Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
14 IntroductIon This chapter presents findings from the survey conducted for this synthesis study. The following sections describe how responding transit agencies use social media, including specific applications, goals, strategies for managing content, and integration with other agency activities. SocIal MedIa applIcatIonS The survey conducted for this synthesis study asked respondents which social media applications they use (multiple responses were allowed). Among the 35 organizations answering this question, the top three applications were Twitter (91% of responding agencies), Facebook (89%), and YouTube (80%). Agencies responding to the synthesis survey used social media for a wide range of purposes. Among the most common were providing agency news, real-time alerts, and contests and promotions. Transit providers were least likely to use social media for posting job listings and soliciting comments for public hearings (see Table 2). Survey responses suggest that agencies try to match type of content with the social media platform. This was especially apparent for real-time service alerts, where Twitter was pre- ferred by a sizable margin (77% of responding agencies). Twitter and Facebook were the platforms of choice for dis- seminating agency news, meeting and event notices, contests and promotions, and general service news. For feature stories, transit agencies preferred Facebook (57%) and blogs (40%). A handful of agencies reported using LinkedIn, mostly for job listings (14%) and service information (9%). GoalS for uSInG SocIal MedIa The survey asked responding agencies to review a series of commonly stated goals for introducing social media and rate the importance of each. To help compare the goals, a weighted average was calculated for the importance of each goal using a four-point scale (ânot important at allâ = 1 and âvery importantâ = 4). The most important goal for nearly every agency was Communicate with current riders (italics are used to show exact question wording). All but one agency considered this goal âvery importantâ (97% of responding agencies) and the average ranking was 4.0. Also rated âvery importantâ were the following: ⢠Improve customer satisfaction (85% of responding agencies/average = 3.8) ⢠Improve agency image (76% of responding agencies/ average = 3.7). Recruit and keep staff was one of the least important goals for using social media. This goal received the lowest average rating, at 1.9, and 38% of responding agencies said this was ânot important at all.â Also unimportant for social media was Save money. Seventeen percent of responding agencies said this goal was ânot important at allâ and the average rating was 2.6. Table 3 summarizes these responses. tarGet MarketS for SocIal MedIa applIcatIonS Although social media channels have users in all demographic groups, survey respondents were especially likely to use these applications to reach everyday riders, along with young adults and students. As Table 4 indicates, the vast majority of responding agencies used Twitter and Facebook to reach everyday riders, young adults, and students. Most agencies also used these channels to connect with minorities, low- income communities, seniors, and people with disabilities. Respondents also used Facebook and, to a lesser extent, Twitter to communicate with external stakeholders. About half of the responding agencies reported using YouTube, mostly to reach out to everyday riders, young adults, and stakeholders. Only about one-third of agencies used blogs, primarily to connect with external stakeholders, seniors, and young adults. Interestingly, almost half of responding agencies said they used Facebook to communicate with their own employees, substantially more than used the profes- sional networking site LinkedIn, although no examples were provided. effectIveneSS of SocIal MedIa Survey respondents were asked to rate the effectiveness of social media in two dimensions: (1) achieving agency goals; and (2) reaching specific markets. chapter three Survey: How tranSIt aGencIeS uSe SocIal MedIa
15 Platform Twitter Facebook Blog YouTube LinkedIn Agency News 86% 80% 37% 23% 3% Service Alerts (real-time) 77% 49% 9% 3% 0% Contests and Promotions 69% 77% 23% 17% 0% Meeting and Event Notices 66% 71% 31% 3% 3% Service Info (static) 63% 69% 29% 20% 9% Press Releases and Statements 63% 60% 23% 9% 3% Other News 57% 63% 31% 14% 3% Feature Stories 31% 57% 40% 29% 0% Job Listings 20% 23% 3% 0% 14% Public Hearing Comments 11% 26% 20% 9% 0% Other 11% 17% 6% 14% 3% Multiple responses allowed. Responses expressed as percentage of total responding agencies (N = 35). TAbLe 2 TYpe OF InFORMATIOn pROvIded And SOcIAL MedIA AppLIcATIOn USed Goal No. Not Important Slightly Important Important Very Important Average Communicate with Current Riders 33 0% 0% 3% 97% 4.0 Improve Customer Satisfaction 33 0% 6% 9% 85% 3.8 Improve Agency Image 33 0% 6% 18% 76% 3.7 Reach Potential Riders 32 0% 9% 22% 69% 3.6 Distribute Real-time Service Info 32 3% 13% 19% 66% 3.5 Strengthen Community Support 33 0% 12% 21% 67% 3.5 Distribute General Service Info 33 3% 6% 45% 45% 3.3 Increase Ridership 33 3% 15% 30% 52% 3.3 Obtain Feedback on Projects 32 3% 19% 31% 47% 3.2 Save Money 29 17% 31% 24% 28% 2.6 Recruit and Keep Staff 29 38% 41% 17% 3% 1.9 Percentage is based on number of agencies responding to question, shown in column marked âNo.â Weighted average was calculated from responses using a four-point scale where 1 = ânot important at allâ and 4 = âvery important.â N/A responses were excluded. TAbLe 3 IMpORTAnce OF SOcIAL MedIA GOALS
16 achieving agency Goals Respondents rated the effectiveness of social media in meeting their stated goals using a four-point scale, from ânot effective at allâ to âvery effectiveâ (see Table 5). Agencies rated social media âvery effectiveâ in accomplishing the following: ⢠Communicate with current riders (58% of responding agencies) ⢠Distribute real-time information (43%) ⢠Distribute general service information (42%). Many agencies noted that social media strategies were ânot effective at allâ in meeting the following goals: ⢠Recruit and keep staff (17%) ⢠Save money (15%) ⢠Increase ridership (11%). Of particular interest are the responses related to the effectiveness of social media in reaching current and poten- tial riders. Although social media appeared to be a good way to communicate with current riders (58% of respondents said it was âvery effectiveâ in this regard), the platform was far less effective for reaching potential riders or increasing ridership. Only 13% of respondents considered social media âvery effectiveâ for reaching potential customers (average = 2.7) and 11% said it was âvery effectiveâ for increasing ridership (average = 2.4). Respondents disagreed about the role of social media in saving money. Although these applications may have the potential to reduce costs associated with printed materials and postage, for example, the additional staffing requirements may offset these economies for some organizations. Accordingly, 40% of respondents considered social media âvery effectiveâ for saving money, but 15% said it was ânot effective at allâ (average = 3.0). As Table 5 shows, the average score compiled for this measure falls in the middle of the range, reflecting the split between the organizations that considered social media effective in this regard and those that did not. Social media do not appear to be widely used for commu- nicating with agency staff. Almost two-thirds of respondents said that the question did not apply to their agency, and 58% of those responding said that social media were âslightly effectiveâ for recruiting and keeping staff. To further assess the effectiveness of social media, a com- parison was made between the perceived effectiveness of social media in reaching agency goals and the stated importance of each goal using the weighted averages. As in previous survey questions, âvery effectiveâ = 4 and ânot effective at allâ = 1. Figure 7 compares the importance of a goal and the effec- tiveness of social media in accomplishing that goal. As the chart shows, communicating with current riders is the most important goal for agencies and also the area where social media can be most effective. For other highly rated goals, including customer satisfaction and agency image, the gap between goal and effectiveness was wider. In a few cases, there appeared to be a disconnect between stated importance and effectiveness. For example, agencies considered social media applications to be most effective for distributing real- time and general service information; these attributes did not rank among the most important for agencies on average. reacHInG tarGet MarketS Survey respondents were also asked how effective social media channels were in reaching different market segments. consis- tent with the way agencies reported using these platforms, Target Market No. Twitter Facebook YouTube Blog LinkedIn Everyday Riders 33 91% 85% 52% 33% 3% Young Adults 33 85% 88% 48% 36% 3% Students 33 79% 88% 45% 27% 3% External Stakeholders 33 67% 79% 48% 39% 9% Minorities 33 67% 64% 30% 30% 3% Low-income Communities 33 64% 64% 33% 27% 3% Seniors/Older Americans 33 61% 61% 33% 36% 3% People with Disabilities 33 61% 58% 33% 30% 3% Agency Employees 33 24% 45% 21% 18% 12% Multiple responses allowed. Responses expressed as percentage of total responding agencies (N = 33). TAbLe 4 SOcIAL MedIA AppLIcATIOn bY TARGeT MARkeT
17 they rated social media most effective for communicating with everyday riders, young adults, and students. Social media were considered least effective for reaching seniors and low-income communities. Responses are summarized below and presented in Table 6. note that the survey did not define market groups such as everyday riders, young, adults, and low-income communities, and agencies may have interpreted them differently when responding. The survey also included tribal communities on the list of target markets, but the results are not reported because of the small number of responses. ⢠Everyday ridersâMost reporting agencies consid- ered social media âvery effectiveâ (35%) or âeffectiveâ (55%) for reaching everyday riders or commuters. Item No. Not Effective Slightly Effective Effective Very Effective Average Communicate with Current Riders 33 0% 12% 30% 58% 3.5 Distribute General Info 33 0% 15% 42% 42% 3.3 Distribute Real-time Service Info 28 0% 25% 32% 43% 3.2 Improve Agency Image 33 0% 18% 58% 24% 3.1 Save Money 20 15% 15% 30% 40% 3.0 Obtain Feedback on Projects 30 3% 30% 37% 30% 2.9 Improve Customer Satisfaction 33 0% 27% 55% 18% 2.9 Strengthen Community Support 30 0% 37% 43% 20% 2.8 Reach Potential Riders 30 0% 43% 43% 13% 2.7 Increase Ridership 27 11% 52% 26% 11% 2.4 Recruit and Keep Staff 12 17% 58% 17% 8% 2.2 Percentage is based on number of agencies responding to question, shown in column marked âNo.â Weighted average was calculated from responses using a four-point scale where 1 = ânot effective at allâ and 4 = âvery effective.â N/A responses were excluded. TAbLe 5 eFFecTIveneSS OF SOcIAL MedIA AppLIcATIOnS In AchIevInG AGencY GOALS FIGURE 7 Compare importance of agency goals and effectiveness of social media in achieving goals. (A weighted average was calculated from responses using a four-point scale where ânot important/effective at allâ = 1 and âvery important/effectiveâ = 4. N/A responses were excluded.)
18 ⢠Young adultsâResponding organizations considered social media to be âvery effectiveâ (38%) or âeffectiveâ (48%) for connecting with young adults. ⢠StudentsâSimilarly, agencies found social media âvery effectiveâ (40%) or âeffectiveâ (40%) for connecting with students. ⢠Seniors/older AmericansâOf the agencies using social media to reach seniors, only 4% considered it âvery effective.â Almost half (48%) thought it was âslightly effective,â and 17% found the approach ânot effective at all.â ⢠People with disabilitiesâMore than half (57%) of the agencies using social media to reach people with disabilities considered the strategy to be âeffective,â and 33% said social media were âslightly effective.â ⢠Low-income communitiesâThe majority (61% of agencies reporting) said social media were âslightly effectiveâ for reaching this group and only 11% said they were âvery effective.â ⢠MinoritiesâAmong those who used social media to reach minority communities, 61% considered social media an âeffectiveâ tool for targeting these individuals and 33% called them âslightly effective.â ⢠External stakeholdersâAbout 23% of agencies using social media in this way called the approach âvery effectiveâ and 50% said it was âeffective.â ⢠Agency employeesâAbout 63% of agencies using social media for internal communications said it was âeffectiveâ and 13% said it was âvery effective.â To compare the effectiveness of using social media tools to reach different constituencies, an average ranking was developed. A four-point scale was used, where 1 = ânot effective at allâ and 4 = âvery effective;â n/A responses were excluded. As the rankings in Table 6 show, agencies consid- ered social media most effective for reaching everyday riders, young adults, and students. The approach was least effective for communicating with seniors, people with disabilities, and low-income communities. Responding agencies identified only two demographic groups for which social media channels were considered ânot effective at allâ: seniors (17%) and people with disabilities (5%). content ManaGeMent Agencies were asked how frequently they updated the content on social media sites. For agencies providing real-time alerts (N = 29), 66% reported updating the information multiple times per day. but with the exception of these time-sensitive announcements, most agencies updated social media postings less frequently. news items and general service information stayed fairly current, with agencies reporting updates a few times a week for agency news (35%), other news (30%), and meeting and event notices (27%). At the other end of the spectrum, agencies posted some types of information once a month or less, including public hearing comments (58%), job listings (53%), and contests and promotions (50%). Table 7 presents these findings. coordInatIon wItH aGency proGraMS Almost all agencies responding to the survey coordinated social media with their marketing and communications plan (90%). This is consistent with the content management practices of most responding agencies. As stated previously, marketing and communications staff had full or partial responsibility for social media posts. A respondent from a large urban agency No. Not Effective Slightly Effective Effective Very Effective Average Everyday Riders 31 0% 10% 55% 35% 3.3 Young Adults 29 0% 14% 48% 38% 3.2 Students 30 0% 20% 40% 40% 3.2 External Stakeholders 26 0% 27% 50% 23% 3.0 Agency Employees 16 0% 25% 63% 13% 2.9 Minorities 18 0% 33% 61% 6% 2.7 People with Disabilities 21 5% 33% 57% 5% 2.6 Low-income Communities 18 0% 61% 28% 11% 2.5 Seniors/Older Americans 23 17% 48% 30% 4% 2.2 Percentage is based on number of agencies responding to question, shown in the column marked âNo.â Weighted average was calculated from responses using a four-point scale where 1 = ânot effective at allâ and 4 = âvery effective.â N/A responses were excluded. TAbLe 6 eFFecTIveneSS OF SOcIAL MedIA FOR ReAchInG cOnSTITUencIeS
19 offered this comment: âSocial media tools need to be part of a comprehensive strategy for passenger information and public communications (including traditional and IT-based means), rather than implemented as one-offs.â A majority of responding agencies (74%) said that they used their social media platforms for service advisories and just under half (45%) for real-time service alerts. Agencies reported limited coordination with other customer information services, including 511/traveler information (16%), 311/citizen infor- mation (10%), and 211/human services information (10%). A handful of agencies reported integrating social media with mobile applications, automated real-time information, special promotions, and other web-based activities. Content Type No. Multiple Times a Day Daily A Few Times a Week Weekly A Few Times a Month Once a Month or Less Service Information (static) 33 24% 3% 24% 6% 21% 21% Agency News 31 13% 10% 35% 13% 23% 6% Meeting and Event Notices 30 3% 3% 27% 13% 27% 27% Service Alerts (real-time) 29 66% 7% 17% 3% 7% 0% Press Releases and Statements 28 14% 7% 21% 0% 43% 14% Other News 27 15% 15% 30% 7% 26% 7% Contests and Promotions 26 4% 12% 8% 4% 23% 50% Feature Stories 23 9% 4% 22% 4% 30% 30% Public Hearing Comments 19 11% 0% 16% 0% 16% 58% Job Listings 17 6% 0% 12% 12% 18% 53% Other 7 43% 14% 0% 0% 14% 29% Row percentage based on number of agencies responding, shown in column marked âNo.â TAbLe 7 FReqUencY FOR UpdATInG SOcIAL MedIA AppLIcATIOnS bY TYpe OF cOnTenT