ICTlogy

Notes from the workshop Citizen Politics: Are the New Media Reshaping Political Engagement? held in Barcelona, Spain, on May 28-30th, 2009. More notes on this event: citizen_politics_2009.

Youth, Online Engagement, and the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election
Bob Boynton, Caroline J. Tolbert and Allison Hamilton

With the Internet, political activity that was hidden — the voters’ — comes to the surface. Things that you could only know through surveys, now you can know it by looking at how many people looked at this or that video on YouTube.

And the information about the candidates has also boosted: from an average of 15 TV ads that lasted 30″ each, to 150 videos you could watch on YouTube.

And not only importation about what voters passively do, but also what actively do, their political action or engagement.

The “celebrities video” by McCain was viewed circa 2 million times, while the spoof/answer by Paris Hilton was seen by circa 7 million visitors. What happens to our understanding of politics when the unofficial beats that much the official message?

65% of visits to Obama videos in YouTubre came from the campaign official website. The top referrer to McCain’s videos in YouTube came from The Hufftington Post, who was against McCain.

The average of comments in the Obama site was 75 while in McCain’s it was 25%.

“Technology is a Commodity”. The Internet in the 2008 US Presidential Election
Cristian Vaccari

Research questions

• Technological vs. social determinism: Is the Internet a channel of social-political dynamics, or can it be a driver too?
• Post-bureaucratic political organizations (Bimber): How do campaigns resolve the trade-off between bottom-up spontaneity and top-down control?
• Hypermedia camp and the managed citizen (Howard): Does data-driven selection and direction of volunteer engagement change the campaigns’ organizational incentives and practices?

Methodology: focus on the meso (organizational) level, 31 interviews to political consultants.

Two main conditions for an online campaign to work: content, based on the character of the candidate; and organization, based on committing to a volunteer-centered model rather tahn a marketing, command-and-control model.

Obama’s campaign worked more at the organizational level, building relationships, than at the marketing level, sending out messages and ideas.

There was no evidence found of a trade-off between organization and empowerment. But the grassroots revolution is still to be organized.

The Obama hybrid model: based on trust and authenticity, and with data assisted guidance.

From mass communication system to mass community system. From message control to message guidance. From a marketing paradigm to an organizing paradigm. From top-down vs. bottom-up to data-driven, targeted relationship management.

Research must be carpenter-driven rather than hammer-driven (Marshall Ganz).

New Media and Horizontal Politics in the Obama Campaign
Bruce Bimber

Obama’s was both the best-run new media (horizontal) campaign adn the best-run traditional (vertical) campaign in recent history. On the other hand, the election would likely have been won by the Democratic Party candidate in any case.

Why did Obama do better with new media than his opponents?

New media were used for two things: to mobilize; and to raise money that was spent in traditional media to dominate them. New media were used to contribute winning in the traditional media arena. McCain did not integrate both media.

Obama supporters used new media better in general, as measured by MySpace “friends”, Facebook supporters, etc.

Obama’s was really a much candidate-centered phenomenon.

Has Obama created a model for new-media campaigns by others?

Not really.

• We do not know which new media technologies were more important and for what. Is there a core technology (the website, as Rachel Gibson states) or is there a swarm of tools? In general, parties tried everything that was at hand.
• We’re not sure which organizational structures are best suited for which functions.
• We do not know how public interest in a cause or campaign can be sustained over time.
• We do not understand how the inflationary effects of new media on communication work. How much information is good and how much is saturating the audience? Will less be more?
• Where are the limits of online organizing? How much face-to-face will it be necessary?

Some conclusions or what we know about horizontal politics and new media

• Collapse of boundaries between news, political talk, campaigning, political action, gaming
• Network effects are very large: network-style growth, social preferences, virality
• Impetus toward hybrid organizational structures
• Micro-targeting of communication works
• Media appeal interacts with candidate/cause

Discussion

Mayo Fuster: what kind of hybrid models?

