Using Social Network Sites to Improve Communication Between Political Campaigns and Citizens in the 2012 Election

Abstract

During the 2012 United States election the prevalence of political campaigning permeated throughout social network sites. It was not uncommon for political candidates on all levels of government to integrate an array of social network sites in their campaign communication strategies. Despite their vast use in elections and the recognition of their significance in the media, there is a lack of empirical research that examines the complex relationship between political campaigns and social network sites. The present research responds to this gap in the literature as it seeks to understand how two congressional campaigns employed social network sites to facilitate campaign communication. Following the collection of data from qualitative interviews with campaign staff, analysis revealed that social network sites were used to improve the effectiveness of their campaigns’ messages, to generate online engagement and offline activism, and to improve understanding the needs and opinions of the electorate.

Keywords

social network sites political campaign election digital democracy

Social network sites represented an important component of political campaigns’ communications strategies during the 2012 United States election. It was not uncommon for campaigns to operate an array of social network sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram to communicate with voters. According to Pew Research, nearly 40% of all American adults used social network sites to engage in some form of civic or political activity such as expressing political opinions, encouraging others to act on issues and vote, and belonging to political groups (Rainie, Smith, Schlozman, Brady, & Verba, 2012). In previous elections political campaigns were acknowledged for experimenting with this digital technology to varying degrees of success, but in 2012 there was no denying the prevalence of political campaigning that permeated throughout online social network sites.

Scholars have suggested that an integral relationship exists between social network sites and political campaigns as both rely on constant communication and encourage mobilization of supporters (Slotnick, 2009). Additionally, characteristics of social network sites that make them distinct from other digital platforms have been identified as being conducive to campaign communication, and a wide range of implications for democratic processes have been stimulated by the emergence of this technology (Boyd, 2008). But despite their vast use by political candidates and the recognition of their significance in the media, the newness of social network sites and the time-sensitive nature of electoral politics have prevented comprehensive scholarly examination of this communication phenomenon. A lack of empirical research exists concerning the complex relationship between political campaigns and social network sites, and consequentially there is a significant need to conduct studies that improve understanding of the impact of this media on elections.

The present research responds to this gap in the literature as it seeks to examine how political campaigns use social network sites to communicate with citizens. More specifically, this study seeks to understand the experiences of individuals associated with two competing congressional campaigns during the 2012 election in order to discover the objectives, uses, and outcomes of employing this digital media platform to facilitate campaign communication. Results derived from the present analysis are significant because they probe underlying communicative processes working to contextualize a real-life democratic scenario. Conflicting theory exists regarding the role that social network sites play in facilitating communication between citizens and politicians; nevertheless, results from the present study demonstrate that campaigns use social network site technology to improve the effectiveness of their campaign messages, to generate online engagement and offline activism, and to understand the needs and opinions of the electorate.

Literature Review

It is necessary to begin by identifying the conceptual framework used in this study by reviewing relevant literature. First, technical and cultural aspects of social network site technology will be discussed in terms of their capacity to influence communication between politicians and citizens. Then the researcher will review existing research concerning the use of social network sites in elections. Analysis of political campaigns’ past digital strategies provides a foundation for exploring more recent uses of this evolving technology and also allows the present researcher to extend on existing knowledge and contribute novel findings that improve understanding of this significant phenomenon.

Social Network Site Technology and Democracy

Literature on digital democracy examines social, economic, and political conditions underlying the relationship between digital technology and democratic processes. Proponents of digital democracy claim that technical characteristics of the Internet facilitate enhanced communication between politicians and voters (Dahlgreen, 2005; Hague & Loader, 1999). For instance, the open architecture of the Internet has been praised for supporting democratic conditions by offering greater accessibility to information and overcoming problems of space scarcity that are relevant to print and broadcast media (Boyd, 2008; Tambini, 1999). While early Internet research suggested that various cost elements prevented its extensive use among the public, the availability of more affordable access options have allowed this technology to be advantageous for political organizers and participants (Berman & Weitzner, 1997; Metzgar & Maruggi, 2009).

In addition to the low cost associated with its use, the Internet’s reliance on bandwidth enables users to overcome barriers of time and geographic distance that once limited communication between politicians and their constituents. In contemporary elections politicians have used Internet platforms such as social network sites as an efficient means to connect with voters from any location, 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. Connecting with the public exists as a central objective for politicians because “to connect is to have unmediated and undistorted access to the represented, to be better understood, to nurture public consent” (Coleman, 2005, p. 189). According to Coleman (2005), politicians are interested in using digital mediation to cultivate more direct connections with citizens and to represent themselves more directly in the political realm.

Among the various digital platforms that have been used to mediate political communication, scholars have suggested that distinct technical and cultural characteristics of social network sites are especially conducive to the needs of politicians (Boyd, 2008). Although structural variations of visibility and access differentiate individual social network sites, they can essentially be conceptualized as Internet platforms that allow individuals to construct profiles within a bounded system, articulate lists of other users with whom they share a connection, and send public or semipublic messages (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). Social network sites represent a virtual public space that can substitute for physical publics that may be “inaccessible, untenable, heavily regulated, or downright oppressive” (Boyd, 2008, p. 242). When considered for political purposes, social network sites can offer an important outlet for marginalized individuals and social groups that were traditionally excluded from mainstream media and political debate to gain exposure and to advance their interests (Downey & Fenton, 2003; Kellner, 1999). Unlike broadcast media, which largely restricts use to political speakers with sufficient resources, the low cost of production and access associated with social network sites assists to level the playing field for candidates, interest groups, and regular citizens (Johnson & Kaye, 2000). In their 2008 election research, Metzgar and Maruggi (2009) concluded that publishing even a very small amount of digital characters on social network sites could potentially capture a nation as information travels, “from idea, to digital post, to a national audience with very few gatekeepers or powerbrokers weighing in on that information” (p. 151).

To highlight the complexity of social network sites in mediating communication, it is useful to review five major contextual properties of social network sites discussed by Boyd (2008). First, in comparison to unmediated public spaces, performances on social network sites are persistent because audiences can access content long after it was originally published. Second, social network sites contain vast amounts of personal information about their users that is often searchable using online search engines. A third complicating factor relates to the highly replicable nature of digital content. “It is quite simple to copy and paste anything that is said and move it from one context to the other in a manner that makes it difficult to distinguish between the copy and the original” (p. 242). Fourth, participation on social network sites requires communicators to face “invisible audiences” because it is impossible to determine all future potential audiences that might be exposed to online performances (p. 242). And finally, it is crucial to recognize that by overcoming restrictions of space and time, social network sites alter the scale of any act. To clarify, “There is no additional structural cost between communicating with ten and broadcasting to millions” (p. 243). When discussing the democratizing potential of social network sites it is important to consider these five technological properties as they undoubtedly contextualize the manner in which political communication is conducted.

In a contemporary era where online networked publics thrive, new technologies continue to intrigue scholars who seek to identify characteristics of the Internet that can improve the vitality of democracy. However, researchers refrain from presenting technologically deterministic arguments, instead recognizing that social network sites alone cannot be politically activating (Andrejevic, 2007; Boyd, 2008). According to Andrejevic (2007), there is a significant danger in allowing Americans to embrace an unrealistic hope that “new communication technology will resolve political conflicts, educate the masses, and deliver on the democratic promise” (p. 49). In recognizing this argument, the present research focuses on exposing the role that humans play in operating social network sites. More specifically, the researcher approached this study with the objective of understanding the strategies and activities engaged by people who managed political candidates’ social network sites in order to understand how they may influence broader democratic processes.

Social Network Sites and Elections

As acknowledged previously, social network sites possess distinct characteristics that are appealing to politicians. Similarities exist between political candidates and social network sites, as both are dependent upon encouraging group formation and maintaining strong and persistent networks (Slotnick, 2009). Before proceeding, it is important to note that scholars have identified a significant challenge in determining whether social network site activity can actually translate to votes. Because candidates’ social network site supporters can be composed of people who are not registered or eligible to vote for a given candidate, researchers have rendered it difficult to use social network site activity to predict voting behaviors (Slotnick, 2009; Williams & Gulati, 2009). Therefore, existing research has largely concentrated on describing how political candidates have integrated social network site use into their communications strategies, and how this technology contributed to the overall success of their campaigns.

Social network sites used to promote on-the-ground activism

Political candidates use social network sites to promote their fund-raising and volunteering efforts, thus presenting an opportunity for researchers to examine the link between online citizen engagement and on-the-ground activism (Cogburn & Espinoza-Vasquez, 2011; Gueorguieva, 2008). For example, Gueorguieva (2008) studied the effects of social network site platforms MySpace and YouTube during the 2006 election and concluded that these sites provided an inexpensive means for candidates to collect donations and organize volunteers. Other researchers have reported similar findings, concluding that the organizing structure of social network sites could successfully facilitate offline meetings and connections among supporters (Cogburn & Espinoza-Vasquez, 2011; Slotnick, 2009; Vitak et al., 2011). In Cogburn and Espinoza-Vasquez’s (2011) analysis of Obama’s use of social network sites during the 2008 election, researchers suggested that this technology allowed volunteers to stay connected through constructing a geographically distributed virtual community that translated to “on-the-ground activism” (p. 192). Vitak et al. (2011) provided further statistical support for this point, concluding, “Political activity on Facebook (e.g., posting a politically oriented status update, becoming a ‘fan’ of a candidate) is a significant predictor of other forms of political participation (e.g., volunteering for an organizing, signing a paper or online petition)” (p. 107).

