Twitter Analysis: SFMOMA & MoMA
-
Upload
jennasimard -
Category
Documents
-
view
227 -
download
0
Transcript of Twitter Analysis: SFMOMA & MoMA
-
7/28/2019 Twitter Analysis: SFMOMA & MoMA
1/36
Social Media: Voice and ToneAn Analysis of SFMOMA and MoMA on Twitter
October 8, 2012October 15, 2012
Jenna Simard
-
7/28/2019 Twitter Analysis: SFMOMA & MoMA
2/36
IntroductionModern art museums today are using social media as a means to further engage their
publics, appeal to new audiences, bring awareness to their programs and activities and share
relevant news and information. Among those actively utilizing social media are the Museum of
Modern Art in New York City, and the San Francisco Museum of Modern Arttwo of the most
celebrated modern art museums in America. Both institutions engage on a variety of platforms,
including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, flickr, Foursquare and tumblr.
The following analysis serves to study how the MoMA and SFMOMA utilize Twitter.
The analysis regards the methods in which each museum exerts its voice on the platform, the
overall tone that each achieves and the way in which voice and tone impact the engagement of
their followers. Each of the organizations tweets were observed during an 8-day time frame,
between October 8 and October 15, 2012.
-
7/28/2019 Twitter Analysis: SFMOMA & MoMA
3/36
3
San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (@SFMOMA)San Francisco Museum of Modern Art was established in 1935 as the first modern art museum
on the West Coast. It houses a collection of more than 27,000 artworks, photographs and
sculptures.
On Twitter, SFMOMA has more than 350,000 followers and has issued more than 5,400
tweets to date.
VoiceDuringthe selected time frame, the museum tweeted 28 times and retweeted other users tweets7 times. Content included both internal and external-related material, ranging from promotion of
upcoming events at the museum to support of the San Francisco Giants.
The general style of SFMOMAs voice across its messaging is conversational. The
museum assumes a casual approach to communicating with its followers, as evidenced by its use
of exclamation points, emoticons, and random hashtags (See p. 14, example 7 ). It refers to itself
as we to express itself as a body of people to whom followers can relate, rather than strictly as
an institution (See p. 20, example 19). While it uses Twitter to inform followers, it also uses the
platform to entertain people with quirky content. A prime example is the museums tweet about a
pig that was parading outside the building one day (See p. 15, example 8).
The voice, though overall conversational, is at some times more casual and at other times
more educational. On October 11, the museum tweeted: @ArtistsReport aims to speak truth to
-
7/28/2019 Twitter Analysis: SFMOMA & MoMA
4/36
4
power + upend traditional takes on critical issues. What can news media learn from artists?
#CTRL. Three hours later it tweeted:Way to pull through with the big win, @SFGiants! Lookslike all that spring training is paying off :) http://sfmoma.me/WXqH5U. Though clearly
SFMOMA was attempting to appeal to a broad mass of people by messaging about both
educational and sports-related material, these two different types of messages represent two
different voices. Consequently, the museums voice appears to lack consistency.
Although, overall, SFMOMA tweets about relevant material, sometimes its attempts to
seem relatable by infusing humor into its messaging are ineffective. On October 12, the museum
tweeted a picture of two visitors wearing similar outfits with the following message:Have our
visitors adopted a modern art-viewing uniform? :) RT @Mikey_Nicholson: Hey @sfmoma, who
wore it better? pic.twitter.com/cyDvfrKe (See p. 25, example 29). The tweet had the possibility
to showcase the museums community-oriented character by showing the two visitors posing
together for the camera, but the picture was taken from behind the women as they browsed the
galleries, presumably without their permission. As a result, the post seems out of place and
irrelevant.
EngagementThe museum remains engaged with its followers by retweeting other users messages. However,
the museums tweets do not garner a significant amount of response. Over the 8-day period, the
average number of times followers retweeted SFMOMAs messages was 6. The average number
of times they chose to favorite the messages was approximately 2.2. Typically, the museum
received more positive response when they utilized a voice which was neither too casual nor too
didactic. An ideal message which represents the museums voice is found on page 28, in
-
7/28/2019 Twitter Analysis: SFMOMA & MoMA
5/36
5
example 35:Here's a peek at what you'll soon be seeing around town:
http://instagr.am/p/Q0DLKGqda3/Jasper Johns opens at @SFMOMA on Nov 3!
http://sfmoma.me/QJkN4W. The message informs followers about an upcoming exhibition while
remaining conversational. In 24 hours, the tweet was retweeted 11 times and favorited 4 times.
When using a clever yet professional voice, the museum has the opportunity to relate to
its laid-back audience on the West Coast as well as a broader public, therefore creating more
possibilities for engagement.
ToneThrough its laid-back yet informational voice, SFMOMA achieves the tone of a friendly,
community-oriented museum. Its tweetsinfused with expressionrender the museum as
approachable and desiring of two-way communication with the public.
http://t.co/21VJoz2shttp://t.co/21VJoz2s -
7/28/2019 Twitter Analysis: SFMOMA & MoMA
6/36
6
Museum of Modern Art (@MuseumModernArt)The Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) was established in 1935 in New York City. Today its
collection consists of over 36,000 works. In its mission statement, the museum proclaims its
dedication to being the foremost museum of modern art in the world.
On Twitter, the museum has over 1,160,000 followers and has issued over 3,300 tweets
to date.
VoiceDuring the reported time frame, MoMA tweeted 12 times. The museum did not send any
retweets. Content consisted entirely of internally-related material, ranging from promotion of a
live streaming at a gallery event to a reminder for prospective interns to submit their
applications.
The voice behind the museums messages is institutional. In keeping its followers
updated with news about its activities and the arts community, MoMA maintains clarity and
direction in its tweets. Nearly every tweet contains a brief description of the news and a link
directing followers to further information (See examples, pp. 2836). MoMAs voice is
consistently simple, informative and easy to read. Rarely does the museum utilize any
exclamation points or emoticons, unlike SFMOMA.
-
7/28/2019 Twitter Analysis: SFMOMA & MoMA
7/36
7
EngagementMoMA maintains engagement with followers by tweeting about content that is relevant to its
community. In contrary to SFMOMA, the museum did not retweet followers messages during
the 8-day period, but it continued to post about information which its audience finds valuable.
The average number of times that users retweeted was 39.75 times, and the average number of
times that users favorited tweets was 14.66 times.
During the time frame, one of its messages which prompted the most engagement from
followers reads: Yayoi Kusamas Accumulation No. 1 returns to MoMA later this month:
bit.ly/R4JOGV(See p. 28, example 2). The message represents an ideal tweet for the museum
because it is clear and informative, and directs followers to a site where they can learn more
about the topic.
ToneThe overall tone achieved is that of a global institution with the purpose of educating people
about art. By avoiding casual, friendly messaging, it maintains its reputation as a world-renown
museum of modern art. It engages people not by utilizing a personable, informal voice, but by
disseminating information which calls followers to respond.
-
7/28/2019 Twitter Analysis: SFMOMA & MoMA
8/36
8
ConclusionsWhile both SFMOMA and MoMA are well-known, widely-respected museums of modern art,
each serves a different communityboth in size and in personality. SFMOMA speaks to a
smaller community who, due to the museums west coast location, is more laid-back than that of
MoMA. On the other hand, the former speaks to an east coast community with a fast-paced
lifestyle, and to a broader public far beyond New York City. The varying voices that the two
museums assert on Twitter are contingent upon these differing communities. SFMOMA appeals
to its audience by utilizing a more personable voice and, thus, extends its brand image as a
community-oriented institution. Meanwhile, MoMA asserts itself as a prominent educational
establishment by speaking in a more institutional manner. Each museum tweets with a voice that
expresses its personality and relates to its audience.During the recorded time frame, MoMA, whose community of followers on Twitter is
twice as large as that of SFMOMA, sent less than half as many tweets as the latter. Yet MoMA
still engaged more people; the percentage of retweets per total number of followers was larger
for MoMA than for SFMOMA. It could then be determined by Twitter alone that MoMA has
more social influence than does SFMOMA. However, this inference may not necessarily be the
result of MoMAs institutional voice on Twitter, but rather likely the effect of its preexisting
reputation as one of the best museums of modern art in the world.
Therefore, the disparity in size and reputation of the two museums renders difficulty in
analyzing which type of communication is more effective. However, the analysis may conclude
-
7/28/2019 Twitter Analysis: SFMOMA & MoMA
9/36
9
that MoMAs employment of a consistent style of voice contributes to its greater ability to
engage followers.
-
7/28/2019 Twitter Analysis: SFMOMA & MoMA
10/36
10
AppendixSFMOMA1.
-
7/28/2019 Twitter Analysis: SFMOMA & MoMA
11/36
11
2.
-
7/28/2019 Twitter Analysis: SFMOMA & MoMA
12/36
12
3.
4.
-
7/28/2019 Twitter Analysis: SFMOMA & MoMA
13/36
13
5.
6.
-
7/28/2019 Twitter Analysis: SFMOMA & MoMA
14/36
14
7.
-
7/28/2019 Twitter Analysis: SFMOMA & MoMA
15/36
15
8.
-
7/28/2019 Twitter Analysis: SFMOMA & MoMA
16/36
16
9.
10.
11.
-
7/28/2019 Twitter Analysis: SFMOMA & MoMA
17/36
17
12.
13.
-
7/28/2019 Twitter Analysis: SFMOMA & MoMA
18/36
18
14.
15.
-
7/28/2019 Twitter Analysis: SFMOMA & MoMA
19/36
19
16.
17.
-
7/28/2019 Twitter Analysis: SFMOMA & MoMA
20/36
20
18.
19.
-
7/28/2019 Twitter Analysis: SFMOMA & MoMA
21/36
21
20.
21.
-
7/28/2019 Twitter Analysis: SFMOMA & MoMA
22/36
22
22.
23.
-
7/28/2019 Twitter Analysis: SFMOMA & MoMA
23/36
23
24.
25.
-
7/28/2019 Twitter Analysis: SFMOMA & MoMA
24/36
24
26.
27.
28.
-
7/28/2019 Twitter Analysis: SFMOMA & MoMA
25/36
25
29.
-
7/28/2019 Twitter Analysis: SFMOMA & MoMA
26/36
26
30.
31.
32.
-
7/28/2019 Twitter Analysis: SFMOMA & MoMA
27/36
27
33.
34.
-
7/28/2019 Twitter Analysis: SFMOMA & MoMA
28/36
28
35.
-
7/28/2019 Twitter Analysis: SFMOMA & MoMA
29/36
29
MOMA1.
2.
-
7/28/2019 Twitter Analysis: SFMOMA & MoMA
30/36
30
3.
4.
-
7/28/2019 Twitter Analysis: SFMOMA & MoMA
31/36
31
5.
6.
-
7/28/2019 Twitter Analysis: SFMOMA & MoMA
32/36
32
7.
8.
-
7/28/2019 Twitter Analysis: SFMOMA & MoMA
33/36
33
9.
-
7/28/2019 Twitter Analysis: SFMOMA & MoMA
34/36
34
10.
-
7/28/2019 Twitter Analysis: SFMOMA & MoMA
35/36
35
11.
-
7/28/2019 Twitter Analysis: SFMOMA & MoMA
36/36
12.