Andrew Chadwick: We need detail on micro-targeting, specific usage of technolgies, etc. Indeed, we should be careful with soft data coming from interviewees that have professional interests in what they’re talking about.

Rachel Gibson: there is a real need of hub-like tools where people can go to get all the info they need, despite it is really spread around other platforms.

Ismael Peña-López: If new media is about community building, and there is a collapse of boundaries between political activities, then we should expect that campaigns work less than working on the long run, to build political communities instead of armies of volunteers for the elections. Would it be reasonable to think that the long primary election process in the Democratic party helped Obama to build this community, and that it was this community what mattered more than online campaigning? In other words: did online campaigning really mattered at all? Or was it the community building process during the whole primary election (+presidential election too) that mattered?

Jorge Salcedo: Do people really want to bring change in? To transform the system?

Bob Boynton: the long-tail has been able to reach beyond the physical boundaries. In terms of American politics, the long-tail means that you access more content, wherever… and, reciprocally, you can micro-target this audience.

Bruce Bimber: I agree that it would be much more interesting to see how Obama beat Hillary Clinton during the primary election than to see what happened during the presidential election.

Bruce Bimber: people might not be willing to bring in technological change, but cultural change.

Notes from the workshop Citizen Politics: Are the New Media Reshaping Political Engagement? held in Barcelona, Spain, on May 28-30th, 2009. More notes on this event: citizen_politics_2009.

Citizen-Campaigning, New Media and the Revitalisation of Politics?
Rachel K. Gibson

Some changes in politics: not only at the participatory level, but especially changes in the style politics are made. Normally, focus has been put on how new media can change everything that is outside of the sphere of conventional politics (parties, parliament, etc.). But the 2008 US Presidential election has shown that the system can also be changed.

Obama’s campaign integrated web 2.0 practices and tools within the main website, so that people could participate without going “outside” of the main/official website.

New structure for e-campaigning:

• Hub: main website
• Spokes: email, RSS feeds, instant messeging, SMS, campaign blog
• Third party platforms: blogosphhere, social networking sites, photo/video sharing sites, etc.

Web 2.0 devolves power to the user, to the voter, and challenges traditional positions (Dalton’s) that ellites can lead campaigns and messages.

Caveats:

• Who are the citizen-campaigners? are ICTs simply creating “hyperactivists”?

• Is it truly decentralised? Or was it actually a case of better localising the central command?
• How far was money and not “people power” the great driver?
• How far can it work outside the US?

Some requisites:

• Broadband: necessary but not sufficient
• Democratic culture based on civic voluntarism
• Party-strengths: candidate-centered systems more suited for a “shared-responsibility” model vs. stron party systems that allow no autonomy.
• Role of money in campaigns: if raising money is no incentive, will there be incentives at all to engage in a conversation?
• Rules on data protection

Cyberdemocracy: dividing or merging factor
Monica Poletti & Victor Sampedro

Research based on six groups divided by age (18-40; +40), ideology (right; left) and activism (traditional partisans; cyberpartisans) during Spanish Presidential & Parliament Election 2008.

Age

Generational divide still exists.

Similarities: political and media interests matter; importance of non-virtual contacts; negative evaluation of uses, that it, not intrinsic feature of ICTs.

Young people appear to have a less structured and more autonomous use of ICTs, with a more proactive attitude. They also are more optimists about the future of cyberdemocracy.

Ideology

Ideology cleavage blurs with more electoral use of ICTs. In general, right- and left-wing parties share the reasons that led them to develop cyberstrategies; the evolution in tools and organization; successes of party cyberstrategy; optimism on pro-democracy tone, etc.

Activism

Both groups (traditional activists and cyberactivists) are against electoral and party bureaucracy and traditional media. While cyberactivists see the good points of ICTs in political campaigning, traditionals also point at their weak points.

General findings

No difference technophiles/technophobes; virtual character of Internet; no strcitly technological determinism, as users determine evaluation. ICTs allow for more specialized groups, but the Net is used by similar typologies of users.