In addition to supporting the organization of volunteer efforts, social network sites have also been cited as platforms that can be used to generate campaign donations (Burton & Shea, 2010; Cogburn & Espinoza-Vasquez, 2011; Gueorguieva, 2008). Addressing online fund-raising more generally, Burton and Shea (2010) explained that the Internet exists as a credible and effective platform for collecting donations because it allows candidates to raise large amounts of money at a relatively low cost. In their observations of Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, Cogburn and Espinoza-Vasquez (2011) reported that Web 2.0 resources were used extensively to request financial support, consequentially allowing the campaign to raise a massive amount of money online. Based on previous findings, there is a clear need to further scrutinize the dynamic between online and offline social networking activity as it can have a significant impact on the direction and success of a given campaign.

Social network sites used for interactive communication

The interactive capabilities of social network site technology that enable two-way communication between politicians and citizens have emerged as another major area of inquiry addressed in past research. Unlike media that limit audiences to consuming political content, social network sites offer citizens opportunities to reach out and respond by interjecting their opinions into the political sphere in ways that were not possible before. As explained by Hanson, Haridakis, Cunningham, Sharma, and Ponder (2010), citizens are encouraged on social network sites to “create their own political content, distribute it online, and comment on the content created by others” (p. 585). Results from a Pew study conducted the week prior to 2012 Election Day revealed that nearly one-fourth of registered voters used social network sites such as Facebook or Twitter to discuss their ballot selections (Rainie, 2012).

Scholars have suggested that interactive audience engagement promoted by social network sites offers a mechanism for increased and ongoing political engagement and dialogue among users (Hoffman & Kornweitz, 2011; Metzgar & Maruggi, 2009). However, there is minimal evidence that this technology is used to support continuing engagement between politicians and citizens. During the summer leading up to the 2012 election, Pew Research studied the presidential candidates’ uses of digital technology concentrating on examining the extent to which candidates used social network sites to engage in dialogue with citizens. Their results indicated that candidates primarily used this technology for one way messaging, rather than interactive communication. According to Pew, “Neither campaign made much use of the social aspect of social media,” as the candidates rarely replied to citizen messages or engaged in dialogue other users (Pew, 2012). Cogburn and Espinoza-Vasquez (2011) reported a similar finding in their analysis of Obama’s 2008 digital strategy, concluding that the campaign mainly used social media tools to disseminate messages. As technology continues to evolve and candidates develop more complex digital strategies, it is necessary to continue monitoring the potential for social network sites to support interactive communication between citizens and political elites.

Social network sites and control

It has been suggested that the prevalence of social network sites in elections disrupts traditional political hierarchies because they allow the public to lead an agenda that was once carefully controlled by professional campaigners (Lilleker & Jackson, 2011). When politicians encourage citizens to participate in the creation of campaign content on their social network sites, they must relinquish control and consistency over their message (Gueorguieva, 2008). According to Stromer-Galley’s (2000) early Internet research, political candidates in the 1996 and 1998 elections resisted using interactive Internet technology because “campaigns did not want to open up the possibility for burdensome exchange among candidates, campaign staffs, and citizens, which could entail losing control over the communication environment and losing the ability to remain ambiguous in policy positions” (p. 112). However, more than a decade after Stromer-Galley’s study, electoral candidates continue to increase their use of interactive technology in their efforts to enhance their communication with citizens.

The ability for citizens to participate in politics using social network sites has compromised the traditional top-down communication style and has forced politicians develop a bottom-up approach. According to Metzgar and Maruggi (2009), “Social media’s strength lies in its communal nature and lack of strict hierarchies. Campaigns that embrace this lack of hierarchy, rather than fight it, are more likely to reap the benefits the technology can offer” (p. 161). This conclusion was exemplified in Obama’s successful use of social network site tools in his 2008 campaign; by encouraging citizens to participate and become members of his social networks, Obama’s campaign was able to capture personal data associated with individual voters that was used to distribute specific and sophisticated personalized messages to citizens (Cogburn & Espinoza-Vasquez, 2011). Obtaining knowledge of individuals’ personal information and communication preferences has allowed political campaigns to control the timing, content, and mediating platform media by which messages are delivered, consequentially enhancing the effectiveness of their communication reception (Williams & Gulati, 2009). Additionally, it has been argued that the ability to use social network site technology to send individualized messages allows campaigns to personalize their candidate and make them appear more accessible and authentic (Cogburn & Espinoza-Vasquez, 2011).

This literature review reveals that scholars have observed political candidates’ uses of social network sites beginning with the 2006 election; however, there is a lack of empirical research that examines this phenomenon. The following research questions are proposed to provide focus for exploring the influence of social network site technology on the nature of communication between political campaigns and citizens:

Research Question 1: How do political campaigns communicate with citizens using social network site technology?

Research Question 2: What is the function of social network sites in political campaigns’ broader communications strategies?

Research Design

This study employed a qualitative design to study political campaigns’ objectives, uses, and beliefs about communicating on social network sites. Specifically, the researcher conducted qualitative interviews in an effort to generate an in-depth understanding and a holistic explanation of individuals’ experiences (Lindlof & Taylor, 2011; Miles & Huberman, 1994).

Data

Data was collected from two different campaigns that represented political candidates competing in the 2012 congressional election for Utah’s 4th District. These campaigns were selected for examination among other electoral races throughout the United States for two main reasons: (a) Both candidates operated active social network sites that reflected frequent and lively participation. (b) This election constituted one of the most competitive congressional elections in the country, consequentially necessitating both candidates to execute extensive and aggressive media campaigns (Canham, 2012; Gehrke, 2012).

Participants

Interviews were conducted with individuals involved with social network site operations from the two electoral campaigns. More specifically, the researcher was interested in gathering data from all people who had direct contact with social network site communication, or could offer a perspective concerning the function of these digital platforms in their broader campaign strategy. Participants were recruited using a snowball sampling technique. Beginning with recruitment of the social media directors of both campaigns, these individuals were helpful in recommending other members of their campaign staffs that were involved with social network site efforts. Eight individuals were contacted for interviewing, and due to the busy work schedules of the campaign staff a total of six interviews were completed. The titles of those interviewed included Social Media Director, Communication Director, Candidate, and Communication Assistant.

Prior to beginning each interview, all participants were provided with an informed consent document that they reviewed and signed. This consent form ensured ethical research involving human subjects and was approved by the University of Utah Institutional Review Board (IRB). The researcher preserved the confidentiality of participants by disassociating the identities of interviewees with their responses throughout all phases of this study. Additionally, all digital interview recordings were destroyed upon completion of this research.

Data Collection

All interviews were conducted using a moderately structured interview guide. This approach granted the researcher flexibility to ask questions in different ways to provide clarity and also allowed interviewees the freedom to develop topics and raise unknown issues. Topics addressed in the interviews included objectives for social network site use, the role of social network sites in relation to other media platforms, techniques for monitoring social network sites, and strategies for engaging in communication with citizens using social network sites (see the appendix).

All interviews were recorded using a digital audio recording device. Rather than relying solely on written field notes, incorporating technology in interview procedures allows the researcher to capture an objective documentation of the interview discourse and to facilitate the storage, organization, and retrieval of data (Lindlof & Taylor, 2011). Interviews were conducted in person either at the office headquarters of each campaign, which were both located in the Salt Lake City, Utah, region, during the week prior to Election Day between October 30 and November 1, 2012. In comparison to earlier dates during the campaign season, it was important to conduct interviews close to Election Day because it was assumed that interviewees had developed a more comprehensive understanding of their social network site strategies by this point in time. Due to one participant’s busy preelection agenda, a single interview was conducted over the phone on February 6, 2013.

Following each interview session, digital recordings were transferred to a password-protected computer and saved in electronic digital files that could be accessed during subsequent analysis. Before proceeding to explain procedures for data analysis, it is acknowledged that the qualitative research design employed in this study is prone to criticism because of the researcher’s intervening position as the interviewer. According to Creswell (2007), the personal philosophical assumptions of the qualitative researcher can influence data collection processes, and consequentially the present researcher strived to approach all phases of data collection with a fresh perspective that was free from the interference of interpretive influences. To elaborate, every effort was made to focus on understanding the experiences of participants opposed to the personal experiences of the researcher.

Data Analysis

Although complete removal of researcher subjectivity is impossible, description was emphasized over interpretation in analysis procedures in an effort to prevent personal biases from influencing results (Miles & Huberman, 1994). In an effort to seek all possible meanings that could be conceived from participants’ experiences, the researcher remained open to allowing unexpected themes to emerge from data. The first step in data analysis involved processing all digital audio recordings of interviews using a transcription procedure. This entailed listening to recordings of each interview and transcribing key words, phrases, and statements into a document. Participants’ exact quotations were copied as much as necessary to allow the voices of the interviewees to speak, which was conducive to generating a more accurate understanding of individuals’ experiences. From these transcriptions, descriptive categories were formulated to hold an array of similar concepts, constructs, and themes (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Categories were condensed through the use of a constant-comparative method. In the final efforts to saturate each category, axial coding was used to bring previously separated categories together under an overarching theory or principle of integration (Lindlof & Taylor, 2011). This analytical reduction process revealed major themes of the interview data that characterized participants’ experiences using social network site technology to campaign.

Results

Data analysis procedures produced several categories of results that respond to the two research questions proposed previously. In this section, a concise explanation of the meaning and significance of each category will be presented, followed by relevant examples and quotes that illustrate the function of each category in the context of the campaign environment being investigated. To protect participants’ anonymity, the researcher replaced the names of interviewees with abstract numbers. Numbers were assigned randomly and are not intended to reflect any type of grouping or organizational pattern.

Campaign Strategies for Communication With Citizens on Social Network Sites

The first research question asked, How do campaigns communicate with citizens using social network site technology? In answering this question, five categories of findings emerged, which report that political campaigns primarily communicated with citizens on their social network sites by disseminating mass messages, maintaining a positive presence, promoting engagement among their audiences, and removing certain citizens comments. Additionally, it was found that the campaigns did not engage in dialogue with citizens; nor did they respond to individual messages unless they contained questions about how to volunteer or donate money to the campaign.

