheffield, Greenleaf. 39-52. http://www.academia.edu/3598325/Are_you_talking_to_me_Stakeholder_communica tion_and_the_risks_and_rewards_of_dialogue   DEVINE-­‐WRIGHT,  FLEMING  &  CHADWICK  2001   Devine-Wright, P., D. Fleming & H. Chadwick. 2001. Role of social capital in advancing regional sustainable development. Impact assessment and project appraisal 19(2): 161-167. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3152/147154601781767096       84

ELLISON  ET  AL.  2014   Ellison, N.B., J. Vitak, R. Gray & C. Lampe. 2014. Cultivating social resources on social network sites: Facebook relationship maintenance behaviors and their role in social capital processes. Journal of computer-mediated communication 19(4): 855-870. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcc4.12078/abstract   EVANS-­‐COWLEY  &  HOLLANDER  2010   Evans-Cowley, J. & J. Hollander. 2010. The new generation of public participation: internet based participation tools. Planning Practice and Research 25(3): 397-408. http://people.stfx.ca/x2009/x2009hpn/Internet%20Participation%20Tools.pdf   IRVIN  &  STANSBURY  2004   Irvin, R.A. & J. Stansbury. 2004. Citizen Participation in Decision Making: is it worth the effort? Public Administration Review 64(1): 55-65. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00346.x/abstract   KRISTEN  LOVEJOY,  GREGORY  D.  SAXTON.  2012.     Lovejoy, K. & G.D. Saxton. 2012. Information, Community, and Action: How nonprofit organizations use social media. Journal of computer-mediated communication 17(3): 337-353. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01576.x/full   MORSING  &  SCHULTZ  2006   Morsing, M. and M. Schultz. 2006. Corporate Social Responsibility Communication: stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review 15(4): 323-338. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2006.00460.x/full   MTB  2012 MTB (Braem, Cailliau, Gaudissabois, Leus, Van den Driessche, Van Onverbeke, Verbeke). 2012. Sporen naar later. Onderzoeksproject communicatie Project Gent Sint Pieters.   ROBINSON  2002   Robinson, L. 2002. Enabling change: Qualities of effective participatory processes. http://www.enablingchange.com.au/Effective_participation.pdf     VORVOREANU  2009   Vorvoreanu, M. 2009. Perceptions of Corporations on Facebook: An analysis of Facebook Social Norms. Journal of New Communications Research 5(1): 67-86.

85

http://scholar.google.be/scholar_url?hl=nl&q=http://www.academia.edu/download/ 31105094/JNCRIV.2009_Corporations_on_Facebook.pdf&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm39RtdSLpSZg M7C8ohfLdNsFK8RmA&oi=scholarr&ei=MJnaU52jLeup0AX3rIDgBg&ved=0 CB0QgAMoADAA

BRICKFISH  2014   Brickfish 2014. Why the smartest brands race to respond to consumers on social media. (Infographic). Retrieved on 5 -7-2014. https://10social.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/socialcustomerservice.png CHOW  2014   Chow, T. 2014. Social Media. Visie en aanpak. Krachten gebundeld, gedurfd anders digitaal sociaal. Retrieved on 8-6-2014. http://www.gent.be/sharedocs/Stad_Gent_visienota_Social_Media.pdf EIGHT  ESSENTIAL  ELEMENTS   Hrdinova, J., N. Helbig & C.S. Peters. 2010. Designing social media policy for government: Eight essential elements. Center for Technology in Government. University of Albany. http://assembly.nu.ca/library/Edocs/2010/000957-e.pdf   GIS  2012   Government Digital Service. 2012. Social media guidance for civil servants. UK Government ICT strategy. Retrieved on 10-7-2014. https://webtoolkit.govt.nz/files/Social-Media-in-Government-Hands-on-Toolboxfinal.pdf   GIS  2011     Government Information Services. Department of Internal Affairs. 2011. Social Media in Government. High-level guidance and hands-on toolbox. Retrieved on 10-7-2014. https://webtoolkit.govt.nz/files/Social-Media-in-Government-High-level-Guidancefinal.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/62361/So cial_Media_Guidance.pdf KING  &  RPA  N.D.   Kennis in het groot & Rijksprojectacademie. N.d. 24 uur online kennisdelen: zes handige online middelen en sociale media voor bouw- en infraprojecten uit ’24 uur online kennisdelen’. Retrieved on 28-6-2014.

