Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft

, Volume 26, Issue 4, pp 425–442 | Cite as

Election campaigning enters a fourth phase: the mediatized campaign



Thus far, the literature on election campaigns has identified three phases of campaigning: the pre-modern, the modern, and the professionalized phase. With this paper, we suggest that election campaigning has entered a fourth phase, characterized by new applications of communication technologies, quantitative data, immediate communications, a reinvented citizen-politics relationship offering more emotional access and lower barriers for active roles for citizens in campaigns. We root the change in the citizen-media nexus, with changes in media use and production being a major driver of this development. The classification of the ‘Mediatized Campaign’ emphasizes the role of media use and the connected changes in political and social institutions. We suggest that this classification can add coherence to future research on campaigning.


Political Communication Election Campaign Party Identification Political Engagement Political Information 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Die vierte Phase der Wahlkampfkampagne: mediatisierte Kampagnen


Die wissenschaftliche Literatur unterscheidet bis dato zwischen drei historischen Phasen der Wahlkampfkampagne: die vormoderne, die moderne und die professionalisierte Phase. Mit diesem Aufsatz schlagen wir eine vierte idealtypische Phase der Wahlkampfkampagne vor. Diese vierte Phase setzt sich von den vorherigen Phasen durch die intensivierte Nutzung neuer Kommunikationstechnologien, quantitative Datenanalyse und auf unmittelbarem Austausch basierende Kommunikationsparadigmen ab. Ein weiterer Fokus liegt in dieser Phase auf dem neu entstandenen Verhältnis zwischen Bürgern und Politik, in dem der Zugang zur Kampagnenführung niedrigschwelliger ist und die emotionale Bindung in den Vordergrund gerückt wird. Veränderte Nachfrage, Anwendung und Produktion von Medien stellen die zentralen Entwicklungen in dieser Phase dar. Im Spannungsfeld zwischen Bürger und Medien ordnen wir den Hauptimpuls für den Wandel ein. Die neue Phase, die wir als ‚Mediatisierte Kampagne‘ bezeichnen, hebt die Rolle der Medien hervor und macht auf die damit verbundenen Entwicklungen in politischen und gesellschaftlichen Institutionen aufmerksam. Dieser Ansatz verleiht künftiger Wahlkampfforschung eine kohärente Struktur und weist eine potenzielle Forschungsrichtung aus.



This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.


  1. Anholt, S., and J. Hildreth. 2004. Brand America: the mother of all brands. London: Marshall Cavendish Ltd, Cyan Communications.Google Scholar
  2. Baishya, A.K. 2015. NaMo: the political work of the Selfie in the 2014 Indian general elections. International Journal of Communication 9:1686–1700.Google Scholar
  3. Bennett, L.W. 1998. The uncivic culture: communication identity and the rise of lifestyle politics. PS: Political Science and Politics 31(4):740–761.Google Scholar
  4. van Biezen, I., P. Mair, and T. Poguntke. 2012. Going, going, . . . gone? The decline of party membership in contemporary Europe. European Journal of Political Research 51(1):24–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bimber, B. 2014. Digital media in the Obama campaigns of 2008 and 2012: adaptation to the personalized political communication environment. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 11(2):130–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blumler, J.G. 2014. Mediatization and democracy. In Mediatization of politics: understanding the transformation of western democracies, ed. F. Esser, and J. Strömbäck, 31–41. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blumler, J.G., and E. Katz. 1974. The uses of mass communications: current perspectives on gratifications research. Beverly Hills: SAGE.Google Scholar
  8. Bowler, S., and D.M. Farrell. 1992. Electoral strategies and political marketing. Houndmills, Hampshire, New York: Macmillan Press, St. Martin’s Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brady, H.E., and R. Johnston. 2006. Capturing campaign effects. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  10. Butler, P., and N. Collins. 1994. political marketing: structure and process. European Journal of Marketing 28(1):19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Castells, M. 2008. The new public sphere: global civil society, communication networks, and global governance. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616(1):78–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chadwick, A. 2013. The hybrid media system: politics and power. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Copeland, L., and A. Römmele. 2014. Beyond the base? Political parties, citizen activists, and digital media use in the 2009 German federal election campaign. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 11(2):169–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cormode, G., and B. Krishnamurthy. 2008. Key differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. First Monday 13(6). doi: 10.5210/fm.v13i6.2125 Google Scholar
  15. Dahlgren, P. 2009. Media and political engagement: citizens, communication, and democracy. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Dalton, R.J. 2008. Citizenship norms and the expansion of political participation. Political Studies 56(1):76–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dalton, R.J. 2016. The potential of big data for the cross-national study of political behavior. International Journal of Sociology 46(1):8–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Denver, D., and G. Hands. 2002. “Post-Fordism” in the constituencies: the continuing development of constituency campaigning in Britain. In Do political campaigns matter?: Campaign effects in elections and referendums, ed. D.M. Farrell, and R. Schmitt-Beck, 108–126. London, New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Farrell, D., and P. Webb. 2002. Political parties as campaign organizations. In Parties without partisans: political change in advanced industrial democracies, ed. R.J. Dalton, and M.P. Wattenberg, 102–128. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Garrett, K.R., B. Bimber, Homero Gil de Zúñiga, F. Heinderyckx, J. Kelly, and M. Smith. 2012. New ICTs and the study of political communication. International Journal of Communication 6:214–231.Google Scholar
  21. Gibson, R.K. 2013. Party change, social media and the rise of ‘citizen-initiated’ campaigning. Party Politics. doi: 10.1177/1354068812472575.Google Scholar
  22. Gibson, R.K., and I. McAllister. 2011. Do online election campaigns win votes? The 2007 Australian “YouTube” election. Political Communication 28(2):227–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gibson, R.K., and I. McAllister. 2013. Online social ties and political engagement. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 10(1):21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gibson, R.K., and A. Römmele. 2001. Political Parties and Professionalized Campaigning. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 6:31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gordon, E., J. Baldwin-Philippi, and M. Balestra. 2013. Why we engage: how theories of human behavior contribute to our understanding of civic engagement in a digital era. SSRN Electronic Journal doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2343762.Google Scholar
  26. Graves, L. 2016. Deciding what’s true: the rise of political fact-checking in American journalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Graves, L., and F. Cherubini. 2016. The rise of fact-checking sites in Europe, Oxford, Reuters institute for the study of journalism. http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/publication/rise-fact-checking-sites-europe#overlay-context=. Accessed 29 Nov 2016.Google Scholar
  28. Gunn, S.E., and E. Skogerbo. 2013. Personalized campaigns in party-centred politics: Twitter and Facebook as arenas for political communication. Information, Communication & Society 16(5):757–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hallin, D.C., and P. Mancini. 2004. Comparing media systems: three models of media and politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Harder, R.A., S. Paulussen, and P. van Aelst. 2016. Making sense of Twitter Buzz. Digital Journalism. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2016.1160790 Google Scholar
  31. Harrop, M., and W.L. Miller. 1987. Elections and voters: a comparative introduction. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Macmillan Education.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Harsin, J. 2015. Regimes of posttruth, postpolitics, and attention economies. Communication, Culture & Critique 8(2):327–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hersh, E. 2015. Hacking the electorate: how campaigns perceive voters. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hersh, E.D., and B.F. Schaffner. 2013. Targeted campaign appeals and the value of ambiguity. The Journal of Politics 75(02):520–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hjarvard, S. 2008. The mediatization of society: a theory of the media as agents of social and cultural change. Nordicom Review 29(2):105–134.Google Scholar