Internet as part of the world, not as a separate world; pro-democratic effect ascribed directly to ICT; Internet is merging differences and blurring barriers but possibilities of a cyberdemocracy are distorted; citizens might have a minor margin of manoeuvre while parties model techno-political applications.

Cyberactivism, campaigning and party change in the Catalan parties
Ana Sofía Cardenal, Albert Padró-Solanet, Rosa Borge and Albert Batlle

Research based on the demand-side, driven by the irruption of the Web 2.0 and the fact that parties are increasingly fortresses difficult to penetrate. The Spanish case has indeed shown that voters and activists are doing things outside of parties.

So, how are party activists using ICTs? Are there differences amongst parties? Why are doing it (determinants)?

In Catalonia, parties’ membership of major parties (PSC, PPC) is quite an aged one, centered in their fifties. And half of them have also been long-term members of the party.

The relationship between age and having a profile in Facebook is really strong, but it is not that strong for other ICT uses (writing on a word processor, generic Internet uses, etc.). Indeed, a factor analysis show that there are two main factors that group Internet activities: (1) taking part in social networking sites and (2) using the Internet for political activism (sending e-mails to the candidate, maintaining political blogs, using video/photo storage sites for political issues, etc.)

Every little helps. Cybercampaigning in the 2007 Irish General Election
Maria Laura Sudulich and Matthew Wall

In general, candidates’ perception of personal websites as a campaigning tool ranges lower than all other campaigning tools: personal flyers, campaign posters, office hours/clinics, etc. Same with how electors consult media to get political news: the Internet ranges way below newspapers, TV or radio; and, indeed, electors trust less the Internet than other media, though it is astonishingly high the rate of people that “do not know” whether they trust the Internet to get information on politics.

But things, have they changed? During the 2007 Irish election — the first one to use intensively ICTs for campaigning — some hypotheses were tested: candidates who engaged in cybercampaigning, got more votes; if control on campaign expenditure tightens, candidates with personalized websites should not receive a greater portion of votes; high levels of Internet penetration matter for the impact of cybercampaigning.

Evidence was found that personal websites provided more votes. Hypothesis on control for candidate expenses also proved right. Last, constituencies with above-media levels of Internet penetration show that personal websites have a higher impact (than compared with the aggregate population) and that in below-media consituencies personal website almost have no differences in the chance of getting votes.

Discussion

Q: In the Catalan case, it will be very hard for activists to democratize the party, as parties are oligarchic. Ana Sofía Cardenal: Not only members where eager to participate, but were also openly critical about how the party worked.

Q: If people find out that most online polls are fake, why are they still willing to participate in these polls? Why even still be a partisan? Monica Poletti & Victor Sampedro: not only will they not take the exit door, but use evidence to criticise the party from within, and try to change it. And, indeed, the more conservative parties’ members are more critical about the non-existence of democracy inside parties than progressive.

Rachel Gibson: Maybe it’s not exactly the website which matters, but the fact that candidates are more directly implied in the campaign, personally maintaining the website (e.g. their own blogs), etc.

Ana Sofía Cardenal: major parties are addressing with their websites neither the voters nor the partisans, but mainstream media.

Eva Anduiza: all this criticism, are they claiming more rights? a change in the structures? specific claims to be included in the political agenda? what? Monica Poletti & Victor Sampedro: most claims are to promote democratic procedures inside the party.

Notes from the workshop Citizen Politics: Are the New Media Reshaping Political Engagement? held in Barcelona, Spain, on May 28-30th, 2009. More notes on this event: citizen_politics_2009.

New and old strategies of political communication. How to build a 2.0 political movement
Jordi Segarra, Segarrateres

End of a model to do politics. Now, politics is personal, is individual, is targetable, is viral.

Individuals, thanks to user-friendly Internet, have become their own news reporters, and the market can segment at the individual-level targets.

Politics: From a monologue to a dialogue, to a conversation. And messages are no longer aimed to the group, but to the individual. And the individual has a conversation with the campaign. 35% of adult Internet users have a profile in a social networking site (SNS).

