Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Mary Grace P. Mirandilla December 7, 2009 CPR south 4, Negombo, Sri Lanka
Background <ul><li>Internet is  transforming  the information and communication environment of political landscape, includ...
Why study cybercampaigning in RP? <ul><li>Filipino internet use growing and diversifying </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Internet us...
Objectives <ul><li>Objectives: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>To compare how Filipino politicians use cybercampaign platforms from ...
Cyberspace Normalization <ul><li>Socioeconomic and political relationships  online resemble those of the real world </li><...
Cyberspace Normalization DOMINANT CANDIDATE MAINSTREAM MEDIA EXPOSURE DOMINATE CYBERSPACE INFO PRODUCER INFO CONSUMER BLAH...
Cyberspace Equalization/Innovation <ul><li>Unlike standard, mainstream media, where information flows from “one to many,” ...
Cybercampaign Innovation ONE-WAY EMPOWERING INTERACTIVE COST-EFFECTIVE Access,  provide , and  validate  information Promo...
Methodology <ul><li>Combination of  quantitative  and  qualitative  methodologies </li></ul><ul><li>Supply   – analysis of...
Candidate Websites
Candidate Website Scoring System <ul><li>Information  </li></ul><ul><li>candidate as “communication producer”; data such a...
Candidate Website Scoring System <ul><li>Community   </li></ul><ul><li>venues for citizens to express opinion about candid...
Candidate Website Scores
What do candidate websites contain? <ul><li>Most websites (7 out of 10) offer candidate  information  and creative web  se...
Candidate SNS
72 Respondents 57 15
Profile Age 30-49 y/o  33 (54.2%) 18-29 y/o 20 (38.9%) 50+ y/o     4 (5.0%) Sex Male  40 (55.6%) Female  32 (44.4%) Locati...
Profile Income P50,001 and up (Class A - Upper Class) 27 P30,001-P50,000 (Class B - Upper Class) 13 P15,001-PP30,000 (Clas...
Profile <ul><li>Last voted </li></ul><ul><li>2007 elections 32 (44%) </li></ul><ul><li>First-time voter in 2010 12 </li></...
Internet Use <ul><li>For how long now </li></ul><ul><li>7+ years 49 (68%) </li></ul><ul><li>5+ to 7 years  12 </li></ul><u...
Membership in Candidate SNS <ul><li>Networking at work! </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Knowledge of a candidate’s SNS thru membersh...
Offline Info Source on 2010 Elections <ul><li>Info about 2010 election and candidates was in  news  and  personal ad  form...
Online Info Source on 2010 Elections <ul><li>Online news sites  main source of info re 2010 elections/candidates on web, a...
Perception of Cybercampaign Tools <ul><ul><li>Information access  dominates main reason for visiting cybercampaigning reso...
Participation in Campaign Activities <ul><li>Over 50% : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>has voted during elections </li></ul></ul><u...
Conclusions <ul><li>SUPPLY SIDE </li></ul><ul><li>Cyberspace normalization seen at play </li></ul><ul><ul><li>One-way  inf...
Conclusions <ul><li>DEMAND SIDE </li></ul><ul><li>People with the resources  (upper class, employed) make up cybercampaign...
Conclusions <ul><li>Reality check! </li></ul><ul><li>Contextualize empowerment in RP election campaign </li></ul><ul><li>K...
Conclusions <ul><li>Regulation on cybercampaigning in a grey area </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Commission on Elections (Comelec):...
<ul><li>Thank you very much. </li></ul><ul><li>gmirandilla(at)gmail(dot)com </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.linkedin.com/in/g...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Cybercampaigning in the 2010 Presidential Election in the Phils

893 views

Published on

This presentation was given during CPRsouth4 in Dec 2009 in Negombo, Sri Lanka. This is based on a study carried out with funding support from the Philippine ICT Research Network in Feb-August 2009.

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Cybercampaigning in the 2010 Presidential Election in the Phils

  1. 1. Mary Grace P. Mirandilla December 7, 2009 CPR south 4, Negombo, Sri Lanka
  2. 2. Background <ul><li>Internet is transforming the information and communication environment of political landscape, including election campaigns </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Lower cost vs. traditional campaigning </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Implications on political financing/governance </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Level the playing field </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Interactivity and networking features allow candidates to engage voters and vice-versa </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Create, update, and verify information anytime, anywhere as long as internet available </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. Why study cybercampaigning in RP? <ul><li>Filipino internet use growing and diversifying </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Internet users grew by over 900% from year 2000 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Many Filipinos into social networking sites </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Scant literature on RP internet use for politics. Few studies since 2004 elections </li></ul><ul><li>Not much information on how Filipino voters perceive and use cybercampaigning tools </li></ul><ul><li>Need to build body of knowledge on the internet’s role in election campaign in RP </li></ul>
  4. 4. Objectives <ul><li>Objectives: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>To compare how Filipino politicians use cybercampaign platforms from the traditional mainstream media (TMM) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>To determine how site visitors perceive the use and benefits of cybercampaign platforms </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>To analyze the policy and regulatory implications of cybercampaign platforms in the Philippines </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Research questions: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>How and to what extent are potential 2010 candidates using online platforms compared to TMM for election campaigns? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What is the potential of the internet to complement, supplement, or supplant costly campaigning on TMMs? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How do Filipino internet users perceive the use and benefits of cybercampaign platforms? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What are the policy and regulatory implications of cybercampaigning in the Philippines? </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. Cyberspace Normalization <ul><li>Socioeconomic and political relationships online resemble those of the real world </li></ul><ul><li>Internet is shaped by real-world features —common campaign tactics, established power and resource relations, or traditional cultural values (Margolis, Resnick, & Wolfe, 1999) </li></ul><ul><li>Internet will do little to change “politics-as-usual” in election campaigns (Small, 2008; Norris & Curtice, 2008) </li></ul>
  6. 6. Cyberspace Normalization DOMINANT CANDIDATE MAINSTREAM MEDIA EXPOSURE DOMINATE CYBERSPACE INFO PRODUCER INFO CONSUMER BLAH! BLAH!
  7. 7. Cyberspace Equalization/Innovation <ul><li>Unlike standard, mainstream media, where information flows from “one to many,” the Internet permits “many-to-many” reciprocal flows </li></ul><ul><li>As an interconnected and interactive medium, the Internet is a network that has no privileged center </li></ul><ul><li>Any netizen can create and distribute information , not just consume it (Margolis, Resnick, & Wolfe, 1999) </li></ul>
  8. 8. Cybercampaign Innovation ONE-WAY EMPOWERING INTERACTIVE COST-EFFECTIVE Access, provide , and validate information Promote or criticize a candidate Quick feedback Interact w/ candidate and other voters Information provision Candidate promotion Political discussion Voter mobilization Campaign participation Fundraising
  9. 9. Methodology <ul><li>Combination of quantitative and qualitative methodologies </li></ul><ul><li>Supply – analysis of candidate websites adopting a scoring system that marks presence or absence of campaign-related content/features (Bentivegna, 2002; Gibson and Ward, 2000; and Gibson, Margolis, Resnick, and Ward, 2003) ; structured and unstructured interviews </li></ul><ul><li>Demand – online survey of site visitors thru candidates’ social networking sites (SNS) to inquire about: familiarity with online and offline campaign tools; kind of information they access from both sources; and their perceived benefits of online campaigning </li></ul>
  10. 10. Candidate Websites
  11. 11. Candidate Website Scoring System <ul><li>Information </li></ul><ul><li>candidate as “communication producer”; data such as biographical and political profiles, news releases, position papers, and policy lines </li></ul><ul><li>Mobilization </li></ul><ul><li>candidate’s daily schedule, public appearances, opportunities to meet potential voters, electoral committee management team, solicitation of participation to join online and offline events, fundraising, and provision of campaign paraphernalia </li></ul>
  12. 12. Candidate Website Scoring System <ul><li>Community </li></ul><ul><li>venues for citizens to express opinion about candidate’s program; take part in forums, live chats, or polls; leave messages in a noticeboard, which others can reply to or view </li></ul><ul><li>Services </li></ul><ul><li>downloading of software, links to other websites, entertainment (comic strips, political trivia, and jokes), and sending of SMS </li></ul><ul><li>Website design and Multimedia </li></ul><ul><li>graphics, moving icons, video, photos, live streaming that helps information and communication </li></ul>
  13. 13. Candidate Website Scores
  14. 14. What do candidate websites contain? <ul><li>Most websites (7 out of 10) offer candidate information and creative web services </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Political profile” and “media releases” present in all </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Electoral information” found in only 1 website </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dominated by downward ICF </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Community and mobilization features garnered the lowest score; mobilization was hardly present </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Guestbook/contact form” (in 8 out of 10) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Join a team of supporters” (in 7 out of 10) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dominated by interactive, asynchronous and upward ICF functions </li></ul></ul>
  15. 15. Candidate SNS
  16. 16. 72 Respondents 57 15
  17. 17. Profile Age 30-49 y/o 33 (54.2%) 18-29 y/o 20 (38.9%) 50+ y/o 4 (5.0%) Sex Male 40 (55.6%) Female 32 (44.4%) Location Manila 30 (41.7%) Luzon 20 (27.8%) Abroad 13 (18.1%) Mindanao 5 (6.9%) Visayas 4 (5.6%) Employment Yes 53 (73.6%) Student 11 (15.3%) Unemployed 8 (1.1%)
  18. 18. Profile Income P50,001 and up (Class A - Upper Class) 27 P30,001-P50,000 (Class B - Upper Class) 13 P15,001-PP30,000 (Class C1 - Middle Class) 8 P8,001-P15,000 (Class C2 - Middle Class) 7 P3,001-P8,000 (Class D - Lower Class) 2 P3,000 or less (Class E - Extremely low class) 2 Political Group No 53 (73.6%) Yes 19 Political party Party-list Interest group Support for a candidate Still choosing a candidate 38 (52.7%) Active supporter of a candidate 14 Passive supportive of a candidate 12 Apolitical/doesn’t support any 8 55.6%
  19. 19. Profile <ul><li>Last voted </li></ul><ul><li>2007 elections 32 (44%) </li></ul><ul><li>First-time voter in 2010 12 </li></ul><ul><li>2004 presidential elections 13 </li></ul><ul><li>Other 8 </li></ul>Registered voter Yes 51 (70.8%) Will register 15 No 6 Will vote in 2010 Yes 65 (90.2%) No 7 Don't know at this stage Don’t believe in our voting system Don’t know how to register for absentee voting I have no reason to do so I will be out of the country for further studies Name lost in register Can’t register in RP in time for election
  20. 20. Internet Use <ul><li>For how long now </li></ul><ul><li>7+ years 49 (68%) </li></ul><ul><li>5+ to 7 years 12 </li></ul><ul><li>3+ to 5 years 6 </li></ul><ul><li>1+ to 3 years 1 </li></ul><ul><li>A few months to 1 year 3 </li></ul>Mode of access Subscription at home 39 (54%) Office/school 17 Internet café 5 Prepaid access 2 Missing 9 Frequency Everyday 54 (79%) 3-5 times a week 8 Once a week 1 Missing 9 Information accessed online News/current affairs 64 (88.8%) Work-related information 59 Info about family/friends 59 Politics and government 44 Show business 36 School-related information 31
  21. 21. Membership in Candidate SNS <ul><li>Networking at work! </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Knowledge of a candidate’s SNS thru membership </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>36 (50%) belonged to more than one network </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Access to information about candidate is main reason for joining candidate’s SNS </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Only 12 (17%) joined because they “believe in the candidate” ; 8 (11%) to “support the candidate” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Only 3 (4%) joined to “participate and be heard” </li></ul></ul>
  22. 22. Offline Info Source on 2010 Elections <ul><li>Info about 2010 election and candidates was in news and personal ad format </li></ul><ul><li>Villar and Roxas dominated TMM exposure </li></ul><ul><li>“ Stand on issues and policies” ranked #1 & 2 in kind of info accessed in TMM </li></ul>Main source of news/info about 2010 elections Rank #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 Television 42 13 5 0 0 0 Radio 2 3 5 24 6 3 Newspaper 7 21 24 4 0 0 Magazine 0 0 3 9 20 5 Mobile phone 0 0 1 1 6 22 Internet 18 20 14 6 3 0
  23. 23. Online Info Source on 2010 Elections <ul><li>Online news sites main source of info re 2010 elections/candidates on web, apart from SNS </li></ul><ul><li>Escudero and Roxas both ranked #1 as candidate usually seen/heard/read about online </li></ul><ul><li>Cybercampaign tools not popular among SNS users </li></ul><ul><ul><li>25 (34.7%) visited websites </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>19 (26.4%) visited blogs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>7 (9.7%) visited micro-blogging sites </li></ul></ul>
  24. 24. Perception of Cybercampaign Tools <ul><ul><li>Information access dominates main reason for visiting cybercampaigning resources </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ to know about agenda, platform, and advocacies”; and “to get updates on work and activities” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Access to more candidate info is most commonly perceived benefits of cybercampaign tools </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Candidate’s credential/track record , personal advocacies considered most useful feature </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Info on meetings, forums and activities only ranked #4 </li></ul></ul>
  25. 25. Participation in Campaign Activities <ul><li>Over 50% : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>has voted during elections </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>has left a comment on websites </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>is likely to join in campaign activities offline </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>is not likely to give candidates financial contributions </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Over 35% : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>has campaigned for a candidate offline </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>has participated in offline/online issue-based forums </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>is likely to join a miting-de-avance offline </li></ul></ul>
  26. 26. Conclusions <ul><li>SUPPLY SIDE </li></ul><ul><li>Cyberspace normalization seen at play </li></ul><ul><ul><li>One-way information features dominate website content, delivered like in TMM </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Untapped potential of internet for mobilization and greater participation of electorates </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Community features, meant to engage voters in discussion, debates, and consultations, scored low </li></ul></ul><ul><li>But, a promising feature—invitation to join team of supporters —was seen in 7 out of 10 websites </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Can lead to creation of “edge-based organizations” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Empowering teams of core supporters, thru Internet, to play key role in campaign, instead of relying on patrons in local government, would be manifestation of equalization </li></ul></ul>
  27. 27. Conclusions <ul><li>DEMAND SIDE </li></ul><ul><li>People with the resources (upper class, employed) make up cybercampaign tool users </li></ul><ul><li>Despite biased sample, Internet not top choice for main source of election/candidate info </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Normalization seen in demand side </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ More candidate info” main reason for access and most commonly perceived benefit </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Low demand for more interaction with politicians either online or offline </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Opportunity in “ still undecided” voters? </li></ul>
  28. 28. Conclusions <ul><li>Reality check! </li></ul><ul><li>Contextualize empowerment in RP election campaign </li></ul><ul><li>Key informants and experts point to mobile phone as more appropriate ICT for RP campaigning </li></ul><ul><li>Fundraising not entrenched in RP election culture </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Few Filipinos trust internet for transactions; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Parties lack infrastructure to generate contributions </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Youth and OFWs main targets of cybercampaign, but do they use internet for politics? </li></ul><ul><li>More access to info may not lead to higher political consciousness or change how citizens value elections. </li></ul>
  29. 29. Conclusions <ul><li>Regulation on cybercampaigning in a grey area </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Commission on Elections (Comelec): internet use to promote oneself is a right, form of freedom of expression </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Regulating cybercampaign tools not recommended </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Implications on internet as a medium, in general </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Transforming “candidate-voter relationship”—an opportunity never before seen in Philippines politics </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Comelec should maximize internet to better monitor and make campaign process transparent and accountable </li></ul>
  30. 30. <ul><li>Thank you very much. </li></ul><ul><li>gmirandilla(at)gmail(dot)com </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.linkedin.com/in/gracemirandilla </li></ul>

×