Advertisement

Greek Embassies on Twitter and the Quest for a Strategy

  • Georgia-Zozeta MiliopoulouEmail author
  • Eftychia Papaioannou
Conference paper
  • 441 Downloads
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics book series (SPBE)

Abstract

This chapter explores existing practices regarding the Hellenic Embassies’ use of Twitter, paving the way toward their optimization. Twitter diplomacy offers significant advantages yet use in the Greek public sector appears to be sparse and anemic, depriving opportunities that would benefit the country. The authors studied a sample of five Twitter accounts in five different countries for 7 days, conducting quantitative and thematic analysis. Thus, they collected evidence on the frequency and periodical nature of the tweets; on the interactivity between the users and the account owners; on the existence of content strategy and content pillars; on the selected language; and, finally, on the extroversion of these accounts and the overall assessment of the communication strategy followed. The Greek Communication Officers appear to be using Twitter hesitantly, responding to occurrences rather than building opportunities, divided between the imperative for a tightly controlled central communication policy and the need for agile, real time, localized, interactive approaches with specific target groups in each country. Significant variations emerge from one Twitter account to another, thus indicating a lack of diffusion in terms of know-how and a lack of adequate alignment between the Greek central administration and the Communication Officers in Greek embassies.

Keywords

National communication policy Twitter diplomacy Digital diplomacy Social media Greek embassies 

References

  1. 1.
    Avery EJ, Wooten GM (2013) Political public relations and the promotion of participatory, transparent government through social media. Int J Strateg Commun 7:274–291.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2013.824885 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Natarajan K (2014) Digital diplomacy and a strategic narrative for India. Strateg Anal 38(1):91–106.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09700161.2014.863478 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Nye J (2005) Soft power: the means to success in world politics, New Ed edn. Public Affairs, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dasgupta A (2011) Making public diplomacy work. J Int Commun 17(1):73–83.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13216597.2011.556087 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wang J (2006) Managing national reputation and international relations in the global era: public diplomacy revisited. Public Relat Rev 32(2):91–96.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2005.12.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Holmstrom M (2015) The narrative and social media. Defense Strat Commun J 1(1):119–133. https://www.stratcomcoe.org/miranda-holmstrom-narrative-and-social-media. Accessed Apr 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sharp P (2005) Revolutionary states, outlaw regimes and the techniques of public diplomacy. In: Melissen J (ed) The new public diplomacy: soft power in international relations. Palgrave, Hampshire, pp 3–14Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kim H (2017) Bridging the theoretical gap between public diplomacy and cultural diplomacy. Korean J Int Stud 15(2):293–326.  https://doi.org/10.14731/kjis.2017.08.15.2.293 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Melissen J (2005) The new public diplomacy: between theory and practice. In: Melissen J (ed) The new public diplomacy: soft power in international relations. Palgrave, Hampshire, pp 3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Izadi F (2016) US public diplomacy: a theoretical treatise. J Arts Manag Law Soc 46(1):13–21.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10632921.2015.1137093 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pamment J (2012) New public diplomacy in the 21st century: a comparative study of policy and practice. Routledge, London.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203096734 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kavanaugh AL, Fox EA, Sheetz SD, Yang S, Tzy Li L, Shoemaker DJ, Natsev A, Xie L (2012) Social media use by government: from the routine to the critical. Gov Inf Q 29:480–499.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2037556.2037574 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cull NJ (2011) WikiLeaks, public diplomacy 2.0 and the state of digital public diplomacy. Place Brand Public Dipl 7(1):1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1057/pb.2011.2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhong X, Lu J (2013) Public diplomacy meets social media: a study of the U.S. Embassy’s blogs and micro-blogs. Public Relat Rev 39(5):542–548.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.07.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Park SJ, Lim YS (2014) Information networks and social media use in public diplomacy: a comparative analysis of South Korea and Japan. Asian J Commun 24(1):79–98.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2013.851724 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Waters RD, Williams JM (2011) Squawking, tweeting, cooing, and hooting: analyzing the communication patterns of government agencies on Twitter. J Public Aff 11(4):353–363.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.385 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jukić T, Merlak M (2017) The use of social networking sites in public administration: the case of Slovenia. e-Government 15(1):2–18.  https://doi.org/10.2478/nispa-2018-0019. www.ejeg.com CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Small TA (2013) E-government in the age of social media: an analysis of the Canadian Government’s use of Twitter. Policy Internet 4(3–4):91–111.  https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Heine J, Turcotte JF (2012) Tweeting as statecraft: how, against all odds, Twitter is changing the World’s second oldest profession. Crossroads III(2):57–72Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dodd MD, Collins SJ (2017) Public relations message strategies and public diplomacy 2.0: an empirical analysis using central-eastern European and Western embassy Twitter accounts. Public Relat Rev 43(2):417–425.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.02.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Storie LK (2015) Lost publics in public diplomacy: antecedents for online relationship management. Public Relat Rev 41(2):315–317.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.02.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Riffe D, lacy S, Fico F, Watson B (2019) Analyzing media messages using quantitative content analysis in research. Routledge, New York.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429464287 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vaismoradi M, Turunen H, Bondas T (2013) Content analysis and thematic analysis: implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nurs Health Sci 15:398–405.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Joffe H, Yardley L (2004) Content and thematic analysis. In: Marks DF, Yardley L (eds) Research methods for clinical and health psychology. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Georgia-Zozeta Miliopoulou
    • 1
    Email author
  • Eftychia Papaioannou
    • 2
  1. 1.Deree, The American College of GreeceAthensGreece
  2. 2.Hellenic National School of Public AdministrationAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations