This will make it possible to know the difference between the reality of the organization that is finally communicated and what the public perceives from those communications. A corporation that manages its reputation and controls its communication will be able to react quickly and effectively to any error that jeopardises its reputation.

Brew (1995: 2-3) points out the aspects that characterize the university realm today. The author first mentions that universities are increasingly distant from the society around them. However, governments are more interested in knowing how public money is being spent. He also points out that demands on universities are no longer based on knowledge alone. Corporations also want qualified people who are able to make decisions and know how to communicate. The author goes on to mention that there is growing indifference toward teacher or professoriate training. Moreover, important aspects of the proper functioning of the training process are being given less importance.

This author also exposes the increasingly precarious budgets with which universities have to contend. Finally, the author indicates an important element for this study, which is that the management of universities is increasingly similar to that of large companies.

If one views the university in this way, as both a social and educational institution essential to our system, we can refer to it as a corporation, attributing to it the context described above. In any case, the level of reputation in the case of universities is not absolute, but instead is aspectual, and there are a series of diverse characteristics needed in order for a specific university to be considered as one of quality (Haldane en Mora, 2015: 18).

Among the most important factors in understanding the emergence of the concept of university reputation are, first and foremost, the transformations that many educational systems are undergoing that is leading to increased competitiveness. This is due to the scarcity of public funds and to the rules of distribution of funds for research. As universities need to compete more intensely with each other as a result of this change, they need to know exactly how the public perceives them, and consequently they have no choice but to resort to reputation management (Younger in Mora, 2015: 26).

Currently, there is a growing lack of credibility toward universities, and therefore it is essential to use reputation as a strategic communication factor. Corporate reputation management is dominated by information and communication technology. However, if we observe the practices of the majority of universities, we can confirm that the management of communication has been reduced to a simple dissemination of information, as indicated by Atarama and Cortez (2015: 27).

As we can see, social networks provide universities with very useful resources to increase their credibility and develop relationships of trust, as well as being channels that are direct and close to diverse audiences. Among these new opportunities provided by social networks, we find one that is especially useful if we talk about university reputation communication: Twitter. However, this social network is not the only option available to universities for communicating with their diverse audiences. According to the profile of each channel and the possibilities they offer, Paniagua and Gómez (2012: 352) have determined the following as the most appropriate social networks for university communication: Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube and Twitter.