Campaigns disseminate mass messages

Participants largely agreed that they primarily used social network sites as a platform for disseminating information about their candidate, campaign events, and the upcoming election. Interviewees believed that social network site technology offered the campaign an additional outlet for distributing information, and also provided citizens with a different channel to receive information about their electoral candidates.

For example, when discussing their strategy for using social network site Facebook, one participant explained that this site existed “to get my message out. . . . I saw Facebook—in my campaign anyway—was used more for exporting information” (Participant 6). Similarly, Participant 2 claimed, “It’s more about providing information rather than having a back and forth.” As demonstrated by these quotes, campaigns largely used social network sites to disseminate information in their efforts to communicate with citizens.

Campaigns convey a positive presence

Interviewees agreed that they strived to maintain a positive presence throughout their social network site communication. They acknowledged that while they disseminated negative and attack messages on other media platforms, this negativity was not prevalent on their social network sites because the messages on this platform were framed to appear as if the candidate was speaking.

For example, one interviewee compared their campaigns’ communication strategy on various media venues, stating, “We’re very positive on Facebook. Like whereas we’ll have mailers that go out that will talk about the opponent, Facebook we just try and stay as positive as possible because it’s the candidate that’s speaking” (Participant 4). As demonstrated, disseminating positive messages existed as a strategy that characterized campaign communication conducted on social network sites.

Campaigns promote citizen engagement

Interviewees expressed the desire to increase audience engagement on their social network sites in order to expand the amount and depth of communication being conducted about their candidate. For example, Participant 5 explained that citizen engagement on their social network sites was “definitely working as a way to get the word out more, and get more [people] involved.” Furthermore, they suggested, “I think the more people that post, kind of encourages other people to post and get involved. . . . It gets people excited about, ‘Oh there’s all these other people involved too’ and it just helps with morale and stuff” (Participant 5). According to this interviewee, it was important that citizens discussed the campaign on social network sites because this discussion would be seen by other users in their network, and would consequentially enhance involvement and excitement among citizens.

As demonstrated, promoting engagement using social network site technology existed as a strategy used by campaigns to communicate with citizens on this digital media platform.

Campaigns remove certain citizen messages

While the previous category reported that campaigns valued and promoted interactive engagement among citizens on their social network sites, analysis also revealed that not all comments were appreciated by the campaigns. To clarify, while interviewees largely agreed that they should delete as few comments as possible in an effort to maintain transparency on their page, they also believed that removal of certain comments could be justified. Primarily, content that was deemed inappropriate for campaigns’ social network sites included comments that did not advance productive communication.

Language that was considered to be derogatory or offensive also emerged as a primary reason that citizens’ comments were removed by campaigns from their social network sites. For example, Participant 6 stated, “Anything that is derogatory or really offensive—we’ll take some of those off. . . . Foul language, anything that’s racist, anything that is derogatory, anything that insults anybody else.” While interviewees claimed that disagreement in dialogue was considered to be a positive characteristic, they agreed that presentation of an opposing view needed to be articulated using nonoffensive language. Deleting content represented an important element of communication that influenced the ways that campaigns communicated with citizens on their social network sites.

Campaigns do not communicate with individual citizens

Analysis of interview data revealed that the campaigns did not directly respond to, nor did they engage in dialogue with, individual social network site users. Except to answer individuals’ questions about contributing resources to the campaign, interviewees unanimously stated that they never inserted their voice into citizens’ conversations being conducted on their social network sites, nor did they respond to citizens’ direct queries about political issues. Interviewees identified the massive amount of messages they received as justification for not interacting on an individual level. For example, Participant 5 described their campaign’s incoming messages, stating, “There’s so many that there’s no way that we can even answer a fraction of them.” Similarly, Participant 1 explained,

If someone asks a question like, “Where do you get a lawn sign?” sometimes we’ll respond to them, but for the most part we kind of stay out of it because . . . if you start commenting then when do you stop? And if we responded to everything someone said, that would be our whole day.

While interviewees acknowledged that they received and processed a massive amount of messages from citizens on their social network sites, they only allocated time to respond to questions about how to contribute to the campaign.

Functions of Social Network Sites in Campaigns’ Broader Communications Strategies

The second research question asked, What is the function of social network sites in campaigns’ broader communications strategies? According to analysis, participants emphasized that their social network sites existed as a media component that was integrated into a larger marketing communications plan that included other media such as television, radio, direct mail, and billboards. In posing this research question, the researcher sought to understand the prevalence or importance of social network sites, in relation to other aspects of the communication strategies executed by political campaigns. From data analysis pertaining to this research question, five categories of results emerged. This section reports that social network sites were used in the campaigns’ communication strategies to generate campaign contributions, to control their campaign message, to humanize their candidate, to assess message effectiveness, and to promote messages on other communications platforms.

Social network sites used to generate campaign contributions

As identified in a previous results category, political campaigns used their social network sites to generate contributions in the form of donations and volunteer efforts. Analysis revealed that citizens used political campaigns’ social network sites as a platform for inquiring about how to contribute to the campaign, and subsequently, campaigns believed that this digital platform assisted to enhance the amount of contributions they received.

For example, one interviewee stated, “Some people will direct message us and say, ‘I want to volunteer. How do I do that?’ Or, ‘I want a lawn sign’” (Participant 1). A different interviewee also explained that their social network site functioned to increase volunteerism. “Sometimes we see the possibility that that person might want to become a more involved volunteer. It’s an opportunity to reach out and say, ‘Maybe you want to do more? Maybe you want to volunteer in a different capacity?’” (Participant 2). According to these examples, social network sites provided a sufficient platform that could inform and engage citizens in volunteer opportunities.

In addition to supporting volunteer efforts, one participant explained that social network site Facebook served an important fund-raising purpose. “We’ve done a couple of fundraising pushes on Facebook. Something like, ‘We need 25 Facebook fans to donate $25’ kind of thing. . . . Or there were some people who would ask for the mailing address to send the check” (Participant 4). For this interviewee, their social network site operated as a means to quickly generate donations and answer questions that facilitated the expedition of monetary contributions to the campaign.

Social network sites used to control campaign message

Interviewees agreed that social network sites allowed them to successfully control their campaign message. In comparison to other media platforms that required the campaign to articulate their message in a particular manner, social network sites offered the freedom to publish or delete any content on their site at any time. Additionally, this platform allowed the campaigns to disseminate messages that were not convoluted by the news media or other outside commentary. Interviewees suggested that their social network sites also functioned as an effective platform for providing clarification or elaboration on a campaign message or advertisement that may have been misinterpreted by the media or citizens.

For example, Participant 1 explained, “We’re using [social network sites] as a way to put out our own message. It’s a way where you can really control what you want to say.” A different participant further described the element of message control that was offered by social network site technology, stating, “We can write it the way we want. We can illustrate it the way we want. We can time it the way we want. And so there’s no intervening filter” (Participant 2).

As acknowledged in these quotes, interviewees appreciated social network site technology because it allowed them a great deal of freedom in the way they constructed and distributed their campaign messages.

Social network sites used to humanize candidate

Analysis revealed that interviewees used social network sites to humanize their candidate by depicting them in a friendly and relatable manner. While the campaigns explained that they typically attempted to portray their candidate in a professional light, they believed it was important to use social network sites as an outlet to show their candidates enjoying hobbies and interacting with their families.

One interviewee explained that conveying their candidate’s human characteristics on their social network sites helped give the candidate “a dimension as a real person and not some sort of obscure person that they can’t relate to” (Participant 2). In contrast to the professional manner in which candidates were presented in other media outlets, interviewees used social network sites to appeal to citizens by emphasizing humanizing and personal characteristics of their candidate.

Social network sites used to assess message effectiveness

Analysis revealed that interviewees used audience feedback enabled by interactive social network site technology to test the effectiveness and reception of their campaign messages. More specifically, citizens’ expressions of confusion, criticism, and support concerning specific messages were used by the campaigns to understand how their messages were being received. The ability for campaigns to test, and subsequently improve the effectiveness of their messages using their social network sites was significant to the campaigns’ broader communication strategy because it allowed them to perfect the framing and wording of a given message prior to allocating significant financial resources toward disseminating the message on a different media platform.

To exemplify, with reference to social network site Facebook, one interviewee described the importance of using their social network sites to assess the effectiveness of messages, stating,

What [social network sites] enable us to do is very inexpensively experiment and try something. And when we can see that it’s working . . . maybe we want to put more money and more effort and more targeted information behind this idea. . . . Sometimes you can generate so much interest using an idea on Facebook that is has more staying power and more value in another bigger arena. (Participant 2)

As a result of the low financial risk associated with disseminating messages on social network sites, findings from this category demonstrated that this technology facilitated the possibility of experimental communication. Evidence of positive audience feedback associated with a given message functioned as a valid indicator of successful communication delivery that could justify the allocation of additional resources toward advancing a particular message. As demonstrated, campaigns used the feedback provided on their social network sites to perfect the construction and delivery of their messages before disseminating them on television or other media outlets.

Social network sites used to promote messages on other communication platforms

In the context of campaigns’ broader communications strategies, interviewees perceived social network sites as platforms that could strengthen the reach and effectiveness their messages being disseminated in different communication venues. While the previous category suggested that social network sites could function as a platform for experimenting with new content, this category explains that campaign events and messages communicated elsewhere could be rendered for subsequent dissemination on social network sites to emphasize or clarify a message.

Interviewees explained that they used social network sites to deliver messages to citizens who were not being exposed to their campaign messages through other media outlets. Interviewees felt it was significant that social network site technology enabled them to “very quickly” and “very effectively” share content from their website and rebroadcast stories that appeared in the local news (Participant 2). Additionally, social network sites allowed more citizens to participate in on-the-ground campaign events. Participant 5 explained that their campaign posted photos and videos of campaign walks and other community events to allow voters from distant geographic locations to virtually participate in their campaign.

This category demonstrated that social network sites functioned within campaigns’ broader communication plans to support the reach and influence of messages disseminated in different venues.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to understand how political campaigns used social network sites to communicate with citizens, and how this type of digitally mediated communication influenced broader democratic processes during the 2012 election. Results were derived from analysis of interviews conducted with two political campaigns that represented candidates running in a highly competitive congressional race in Utah’s 4th District. The use of qualitative interviewing methods allowed the researcher to study this distinct form of political communication in a realistic context (opposed to experimental conditions) and to probe the underlying communicative processes at work. Procedures produced rich descriptions of individuals’ experiences that were analyzed to reveal the function and significance of social network sites for the political campaigns under investigation.

Despite the technological capacity for social network sites to facilitate personal interactive communication between politicians and citizens, they were primarily used in this study to disseminate mass messages to audiences. Interviewees claimed that they never interjected in citizens’ conversations conducted on their sites, and they refrained from responding directly to citizens’ questions and concerns, unless the inquiry was related to contributing resources to the campaign. This finding confirms and extends Pew’s (2012) conclusion that the 2012 presidential candidates primarily used their social network sites for one-way messaging rather than interactive dialogue with citizens. Campaigns in the present study claimed that the massive amount of messages they received prevented them from engaging in individualized communication with citizens. Based on existing research, which suggests that personalized communication with citizens can enhance the effectiveness of politicians’ messages, it is suggested that political campaigns transfer more resources into cultivating communication with individual citizens on their social network sites (Cogburn & Espinoza-Vasquez, 2011; Williams & Gulati, 2009). This may allow campaigns to generate more informed and specific feedback from citizens that would improve their understanding of the needs and concerns of their constituents.

While political campaigns claimed that they did not respond to individual citizens’ questions or concerns, they did use the content received from citizens to assess the effectiveness and clarity of their communication efforts. By gauging the amount of engagement and type of feedback stimulated by a given message, the campaigns could gain an understanding of how their messages were being received and whether they should be modified, or designated broader prominence within the campaign.

Analysis also revealed that social network sites functioned to support on-the-ground political activism, as campaigns used these platforms to publicize community events and to recruit volunteers. This finding confirms results from previous research, which concluded that the technical and organizational structure of social network sites could successfully facilitate offline meetings and connections among supporters (Cogburn & Espinoza-Vasquez, 2011; Slotnick, 2009; Vitak et al., 2011). Campaigns interviewed in the present study also used their social network sites to collect donations. Because social network site supporters were located in geographically dispersed locations, interviewees claimed that these platforms functioned as an effective way to request contributions from people living outside their candidate’s voting district. Future research should further examine citizens’ opinions about using social network sites to donate money to political campaigns. What strategies are most effective for generating contributions on social network sites? And how can these sites be used to most successfully support other offline campaign activities?

Social network sites were used by campaigns in this study to appeal to voters in a distinct way—by maintaining a positive presence and conveying humanizing qualities of their candidate. Attempts made to depict candidates in a more informal manner are consistent with Slotnick’s (2009) argument that campaigns must adopt a more casual and personal communicative approach when using social network sites to campaign. While previous literature suggests that this informality is appealing to voters, it is necessary to conduct further research to more comprehensively understand citizens’ opinions concerning the depiction of their politicians in this casual manner. How does an informal depiction of political candidates influence citizens’ beliefs about their government? And how does this casual depiction influence voting behaviors?

Finally, it is significant to emphasize that campaigns utilized social network sites to control their communications through their ability to articulate their own message precisely how they desired, as well as to edit the publication of citizens’ comments. This finding contradicts existing research, which argues that the use of interactive digital technology requires campaigns to relinquish control and consistency over their message (Gueorguieva, 2008; Stromer-Galley, 2000). Future research should continue to monitor campaigns’ abilities to control content on their social network sites. Additionally, implications for deleting citizens’ comments is deserving of further investigation.

Limitations

There are limitations to this study that primarily result from the data collection method employed. First it is acknowledged that in comparison to data gathered by observations, data gathered through interviews may tap into different meanings of communication episodes (Jones, 1999). Second, the timing of the interviews may have had a significant influence on the data collected, as retrospective interviews conducted after Election Day could have elicited more insightful and candid responses. While interviewees were assured that their answers would remain completely confidential, it is suspected that the looming date of the election may have prevented them from fully articulating their social network site strategies. A final limitation that must be addressed emerges from the case study approach that inherently limits the scope and sample of the data analyzed. Future research should examine more campaigns in an effort to confirm, contradict, or extend the results from the present study beyond the context of a single electoral race.