86

http://neerlandsdiep.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/24-uur-online-tips-voor-6-onlinemiddelen-en-social-media-King-RPA-.pdf KING  2010     Kennis in het groot. 2010. Sociale media en infrastructurele projecten. Retrieved on 28-6-2014. http://neerlandsdiep.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/King_social_Media_totaal.pdf KING  2009   Kennis in het groot. 2009. Communicatie: Projectcommunicatie. Retrieved on 28-62014. http://neerlandsdiep.nl/wpcontent/uploads/2014/05/boekje_projectcommunicatie_tot aal.pdf KOK  2011   Kok, D. 2011. Hoe meet je aanwezigheid op sociale media? Retreived on 29-6-2014. http://www.gemeente.nu/Home/Nieuws/2011/10/Hoe-meet-je-aanwezigheid-opsocial-media-GEMNU055116W/ MARKETING  TRIBUNE  2014   Marketing Tribune. 2014. How to create perfect posts on social platforms. http://www.marketingtribune.nl/content/nieuws/2014/06/tips-voor-de-creatie-vanperfecte-posts-op-sociale-platformen/index.xml   MCCORKINDALE  2010   McCorkindale, T. 2010. Can you see the writing on my wall? A content analysis of Fortune 50’s Facebook social networking sites. Public Relations Journal 4(3): 1-13. http://www.prsa.org/Intelligence/PRJournal/Documents/2010McCorkindale.pdf MCCORKINDALE  ET  AL  2013   McCorkindale, T., M.W. Distaso & H.F. Sisco. 2013. How Millennials are engaging and building relationships with organizations on Facebook. The Journal of Social Media in Society 2(1): 66-87. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/259563684_How_Millennials_are_engaging _and_building_relationships_with_organizations_on_Facebook MERRIAM-­‐WEBSTER  2014   Appreciation. 2014. In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved on 5-7-2014 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/appreciation    

87

ORACLE  2012     Oracle. 2012. Eight steps to great customer experiences for government agencies. Retrieved on 4-7-2014. http://www.oracle.com/us/products/applications/8-steps-cust-exp-gov-wp-1560471.pdf QPUBLISH  2013   QPublish. 2013.Three types of content: what businesses should post on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/qpublish/posts/451427764926609   RAWLINSON  2012   Chris Rawlinson. 2012. Data report: Strategies for effective Facebook wall posts, a statistical review. Buddy Media. Retrieved on 6-7-2014. http://www.slideshare.net/chrisrawlinson/buddymedia-strategies-for-effectivefacebook-wall-posts       TABSITE  BLOG  2014   Tabsite Blog. 2014. 12 Point Facebook page checklist for page admins (infographic). Retrieved on 24-7-2014. https://www.tabsite.com/blog/12-point-facebook-page-checklist-for-page-adminsinfographic/ TALKING  HEADS  2013   Talking Heads. 2013. Project Gent Sint-Pieters: Content coaching sessie & Evaluatiesessie.   TALKING  HEADS  2012   Talking Heads. 2012. Manuele Audit & Strategische werkmeeting Project Gent SintPieters VEENWSIJK  2013   Veenswijk, M. 2013. Kennis in het groot. Projectmanagement. Handreiking stakeholderstrategie bij vitale infraschakels. Landelijk Tunnelregisseur Rijkswaterstaat en Rijksprojectacademie. Retrieved on 28-6-2014. http://neerlandsdiep.nl/wpcontent/uploads/2014/05/King_publicatie_Handreiking_st akeholderstrategie_bij-vitale_infraschakels.pdf   WATERS  ET  AL.  2009  

88

Waters, R.D., E. Burnett, A. Lamm & J. Lucas. 2009. Engaging stakeholders through social networking: how non-profit organizations are using Facebook. Public Relations Review 35(2): 102–106. http://academic.csuohio.edu/kneuendorf/c63310/ArticlesFromClassMembers/Julie.pd f WILLAERTS  2010   Willaerts 2010. Conversity Model. Retrieved on 24-6-2014. http://conversity.be/en/

89