Targeting

Segmentation and targeting. Clear differences between who voted for Obama and McCain: Obama got clear majorities amongst youngsters, women, non-whites (african-americans, latinos, asians and others), lower-income classes, lower-educated (and higher- ones too) voters.

A major difference: 69% of first-time voters voted for Obama (vs. 30% for McCain) and two thirds decided long before the election that they’d be voting Obama.

Through technology, everything is targetable, and the tech-toolkit of Obama’s campaign was really wide.

Through targeting, all politics is viral. Let the campaign flow instead of trying to control it.

Video: Crush On Obama, 100% non-official.

Logobama’08: everyone could create their own Obama campaign logo based on a simple official logo. But the results, were unofficial merchandising that pervaded everything.

In general, Obama directly contacted more people (26%) than McCain, reaching an average of 8-point gap in contact rate.

Virality

Politics are likely to become viral, but maybe not in the short run. TV remains dominant… though no longer exclusive. But, 30% of people surfing the Internet are watching television at the same time.

Twitter surges past Digg, by Erick Schonfeld: will it kill Facebook?

His Choice ad.

Old Media Transformation

Rapid response campaign: using old media (TV) in new ways, creating ads in few hours as responses to other ads or to public debates.

The Path to Change

The center of the campaign is the candidate.

You can change the tactics, but not the strategy.

50 states campaign, aimed towards mobilization.

Don’t try to convince voters: involve people on the campaign. The key to victory was a grassroots campaign.

13 million e-mails on my.barackobama.com database, 2 million volunteers working on the field.

It’s the network, stupid!

Government vs. Campaigning

Is governing different from campaigning? The answer is The White House 2.0, with pages in Facebook and MySpace, profiles in Twitter and Flickr and Youtube, blogs in the website, etc.

Discussion

Q: How could Obama’s campaign be transposed in Europe? A: Negative campaigning and unofficial merchandising are very different to translate into Europe. The problem being that there are no emotions in politics, people (in Europe) do not put emotion into campaigns or messages.

Q: What will happen to “the list” (the 13 million people list on Obama’s database)? How will they keep engaged? A: It’s difficult to act in campaign-war-like times during government-times. Aiming for hope and change is much more difficult from the government than during campaigning — especially if you were in the opposition. In the government, people want more answers, real ones, than engagement. But the least you could do is not let the website die, to keep on contacting the voter, etc.

Q: Isn’t it a bottom-and-up approach instead of a bottom-up approach only? It is my guess that what disappeared was not the top of the pyramid, but the middle of the pyramid.

Q: Is it really true that there was more and new people voting, an increase in the turnout, or just that SNSs were used to squeeze the most of partisans? A: The results in fundraising might tell that it is not true that no new voters came and voted: partisans engaged in fundraising and did it from outside the boundaries of the “usual suspects”.

Q: How one can tell what technology will work or will be just hype? A: Every campaign, candidate, city, etc. are different. Putting all your eggs in one basket is simply a bad idea. All campaigns must begin with research and find your potential target — not the other way round. Numbers, figures and data. And research must be embedded in the campaign, iterative and being nurtured with the feedback of the campaign itself.

Eva Aduiza: In Spain, you tend to mobilize supporters, not swinging voters and even less opponents. Is it the same thing in the US? A: The problem with this approach is that the database is it a drawer. What is needed is datamining, knowing who’s on your database. And then, we can start working either on supporters or in swingers. But there’s a previous and much more important stage that is usually forgotten.

More Information

• Manuel Castells: Politics and Internet in Obama era, blog-post by Ismael Peña-López on a Manuel Castells seminar.

Live notes at the research seminar Politics and Internet in Obama era by Manuel Castells. Internet Interdisciplinary Institute, Castelldefels (Barcelona), Spain, May 26th, 2009.

This lecture is part of Manuel Castells’ new book Communication Power.

