2. INTRODUCTION
My thesis: Is a study of the adoption,
implementation and organisational
implications of Web usage at the local level
in the 2010 UK general election
This presentation: Focuses on the first two
chapters of my thesis dealing with the
adoption of web campaign tools and how
they are used
3. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND – PROBLEMS
Political parties
Declining membership (Katz & Mair, Mass & Bizen)
Catch All/Electoral Professional parties (Kircheimer,
Panebianco)
The end of linkage?
Campaigns
The arrival of political marketing
Professionalization and modernisation (Green &
Smith, Gibson & Rommele, Norris)
Why get involved?
4. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND - SOLUTIONS
Can technology offer a solution?
Internet and Democracy: Rheingold,
Negroponte, Toffler, Castells
Party organisational change
The Cyber-party (Margetts)
The Network Party (Heidar & Saglie)
Organisational hybridity (Chadwick)
What about campaigns?
5. CAMPAIGNS IN THE WEB 2.0 ERA
We are living in a post-Obama environment,
2008 a perceived watershed
Emergence of Web 2.0
Highly interactive, based on the ‘architecture of
participation’
In the UK 2010 campaign most often represented by
Facebook and Twitter
Easy/free to use
So are we moving towards more connected
campaigns in the UK?
6. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Three things we need to know about the use
of Web 2.0
1. Are campaigns using it? TOOLS
2. If so how are they using it? BEHAVIOUR
3. What kind of campaign organisation is it
supporting? ORGANISATION
Today I am focussing on questions one and
two
7. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
Campaigns unlikely to be uniform, need a
framework to distinguish between them
Need a socially determined reason to adopt
online campaign techniques, reject a purely
technologically determinist stand point
Adopted Fisher and Denver (2009) indices,
sees campaigns as being traditional and
modernised to various degrees
8. TRADITIONAL AND MODERN CAMPAIGNS
A heuristic device
Traditional campaigns
Emphasise techniques such as doorstep canvas and distribution of
leaflets
Rely on building local networks of supporters, face-to-face or retail
politics
Do not have access to political marketing tools, likely to be low
priority receive little scrutiny
Modernised campaigns
Emphasise techniques such as direct mail and telephone canvassing
Rely on marketing techniques to deliver votes
With access to money and advanced techniques comes greater
scrutiny
NOT mutually exclusive
9. HYPOTHESES
H1 traditional campaigns are likely to make
more use of social media and be more
interactive
H2 modernised campaigns are likely to make
less use of social media and be less
interactive
H3 combined campaigns are likely to make
less use of social media and be less
interactive
H4 low activity campaigns are less likely to
make use of web campaign techniques
10. ALTERNATE EXPLANATIONS
Party affiliation
Different
parties have different propensity to
campaign online
Campaign status
Incumbent candidates, marginal candidates
The digital divide in constituencies
Some constituencies less likely to be online
The digital divide in candidates
Some candidates less likely to be online
11. WEB CAMPAIGN TOOLS
Want to know the extent to which campaigns
adopted online tools
Data comes from 2010 Electoral Agent Survey
1079 cases across England, Scotland and
Wales
Established survey, basis for original measures
of traditional and modern, although these could
not be replicated
Good for measures of campaigning, but less so
for candidate specific measures
12. WEB CAMPAIGN TOOLS
No Web (%) Conventional (%) Social (%) Hybrid (%) Total (%)
Low Act. 64 (22.3) 107 (37.3) 24 (8.4) 92 (32) 287 (100)
Traditional 27 (12) 83 (36.7) 10 (4.4) 106 (46.9) 226 (100)
Modern 20 (10.2) 56 (28.4) 7 (3.6) 114 (57.9) 197 (100)
Combined 10 (4) 68 (27.3) 9 (3.6) 162 (65.1) 249 (100)
Total 121 (12.6) 314 (32.7) 50 (5.2) 474 (49.4) 959 (100)
13. WEB CAMPAIGN TOOLS
Coef. Std. Err. P [95% Conf.
Interval]
Conventional only
Traditional index 0.015*** 0.003 0.000 0.008 0.022
Modernised index 0.013*** 0.004 0.001 0.005 0.021
Constant -1.594 0.493 0.001 -2.561 -0.627
Social only
Traditional index 0.012** 0.005 0.019 0.002 0.022
Modernised index 0.009 0.006 0.128 -0.003 0.021
Constant -2.799 0.758 0.000 -4.286 -1.313
Hybrid
Traditional index 0.022*** 0.003 0.000 0.015 0.029
Modernised index 0.026*** 0.004 0.000 0.018 0.034
Constant -3.145 0.495 0.000 -4.115 -2.176 Reference category: No Web
Pseudo R2 0.0521
Log likelihood -1026.3932
* p<.1 **p<.05 ***p<.01
14. WEB CAMPAIGN TOOLS
Conventional
Traditional and modern indices remain significant
All parties less likely to engage in conventional campaigns than
Conservatives
% pop no qualifications negative effect
Social (small n)
Traditional campaign index positive effect
Hybrid
Both traditional and modern indices positive effects
Nationalists less likely to engage in hybrid only campaigns than Con,
others no effect
% pop no qualifications negative effect
Younger and female candidates also more likely to adopt hybrid
(CCS model)
15. WEB CAMPAIGN BEHAVIOURS
So it seems like that the kind of campaign
activity engaged in has little impact on the kind
of online campaign tools adopted
But what about the adoption of online campaign
behaviours?
Data comes from content analysis of campaign
websites in the NW of England during 2010
campaign
Addresses three kinds of interactive behaviours
public dialogue, potential dialogue and site-
based interactivity
20. WEB CAMPAIGN BEHAVIOURS
But
Noteasy to analyse these measures individually
Lack of variation in the sample
To get around this I created an aggregate
measure of interactivity
Basedon regression scores from Principal
Components Analysis
21. WEB CAMPAIGN BEHAVIOURS
Variable B (S.E.) Standardised B
Traditional Index .216 (.108)** .204
Modernised Index .127 (.095) .137
Constant 65.923 (14.776)
* p<.1 **p<.05 ***p<.01
22. WEB CAMPAIGN BEHAVIOURS
BUT
When other contextual variables are added in
the significance of this disappears
Only significant result in the wider model
concerns incumbent candidates (much less
interactive) except where they are in marginal
seats (more interactive)
Different approach to analysis and
incorporate candidate level data
23. INTERVIEW DATA
Good reason to think that interactivity isn’t driven by
the external factors represented here
Anecdotal evidence shows candidates often struggle
to justify why they went online
Online campaigns often seem driven by
circumstantial factors e.g. an affinity for tech
‘I don’t like technology for technologies sake, but I do like
what it can do and I enjoy working with technology, just
because it’s a fun way of communicating with people.’
Candidate for campaign E, traditional/hybrid/interactive
Surveys do not cover this level of detail
24. CONCLUSIONS – WEB CAMPAIGN TOOLS
Are campaigns using Web 2.0?
Yes, very much so
50% of campaigns report using both social media
and conventional websites
Use is driven equally by traditional and modern
campaign techniques – intensity
Use also driven by age, gender, party affiliation and
incumbency
However – large amounts of variation remain
unexplained
25. CONCLUSIONS – WEB CAMPAIGN BEHAVIOURS
How are Web 2.0 tools being used?
Public dialogue very rare
Admittedly a high threshold for interactivity
Potential dialogue far more common but harder to
measure
Site-based interactivity also common, campaigns
able to bring a level of sophistication to sites beyond
brochure-ware
Haven’t been able to analyse the drivers yet but
interview data suggests that these may be
attitudinal/difficult to measure
26. HYPOTHESES
H1 traditional campaigns are likely to make more use
of social media and be more interactive NOT
SUPPORTED
H2 modernised campaigns are likely to make less
use of social media and be less interactive NOT
SUPPORTED
H3 combined campaigns are likely to make less use
of social media and be less interactive NOT
SUPPORTED
H4 low activity campaigns are less likely to make use
of web campaign techniques over all SUPPORTED
27. NEXT STEPS - ORGANISATION
Final question remains, what kind of
campaign organisation is Web 2.0
supporting?
Networked party models v Managed citizens
Framing analysis based on CCS data e.g.
attitudes towards democracy or party
organisation and adoption of Web 2.0 tools
Largely going to be based on interview data
Already uncovered some interesting case
studies