  36. Hjarvard, S. 2013. The mediatization of society and culture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Issenberg, S. 2012. How President Obama’s campaign used big data to rally individual voters’, MIT Technology Review 2012. http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/508851/how-obama-wrangled-data-to-win-his-second-term/. Accessed 25 Jul 2015.Google Scholar
  38. Jonhson, J., S. Lincke, R. Imhof, and C. Lim. 2014. A comparison of international information security regulations. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management 9:89–116.Google Scholar
  39. Kreiss, D. 2012. Taking our country back: the crafting of networked politics from Howard Dean to Barack Obama. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Krippendorff, K.H. 2013. Content analysis – 3rd edition: an introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
  41. Lazarsfeld, P.F., B. Berelson, and H. Gaudet. 1968. The people’s choice: how the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign, 3rd edn., New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Lee, E.-J., and S.Y. Oh. 2012. To personalize or depersonalize?: when and how politicians’ personalized tweets affect the public’s reactions. Journal of Communication 62(6):932–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lee, N.-J., D.M. McLeod, and D.V. Shah. 2008. Framing policy debates: issue dualism, journalistic frames, and opinions on controversial policy issues. Communication Research 35(5):695–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lilleker, D.G., J. Tenscher, and V. Štětka. 2015. Towards hypermedia campaigning? Perceptions of new media’s importance for campaigning by party strategists in comparative perspective. Information, Communication & Society 18(7):747–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mair, P. 2013. Ruling the void: the hollowing of Western democracy. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  46. Needham, C. 2005. Brand leaders: Clinton, Blair and the limitations of the permanent campaign. Political Studies 53(2):343–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Negrine, R., and S. Papathanassopoulos. 1996. The “Americanization” of political communication: a critique. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 1(2):45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Neyazi, T.A., A. Kumar, and H.A. Semetko. 2016. Campaigns, digital media, and mobilization in India. The International Journal of Press/Politics 21(3):398–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nickerson, D.W., and T. Rogers. 2014. Political campaigns and Big Data. Journal of Economic Perspectives 28(2):51–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nielsen, R.K. 2015. Social media and policy processes: three comparative perspectives. http://sites.bu.edu/cmcs/april-2015-conference/april-9th-expert-workshop/. Accessed 17 Apr 2015.Google Scholar
  51. Norris, P. 1998. The Battle for the Campaign Agenda. In The triumph of new Labour: Britain at the polls, ed. A. King, 113–144. Chatham, New Jersey: Chatham House.Google Scholar
  52. Norris, P. 2000. A virtuous circle: political communications in postindustrial societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pfetsch, B. 2014. The idea of political communication cultures and its empirical correlates. In Political communication cultures in Europe: attitudes of political actors and journalists in nine countries, ed. B. Pfetsch, 13–30. Houndmills, Baisingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  54. Plasser, F., and G. Plasser. 2002. Global political campaigning: a worldwide analysis of campaign professionals and their practices. Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
  55. Price, L. 2015. The Modi effect: Inside Narender Modi’s campaign to transform India. London: Hodder & Stoughton.Google Scholar
  56. Prior, M. 2007. Post-broadcast democracy: how media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Römmele, A. 2005. Direkte Kommunikation zwischen Parteien und Wählern: Professionalisierte Wahlkampftechnologien in den USA und in der BRD, 2nd edn., Wiesbaden: VS.Google Scholar
  58. Scammell, M. 2007. Political brands and consumer citizens: the rebranding of Tony Blair. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 611(1):176–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schmidt, J.-H. 2014. Twitter and the rise of personal publics. In Twitter and society, ed. K. Weller, et al., 3–14. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  60. Schmitt-Beck, R., and B. Pfetsch. 1994. ‘Politische Akteure und die Medien der Massenkommunikation: Zur Generierung von Öffentlichkeit in Wahlkämpfen. In Öffentlichkeit, öffentliche Meinung, soziale Bewegungen, ed. F. Neidhardt, 106–138. Opladen: Westdteutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  61. Strömbäck, J., and F. Esser. 2014. Mediatization of politics: towards a theoretical framework. In Mediatization of politics: understanding the transformation of Western democracies, ed. F. Esser, and J. Strömbäck, 3–28. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Swanson, D.L., and P. Mancini. 1996. Politics, media, and modern democracy: an international study of innovations in electoral campaigning and their consequences. Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
  63. Thorson, E. 2016. Belief echoes: the persistent effects of corrected misinformation. Political Communication 33(3):460–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Virilio, P. 2006. Speed and politics: an essay on dromology. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e).Google Scholar
  65. Voltmer, K. 2012. How far can media systems travel?: applying Hallin and Mancini’s comparative framework outside the Western World. In Comparing media systems beyond the Western world, ed. D.C. Hallin, and P. Mancini, 224–245. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Weber, M. 2011. Methodology of social sciences. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hertie School of GovernanceBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations