1

CONSTITUENCY LEVEL ONLINE CAMPAIGNS IN THE 2010 UK GENERAL ELECTION

WINDOW DRESSING 2.0

Benjamin LeeInstitute for Social Change, The University of Manchesterbenjamin.lee@postgrad.manchester.ac.uk

2

Aims

• Part of a PhD looking at the use of Web campaigns at constituency level

• 2010 – Web 2.0 debut in a UK General Election• Web 2.0 services built on interactivity, creates

the possibility for innovation?• Specifically wanted to measure the level of

interactivity in Web campaigns

3

Campaigns as marketing

• Since 1970s slow encroachment of marketing led techniques into UK general election campaigns

• Professionalization and centralisation of campaigns (Norris, 2000; Gibson & Rommele, 2000)

• Leaves little room for the constituency rank and file (Denver & Hands, 1997)

• Creates a collective action problem, contributes to wider narrative of party decline (Green & Smith, 2003)

4

Web 1.0 & Web 2.0• Web 1.0 based largely around static content

– ‘Brochureware’– Campaign sites– Pictures– Policy statements

• Web 2.0 based on an architecture of participation (O’Reily, 2005)– Facebook– Twitter– YouTube/Flickr– Blogs (just another type of website)

• Can also do more with Web 1.0 sites• Web 2.0 – A contested concept (Berners-Lee)

5

Constituency campaigns and the Web

• So what happens when Web 2.0 meets constituency campaigns?

• Largely untouched by literature that has focussed on centralised/national level campaign

• Although Web 1.0 literature seems to suggest that candidates will avoid interactivity (Coleman, 2001; Stromer-Galley, 2001; Ward & Gibson, 2003)

• Despite this a potentially a fruitful area for analysis• Lots of cases• Individual candidates more likely to differentiate their online campaigns• Likely to be more social than national level campaigns – the virtual

doorstep

6

Research question

• Is Web 2.0 fostering interactive online campaigns at the constituency level?

• How do you measure Interactivity?• Measure the use of tools such as Facebook and Twitter• Measure the adoption of specific interactive features

e.g. ability to subscribe to profiles or examples of online discussion

7

Web campaign tools

• Data: 2010 Election Agent Study• Good pedigree (Denver & Hands, 1997)• 1028 (54%) responses from three major

parties (Conservative, Labour & Lib-Dem)• Covers England, Scotland and Wales• Includes a number of questions on Web 2.0

use (although not perfect)

8

Web 2.0 adoption

Web 1.0 Web 2.0 Social network Video/image sharing

Twitter0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

82.6

55.650.7

2127.7

Web campaign tools

% o

f cam

paig

ns

N=1028 Source: EAS2010

9

Interactive features

• Measuring interactive features• Data: Content analysis of campaign web presences

in the North West of England• Three parties & 75 constituencies• Looks at interactive features across web presence:

social networks and websites• Forms of interactivity:

– Dialogue (public/potential) – Site-based

10

Interactive featuresWeb 1.0 Facebook Twitter

Public dialogue Public dialogue Public dialogue Public dialoguePotential dialogue Email Private message Private message

Contact formSite-based Poster Poster Poster

Leaflet Leaflet LeafletPoll Poll PollPetition Petition PetitionOrg. request Org. request Org. requestDonate Donate DonateJoin Join JoinEmail subscription ‘Friend’ ‘Follow’

11

Dialogue features

Interaction on Web 1.0

Interaction on Facebook

Interaction on Twitter

Email link Feedback form

Facebook message

Twitter DM0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1.47 3.43

12.25

75.98

32.84 35.2929.9

Dialogue features

% o

f cam

paig

ns

N = 204Source: Content Analysis

Potential

Public

12

Site-based features

Poster Leaflet Poll Petition Org Request Friend/follow Donate Join 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

WebsiteFacebookTwitter

Site-based features

% o

f cam

paig

ns

N = 204Source: Content Analysis

13

Conclusions

• Web 2.0 a common tool at the constituency level in 2010

• This does not translate to interactivity, public dialogue features largely absent

• Potential dialogue over email and private messaging systems possible, but difficult to measure

• Site-based behaviours most common on Web 1.0, not translating to Web 2.0 services

• The architecture of participation largely absent from constituency level campaigns in 2010 General Election

14

Now what?

• 2010 is the ‘first go’ at Web 2.0 campaigning for many candidates, likely to develop further as:

• Online audiences grow• Candidates become more experienced at Web 2.0 campaigns• An institutional approach, what about 3rd party sites e.g. local

newspapers

• However:• How long will candidates have autonomy online –

MyConservatives, MembersNet, LibDemAct, templates?• Will politicians contesting an election ever get beyond their

apparent aversion to public interactivity ? (Stomer-Galley, 2001)

• New web spaces mean new methodological challenges

15

Web 2.0 adoption

Campaigns that used N % MissingWeb 1.0 826 82.6 28

Web 2.0 547 55.6 44

…Social network 500 50.7 42 …Video/image sharing 205 21.0 53 …Twitter 277 27.7 28

N=1028 Source: EAS2010

16

Dialogue N %

PublicDialogue Website Interaction on

Website 3 1.47

Facebook Interaction on Facebook 7 3.43

Twitter Interaction on Twitter 25 12.25

Potential 155 75.98

Dialogue Website Email link

Feedback form 67 32.84

FacebookCan send Facebook message

72 35.29

Twitter Can send Twitter DM 61 29.9

N = 204Source: Content Analysis

17

Site-based interactivityN %

Website Poster from Website 14 6.86 Leaflet from Website 7 3.43 Poll on Website 24 11.76 Petition on Website 13 6.37 Org Request on Website 4 1.96 Friendship Mechanism on Website 76 37.25 Donate Money from Website 72 35.29 Join the Party from Website 87 42.65Facebook Poster from Facebook 0 0 Leaflet from Facebook 0 0 Poll from Facebook 0 0 Petition from Facebook 0 0 Org request on Facebook 1 0.49 Friendship mechanism on Facebook 72 35.29 Donate money from Facebook 1 0.49 Join the Party from Facebook 0 0Twitter Poster from Twitter 0 0 Leaflet from Twitter 0 0 Poll on Twitter 0 0 Petition on Twitter 1 0.49 Org Request on Twitter 1 0.49 Friendship Mechanism on Twitter 61 29.9 Donate money from Twitter 0 0 Join the Party from Twitter 0 0N = 204

Source: Content Analysis