Social Media-based Public Diplomacy in Korea: An Analysis of Major Embassies Facebook Postings and User Reactions

Transcription

1 Vol.14 No.2, DOI: /acr Social Media-based Public Diplomacy in Korea: An Analysis of Major Embassies Facebook Postings and User Reactions Byung Jong Lee* 1 Graduate School of International Service, Sookmyung Women s University Abstract A s more countries practice public diplomacy through social media, also known as digital diplomacy, much academic attention has been given to the field. Yet, most studies have adopted a U.S. or Europe-centric approach in understanding and analyzing the trend. This study tried to fill that academic gap in comparative digital diplomacy by comparing the Facebook activities of eight major embassies in Korea as well as the reactions of their users. Results show an overall dependency on one-way informational dimension of public diplomacy, while two-way engagement dimension is more recommended by scholars and practitioners. Users in fact reacted more positively and frequently to engaging methods, such as exchange and cultural programs, than simple information dissemination. Findings also indicate a diverging pattern of digital diplomacy worldwide, reflecting different countries diverse needs and strategies in digital communication. Academic and practical implications of the findings are discussed. Key words: social media, public diplomacy, Facebook, media effects, digital diplomacy * bjlee@sm.ac.kr

2 70 Asian Communication Research 14(2) Public diplomacy and social media seem like a good match because both focus on interactive, participatory two way communication. Particularly public diplomacy 2.0, spearheaded by the Obama administration as a way of building and maintaining favorable relations with foreign publics, calls for digital diplomacy involving various social media tools (Zhong & Lu, 2013). The participatory, open and sharing nature of social media allows governments to interact intimately with their foreign audiences on a real time basis, inviting immediate reactions from their users. Scholars have found that social media have the capacity to break through geographical, cultural and even linguistic barriers, democratizing the access to and distribution of information and placing more power in the hands of citizens, which is exactly what public diplomacy is for (Al Najjar, 2009; Armstrong 2009). In fact, many governments use Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms to reach out to a broad range of stakeholders home and abroad. Yet studies on social media based public diplomacy have been limited partly because modern public diplomacy has its origin in the use of traditional mass media, such as short wave radio or satellite television, which are designed to disseminate information in a one way manner, rather than interact and engage with audiences through two way communication (Cull, 2013). Existing literature generally focused on how governments use mass media, especially such major Western media as the New York Times or CNN, for strategic communication advocating their policies and ideas and how effective those efforts were (Cull 2009; Gilboa, 2002; Lee, 2014; Wang, 2007). Even the research that looked into public diplomacy through social media tended to concentrate on how governments use social media to engage and communicative with foreign publics, rather than how their users react to such activities (Lee, 2016a). In

3 Social Media-based Public Diplomacy in Korea 71 other words, the effects of public diplomacy on social media have been generally neglected although Facebook and other social media tools provide ample, quantifiable data that can be used to analyze and measure user responsiveness. The interactive nature of social media, such as Facebook s liking, commenting and sharing functions, allows scholars to empirically assess how global publics react to public diplomacy programs of various governments carried through such media. One notable research in that regard was a study by Dodd and Collins (2017) that analyzed embassy Twitter accounts. The study looked at how Western and Central Eastern European governments utilized their embassy Twitter accounts to communicate with host country publics and elicit their reactions. But the evaluation of the reactions was done through a simple counting of the numbers of account followers. However, social media users can react more dynamically, immediately and frequently when they receive social media messages. For example, users can simply click like, share or comment buttons of Facebook for each and every posting they see. Hence, this study aims at examining public diplomacy functions and effects by looking at how embassy Facebook users like, share or comment on embassy postings a measuring scheme devised by Saxton and Waters (2014). In their study of U.S. non profit organizations Facebook use for public relations, the researchers noted that likes represents user responsiveness, shares user willingness to become a promoter and comments user engagement. This study will try to see whether that measuring scheme can work for international public diplomacy as well as domestic public relations. An equally important objective of this paper is to advance our understanding of public diplomacy activities in terms of their domains or elements. As communication based activities of states and state sanctioned actors aimed at non state groups in other

4 72 Asian Communication Research 14(2) countries with the expectation of achieving foreign policy goals and objectives, public diplomacy is practiced in different countries in different ways (see Sevin, 2015, p. 563). What activities constitute public diplomacy has been a key academic question for a long time, but research on the topic has been largely based on anecdotal case studies, rather than empirical analyses. Existing literature simply observed and described what public diplomacy programs governments carry out, mainly from the perspective of the U.S., known to be the most active player in the field. For example, Cull (2009) proposed a taxonomy that divides public diplomacy activities into five key domains. But this taxonomy is basically based on a historical review of U.S. or European public diplomacy and lacks non Western perspectives (Cull, 2009). Yet as governments race to step up their public diplomacy activities for greater soft power, diverse types of public diplomacy programs are carried out by different countries. Non Western countries, such as China, are ambitiously practicing their own versions of public diplomacy which are quite different from those of the U.S. or Europe (Chang & Lin, 2014; Zhong and Lu, 2013). Also, middle power countries, such as Canada, Norway or Australia, conduct their own unique public diplomacy programs to become niche diplomatic players filling the gap left by big powers (Henrikson, 2007). As such, this paper attempts to identify different public diplomacy activities and styles of different governments by analyzing the Facebook accounts of major embassies in Korea. By examining their Facebook accounts, particularly their dialogic messages and user reactions, one can better understand how today s public diplomacy is practiced with what kinds of strategies and effects. This type of research can contribute to academic efforts at conceptualizing and theorizing the nascent scholarship of comparative public diplomacy with a less U.S. centered perspective.

5 Social Media-based Public Diplomacy in Korea 73 Literature Review Public Diplomacy 2.0 and Social Media With an increasing salience of soft power in international relations, public diplomacy has gained much attention recently as a major tool to achieve that power. Unlike hard power, represented by military and economic power, soft power is realized through the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payment (Nye 1990; 2004). That attraction in turn is gained from a nation s culture, values and foreign policy (Nye, 1990), which are essential parts of today s public diplomacy. Unlike traditional diplomacy that focuses on government to government or diplomat to diplomat relations, public diplomacy concentrates on government to public or even public to public relations (Lee, 2016b). Defined as a government s process of communicating with foreign publics in an attempt to bring about understanding for its nation s ideas and ideals, its institutions and culture, as well as its national goals and current policies (Tuck, 1990), public diplomacy has always focused on communicative activities. As Cull (2013) noted, the U.S. government in particular was occupied with traditional media, such as short wave radio or satellite television, due to the priorities and prejudices of the bureaucracy, while neglecting emerging new media. Main objective was strategic messaging through mass media, rather than listening and building relations with foreign publics (Ham, 2007). Yet the arrival of new and social media radically changed the landscape of public diplomacy, shifting its focus from messaging to relationship cultivation. Governments began to realize they can no longer engage in traditional media relations tactics based

6 74 Asian Communication Research 14(2) on one way communication (Zaharna & Uysal, 2015), but have to take advantage of social media based on two way symmetrical or asymmetrical communication for long lasting amicable relations with their foreign publics (Lee, 2016a). Zhang and Fahmy (2015) found that social influence and attitudes of practitioners and perceived credibility of social media lead governments to depend more on those media for their public diplomacy. Public Diplomacy Domains The history of modern public relations dates back to the early 20th century when the U.S. government set up the Committee on Public Information during the World War I and the Office of War Information during the World War II to fight with its enemies (Wang, 2007). To win the Cold War, the U.S. established the U.S. Information Agency in 1948 to project U.S. ideas and images to the publics in different parts of the world (Melissen, 2007). It also ran the Voice of America (VOA) and other state broadcasters to send the messages of freedom and liberty to the Soviet bloc. All these efforts helped the U.S. enhance its soft power by promoting American style democracy and capitalism in the world (Wang, 2007). After the Cold War ended, however, the U.S. scaled down its public diplomacy dramatically, seeing no need for such efforts with the collapse of the Soviet Union. But the September 11 attacks again awakened the U.S. to the necessity of public diplomacy. The Bush administration stepped up its public diplomacy efforts and launched various information and outreach programs, especially in the Middle East (Taylor, 2009). Yet these efforts were designed to simply get out more information about the U.S., rather than building relations with foreign publics, based on the premise that more information

7 Social Media-based Public Diplomacy in Korea 75 leads to better communication (Snow, 2009). Having seen President Bush s failure, the Obama administration shifted its public diplomacy focus from one way message dissemination through mass media to two way dialogue and relationship cultivation through social media (Ciolek, 2010; Golan & Yang, 2015; Zhong & Lu, 2013). According to Comor and Bean (2012), the Obama administration s dominant concept in public diplomacy is engagement, which essentially aims to leverage social media and related technologies to persuade skeptical audiences to empathize with American policies. Based on the evolution of U.S. public diplomacy, Cull (2009) divided public diplomacy into five key elements or domains: listening, advocacy, cultural diplomacy, exchange diplomacy and international broadcasting. According to him, listening refers to attempts at collecting and collating information about foreign publics and their opinions in order to redirect diplomatic approaches or policy. Advocacy is defined as communication activities that seek to promote a particular policy or idea, such as embassy press releases. Cultural diplomacy is to use cultural resources or achievements to attract foreign publics by transmitting them overseas. The British Council or the Goethe Institute is a good example. Exchange diplomacy is to send its citizens overseas and reciprocally receive foreign citizens for a period of study or acculturation. Key example is the Fulbright Scholarship of the U.S. government. International broadcasting refers to the use of radio, television or the Internet for the engagement with foreign publics. The VOA and the BBC World Service are prime examples. But there are many other domains of public diplomacy developed recently with changes in international environment. As relational, rather than informational, aspect of public diplomacy is emphasized, such contribution activities like aids,

