Editors Mădălina BoĠan Tudor Vlad Dana Popescu-Jourdy
RETHINKING THE PUBLIC SPHERE: THEORETHICAL CONCEPTUALIZATION, NEW CHALLENGES, AND DYNAMICS Proceedings of the International Conference on Media and the Public Sphere July, 2012, Lyon
Comunicare.ro 3
THE ROMANIAN CULTURAL NGOS AND THE ONLINE CITIZEN: A RENDEZVOUS MANQUÉ? Alexandra Zbuchea Monica Bîră National University of Political and Administrative Studies
[email protected] [email protected]
Abstract As a key component of the public sphere, the nongovernmental sector has proven to be increasingly expanding in Romania, both in terms of numbers and in impact, as statistics and studies developed in the past few years prove. In a country with rather a little tradition regarding the public sphere – there is a lot to investigate when it comes to the way in which NGOs are operating and communicating. A special attention should be given to the relationship between NGOs and the Romanian citizens. This paper investigates the online image/presence of the Romanian nongovernmental sector, with a main focus on the cultural sector. Basically, the NGOs addressing cultural issues will be analyzed in an attempt to establish their place on the “map” of Romanian cultural nongovernmental sector and to point out: x Which are the main issues addressed by those NGOs? Are those issues a part of the mainstream debates animating the “public sphere”? x How interested is the online media by the activities of the nongovernmental organizations active in cultural field? x Is there online interactivity between nongovernmental cultural organizations and its publics? In order to answer the first three questions, the methodology of the investigation is based both on quantitative and qualitative investigation of the online environment (online communication networks of nongovernmental organizations, mass media and social media).
468
Key words: nongovernmental sector, communication strategies of NGOs, online visibility, cultural sector, Romania
The swinging citizen – between the public sphere and the nongovernmental sector When considering the general climate in the contemporary society, one would believe that our times are strongly characterized by civic involvement. The agenda is no longer set by the government (the so called establishment) but by the citizens themselves. The public sphere is increasingly more active and the topics discussed are increasingly more diverse. This impression seems to be confirmed by the growing number of nongovernmental organizations, which are very active for the public benefit, not just for that of their members. A closer look to the actual situation would highlight more diverse situations, and a large variety of approaches and attitudes in different states, even when considering similar countries. Still, what undoubtedly characterizes the contemporary society is the emergence of the nongovernmental sector, no matter the historical or political regime we are talking about. The nongovernmental (nonprofit) sector was “born” at the end of the 19th century in the US, in the context of the reduction of state implication in social assistance. In this context, among other transformations, voluntarism flourished (Salamon & Anheier, 1997: 285-288). Still, the nonprofit sector is not related only to the evolutions in the US. Local historical developments lead to different types of civil society, to various types of nongovernmental sectors. Still, the main coordinates remain the same: the nongovernmental sector helps in various aspects and by different means the citizens, sometimes despite the political regime or the economic and social contexts. At the end of the 20th century Salamon (1994, 109) stated that the humanity is in the midst of a global "associational revolution" which is extremely significant for its fate. In the present economic context, on the edge of recession and in
469
political turmoil, under social pressures, the states should redesign themselves, as well as the civil society. The role of this sector is overwhelmingly positive: offers goods and services that government can not suitably provide, ensures professional development and protection, is a major economic force (Salamon & Anheier, 1996: 23), creates social capital, is guardian for democratic and social values (Salamon, 1999:16-17). Other relevant positive contributions the nongovernmental sector has to the development of communities are the support for advocacy, the provision of a framework for expressing feelings, ideas, needs and interests of any member of the society (FDSC, 2010: 30-31). As considering the cultural environment, the impact of the nongovernmental sector varies from society to society, but the main contributions are the creation of cultural capital and setting of cultural agenda for the benefit of the society. It also mobilizes volunteers. In many societies, culture exists due to the nongovernmental organizations. Nevertheless, culture is one of the main fields of activity associated with the nonprofit world (Salamon & Anheier, 1997: 39). In some countries, the nongovernmental sector is even cultural-dominant, as in the case of Hungary (Salamon & Anheier, 1996: 57). This is not the case for Romania, where social and environmental aspects seem to monopolize the agenda of this sector. Nowadays, the voice of the citizen is expressed through nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). In most cases, the public sphere is not formed by individual voices but by organizational voices. The socially conscious citizens are active mostly in NGOs, or at least they support them by donations. Lately, they could outspokenly support a cause via the internet, i.e. on social networking platforms. The importance of the internet in supporting causes is uncontested today. Strong examples on the issue are the role of the internet in the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions, the international support for various Chinese dissidents that ultimately saves them or even the Syrian case which is far from its conclusion. When considering the involvement of Romanian citizens in public affaires, the studies show an ascending trend. In 2011 almost two thirds of the Romanians
470
donated, but most of these aids where given to beggars or people in need (Deadalus, 2012). A characteristic of the Romanians would be that they rather support a person in need, than a cause (19% vs. 10%) (FDSC, 2010: 86). More persons use every year the mechanism of directly transfer 2% of the annual tax on income, from 17% in 2008 to 25% in 2010 (www.doilasuta.ro). In 2011, according to a Daedalus study, the number of persons redirecting 2% of their taxes increased to 37% (Deadalus, 2012). In 2008, just 1% of these funds where sent to cultural organizations (FDSC, 2010). Hopefully the figures also increased in time, but we have no available data to support this hypothesis. Less than a third of the Romanians are members in a NGO, while more than half have been involved in the activity of such organizations (FDSC, 2010b: 11). The age group most active in the nongovernmental sector is that of 30-44 years. More than half of the members are highly educated. Managers and freelancers tend to be more involved, as well as those with higher incomes (FDSC, 2010b: 11). In terms of volunteering, the trends are also ascending. One notices that Romanian tend to get involved much more in matters related to religious organizations and communities than in the activity of nongovernmental organizations (FDSC, 2010: 87). The Romanian volunteers are generally young – two thirds being less than 25 years old (Gala Societă ii Civile, 2010: 14). In terms of figures, 0.8% of the active population is involved in nongovernmental sector, and half of them are volunteers (Vlăsceanu, 2010: 144).