Politics and Internet in Obama era
Manuel Castells

Internet Usage

Was what truly surprising and unpredictable was not that Democrats won the election — most likely to happen after the crisis, the wars and so — but that Obama won the primary elections. And the Internet was decisive. If Howard Dean leveraged the power of the Internet in the benefit of his campaign, in Obama’s, it was not only leveraged by determinant.

But it was not only the Internet, but also additional factors in the design of Obama’s campaing.

A first reason the Internet played such a role, was Internet usage, that has hugely increased compared to the previous elections four years before: 46% of adults used Internet or cellular phones to get political information, twice as much in Howard Dean’s times. And, indeed, there also were more Democrat voters using the Internet than Republican voters. And social networking sites (SNS) are just pervasive — even more than “standard” website usage — in general and, specifically, among youngsters. 40% of SNS users used SNSs to engage in political campaigning: social networking on the web is social networking with political connotations.

A huge discovery was that 58% of youngsters used the Internet for political mobilization, while only 20% of people over 65 did: the Internet help mobilize young voters, which normally have a lower voting ration than elder people.

Fundraising and web interaction

The campaign was centralized in MyBarackObama.com plus a myriad of sympathising websites. But fundraising was centralized: any event, any action, led towards raising funds that inevitably led towards the Internet and the central website. Obama refused to be mainly funded by federal lobbies, which enabled him to propose political measures that went against specific lobbies’ interests. And this financial independence was made possible by the total (micro)donations raised and collected through the Internet. On average, Obama got US$250 per donor, 62% of which were through the Internet.

But, besides money, a huge database was created with people contacting Obama. Profiles were created and, thus, mobilization could be made almost on a personal basis. And this database was way better than the one the Democratic Party had.

Contacting the profiled people required a constant accountability of what Obama was doing with the money. It was all based on interaction, not just sending information out.

The turnout of Iowa’s campaing was 90%, but the overall campaing’s turnout was 135%: the young people were mobilized in a proportion that had never been seen in previous elections in the US.

The convergence of very important people around Obama’s campaing made it possible to bring it to a higher level. Experts from the Web world and, specifically, the SNS world, helped to design a campaign perfectly fitted for a Web 2.0 environment, being the flagship the “Yes We Can” viral video.

Indeed, web campaigning was also used in offline campaigning: the level of detail in the supporters’ profile allowed to identify who was supporting Obama in the territory, who should be addressed to, who was willing to vote, to engage… or who was “in need” of a final push to join Obama. These people knew each other, met on the Internet, and self-organized.

This self-organization meant that the message was delivered not by the “candidate” or the “apparatus” but by “normal” people, by neighbours, that explained why were they voting Obama, on a personal basis.

Mobilization

Despite the fact that “most” people is connected to the Internet, it is also true that intensive Internet users (read online, interact online, are heavy SNSs users, etc.) are below 40. This meant mobilizing the youngsters.

Indeed, Obama used the campaign not only for campaigning, but to send out a social message. And this was a major difference in relationship with Hillary Clinton.

On the one hand, Obama showed a different attitude towards the Iraq war, being against it from the beginning.

On the other hand, Obama detached himself from the mainstream powers of Washington, detaching himself also from John Kerry’s campaign who would never made it clear, for instance, whether he was for or against the Iraq war. Obama addressed people that were outside the political system, or disenfranchised from the whole system.

Organizing strategy

Triggering the social movement, socializing the campaign, bringing it to the grassroots level was crucial. The values of campaigning were transformed.

Saul Alinsky, based in Chicago, created the modern way of organizing communities. Barack Obama entered political mobilization when joining in churches in Chicago that worked in the Alinsky-like way of mobilizing communities. And Obama organized his campaign this way too. He applied Alinsky techniques to mobilize voters… and increase the voting rate. And he adapted it for the Internet age.

The platform is the message

Obama himself was a message. If Hillary Clinton decided that “she was a woman”. In Obama, he was the message and words mattered. And words were “hope” and “change”. Not gender, not race.

“Hope” became a framework, a framework within another framework characterized by crisis or war. And in this framework, he would bring “change”.

Obama mastered communication. A first pint was to dismantle Hillary Clinton’s attacks (HillaryAttacks.com) on his person. But this was a minor issue.

But most attacks, Obama fought them by being himself. And he also responded by bringing the level of debate to higher grounds, to more “philosophical” levels, avoiding personal reasons or personal confrontation.

Simonetta Taboni develops the concept of ambivalence, on how people innovate without being trapped in their approaches: I want to change the world, but I don’t know how I’m going to do it, but I will try, and I will experiment. And, in this sense, Obama is ambivalent. Why is it so important to be ambivalent? Because goals are clear, but they leave enough blank spaces that citizens, experts, politicians, can fill in and participate. The means are collectively constructed… but led by the leader. People are engaged, people are involved through constant interactivity to go through constraints.

Discussion

Ismael Peña-López: how narrow is the line that separates the theory of ambivalence from the theory of ignorance? What makes the difference between being ambivalent and simply incompetent (i.e. really does not know what to do)? Manuel Castells: the fundamental difference is that most political parties (e.g. Spain’s) have clear goals and clear means: to stay in power and do it at all costs. There’s no room in the political apparatus of the party for engagement or debate, less for collective construction. The major difference from ambivalent approaches is that parties write the full script. In ambivalence, something originating from outside the party is embedded in the discourse and even can transform the system. In an ambivalent approach, the Internet fuels the debate; in a non-ambivalent environment, the Internet is yet another bureaucratic tool. And the shift from non-ambivalent to ambivalent is almost impossible, and only likely to happen in a situation of total political crisis, where a deep change is needed (e.g. the case of Italy and Berlusconi that, ironically, mobilizes the voter against the established political parties).

Rachel K. Gibson: to what extent can Obama act like he did during the campaign now that he is the President? Will involvement still be possible? Manuel Castells: A simple observation is that the campaign still goes on, especially on the Internet. It is likely that engagement and mobilization will fade out, as it normally happens. The question is how much degree of change, how much demands will be put into practice before the system metabolises the inertia triggered during the election campaign. The secret will be how to keep this feeling of “revolution” or “change” alive for as long as possible.

Mike Jensen: Did Obama really transformed the system, or just a new campaign? Why cannot Obama’s model be extrapolated to Europe? Aren’t we seeing “politics 2.0” in Europe? Manuel Castells: he did change the system, as he brought inside many new voters and from different strata. And these new people do feel that they can change the system, which, at its turn, inevitably changes the political landscape. There is a true opening up of the system while, at the same time, avoiding to enter in a “civil war” against the establishment, which he needs to “professionally operate” the country. About transporting Obama’s model to Europe: it’s true that there is an Obamization of politics, and that there are shy approaches towards Web 2.0, but they are mainly technological, not conceptual. Everything remains under the control of the party machines, including the leaders — especially because there are no presidentialist elections. Power must be taken from political parties. And this will only happen under a sever catastrophic crisis of politics and political parties. Will this happen in the next UK elections? Will the Conservative Party be able to do it? Not only to beat the Labour Party, but to transform the whole political system.

Eduard Aibar: what happened to television? Manuel Castells: television still is the most important way to get (political) news (though this is not true for young people). And Obama paid a lot of attention to television, especially in the last days of the campaign, when he got a lot of money left and little time to spend it. On the other hand, he got a lot of air coverage, in part because it reported profits for TVs to cover his campaign. But TV was information and would have never been able to raise a grassroots movement.

Jasmina Maric: Internet propelled Obama… or Obama propelled the Internet? Manuel Castells: The huge difference in Internet adoption from the previous election and Obama’s was crucial. He boosted it, but the terrain was prepared to.

More info

• A webcast of a similar lecture at the Oxford Internet Institute: Communication Power in the Network Society
• Understanding the Alinsky Method of “Community Organizing”, by Bob Dill
  

  Share:
  [comments: 4]