By: Brandon Long
Political leaders have the challenge
of cutting through the clutter of public discourse to communicate their
specific messages and portraying an image that is worthy of their
constituencies. More often, political leaders seeking public office are turning
to social media to connect with and gain supporters. This connection is
essential to how they are marketing themselves, often as credible and
trustworthy citizens poised to lead and solve the problems of the day. At the
same time, those messages also allow professional political communicators the
opportunity to craft specific, orchestrated messages designed to effect
election outcomes and perceptions of candidates for public office. This
research aims to explore how political leaders use traditional and social media
channels to market themselves as trustworthy and credible.
Political Marketing
The
2008 campaign of Barack Obama used an integrated marketing strategy, which
included traditional mass media and social media to win the White House
(Moufahim & Lim, 2009). Research by
Moufahim & Lim (2009) suggests that political marketing should advance to a
nuanced understanding of “consumer consciousness” and that political theatre,
which includes radio, TV, and internet communications, are a part of how
politicians work to develop a relationship with voters. Serazio (2015) noted
that one communications director for a U.S. Representative revealed his
challenge is to deliver dumbed-down content for the uninformed electorate so
they will connect with his messages.
Heading
into the 2016 presidential election, campaigning on social media remains
intense, with “Twitter wars” between campaigns and political marketers looking
for ways to be innovative (Monllos, n.d.). In 2012, the Romney campaign’s
social media effort was considered to be not-as-aggressive, compared to the
Obama campaign’s effort, despite a sizeable staff of more than 110 people
dedicated to the digital communication effort (“Team Romney’s Digital Chief,”
n.d.). Social media facilitates effective political marketing for those seeking
office (Hwang, 2013).
Social Media in Politics
A writer for TheHill.com, a
political news website, declared that social media is a “virtual stage” for
politicians to debate (Goad, 2015). Goad (2015) wrote that they are also using
social media as a means to connect with voters and motivate their supporters,
and that Snapchat and Pinterest are becoming more popular than they were in
previous election cycles. One of the advisors to presidential candidate Hillary
Clinton’s campaign noted that, “authenticity
is a big thing in social media. I think the candidates that are the most
successful are the ones that are clearly the most comfortable” (Goad,
2015). With more politicians turning to
social media to get their messages out, they are giving unprecedented access to
potential supporters through Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram (Monllos, n.d.).
Even younger demographics are
subject to political engagement through Snapchat, which is dominant with 18 to
25 year-olds (Larrauri, 2015). Larrauri (2015) wrote that social media creates
an opportunity for authentic two-way conversations and that it allows for
authenticity and transparency. For example, candidates are able to post family
photos and images of people who inspire them, making them more relatable (Brousell,
2015). Campaigns need to be original and authentic when they use social media
to “break through the noise” (Brousell, 2015).
Creating Credibility and
Trust
Social
media has changed political communication in the United States (Metzgar &
Maruggi, 2009). As the top presidential contenders’ campaigns demonstrated in
2008, social media can be an inexpensive and relevant tool when used
appropriately. Not using social media can have negative consequences (Metzgar
& Maruggi, 2009). Voters make judgements about candidates partially related
to how they interact with a candidate’s online social network (Powell,
Richmond, & Williams, 2011).
Overall, whether or not the public
believes and likes political candidates is directly related to whether or not
the public also trusts them and considers them to be credible (Teven, 2008). Credibility
can be defined as how believable we perceive a source to be (Powell, Richmond,
& Williams, 2011). Politicians can use social media to create the
perception of credibility for themselves (Hwang, 2013). Hwang (2013) found that politicians who used
Twitter had to be open-minded when engaging their followers. Respondents viewed
this behavior as sincere and reliable. Talking about common problems has also
been shown to build trust (Rothstein, 2000). Hwang’s (2013) findings further indicated that
politicians who used social media added credibility to their brands through
their active use and maintaining continuous relationships through social media.
Serazio (2015) found that the power of authenticity is that it can build trust
“by not appearing to tell us what to do”.
Prete
(2007) examined the use and effectiveness of text messaging, or SMS (Short
Message Service), for political communication.
SMS messages were considered credible, but only had a moderate impact on
actual voting (Prete, 2007).
When it comes to political television
ads, politicians can improve their perception of trustworthiness by avoiding
the perception of being self-serving (Combs & Keller, 2010). For example,
Combs & Keller (2010) determined that in the 2008 presidential election,
Barack Obama and John McCain improved their perception of trustworthiness by
acting contrary to their own self-interest. Similarly, they also concluded that
instead of attacking a political adversary, legitimate praise might motivate
potential voters to soften their perceptions of the candidates. When voters
mistrust candidates, cynicism may be the root cause (Teven, 2008). Robideaux (2013) added TV ads that only have
positive messages about a candidate are not believable to most viewers. Viewers
are more likely to trust the negative message about an opponent, but image
based ads, that avoid issues, can have a positive impact (Robideaux, 2013).
Ultimately,
however, trustworthiness of the source is not reflective of respondents'
likelihood to purchase the product, which in this case the product is the
message of the politician and is determined by the how well the audience
believes a person is honestly communicating information without prejudice
(Ohanian, 1991).
Conclusion
Political leaders are using social media more than ever
before to reach potential voters and to energize them to vote and volunteer for
their campaigns. Compared to traditional media approaches, with social media
they are able to control the message. They are able to be authentic, but often,
when the stakes are the highest, as with a presidential election, even social
media messages are carefully crafted and so-called authenticity is malleable.
But, when political leaders take advantage of the opportunity social media
affords, they can create real trusting relationships with constituents and true
credibility is built. Whether that results in votes or other action would
require further study to answer, but it’s clear that social media has an
influence on perceptions of trustworthiness.
References
Brousell,
L. (2015, August 27). Why social media could swing the 2016 presidential
election. Retrieved October 15, 2015, from http://www.cio.com/article/2976083/social-networking/why-social-media-could-swing-the-2016-presidential-election.html
Combs, D. J. Y., & Keller, P. S.
(2010). Politicians and Trustworthiness: Acting Contrary to Self-Interest
Enhances Trustworthiness. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 32(4),
328–339. http://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2010.519246
Goad,
B. (2015, August 17). Welcome to the social media election [Text]. Retrieved
October 1, 2015, from
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/251185-welcome-to-the-social-media-election
Hwang,
S. (2013). The Effect of Twitter Use on Politicians’ Credibility and Attitudes
toward Politicians. Journal of Public Relations Research, 25(3),
246–258. http://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2013.788445
Larrauri,
N. (2015, September 9). Top 3 Social Media Takeaways for Brands from the
Presidential Election. Retrieved October 1, 2015, from http://adweek.it/1Q1aCXF
Metzgar, E., & Maruggi, A.
(2009). Social Media and the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election. Journal of New
Communications Research, 4(1), 141–165.
Monllos,
K. (n.d.). By the Numbers: How Presidential Candidates Stack Up on Social
Media. Retrieved October 1, 2015, from
http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/numbers-how-presidential-candidates-stack-social-media-166870
Moufahim, M., & Lim, M. (2009).
Towards a critical political marketing agenda? Journal of Marketing
Management, 25(7/8), 763–776.
Ohanian, R. (1991). The Impact of
Celebrity Spokespersons’ Perceived Image on Consumers’ Intention to Purchase. Journal
of Advertising Research, 31(1), 46–54.
Powell,
L., Richmond, V. P., & Williams, G. C. (2011). Social Networking and
Political Campaigns: Perceptions of Candidates as Interpersonal Constructs. North
American Journal of Psychology, 13(2), 331–342.
Prete,
M. I. (2007). M-politics: Credibility and effectiveness of mobile political
communications. Journal of Targeting, Measurement & Analysis for
Marketing, 16(1), 48–56. http://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jt.5750063
Robideaux, D. (2013). Credibility
and Television Advertising: Negative and Positive Political Ads. Journal of
Marketing Development & Competitiveness, 7(3), 68–78.
Rothstein, B. (2000). Trust, Social
Dilemmas and Collective Memories. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 12(4),
477–501. http://doi.org/10.1177/0951692800012004007
Serazio, M. (2015). Branding
politics: Emotion, authenticity, and the marketing culture of American
political communication. Journal of Consumer Culture, 1469540515586868.
http://doi.org/10.1177/1469540515586868
Teven, J. J. (2008). An Examination of Perceived Credibility
of the 2008 Presidential Candidates: Relationships with Believability,
Likeability, and Deceptiveness.
No comments:
Post a Comment