The cultural nongovernmental sector in Romania Historically, cultural nongovernmental organizations have a vital contribution to shaping modern Romania. Basically, at the end of the 19th century, they promoted national unity, modernization and political emancipation (Saulean & Epure, 1998: 5). All these organization shaped civil society in interwar Romania. Amongst the most active and successful ones we mention: the Transylvanian Association for Romanian People’s Literature and Culture (ASTRA - founded in
471
1861), Junimea (1964), the Romanian Academic Society (1866), the Philharmonic Society of Bucharest (1834), the Cultural League (1861), the Society for Culture in Cernăuti (1862), or the Romanian Writers’ Society (1908/1912). Some nongovernmental associations (especially social or cooperative ones) were formally tolerated during the communist regime, but most of the nongovernmental sector was abolished (Saulean & Epure, 1998: 8-9). Some important cultural associations became public institutions, such as the Romanian Academic Society, which became the Romanian Academy. From the Junimea association just the journal Convorbiri literare remains. From ASTRA just its library, now a public library, survived the regime imposed by communism. We also mention that the prestige of it is so strong, that nowadays several cultural organisms incorporating the name ASTRA exist, as well as a few commercial enterprises. The Romanian Writers’ Society became a professional association financed and partly controlled by the state during communism. After the fall of communism it has regained its status of nongovernmental association. The fall of communist regime meant that citizen are again free to associate, no mater the target of this activity. The nongovernmental sector in Romania developed constantly in the last 20 years, despite the lack of tradition in civic engagement determined by half of century of communism. Still, the CIVICUS report on the development of civil society in Romania shows that implication is poor, and nongovernmental organizations are not yet a major actor (CIVICUS, 2005: 22) The number of NGOs increased from 12.000 in 1996 (Saulean & Epure, 1998: 15) to 62.000 in 2010 (FDSC, 2010: 7). These figures refer to the registered organizations, the actual number of active organizations being estimated at 12.000 in 2010. In 2008 their number was much bigger – more then 21.000 (FDSC, 2010: 27). The domains in which most of the organizations are active in the following fields: sport and recreation (18.7%), education (7.5%) and social (7.4%). In culture are officially registered just 0.4% of the NGOs (91 organizations in 2008), but we mention that some of the professional associations, as well as educational ones are active mainly in cultural sector. On the other hand some NGOs could implement
472
cultural projects, for the benefit of their members or for that of the society, without being considered cultural organizations. We also mention that almost 40% of the Romanian NGOs could not be included in one of the options provided by the legal framework, and some of these organizations are, undoubtedly, active in culture (FDSC, 2010: 27-28). When considering the cultural segment of the nongovernmental sector, figures are a bit blur. The number of cultural NGOs varied a lot in time, according to the Finance Ministry. In 2008 just 91 organizations were officially registered in this domain, while the previous year the figures were much bigger: 942 organizations (FDSC, 2010: 29). It is the only significant decrease, in all the other fields the figures increased in time or just slightly diminished (as in the case of health and economic activities). Another study, developed by Gala Societă ii Civile (2010, 6), shows that 13% of the Romanian NGOs are active in arts/culture/media. On the other hand, on the online catalogues of the NGOs in Romania, less than 300 such organizations are registered (see for instance www.stiriong.ro). Therefore, the only fact clearly distinguishable from all these studies is that culture is one of the poorest represented domains in the Romanian nongovernmental sector. An omnibus study of the Foundation for the Development of Civil Society details a bit more the picture: 0.5% of the Romanians are members in a NGO in the field of culture and media, while 0.7% were members in such organizations but they are not any more. Just a bit more than a quarter pay membership fees to these cultural organizations (FDSC, 2010b: 10). The general opinion of the society regarding the utility of NGOs is relatively poor. More than two thirds of the respondents in another study of the Foundation for the Development of the Civic Society declare that they did not remark any NGO, while more than 10% consider that NGOs are not useful. Just around 20% of the Romanians mentioned various NGOs as being useful (FDSC, 2010b: 4-5). More than 100 organizations were mentioned in this context, both local small
473
organizations and international large ones. Among these, just 3 are cultural ones (including UNESCO). The low visibility of the cultural NGOs impacts negatively their relevance both for their direct public / beneficiaries, and especially for the society. In this context it is important to understand the causes of this situation and to identify ways to improve it. Some relevant aspects which should be evaluated are how do this organizations develop their brand, how do they communicate and how do they relate with their publics and the society both in the context of developing their cultural project and in the context of communicating. Previously, we developed an unpublished study analyzing the public relations strategies in Romanian NGOs. In the case of the NGOs active in culture (most of them not exclusively cultural associations), data show the following situation: 24% of them have a PR department, 23% do not have it but cooperate on a regular basis with PR specialists and 12% state that they intend to formally establish such an department within the year. In terms of people involved in PR, the results show that just very few people are exclusively involved in PR and most of them are external collaborators (4 volunteers, 1 freelancer and just 0.5 employees – the figure increases when considering all the persons with responsibilities in the field of PR). In terms of declared PR strategies, just 17% have a formal one, while 36% optimistically declare they want to develop one in the next 6 months. Overall, the study shows an image somewhat negative, but one should remind that these organizations are rather small ones with very few employees and even few volunteers. Anyway, the figures suggest that the PR activities might not be extremely successful in the context of no set strategy and unclear responsibilities in the field. The lesser attention given to cultural NGOs might be related with various aspects. One would be the low visibility of these organizations. Another might be their small size, as well as the complexity of their projects. Another reason could be the funds available to develop their image and communication strategies. One might also consider that Romanians seem to be rather uninterested in cultural consumption, therefore they might be not so receptive to cultural proposals.
474
Annually since 2005, the Centre of Research and Consultancy on Culture presents the barometer on cultural consumption (www.culturadata.ro). We mention just the figures referring to those who not even once a year benefit from the main cultural venues: museums, theatres, operas, concerts, and cinemas. In 2010, 72% of the Romanian never visited a museum, 90% did not go to opera shows, around 60% did not go to concerts or other shows, and 90% did not go to cinemas. The financial restrictions that NGOs face have led these organizations to be more active online. The CIVICUS (2005, 31) report shows that the main resources identified by the Romanian NGOs are internet related (email, and access to the internet), therefore their main communication channel is online. Studies show that 83% of the NGOs have their own website or blog (Gala Societă ii Civile, 2010: 19). 12% of the organizational representatives declare that the website is the main communication instrument, for 4% the newsletter is the most important, the email is consider to be vital for 15%, while 3% consider that the online banners are the most important communication instrument (Gala Societă ii Civile, 2010: 20). In order to have a sense of the situation in the case of the cultural NGOs, we audited all the organizations registered in the Catalogue of the civil society (www.stiriong.ro). Around 450 organizations with culture related activities registered themselves in the catalogue (just half of them declare culture to be their main activity). The number of employees per organization varies between 0 and 4, but in most cases (60%) there is none hired. The number of volunteers declared on annual bases varies from 3 to 500. Almost two thirds of these organizations have their own website, but in the case of 5% of them the website is proposed on a free blog platform. When studying the contribution to employment or the annual revenues, the cultural NGOs have a modest contribution, of just 0.3% each (FDSC, 2010: 28). These figures are not surprising when considering not just the number of cultural organizations, but also the situation in the entire nongovernmental sector. 36% of the organizations do not have employees, 62% of the people involved in the
475
associative movement are relatively young – 25-40 years old -, while two thirds of them are women (Gala Societă ii Civile, 2010: 11-13).
The public cultural agenda in Romania Culture refers to the meanings attached to artifacts, concepts etc. that society creates. It is related to thoughts, experiences and feelings people acquire through lecture, interaction and reflection, and publicly express, related to themselves as well as to the others (Lull, 2001: 20-24). Ideas and exchanges in the public sphere shape culture today. Habermas operates a distinction between “culture-debating” and “culture-consuming public” (Habermas, 2005: 223), arguing that the second term is more suitable for defining the today reality. In any of the mentioned contexts, culture depends on communication and interaction. In order to better understand the complex exchanges in civil society or the role of cultural public agenda in shaping a space for discussions and debates, specific for NGOs, a closer look upon the public sphere might be of aid. We highlight just a broader view, that of Habernas (2005), which considers the public sphere a zone for exchanging opinions regarding public affairs. This approach suggests that NGOs are at home in the public sphere, since their reason of being is related to exchanging ideas for the benefit of various communities or that of the society. For our investigation it is necessary to determine who are the “voices” heard in the public space of Romanian cultural sector. Amongst the relevant entities when it comes to public debates on cultural issues, one can find local and central the state institutions (theaters, museums, libraries, cultural centers subordinated to city halls etc.), foreign cultural institutes, individuals such as public figures, who might be culture-related professionals or not (actors, writers, philosophers, journalists etc.), and NGOs and their representatives. Media offers the arena for debates and interactions. It might be strange, but media representatives are also voices of the public sphere, and one might consider them extremely influential. The development of online media facilitates the access
476
to increasingly more individuals and organizations to these exchanges. Therefore media, both traditional and online, is vital in shaping culture nowadays, in setting trends in the field, in creating expectations and generating reactions, in designing a public agenda. In order to be effective in this endeavor, media should not only cover cultural events and projects, but also investigate and analyze cultural concepts and phenomena. The Romanian media, apart of course from the cultural one, seem not to be keen on acting in this respect. A study on printed media in 2008, shows that just a few daily newspapers have special section for culture (or specific domains), and the number of subjects covered is narrow with the tendency of decreasing. Events of large participation tend to be favored, as well as information rather than analysis of the covered topics is preferred (Zbuchea, 2008: 54). In this context, larger cultural institutions are more likely to be present in the traditional media, than rather small and local, very specific cultural nongovernmental organizations. A short review of the five main daily newspapers shows that all the abovementioned characteristics are still valid for the printed editions. We observed that a quite significant change took place as far as press consumers are concerned. The online version of newspapers is preferred by a larger number of readers. This evolution, related to the current economic stagnation/crisis as well as current practices in communication, which tends to be based on the internet, led to different managerial and content approach of media. Data available on brat.ro shows that, almost all generalist newspapers reduced the circulation of their printed editions. Some newspapers stopped printing and they are available just online.
477
Figure 1 Newspaper circulation 2008-2012: printed vs. online edition. Data source: Romanian Bureau of Auditing Press Circulation (BRAT) The online versions are increasingly more read. Because they are not limited by the printing space, the online versions of newspapers include more information, and the topics are more diverse. In several cases the online newspapers have a section specifically named “culture”, and it is this section that we took into consideration for our study. We mention a change in the way the printed editions organized their articles related to culture. A sort of uniformisation took place since 5 years ago: if in 2008 culture-related subjects were grouped under several categories - e.g. Jurnalul na ional had 3 such categories: “Culture”, “Music”, “Calendar”, (Zbuchea: 2008) - nowadays there is a clear tendency to make a distinction not between different areas of culture (music, theater etc.) but between “classical” or “high” culture and “leisure”. Accordingly, in 2012, 3 out of 5
478
newspapers do have a distinctive “culture” section but also a “leisure” section, making a net distinction between them, while one newspaper has neither “culture”, nor “leisure” section and another one has just a “leisure” section. This segmentation of the media discourse and of the information transmitted is connected with the way media sees the public agenda they propose/are related to. McCombs and Shaw (1972) present the way media “are constantly presenting objects suggesting what individuals in the mass should think about, know about, have feelings about”. In the context of higher visibility online and more interaction with readers of all categories, the essence of the agenda setting acquires new implications when it comes to new media, where there is a higher interactivity and where various online channels are used to reach a broader audience when considering a specific topic. For the need of the present study, as the interest was not to establish how this agenda is set, but how does it looks like, we covered three areas in order to identify the main themes of the Romanian cultural agenda, namely x media agenda: issues discussed in the media (both online cultural media and online versions of generalist newspapers) x public agenda: issues discussed and personally relevant to the public, as they were highlighted by social media x policy agenda - issues that policy makers consider important (official events, legislatives initiatives in culture etc.) In the first 5 months of 2012, media - especially that online - gave more attention to the following cultural topics: the mining project at Ro ia Montană, the museum of communism in Romania, the night of museums, the Romanian contemporary film and the new statue in front of the National History Museum – representing the Roman emperor Trajan. Ro ia Montană is a small mining community in Apuseni Mountains, with long traditions in gold exploitation. The older remaining vestiges are from Roman times. In the last few years, a private company wants to open a new huge exploitation. This
479
project is highly controversial and the civil campaign against it is the biggest one in Romania, involving small and large organization (including the Romanian Academy and Greenpeace), from Romania and abroad, as well as public figures and reputed specialists. Discussions generated are both culture and environment related. The traditional media has been accused by the opponents of the mining project of being “bought” by the gold company (www.gabrielresources.com). Nevertheless with rare exceptions it does not include it on its agenda, and just ads paid by the company are disseminated (www.rosiamontana.org). The topic is debated especially on Facebook (more exactly the opponent are very vocal online), but from time to time formal media channels also discuss the issue or present information related to it. Many voices are present in the debate: organizations and individuals, representatives of the public administration, politicians, intellectuals and various professionals. The comments of the public to the main online posts are generally against the exploitation, but not exclusively. The (planned) museum of communism started to be discussed in mid 2011 by all the main newspapers when the president of the commission investigating the crimes during the communist regimes announced that a plan for this museum exists and it is going to be implemented. The project is controversial from several perspectives: people involved, the profile of the exhibitions, the discourse, the impact on the society etc. Since political factors also are involved, the discussions tend to be complex and intense – with ups and downs. Towards the end of the previous year, the online platform for debates ”Critic Atac” launched the topic: ”Why a museum of communism?” (www.criticatac.ro). The comments to the online posts are sometimes virulent, attacking the persons expressing various ideas rather then their opinions. The night of museums is the most important cultural event in terms of participation, in Romania (more than 200.000 people for the 2012 edition – for details www.noapteamuzeelor.ro). The popularity of the event is visible especially on Facebook, where the page of the Night registers in the week previous the event and immediately after more than 1.900 new likes, while more than 2.500 people are
480
talking about it and more than 200.000 people are reached. Despite the large number of people announcing their participation, the actual comments to the event are just a few. Some are extremely favorable, while others are critical. Most of the comments are just expressions of the intent to participate to the event. The representatives of museums also take part to these debates, but they tend to enlarge the view by discussing some issues relevant for museums in general and the relationships between museums and their visitors. We mention that the people involved in these debates are just a few (www.facebook.com/noapteamuzeelor). The Romanian contemporary film and the young directors are topics periodically discussed in more or less the same framework, every time an international festival awards a Romanian film. The participants are, especially, film critics, directors and actors, as well as journalists. In many cases the discourse refers to the lack of funds for film making and the good results (i.e. international awards) obtained in this context; to the talent of young directors and actors; to the low interest of the Romanians in local films which become interesting in some degrees only after they are internationally acclaimed etc. The two major films festivals in Romania also yearly generate similar debates: Transylvania International Film Festival (TIFF) and the Anonym Film Festival. Since the film watching is a rather popular activity, in this case more mainstream newspapers and publications debate the topic. The last topic we mention is rather atypical, even if the discussion itself is not so new. The establishment of a bronze statue representing the most important symbols of the so called ”genesis” of the Romanians generated especially on Facebook a wave of protests due to the style of the statue, considered to be unsuitable and ugly. The public outrage seems to be so high that several accounts and groups on Facebook were created in order to denigrate the statue and to ask for its removal. A large series of photos and caricatures inspired by the statue also are circulating online, especially via Facebook. Of course, the incident also generated discussions between specialists, or between art historians and other publics. These discussions analyze the sense of contemporary public monuments and how open and educated is
481
the Romanian society to understand it. As observed, most of these debates are on social media. The participants are mainly the general public, but some specialists in art history, culture or even journalists also express their opinions. The main conclusions of this brief audit of the cultural agenda shows that the online and social media contribute more to setting the cultural public agenda. The general public is involved, by posting its opinions, but debates are rather absent. Various specialists are the ones that generate in most cases the topics. NGOs are rarely part of the debates (with the exception of the Roúia Montană case), but their representatives could be active on personal basis.
Research on the presence of the Romanian NGOs in the online debates. Methodology Since the NGOs are part of the voice of the civil society, our investigation aims to understand how cultural NGOs communicate in the online environment, and which is their contribution to the cultural public sphere. The main objectives in this context are: identifying the main topics addressed by cultural NGOs online; evaluate if the Romanian NGOs contribute to the cultural public agenda; understand the interactions between cultural NGOs and their online publics; and evaluating the interest of online media in the activity of cultural NGOs. Establishing the sample of organizations to be monitored was a process of selecting those cultural NGOs which are more active and visible online. In order to determine which cultural NGO are most significant when it comes to their activities, we cross-referenced data coming from sources that we consider to be relevant in terms of measuring audience and impact in the online environment, but also in the social environment. Consequently, a list of 18 cultural NGOs visible on facebrands and www.trafic.ro (an instrument for measuring audiences on Romanian web-sites) was put together. To them, a number of another 15 NGOs was added, representing those NGOs whose activities were publicly acknowledged at Civil Society Gala (Gala Societă ii Civile) during the last three years, and also
482
NGOs that were involved in European Union funded projects, belonging to the Culture 2000 and Culture 2007-2012 programs. Our presumption was that awarded cultural NGOs proved to be more creative and active, therefore with better chances of also having a relevant impact on the online cultural environment. In the end, as not all the targeted NGOs have updated websites or Facebook accounts, the list has shortened to 20 organizations. After this selection process was done, the second step of the analysis consisted in monitoring social media accounts and online media. The monitoring activity comprised two sections. The first one aimed to determine the level of interactivity between the NGOs and their specific public, as this interaction can be followed on social media accounts. The second section aimed to point out whether or not the online media is interested in subjects related to NGOs activities, especially in the context of cultural sector. As only an irrelevant number of them also have a blog (2 organizations), the analysis was conducted on their social media accounts, with a special focus on Facebook. There are two reasons for this choice: first, because Facebook is the most used social media amongst organizations in Romania and second because the situation rests the same when it comes to people’s personal pages. 41% of people using the internet have at least on account on social networks (IRES, 2011). It is very important to notice that when it comes to the opportunity of people to get in touch with cultural NGOs activities things are rather encouraging: amongst those with ages between 18 and 34 (most popular groups on Facebook NGOs accounts), a significant percentage uses at least one account on social networks. According to the same IRES study mentioned above, 72,9% of people with age between 15 and 25 are using such an account, meanwhile only 38.9% of those with the age between 26-45 are using a social network. Therefore, this young public is online / on social media and if NGOs are also in the same sphere, they could properly interact. The bad news is that people online seem not so interested in cultural topics. Only 9% of the Romanians that are regularly using the internet for information are searching issues related to “arts and culture”. This is a rather small percentage compared with
483
sport (18%), politics (16%), entertainment (15%), health (15%), and utilities (12%), and it might very well explain the extremely low level of interaction between NGOs and their public. The instrument used to analyze the cultural NGOs in the sample is a form, which comprises a number of items relevant in order to obtain an accurate profile of the respective NGOs in terms of their online interactivity and contribution to the public sphere. Both quantitative and qualitative aspects have been monitored, as the form contains the following categories to be filled in for each NGO: – data about NGO: name, city, web-site, social media accounts (Facebook, blog, Twitter, YouTube, Flickr), – interactivity on Facebook account: organization type / domain, account creation date, owner, notes; popularity (friends, likes, talking about this); most popular age group; number of events created online (2009-2012) and quantitative data related to events from 2012 (invited, going, maybe; comments on event); usage of images (photo albums, photos on wall from current year, video); qualitative and quantitative data related to the organization’s own posts: posts number in March and April; a typology of those posts with following categories: event announcement, event relation / images, media links, information of interest for the domain, other cultural information and “others”; impact of own posts – “likes” & “talking about this”; a typology of comments made at NGOs posts (information solicitation, NGO answers, event evaluation, suggestions, others); a typology of posts made by others (organization or persons) on the NGOs account: number of posts, number of NGO’s comments at those posts, local cultural information, solicitation of information and others. The profile of the cultural NGOs in the study As already mentioned, all the included NGOs have organizational pages on Facebook. The next social media chosen by the selected NGOs to communicate is Twitter, but only four out of 20 organizations are using it. Three are also using a YouTube channel. There is just one organization that uses a Flickr account, and we
484
encounter the same situation when looking at “ning” social network and also at LinkedIn. We point out that all the social media accounts that are used by these organizations are usually indicated on their websites, and only seldom they are also mentioned on their Facebook accounts. Therefore more attention should be given to their presentation on Facebook.
Figure 2 Online media used by NGOs* *only NGO’s taken into consideration in this study are shown The main areas of activities covered by the monitored NGOs are as follows: supporting youth initiatives and dedicated programs (6 organizations), promoting local tradition, national heritage and history (6), lecture groups and promoting literature (3), music (3, out of which 2 are promoting classical music), and theatre (2). We mention that amongst the NGOs dedicated to promoting local tradition, national heritage and history, we included Alburnus Maior (the NGO who opposes the mining program at Rosia Montana because, even if it is basically an environment protection oriented NGO, its most active and vocal supporters belong to the cultural domain). When it comes to popularity, the proportions rest the same: NGOs active for youth benefit and those related to heritage promotion are the most liked and talked
485
about. Amongst all the “likes” put together from all of the 20 NGOs, the largest part goes for those NGO dedicated to youth initiatives (39%), and the next 32% to those preoccupied of “local tradition, heritage and history”. In this last category are included the NGOs having most “likes” (Calea Victoriei Foundation and Alburnus Maior). The reason for this popularity is their intense activity, and strong communication strategies. In the second case, the complexity of the cause is, undoubtedly, adding to the appeal of the NGO.
Figure 3 NGOs popularity on Facebook: friends & likes It is significant to point out that 12 of the monitored NGO’s have indicated as their address Bucharest, 5 are activating in other cities (two of them are located in top 10 most populated cities - Craiova and Timisoara – and the other ones in rather small or quite small towns like Baia Mare, Alexandria, Lupeni or even in a rural community - Roúia Montană). As for the most popular group of age, cultural NGO’s are favorites amongst the young population: 12 of them for those with ages between 18 – 24 and 7 are popular amongst persons between 25 and 34 years old (data is not available for one NGO). The way NGOs describe themselves in their account should suggest their intent online. A bit more than half of the selected organizations present themselves as NGOs, while one (Alburnus Maior) considers itself a community organization. 3
486
of the organizations created their Facebook space as a community. To be an effective community online, organizations should generate debates and shares, should stimulate others to post on their Facebook wall. Another must would be to be popular (to attract likes for the general page). When considering how many likes the NGOs have, the situation varies a lot. 9 organizations attracted more than 1000 likes each, 5 organizations have between 500-1000 likes, while 2 organizations have less than 50 likes. In this context, the smaller number of likes, the less impact and visibility for that organization. Public interaction on social media As Facebook is the most popular social media in Romania – the analysis regarding the interaction between NGOs and their public is focused on this specific new media. Mainly, there are two ways of doing this: one is to measure how other users are reacting to the NGOs posts and the other one is to see whether or not they take the initiative to communicate and post information on the NGOs’ account. In both cases the analysis shows – with some notable exceptions - poor results in terms of interaction between the organization and its publics.
487
Figure 4 Interactivity: NGOs posts and their impact (likes & “talking about this” – March-April 2012) The reaction to information posted by the organization on its Facebook wall can be measured by the number of likes, talking about this, shares and comments. For the months of April and March, when no major cultural or NGO-related event took place, so on a “normal” period of the year, posts made by NGOs have a rather high rate of impact, measured in “likes” and “talking about this”. As it can be seen in figure no. 5, the highest impact is registered for Calea Victoriei Foundation and for Alburnus Maior. Another organisation dedicated to youth initiative, VIP Romania, has also a very good rate of impact. A detailed situation for the three NGOs is presented in fig. no. 5, showing the “extreme” situations: when a small number of posts coming from the NGOs has a great impact (VIP and Calea Victoriei) but also when a high number of post has, nevertheless, a low impact, no doubt because of the small number of Facebook friends that the organisation has.
488
Figure 5 Interactivity: NGOs posts and their impact (likes & “talking about this” – March-April 2012) The number of likes per post vary from 0 to more than 40 (in the case of Alburnus Maior), but in general the impact is rather small. In half of the situations, likes generate other comments online (measured by ”talking about this”), but the multiplication factor is generally low, between 1 and 3. Therefore the impact and visibility of the posts are not so high. A qualitative analysis of the content of the posts reveals that a bit more than a quarter of the posts present new events the organization is proposing, while 16% are presentations of the events. We observe that a somewhat large number of posts are dedicated to stimulating the interest in culture and the organization’s domain. 12% of the posts are related to the domain, while 15% of the posts are dedicated to cultural events developed by others. As for the information that others users of Facebook choose to post on NGOs wall, one must notice an extremely low level of interaction. For 9 out of 20 NGOs there isn’t any interactivity, which can be measured in this section, and only 5 NGOs are reacting at posts coming from their friends (still, their answers are
489
numerous compared to the frequency of other comments). Posts are scarce even for organizations such as Alburnus Maior or Calea Victoriei. There is however a rather surprisingly high number of posts on the ACCUMM Foundation wall. But this is due to a large number of posts coming from personal accounts that actually are belonging to people inside the organisation. Basically, in this specific case, there is no interaction with the “outside” (Fig. 6).
Figure 6 Interactivity: others’ users posts on NGOs Facebook wall: MarchApril 2012) In terms of content, respectively the type of comments posted on NGOs messages on Facebook, more than 20% of the posts evaluate the event while 4% are asking for information. More than half of the comments are related neither with the activity of the NGO, nor with any cultural topic. In order for the public to interact on Facebook, the organizations should propose topics of discussions, but also events to attend (either online or offline). The number of events proposed on Facebook every year by the sample organizations is rather low, (0-3 at most in the great majority of situations), with the notable exception of ACCUMM Foundation and especially the Cultural House of Students in Bucharest.
490
The number of people confirming their attendance in 2012 events is rather small. The data could not show otherwise in the context of low number of people invited (with the exception of events proposed by Alburnus Maior). Another tool of visibility and interaction offered by Facebook is the possibility to share images and videos. Just two organizations use the last opportunity. Almost all the organizations post photos on their wall and in dedicated albums. Nevertheless this activity is irregular and no strategy of communication seems to be evident behind the photo-posting pattern. The popularity of the organization and the interest in its activity would be related to photos other post and are organization-related. If such photos exist, the organizations monitored are not tagged; therefore we could not identify them. Online media and cultural NGOs For this stage of research we focused on cultural online media that are registered on www.trafic.ro and that have also at least one social media account. Although they have chosen to identify themselves in different ways (from pages about “society / culture” to “website” or even “public figure”), cultural media online are very little interested in presenting issues that regard cultural NGOs activities (Fig 7). A number of 9 cultural media online were identified, out of which we analyzed only 3, namely those which were ranked on trafic.ro. When it comes to Facebook accounts, posts about NGOs’ activity are barely visible, despite the fact that an important source of information for cultural media might be found in NGOs’ activity. Nevertheless, issues related by online media concentrate on major cultural events (Opening of the National Library, Theater Gala of Uniter), information about important figures of national culture (actors, directors etc.) or on literature. Also, as movies are treated as a part of culture, there is a high tendency also to write about them and the festivals dedicated.
491
Figure 7 Facebook accounts of cultural online media and the reflection of NGOs activity In fact, the interest of cultural media in subjects related with the NGOs seems to be even lower than the interest manifested by printed media upon the same subject, in the same span of time (March – April 2012). When it comes to online general media, we focused upon those publications that have the largest market share, according to statistics from the National Bureau of Publication Auditing: “Adevărul”, “Jurnalul Na ional” and “România liberă”. To these, RFI (Radio France International), which is oriented towards presenting cultural events, was added in order to add a probable standard of better coverage of culture.
492
Figure 8 Online media coverage on culture and cultural NGOs Figures show that RFI is the media better covering not just cultural events and topics, but also the activity of cultural NGOs. Nevertheless, data clearly proves a lack of interest in the activity of NGOs and an orientation towards events and various cultural news. From the cultural public agenda, the topic approached the most is the mining project at Roúia Montană.
Conclusions Even if in Central and Eastern Europe cultural NGOs seem to generally be a significant part of the associational movement, in Romania they are a very small minority. , but the specific statistics still need to be audited. Due to specific economic and social conditions, the main channel of communication of Romanian cultural NGOs is the internet. Still, just half of these organizations have an organizational website. The percentage of their accounts on various social platforms is quite small, the only exception being Facebook. The visibility of cultural NGOs is low, partly due to their small size and the lack of formal PR structures or even PR strategy in more than three quarters case. They also cooperate with less volunteers than other types of NGOs. Data suggest low interest in cultural organizations as well as in cultural venues. This context would not allow
493
cultural NGOs to develop too much and their impact would remain quite limited. In this context, they are not likely to become a major voice in the public sphere. NGOs or representatives of the civil society do not set the public cultural agenda in Romania. The topics of wider circulation are generated either by media, or by professionals in the field. The discussions are also quite limited, and the actors involved are mainly professionals. Of course, exceptions occur. The study of the selection of articles upon subjects related to culture from the online media shows that, contrary to what one may expect, NGOs are not credited with a high visibility in the online media or the new media, despite being their privileged media of communication. Amongst the monitored cultural NGOs, the most popular ones proved to be those promoting youth initiatives, followed by those active in local traditions, heritage and tourism. This last find is somewhat surprising since music and theatre are much popular choices for the age group dominant on Facebook when considering our investigation (18-25 years old). The investigated NGOs promote mainly their events on their Facebook account, but more than a quarter of the posts are also promoting the domain and relevant activities in the field of interest. It seems that the more dynamic the organization, announcing more events, the more likely it is to get likes and to be talked about. As for the reaction to the posts proposed by NGOs, it is rather poor. Additionally, most of the comments as well as the posts of other persons and organizations on the NGOs Facebook wall are not related to the activity of the organization or to the specific domain. When considering the way cultural NGOs in the sample use the internet, we observe that a third do not use it at all. All the others seem to use it more as an informational platform. They do not generate added value for their followers, do not use the tools offered by Facebook (or the internet) in order to connect with the public or to create a community. On their side, the followers do not seem too eager to dialogue. They tend to browse the posts and mark a ”like” when they consider that a certain information is of interest. Even if the audience is somewhat active on the Facebook walls of cultural
494
NGOs, the intent of a dialogue is not visible. The walls of NGOs are considered an extension of their own Facebook wall – probably with higher prominence. The visibility of cultural NGOs in the online media is also reduced.
Implications The limited visibility of the cultural NGOs is tightly related with the content they are providing online. Generally speaking, cultural NGOs should use the Facebook not just as a billboard announcing their events and projects. It could become a space for social and cultural interaction. They should use the facilities offered in order to add value for their followers. They should promote more the domain in which they are active in order to better fulfill their cultural missions. The NGOs are those responsible in creating through their Facebook account a community interested in a specific topic. It is the NGOs responsible to attract media and to generate content interesting for the online media.
Bibliography CIVICUS (2005), Dialogue for civil society. Report on the state of civil society in Romania, available online at www.fdsc.ro/documente/16.pdf Deadalus (2012), Cât de filantropi sunt românii?, research report available at www.daedalusmb.ro/strg/filantropi_ro.pdf FDSC (2010), România 2010. Sectorul neguvernamental – profil, tendinĠe, provocări, Bucureúti. FDSC (2010b), Cercetare omnibus, Bucureúti, research report available at www.fdsc.ro/library/conferinta%20vio%207%20oct/Cercetare%20omnibus_re zultate.pdf IRES (2011), Romanians and the Internet, March 2011. Research on the internet usage in Romania and internautical behaviour of Romanians, research report available at www.ires.com.ro/arhiva/studii
495
Gala SocietăĠii Civile (2010), Starea sectorului neguvernamental, Bucureúti, available at www.galasocietatiicivile.ro/ssng.pdf Habermas, J. (2005), The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, Bucharest: Comunicare.ro. Lull, James (ed.) (2001), Culture in the communication age, London – New York: Routledge. McCombs, Maxwell E. & Shaw, Donald L, (1972), The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass, The Public Opinion Quarterly, 36 (2), 176-187. Salamon, Lester M. (1994) The Rise of the Nonprofit Sector, Foreign Affairs, 73 (4): 109-122. Salamon, Lester M. & Anheier, Helmut K. (1996) The emerging nonprofit sector. An overview, Manchester – New York: Manchester University Press Salamon, Lester M. & Anheier, Helmut K. (1997) Defining the nonprofit sector. A cross-national analysis, Manchester – New York: Manchester University Press. Saulean, Daniel & Epure, Carmen (1998). “Defining the Nonprofit Sector: Romania.” Working Papers of the Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project, no. 32 edited by Lester M. Salamon and Helmut K. Anheier. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Institute for Policy Studies. Stan, Nicolae (2012), Incursiune în sfera publică românească. Modele europene, Bucharest: Eikon. Vlăscenu, Mihaela (2010), Economie socială úi antreprenoriat. O analiză a sectorului nonprofit, Iaúi: Polirom. Zbuchea, Alexandra (2008), Culture in Mainstream Newspapers: The Romanian Case, Cultura úi presa în spaĠiul european (coord. Mihaela Cîrnu, Nicoleta Crînganu, Cătălin NegoiĠă), Bucureúti: Editura Didactica úi Pedagogică, pp. 47-54
Online resources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ro%C8%99ia_Montan%C4%83 www.brat.ro
496
www.criticatac.ro www.culturadata.ro www.doilasuta.ro www.facebook.com/noapteamuzeelor www.facebook.com/statuia www.facebook.com/StatuiaLuiTraian www.gabrielresources.com www.noapteamuzeelor.ro www.rosiamontana.ro www.stiriong.ro www.zelist.ro
497
