Abstract

Twitter is widely used by companies to reach various stakeholders, but how they use this social media platform is still unclear. To investigate how companies use Twitter, this study analyzes the content of the Twitter accounts of four large information technology companies, focusing on the arrangement of different Twitter accounts and on message characteristics (content, message elements, and communication strategies). The results show that companies used architectures of different Twitter accounts to serve various stakeholder groups. The companies’ tweets covered diverse topics within the corporate, marketing, and technical communication domains. The tweets focused more on providing information and promoting action than on facilitating dialogue.

Journal
Journal of Business and Technical Communication
Published
2020-10-01
DOI
10.1177/1050651920932191
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
OA PDF Hybrid
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (5)

  1. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
  2. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  3. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  4. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  5. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication

References (59) · 5 in this index

  1. 10.1108/IntR-04-2017-0172
  2. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  3. 10.1057/bm.2016.3
  4. Technical Communication
  5. 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x
Show all 59 →
  1. 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.01.003
  2. 10.1080/1553118X.2017.1298114
  3. MIS Quarterly Executive
  4. The semiotics of emoji: The rise of visual language in the age of the Internet
  5. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.11.012
  6. eMarketer. (2017). eMarketer updates worldwide social network user figures. https://www.emarketer.com/Article…
  7. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2016.07.001
  8. 10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.022
  9. 10.1108/S2043-052320160000009009
  10. 10.1080/1062726X.2013.795866
  11. 10.1177/0899764012471585
  12. Iankova S., Davies I., Archer-Brown C., Marder B., Yau A. (2019). A comparison of social media marketing betw…
  13. 10.1002/asi.21149
  14. 10.1016/j.elerap.2017.05.002
  15. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  16. 10.1016/j.bushor.2011.10.009
  17. 10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003
  18. 10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.020
  19. 10.1002/smj.2678
  20. 10.1080/15252019.2011.10722187
  21. Communication Design Quarterly
  22. 10.2753/JEC1086-4415180204
  23. 10.1080/15252019.2014.935536
  24. 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01576.x
  25. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.01.005
  26. 10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.04.008
  27. 10.2501/IJMR-2013-070
  28. Technical Communication
  29. 10.2501/IJA-30-1-013-046
  30. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.12.003
  31. 10.1080/10810730.2012.727956
  32. 10.1080/00909889909365539
  33. 10.2308/isys-50994
  34. Technical Communication
  35. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.08.004
  36. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.02.005
  37. 10.1080/1062726X.2014.908721
  38. 10.1177/1750635218810912
  39. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  40. 10.3390/su10082617
  41. International Journal of Integrated Marketing Communications
  42. 10.1108/JCOM-01-2013-0004
  43. 10.2501/JAR-51-1-258-275
  44. 10.1177/2329488415572785
  45. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.08.015
  46. 10.1177/2329488414525400
  47. Technical Communication Quarterly
  48. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.03.002
  49. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2016.07.002
  50. 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-054188
  51. 10.1080/09537325.2019.1587161
  52. 10.1080/09537325.2017.1385759
  53. 10.1108/CCIJ-03-2019-0031
  54. 10.1177/0266666915602522