Conclusion

The present research demonstrated that social network sites existed as an integral campaign tool that functioned to support the vitality of central campaigning efforts related to raising money, organizing volunteers, generating citizen feedback, and controlling campaign communications. It is suggested that the newness of this technology prevented campaigns from using social network sites to their full capacity, and therefore it is necessary for future research to continue monitoring the ways that social network sites are used in elections. There are significant implications that arise from the increasing use of social network sites to conduct campaign communication.

Footnotes

Appendix

The researcher used this semistructured interview guide to conduct all interviews.

Probing questions:

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Stephanie E. Bor (PhD, University of Utah) is an Assistant Professor in the Reynolds School of Journalism at the University of Nevada, Reno. Her research focuses on the use of digital media in political communication.

References

Andrejevic

(2007). Surveillance and power in the interactive era. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Berman

Weitzner

D. J.

(1997). Technology and democracy. Social Research, 64(3), 1313–1319.

Boyd

(2008). Can social network sites enable political action? International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics, 4(2), 241–244.

Boyd

D. M.

Ellison

N. B.

(2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230.

Burton

M. J.

Shea

D. M.

(2010). Campaign craft: The strategies, tactics, and art of political campaign management. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.

Canham

(2012, October, 15). Love outpaces Matheson in fundraising in past 3 months. The Salt Lake Tribune.

Cogburn

D. L.

Espinoza-Vasquez

F. K.

(2011). From networked nominee to networked nation: Examining the impact of Web 2.0 and social media on political participation and civic engagement in the 2008 Obama campaign. Journal of Political Marketing, 10, 189–213.

Coleman

(2005). New mediation and direct representation: Reconceptualizing representation in the digital age. New Media & Society, 7(2), 177–198.

Creswell

J. W.

(2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

10.

Dahlgreen

(2005). The Internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication, 22, 147–162.

11.

Downey

Fenton

(2003). New media, counter publicity and the public sphere. New Media & Society, 5(2), 185–202.

12.

Gehrke

(2012, October 2). Matheson, Love trade jabs over their records in third debate. The Salt Lake Tribute.

13.

Gueorguieva

(2008). Voters, MySpace, and YouTube: The impact of alternative communication channels on the 2006 election cycle and beyond. Social Science Computer Review, 26(3), 288–300.

14.

Hague

B. N.

Loader

B. D.

(1999). Digital democracy: An introduction. In Hague

B. N.

Loader

B. D.

(Eds.), Digital democracy: Discourse and decision making in the information age (pp. 3–22). London: Routledge.

15.

Hanson

Haridakis

Cunningham

Sharma

Ponder

J. D.

(2010). The 2008 presidential campaign: Political cynicism in the age of Facebook, MySpace, and YouTube. Mass Communication & Society, 13(5), 584–607.

16.

Hoffmann

Kornweitz

(2011). New media revolution? Media Development, 58(1), 7–11.

17.

Johnson

T. J.

Kaye

B. K.

(2000). Democracy’s rebirth or demise? The influence of the Internet on political attitude. In Schultz

(Ed.), It’s show time! Media, politics, and popular culture (pp. 209–228). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

18.

Jones

(1999). Doing internet research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

19.

Kellner

(1999). Globalisation from below? Toward a radical democratic technopolitics. Angelaki: Journal of the Theoretical Humanities, 4(2), 101–113.

20.

Lilleker

D. G.

Jackson

N. A.

(2011). Political campaigning, elections and the Internet. New York, NY: Routledge.

21.

Lindlof

T. R.

Taylor

B. C.

(2011). Qualitative communication research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

22.

Metzgar

Maruggi

(2009). Social media and the 2008 U.S. presidential election. Journal of New Communications Research, 4(1), 141–165.

23.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

24.

Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism. (2012, August 15). How the presidential candidates use the Web and social media. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/how_presidential_candidates_use_web_and_social_media#fn1

25.

Rainie

(2012, November 6). Social media and voting. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Social-Vote-2012.aspx

26.

Rainie

Smith

Schlozman

K. L.

Brady

Verba

(2012, October 19). Social media and political engagement. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Political-Engagement.aspx

27.

Slotnick

(2009). “Friend” the president: Facebook and the 2008 presidential election. In Panagopoulos

(Ed.), Politiking online: The transformation of election campaign communications. (pp. 249–271). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

28.

Stromer-Galley

(2000). On-line interaction and why candidates avoid it. Journal of Communication, 50(4), 111–132.

29.

Tambini

(1999). New media and democracy: The civic networking movement. New Media & Society, 1(3), 305–329.

30.

Vitak

Zube

Smock

Carr

C. T.

Ellison

Lampe

(2011). It’s complicated: Facebook users’ political participation in the 2008 election. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(3), 107–114.

31.

Williams

C. B.

Gulati

G. J.

(2009). The political impact of Facebook: Evidence from the 2006 elections and the 2008 nomination contest. In Panagopoulos

(Ed.), Politiking online: The transformation of election campaign communications (pp. 272–291). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.