8 76 Asian Communication Research 14(2) development, peacemaking or disaster relief are more frequently used to enhance a nation s soft power (Entman, 2008; L Etang, 1996). One sided cultural diplomacy has also changed over time into more mutually beneficial cultural exchanges, increasingly looking like two way exchange diplomacy (Melissen, 2007; Snow, 2009). While the earlier focus of public diplomacy was state actors media diplomacy or political information for advocacy, including international broadcasting, contemporary public diplomacy values listening and other two way communication and engagement activities designed to build relations, particularly with non state actors whose roles are increasingly rising in this networked society. Melissen (2007) called this the New Public Diplomacy. Public Diplomacy Strategies Based on the above mentioned domains, different countries adopt different public diplomacy strategies. Countries like China are very much anchored on the old style, information based hierarchical public diplomacy, while many European countries and niche players, such as Canada and Norway, practice more relational network diplomacy for engagement (d Hooghe, 2007; Henrikson, 2007). As seen in its history, the U.S. seems to shuttle between the two different public diplomacy strategies, depending upon its leadership or international environment. After President Obama s relational style, the current Trump administration has returned to an informational style (Rosendorf, 2017). President Trump s budget cut for spending on culture, development and other exchange oriented public diplomacy programs is a clear indication. (Dillen, 2017). But overall, Cull (2009; 2013) notes that advocacy has always been a key feature of U.S. public diplomacy, while listening has

9 Social Media-based Public Diplomacy in Korea 77 been actively practiced by countries like Switzerland. He adds France is focused on cultural diplomacy, Japan on exchange diplomacy and the U.K. on international broadcasting. Additionally, Dodd and Collins (2017) report Central Eastern European countries heavily engage in cultural diplomacy, while the U.S., the U.K. and Canada prefer advocacy. In its First Five year Public Diplomacy Plan, released early 2017, the Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs attempts to focus on both informational and relational aspects of public diplomacy through three main pillars of culture, knowledge and policy (the Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2017). Yet such academic efforts to categorize each government s public diplomacy strategy is still scarce. Even the existing research is generally based on anecdotal case studies, involving a limited number of nations. The study by Dodd and Collins (2017) in this regard presents a rare glimpse into the practices of different states public diplomacy. By analyzing 41 embassy Twitter accounts of 16 North American and European nations, the research attempts to explore the nascent scholarship of comparative public diplomacy. Yet the study lumped the 16 nations into just two big groups (Western and Central Eastern Europe), instead of examining individual countries. It also excluded non Western or non European countries, although public diplomacy is now practiced by almost all countries. Comparing and contrasting the different public diplomacy strategies and styles of different countries with diverse geographical distribution in this regard would significantly enhance our understanding of the field. In particular, an analysis of social media activities of embassies located in one single country can shed light on this important topic of comparative public diplomacy because embassies embody overall diplomatic policies of their home countries as the microcosm of their foreign

10 78 Asian Communication Research 14(2) ministries (Zhang & Fahmy, 2015). South Korea (henceforth Korea) was chosen for analysis because Koreans are well known for their vigorous social media behaviors (Lee, 2016a), which are likely to result in active digital diplomacy by embassies there. Hence, the first research question asks: RQ1: How do foreign embassies in Korea practice social media based public diplomacy? 1 1: What are the major characteristics of their Facebook accounts? 1 2: What public diplomacy domains (activities) do the Facebook accounts focus on? Social Media Functions and Strategies The use of new or social media for organizational communication activities, such as public relations, has become a key academic research area recently (Hackler & Saxton, 2007; Lovejoy & Saxton, 2012; Nah, 2009; Saxton et al., 2007). Scholars identified several strategies employed by organizations to foster favorable online relations with their publics (Men & Tsai, 2012). Disclosure, information dissemination, interactivity are among the key strategies and purposes of organizational use of social media (Jo & Kim, 2003; Kent & Taylor, 1998; McMillan et al., 2008; Waters et al., 2009). Earlier generation of new media, such as blogs and instant messaging, were found to produce greater capabilities for connectivity, collaboration and interactivity (Cameron & Webster, 2005; Macias, Hilyard & Freimuth, 2009). More advanced social media like Facebook and Twitter were found to have relationship building and dialogue potentials (Briones et al., 2011; Rybalko & Seltzer, 2010). While those studies tried to examine organizational use of

11 Social Media-based Public Diplomacy in Korea 79 social media through a relatively macro perspective, by looking into their long term overall strategies, more recent research attempted to shed light on more micro and narrow social media strategies, by analyzing actual social media messages (Lee, 2016a). Lovejoy and Saxton (2012), for example, analyzed tweets sent by top 100 U.S. non profit organizations to understand what functions they perform. The study identified three main functions of those tweets; information dissemination, promotional or call to action and relationship building. Saxton and Waters (2014) found similar results from their study of the non profit organizations Facebook postings. Saxton and Waters (2014) also tried to measure user reactions to the three types of messages by counting the frequencies of likes, shares and comments for each posting. Likes were counted to measure user responsiveness, shares to measure user willingness to be a promoter (of the organization), and comments to measure user engagement. Lee (2016b) used the measuring scheme of Saxton and Waters (2014) to analyze user reactions to the Facebook postings of Korea s main nation branding social media account, Korea Clickers, and found the usefulness of the device. Those studies are suitable for better understanding online media functions because they analyze short term, real time behavioral reactions of online users which Facebook and other advanced social media platforms readily provide. By micro analyzing organizational messages and user reactions, one can have a clearer picture of social media functions and strategies (Lee, 2016b). As such, the second research question asks: RQ2: How do Koreans react to social media based public diplomacy by foreign embassies? 2 1: What are Koreans reactions to different public diplomacy elements?

12 80 Asian Communication Research 14(2) 2 2: What are Koreans reactions to different embassies Facebook accounts? Method To answer those questions, this study analyzed Facebook accounts of major embassies in Korea. As a microcosm of the foreign ministries of their home countries, embassies are at the forefront of public diplomacy, engaging and interacting with local publics for symbolic meanings and relationship exchanges (Zhang & Fahmy, 2015). The selection of the countries was based on several factors: their size, relationships with Korea, reputation in public diplomacy practice, geographical distribution and Koreans affection toward them. For that purpose, Gallup Korea s opinion poll about Koreans favorite countries, the World Economic Forum s list of the most influential countries and the list of Korea s largest partners in terms of trade and human exchanges were used (Gallup Korea, 2014; the Korean Ministry of Industry and Trade, 2017). Initially, 12 countries were chosen: the U.S., the U.K., Germany, Switzerland, Japan, France, Canada, Australia, Thailand, the Philippines, Russia and China. Of them, China was excluded because it did not have any Facebook account. Russia, Thailand and the Philippines were also excluded because their Facebook accounts are targeting almost exclusively their nationals for consular purposes, rather than for communication with the Korean public. The final eight countries are relatively different in size and diverse in geographical location.

13 Social Media-based Public Diplomacy in Korea 81 Table 1. Sample Countries Global Influence and Location Country Size & Influence Location U.S. Super Power North America U.K. Power Europe Germany Power Europe Switzerland Middle Power Europe Japan Power Asia France Power Europe Canada Middle Power North America Australia Middle Power Oceania In order to assess overall communication strategies of the eight embassies, their websites were examined first. Also, their various social media platforms were checked to determine the degree of social media use and identify main targets. A Korean staff member at the U.S. embassy who has worked for its public diplomacy section for nearly 20 years was interviewed for about 90 minutes to learn about the embassy s social media policy as well as today s public diplomacy trend in the world. Attempts were made to contact other embassies but were not successful. After that, two coders collected and analyzed all messages posted on the eight embassies Facebook accounts from January 1 to August 31, A total of 715 postings were gathered. The postings were then coded according to their public diplomacy domains (activities) based on the public diplomacy taxonomy of Cull (2009). After a pilot analysis, however, the taxonomy was altered to reflect new and emerging forms of public diplomacy. Contribution was added as the surveyed countries were found to use development aids, peacekeeping troop dispatch, disaster relief and other public diplomacy means to help other nations. International broadcasting was recategorized as information and

14 82 Asian Communication Research 14(2) news as both aim at informing foreign publics about their nations. Of the six domains, advocacy and information & news were grouped into information dimension, while listening, exchange, contribution and cultural program were grouped into engagement dimension. The categorization is designed to examine each country s preference between one way messaging (information) and two way relationship (engagement), based on scholarly conceptualization of public diplomacy evolution (Comor & Bean, 2012; Melissen, 2007; Zaharna & Uysal, 2015). Holsti inter coder reliability, measured by randomly cross checking 10 percent of the postings, was Table 2. Public Diplomacy Dimension and Domain PD Dimension PD Domains Description Example Information (One-way messaging) Advocacy Information & news Promotion of policy, ideas Simple information dissemination U.S. strongly condemns N. Korea s missile launch. World s longest suspension bridge in Switzerland Listening Listening for policy change What Australian foods do you like most? Engagement (Two-way relationship) Exchange Contribution Personnel and other exchange Development aid, PKO, etc. President Moon s visit to Germany British veterans of the Korean War Cultural program Cultural exhibition, performance J-pop singing contest at the heart of Seoul Next, the coders examined whether the embassies replied to users comments or inquiries to measure their interactivity. The researchers then counted the numbers of likes, shares and comments for each posting to measure users responsiveness,

15 Social Media-based Public Diplomacy in Korea 83 willingness (to be a promoter) and engagement, respectively, based on the model of Saxton and Waters (2014). ANOVA and post hoc tests were conducted to see whether there are any significant differences in user reactions to different embassy postings or different public diplomacy elements. Results Overall Online and Facebook Activities The eight embassies all had active online activities for their public diplomacy. Most of their online contents were written in Korean as well as their own languages, generally targeting Koreans, particularly youth who are active Internet and mobile users. The U.S. embassy employee noted that its media section is divided into mass media part for general population and social media part for young population. Main target for our social media is young students who will become future leaders, she said. But our traditional media activities, such as press releases, continue to target the whole population, young and old. Social media activities of the embassies in general reflected their sizes and relationships with Korea. The U.S., for example, had a total of 10 accounts in Korea (3 blogs, 3 Facebook, 2 Twitter, 1 Flickr and 1 YouTube account). The U.K. had 4 and Japan had 3 social media accounts, while the rest had less than 2 each. Ambassadors were main messengers. The U.S. and U.K. ambassadors had their own social media accounts. The eight Facebook accounts all had different levels of following in Korea. Japan s account had the largest number of followers and likes, followed by the U.S. account, while that of Switzerland had the smallest. The ranking generally reflected the

16 84 Asian Communication Research 14(2) power and size of their host nations or their closeness with Korea. Yet their social media activities were not proportional to those factors. Although smaller in size and remote geographically, Switzerland, Australia and Canada were among the most diligent Facebook posters. Table 3. Popularity and Performance of the Facebook Accounts Country No of Followers No of Likes No of Postings U.S. 41,937 42, U.K. 11,378 11, Germany 8,603 8, Switzerland 2,254 2, Japan 62,655 62, France 5,618 5, Canada 4,252 4, Australia 10,980 10, Total (average) 147,677 (18,461) 148,669 (18,584) 715 (89) Of the 715 postings, information and news accounted for the biggest share with 55.1 percent, followed by exchange (22.7 percent), cultural program (10.8 percent) and advocacy (5.9 percent). Listening was least popular with only 13 postings (1.8 percent) although it is considered by many as the most needed part of today s public diplomacy (Cull, 2009; Dodd & Collins, 2017). In terms of public diplomacy dimension, one way information elements outweighed two way engagement elements by about 6 to 4 (436 vs. 279 postings).

17 Social Media-based Public Diplomacy in Korea 85 Table 4. Public Diplomacy Dimension and Domain PD Dimension PD Domain Information Engagement 436 (61.0%) 279 (39.0%) Advocacy 42 (5.9%) Information & news 394 (55.1%) Listening 13 (1.8%) Exchange 162 (22.7%) Contribution 27 (3.8%) Cultural program 77 (10.8%) Differences in Postings by Country In terms of public diplomacy dimension, Japan s account was most engaging with that portion accounting for 48.9 percent of total, followed by Australia (48 percent) and the U.S. (44 percent). Switzerland was most informational with such postings taking 80.8 percent of total. By public diplomacy domain, Switzerland, the U.K. and Germany had higher than average shares for information and news with 80.8 percent, 66.7 percent and 56.3 percent, respectively. France displayed most advocacy postings (20 percent of total), compared with the eight countries average of 5.9 percent. The U.S. was the highest in terms of showing exchange related postings (35.2 percent of total). When it comes to cultural program, Japan was number one with 30.9 percent, far above the average of 10.8 percent. France followed with 18.2 percent. In terms of contribution related public diplomacy, the U.K. was top with 12.1 percent. Although most countries were very passive in listening, Australia was most active with 9.8 percent, compared with an average of 1.8 percent. In both public diplomacy dimension and domain, differences among countries were statistically significant, according to chi square tests (p<.05). This is explained in Table 5.

18 86 Asian Communication Research 14(2) Table 5. PD Dimension and Domain by Country (in percentage) Country Information Dimension Advocacy Info & news Engagement Dimension Total Listening Exchange Contri bution Cultural program Total U.S U.K Germany Swiss Japan France Canada Australia Average User Reactions by Public Diplomacy Dimension and Domain For the 715 postings, an average of 54.6 likes, 11.7 shares, and 6.7 comments were counted. One posing by the Japanese embassy about a Japanese movie screening invited the largest number of likes (1,621) and comments (1,161) as it offered free tickets for the movie to users. Overall, users responded much more actively to engaging public diplomacy activities, such as exchange and cultural programs, than to informational activities, such as news and advocacy. The average number of likes for engagement was 63.3 and, compared with 49.1 for information. Similarly, the average number of comments was 10.9 for engagement and 4.1 for information. However, the average number of shares was similar at around 11.7 for both dimensions. By public diplomacy domain, cultural programs elicited the biggest number of likes (99.4), followed by contribution (54.3). Cultural programs also drew the largest number of shares (24.8), while contribution and information/news both were shared about

19 Social Media-based Public Diplomacy in Korea times. When it comes to comments, cultural programs again showed the largest frequency of 32.3, far above the average of 6.7. This is explained in Table 6. Table 6. Average User Reactions by Public Diplomacy Domain PD Dimension Information Engagement PD Domain Number of likes Number of shares Number of comments Advocacy Information/news Listening Exchange Contribution Cultural program Average User Reactions by Country In all three categories, Japan s account drew the most active responses from users. It garnered 167 likes, compared with the eight countries average of It also gained 55.7 shares and 38 comments, compared with the averages of 11.7 and 6.7, respectively. The U.S. came second with 128 likes, 22.4 shares and 7.9 comments. Canada and Switzerland were lowest in the three types of user reactions. The results indicate that Korean Facebook users react more actively to countries that are big in global influence (the U.S.) and geographically close (Japan). The two countries are also one of Korea s biggest partners in terms of security, economy and social and cultural exchanges. The fact that the numbers of the two accounts followers and likes are the largest also support that interpretation. On the other hand, countries that are geographically far and small in size and power, such as Canada and Switzerland, invited least reactions from Korean users. The only exception was

20 88 Asian Communication Research 14(2) Australia. Its account elicited substantial responses because of its close bilateral relations with Korea, despite its relatively smaller size and geographic remoteness. The fact that its ambassador to Seoul is a Korean speaking Korean Australian who actively engages with Korean audience seemed another advantage. The results of the ANOVA show statistical differences among the nations. In all three areas (likes, shares and comments), the eight countries were significantly different. F(7, 707)=49.892, p<.005 for likes, F=19.393, p<.005 for shares, F=5.389, p<.005 for comments. Duncan post hoc tests reveal that Japan was highest in all three aspects. In terms of user willingness to be a promoter (shares), the U.S. was placed between Japan and the other six countries. This is explained in Table 7. Table 7. Average User Reactions by Country Country Number of likes Number of shares Number of comments U.S U.K Germany Swiss Japan France Canada Australia Average Major Posting and Reaction Characteristics by Country As a close ally of Korea, the U.S. had relatively large numbers of Facebook followers and postings. The postings were focused mainly on bilateral security and economic relations amid leadership changes in both nations. The posing on June 30 about

21 Social Media-based Public Diplomacy in Korea 89 a summit dinner between U.S. President Trump and Korean President Moon Jae in drew 252 likes and 25 shares, as it focused on exchanges of bilateral views on security and economy. As part of its efforts to emphasize Korea U.S. ties, several postings introduced the success stories of Korean Americans, including a top U.S. military general and a NASA astronaut. The U.K. was relatively inactive in terms of social media public diplomacy with the lowest number of postings. Even the infrequent postings often concerned British citizens only, with consular and other affairs. Yet its account was heavily centered on its contribution activities. A posting on May 1 dealt with an anniversary of the Korean War where about 1,000 British soldiers were killed in fighting for Korea. It was shared 22 times. Despite a relatively small following, Germany s account, written in both Korean and German, frequently posted messages on bilateral exchange and information about its culture. A posting on May 12 congratulated President Moon s election and sought deeper relations between the two countries, inviting 158 likes. Another posting introduced German beer on the occasion of the World Beer Day. Yet another posting featured German literature with the title, Ten German Books You Have to Read before You Die. As an attractive middle power favored by Koreans (Gallup Korea, 2014), Switzerland was active in posting, despite the smallest number of followers. Yet the account was mostly to introduce its nature, culture, science and technology, rather than bilateral exchanges, reflecting a low degree of connections between the two countries. Key examples are the postings about its UNESCO heritage, a world tennis champion, the world s longest pedestrian suspension bridge and advancement in solar technology. As Korea s close neighbor, Japan boasts the biggest number

22 90 Asian Communication Research 14(2) of followers and strongest user reactions. The numbers of users behavioral reactions were three to five times greater than average. This mirrors close economic, cultural and social relations between the two countries, despite their ongoing historical and territorial disputes. Like Germany, Japan focuses very much on cultural programs and exchange, avoiding sensitive diplomatic activities like policy advocacy, due mainly to its past aggressions against Korea. France was generally low in terms of following and user reactions mainly because of its limited bilateral relations with Korea. The number of its postings was also among the lowest. France showed the highest rate of advocacy postings, such as its government s condemnation of North Korea s nuclear tests. As a major cultural power, however, France frequently highlighted its cultural programs, using contents produced by various culture related government agencies with high quality video clips. Canada had small numbers of followers and user reactions, reflecting its weak global presence and weak relations with Korea. But as a middle power practicing niche diplomacy, its posting frequency was higher than average with many of them written in Korean only to attract their participation. In advertising Canada as a tourist and study destination, the postings heavily used Korea s mass media contents featuring Canadians or Korean Canadians. Mainly because of Australia s remoteness and hard power limitations, its account showed relatively weak following and user reactions. However, it was most active in listening, a crucial function in public diplomacy. It was also keen on exchange and contribution. The August 31 posting showcased its ambassador s opening pitch for an international baseball tournament held in Seoul. As a Korean Australian, he was also featured several times

23 Social Media-based Public Diplomacy in Korea 91 for meeting with Korean audiences designed to listen to their voices. Discussion and Conclusion This study attempted to contribute to the theorizing and conceptualization of the nascent comparative public diplomacy scholarship by analyzing digital diplomacy of eight embassies in Korea. For that purpose, the research examined their Facebook postings and user reactions as well as overall online activities. Results show that most countries still practice one way information based public diplomacy, although two way engagement based one is more valued by scholars. In fact, the study confirmed such a view by proving that the latter invites more frequent and enthusiastic user reactions. More specifically, the dissemination of information and news was still the most dominant public diplomacy domain for all eight countries, while listening and contribution accounted for the smallest share. Exchange and cultural programs are practiced to some degree but they need to be bolstered as they attract most passionate reactions from social media users. Another objective of the study was to shed more light on public diplomacy practices by non U.S., non European countries to make the scholarship more internationally comparative. Although key Asian countries like China were excluded due to their lack or underuse of Facebook accounts, the study compared various countries with different geographical locations, different global influences and different levels of relations with Korea. This can help our academic efforts to typify public diplomacy activities, adding more elaborated and diverse taxonomies. This paper s grouping of the six public diplomacy domains (advocacy,

24 92 Asian Communication Research 14(2) information & news, listening, exchange, contribution and cultural programs) into two dimensions (information and engagement) in particular can contribute to the formation of a conceptual framework in understanding the field. Also, findings suggest that bigger and more advanced countries, particularly European and American nations, practice more active public diplomacy based on social media, commanding more local followings. Advanced middle powers exercising niche diplomacy, such as Australia and Canada, are also energetic in that regard. They were at times more creative and diligent than their bigger counterparts. Asian and less developed countries are in general lukewarm as far as digital media is concerned. China, known as a new, but aggressive player in the field with its charm offensive, didn t even have a Facebook account in Korea. But in general, closer bilateral relations lead to more vigorous and engaging digital diplomacy, as seen in the case of Japan. On the contrary, lesser economic and social ties result in less engaging, more informational approach, as the Swiss case shows. Another goal of the paper was to advance the study of social media functions and strategies by applying the measuring scheme of Saxton and Waters (2014), originally designed for domestic public relations, to international diplomacy. Results generally confirm the usefulness of the model as they roughly match previous findings. For example, engaging public diplomacy, valued by scholars as more effective than informational one, elicited more frequent and positive reactions (likes, shares and comments). All these findings can not only help our academic understanding of social media functions and strategies, but also professional work by communication practitioners, especially public diplomats using social media. Like public relations, public

25 Social Media-based Public Diplomacy in Korea 93 diplomacy can benefit from efforts at identifying best practices in the digital era. Particularly Korea, which is very eager to practice more efficient public diplomacy with the enactment of the Public Diplomacy Act in 2016, can learn valuable lessons from the results of this research on best practices in digital diplomacy. More specifically, today s governments need to make more efforts at building relations with foreign publics through two way engagement rather than simple one way dissemination of information. But as this study shows, embassies generally are reluctant to listen or respond to such voices. They still prefer to use social media for informational or promotional purposes One possible way to use social media for more relational and engagement purposes is to combine them with offline activities. In fact, cyber space is often seen limited in bringing people together because it lacks face to face human contacts. Relationships built online can be reinforced through physical offline contacts. Singing contests and other types of popular physical events initiated by the Japanese embassy in this regard seem highly appropriate. Those online offers met passionate reactions because they were followed by offline meetings. Also, this study shows that for closer connections with local publics, embassies need to pay more attention to the people or events that are relevant to both host and home countries. Just talking about their home countries or their people tends not to invite positive reactions. The U.S. embassy s frequent depiction of successful Korean Americans, for example, drew much greater reactions. Messages about Korean interested events, such as the Pyeongchang Winter Olympics or President Moon s election, are more favorably received. Yet this study needs further improvements in several points. First, it cannot claim to be a genuine comparative study because sample countries were heavily skewed toward developed

26 94 Asian Communication Research 14(2) countries. China, Russia and other non Western countries were excluded due to their passive social media activities. Yet these nations emerge as major players in the field with their own sets of strategies and tactics. Understanding their practices through the examination of other media platforms, including their own ones like China s Weibo, would be necessary. Also, time span for the analysis was limited to only eight months, which might distort the results due to several unusual events during the period. In fact, President Moon s election during the time was disproportionally covered by the accounts. In a similar vein, certain diplomatic figures can misrepresent the reality because of the short time span. The Australian embassy, for example, was greatly aided by the presence of an active Korean speaking Korean Australian ambassador who was willing to go an extra mile to engage with Korean public. On the other hand, the U.S. and Japanese embassies perhaps showed less engaging activities because their ambassadors were absent at that time. Also, this study was not able to differentiate reactions by users nationalities. It is quite possible that the same message causes different reactions depending upon users nationalities. Also, this work is a study of public diplomacy practices in just one country, making it difficult to be generalized. Because of Korea s uniqueness in security and other fields, the results can be less representational. Similar comparative studies in other countries can address this problem.

