All institutions big or small tend to use various communication strategies to introduce themselves and their projects or maintain a reputation for themselves among the general public and stakeholders. They aspire to keep the people informed about their up-to-date activities and programs as they strive to serve their respective beneficiaries. Such is the case with UNICEF and Red Cross, whose main focus is supporting the noble causes.
The prestigious and international organizations UNICEF and Red Cross have websites heavily loaded with information and web 2.0 technologies such as Facebook, blogs, twitter, YouTube, Pintrest, etc. to enable the visitors to engage, interact and communicate with the organizations. The websites are so vast that it is practically difficult to compare the communication aspects. Yet an attempt is made to grasp the depths of their communication policies and strategies.
Since both are international organizations, they have the challenge of communicating to the non-English speaking population. The UNICEF website is accessible in five languages, while Red Cross website is accessible in seven languages. The Red Cross has a special policy related to website, in the site it explicitly states that ‘The ICRC is committed to keep its website accessible to all people, including persons with disabilities’. Such a commitment is not found in the website of UNICEF.
Three drop down menus are common for both the website i.e. ‘Who we are’, ‘What we do’ and ‘Where we work’ are common for both websites.. Yes, another common aspect of both websites is the presence in Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and RSS feeds. Other than these commonalities there are only differences. A few major differences between these two organizations’ website are, one UNICEF has future agendas, while Red Cross is a reactive organization which has its work only during civilian calamities. Hence Red Cross does not have a plan crafted for future. Second difference is related to partnerships, UNICEF is more inclined to attract and make partnerships with various agencies. Red Cross seems to have limited number of partners in their work; the website does not hold a page related to partnerships. Third, Red Cross explicitly asks for a support in the form of donation, UNICEF website did not make any conspicuous request for donation.
Both UNICEF and Red Cross use social media to reach out to the stake holders. Both maintain their official websites; have Facebook presence, instagram, twitter, and YouTube channel. Reaching more people is the aim of both organizations; for which they are using and updating the social media regularly. The blog posts, Facebook updates, and YouTube uploads indicate that the organizations are meticulous in updating their information. It can be inferred from the updates that, a team of social /digital media personnel are working to update websites, blogs, newsletters, responding to conversations, etc.
On observing the Facebook profile, UNICEF (http://www.facebook.com//unicef) has more than 3 million Likes in contrast to Red Cross’ (http://www.facebook.com/redcross) 600 K likes. It can be interpreted as more people have association with the activities of UNICEF than with Red Cross. However, despite lower number on followers in the Facebook, the Red Cross is disseminating information about relief operation and extending help to disaster-stricken areas theough Facebook pages. For instance, Red Cross created a page on how people could help the Haiti operations and since then, information transfer has become viral (Calderon). Both organizations UNICEF and Red Cross update their Facebook pages with images of their operations and the people they encounter during relief works. Wendy Harman, Red Cross’ Director for Social Media, says “the organization uses [the page] very pointedly by not bombarding them [with status updates. The organization ensures that] status updates are crafted to be value-driven, offer useful and pertinent information” (Calderon). Both organizations post and reply to fans posts, as well, although Harman admitted having difficulty tracking and responding to most of Red Cross’ comments.
In a study conducted by PR Week (Benady), points that most international organization leaders now have a Twitter account and these organizations use this medium to broadcast information. Among international organizations, the UNICEF (@UNICEF) has the most number of followers and is one of two most “effective tweeting organizations because their tweets are retweeted (on average) more than 100 times” (Benady).
Apart from visually appealing posts, UNICEF integrated Instagram to their page (the first social medium added was Facebook) so they could share photo easily. In addition, UNICEF remains vigilant in responding to comments and calling for action. The replies are received in a timely manner, prompting people to action. UNICEF and Red Cross respond to all types of comments regardless of the nature of comments. Negative comments are are responded with appropriate comments and the positive comments are responded with appreciation and calling for action to increase viewers involvement.
It is very difficult to judge whose website and communications fairs better. UNICEF seem to have association with larger audience than the Red Cross. Both are equally good in disseminating, broadcasting and engaging viewers. It is really interesting watch their media sites.
REFERENCES
American Red Cross. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.redcross.org/what-we-do
Benady, Alex. (2013). UNICEF is most followed international organization on Twitter. Retrieved from http://www.prweek.com/article/1222016/unicef-followed-international-organisation-twitter
Calderon, Sara Ines. (2010). Facebook becomes more important to Red Cross fundraising, disaster relief efforts. Retrieved from http://www.insidefacebook.com/2010/08/24/facebook-red-cross-fundraising-disaster-relief/
Good, Shannon. (2013). UNICEF case study: How a nonprofit uses Facebook to drive change. Retrieved from https://savvypanda.com/blog/beginner-level/unicef-case-study-how-a-nonprofit-uses-facebook-to-drive-change.html
Leckie, Calum. (2010). Working for UNICEF. Retrieved from https://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=29&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CG0QFjAIOBQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lshtm.ac.uk%2Fcareers%2Fonlinecareerresources%2Funicef_recruitment.doc&ei=um9AU-HAAsjmiAetv4DQBQ&usg=AFQjCNHuiJsX9Xf7w6MFd89BaoJOJPlH3g
UNICEF Millennium Development Goals [MDG]. Retrieved from http://www.unicef.org/mdg/