27 Social Media-based Public Diplomacy in Korea 95 References Al Najjar, A. (2009). Kaust and social networking: The new face of Saudi Arabia. Retrieved on February 1, 2016 from org/index.php/newswire/cdpblog_detail/kaust_and_social_networ king_the_new_face_of_saudi_arabia. Armstrong, M. C. (2009). Social media as public diplomacy. Perspectives, 1(2). Retrieved on February 1, 2016 at publications/perspectives/mattarmstrong.html. Briones, R. L., Kuch, B., Liu, B. F., & Jin, Y. (2011). Keeping up with the digital age: How are American Red Cross uses social media to build relationships. Public Relations Review, 37(1), Cameron, A. E. & Webster, J. (2005). Unintended consequences of emerging communication technologies: Instant messaging in the workplace. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, Chang, T. & Lin, F. (2014). From propaganda to public diplomacy: Assessing China s international practice and its image, Public Relations Review, 40, Ciolek, M. (2010). Understanding social media s contribution to public diplomacy: How Embassy Jakarta s Facebook outreach illuminates the limitations and potentials for the State Department s use of social media. CPD Prize for Best Student Paper, CDP Research & Publications. Retrieved on Feb. 1, 2016 from org/index.php/research/paper_award_2010/ Comor, E., & Bean, H. (2012). America s engagement delusion: Critiquing a public diplomacy consensus. The International Communication Gazette, 74(3), 203. Cull, N. (2009). Public relations: Lessons from the past. Los Angeles: Figueroa Press. Cull, N. (2013). The long road to public diplomacy 2.0: The Internet in U.S. public diplomacy. International Studies Review, 15, d Hooghe, I. (2007). Public diplomacy in the People s Republic of China. In J. Melissen (Ed.), The New public diplomacy (pp ).

28 96 Asian Communication Research 14(2) Hampshire, England: Palgrave Macmillan. Dillen, M. (2017). Public diplomacy dies in darkness. CDP Blog. Retrieved on August 25, 2017 from public diplomacy dies darkness. Dodd, M. & Collins, S. (2017). Public relations message strategies and public diplomacy 2.0: An empirical analysis using Central Eastern European and Western embassy Twitter accounts. Public Relations Review, 43, Entman, R. M. (2008). Theorizing media public diplomacy: The U.S. case. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 13, Gallup Korea. (2014). Koreans Favorite Countries. Retrieved on Sept. 2, 2017 from Gilboa, E. (2002). Global communication and foreign policy. Journal of Communication, 52(4), Golan, G. & Yang, S. (2015). Introduction: The integrated public diplomacy perspective. In Golan, G., Yang, S. & Kinsey, D. International public relations and public diplomacy. (pp. 1 12). New York: Peter Lang. Hackler, D. & Saxton, G. D. (2007). The strategic use of information technology by nonprofit organizations: Increasing capacity and untapped potential. Public Administration Review, 67, Ham, P. (2007). Power, public diplomacy and the Pax Americana. In J. Melissen (Ed.), The New public diplomacy (pp ). Hampshire, England: Palgrave Macmillan. Henrikson, A. (2007). Niche diplomacy in the world public arena: The global corners of Canada and Norway. In J. Melissen (Ed.), The New public diplomacy (pp ). Hampshire, England: Palgrave Macmillan. Jo, S., & Kim, Y. (2003). The effect of web characteristics on relationship building. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15(3), Kent, M. & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogical relationships through World Wide Web. Public Relations Review, 24(3),

29 Social Media-based Public Diplomacy in Korea 97 Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2017). The Five Year Public Diplomacy Plan. Retrieved on Sept. 2, 2017 from engpage/mofapublicdiplomacy.jsp Lee, B. (2014). China s national image in Korea s newspapers: Assessing China s media diplomacy in Korea. The Korean Journal of Area Studies, 32(3), Lee, B. (2016a). U.S. public diplomacy in Korea through social media. The Information Society and Media, 17(1), Lee, B. (2016b). Korea s nation branding on social media: An analysis of government Facebook account. The Journal of Cybercommunication Academic Society, 33(3), L Etang, J. (1996). Public relations as public diplomacy. In L Etang, & M. Pieczka (Eds.), Critical Perspectives in Public Relations (pp ). London, U.K.: International Thomson Business Press. Lovejoy, K., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Information, community and action: How nonprofit organizations use social media. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 17, Macias, W., Hilyard, K. & Freimuth, V. (2009). Blog functions as risk and crisis communication during Hurricane Katrina. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 15, McMillan, S. J., Hoy, M. G., Kim, J., & McMahan, C. (2008). A multifaceted tool for a complex phenomenon: Coding web based interactivity as technologies for interaction evolve. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 13(4), Melissen, J. (2007). The new public diplomacy: Between theory and practice. In J. Melissen (Ed.), The New public diplomacy (pp. 3 27). Hampshire, England: Palgrave Macmillan. Men, L. R., & Tsai, W. S. (2012). How companies cultivate relationships with publics on social network sites: Evidence from China and the United States. Public Relations Review, 38, Nah, S. (2009). Building social capital through nonprofit organizations websites: Organizational features and e social capital. AEJMC, Boston, MA., August 5 8, 2009.