Digital Political Marketing

Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Political Marketing and Management book series (Palgrave Studies in Political Marketing and Management)

Abstract

Using i-branding as an analytical framework, this chapter explores the use of digital technologies for political marketing in the 2015 General Election. Combining content analysis with expert interviews, the chapter notes all parties developed a digital campaign. However, comparing party usage, we find the Conservatives performed well in harvesting user data and developing targeted communication; in contrast, Labour performed poorly overall. However, the Scottish National Party (SNP) strategy focused on using two-way interaction and extending reach, which offered greater mutuality. The success of the SNP may highlight the importance of i-branding for developing relationships with potential voters which can act as a springboard to victory.

References

  1. Beckett, A. (2015). Lynton Crosby: Can the “Lizard of Oz” win the election for the Conservatives? The Guardian, March 15.Google Scholar
  2. Bennett, W. L. (2012). The personalization of politics political identity, social media, and changing patterns of participation. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 644(1), 20–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bright, J., Hale, S., Margetts, H., & Yasseri T. (2015). Digital era political parties post #GE2015. In Elections and the Institute Research (Oxford Internet Institute Blog), May 19. http://elections.oii.ox.ac.uk/digital-era-political-parties-post-ge2015/
  4. Chang, N. (2015). How newsrooms will cover “the hashtag election”. News:Rewired, February 3.Google Scholar
  5. Cogburn, D. L., & Espinoza-Vasquez, F. K. (2011). From networked nominee to networked nation: Examining the impact of Web 2.0 and social media on political participation and civic engagement in the 2008 Obama campaign. Journal of Political Marketing, 10(1–2), 189–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Conservative Party. (2015a). The Conservative Party manifesto 2015. Strong leadership. A clear economic plan. A brighter, more secure future. London: Conservative Party.Google Scholar
  7. Conservative Party. (2015b). David Cameron speech: Conservative Party manifesto launch. April 14, 2015 [press release]. http://press.conservatives.com/post/116374071635/david-cameron-speech-conservative-party-manifesto
  8. Crawford, K. (2009). Following you: Disciplines of listening in social media. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 23(4), 525–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Effing, R., van Hillegersberg, J., & Huibers, T. (2011). Social media and political participation: Are Facebook, Twitter and YouTube democratizing our political systems? In E. Tambouris, A. Macintosh, & H. de Bruijn (Eds.), Electronic participation (pp. 25–35). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Elder, C. and Edmonds, T. (2015) ‘2015 really was the first digital general election: here are seven lessons you should know’, Daily Telegraph, 23 JulyGoogle Scholar
  11. Freedman, D. (2015). Election 2015: it’s the press wot won it? In D. Jackson & E. Thorsen (Eds.), UK election analysis 2015: Media, voters and the campaign (p. 93). Bournemouth: Centre for the Study of Journalism, Culture and Community.Google Scholar
  12. Gibson, R. (2009). New media and the revitalisation of politics. Representation, 45(3), 289–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gibson, R. (2015). Party change, social media and the rise of “citizen-initiated” campaigning. Party Politics, 21(2), 183–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gibson, R., & Ward, S. (2009). Parties in the digital age a review article. Representation, 45(1), 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Groshek, J., & Al-Rawi, A. (2013). Public sentiment and critical framing in social media content during the 2012 US presidential campaign. Social Science Computer Review, 0894439313490401.Google Scholar
  16. Habel, P., Ounis, I., Macdonald, C., Fang, A., McCreadie, R., & Birchet, S. (2015). Tweeting Britain’s #hashtag election. The Washington Post, May 7. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/
  17. Heffernan, R. (2013). UK party leaders are “preeminent”, but can also be “predominant”, Cameron and the conservatives 2005–2010. British Politics, 9(1), 51–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Herald Scotland. (2015). Nicola Sturgeon most popular politician on Twitter during General Election. Herald Scotland, May 10.Google Scholar
  19. Hern, A. (2013). Conservatives remove WebCameron from YouTube. The Guardian, November 14.Google Scholar
  20. Hong, S., & Nadler, D. (2012). Which candidates do the public discuss online in an election campaign? The use of social media by 2012 presidential candidates and its impact on candidate salience. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 455–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Howard, P. N. (2006). New media campaigns and the managed citizen. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Jenkins, H. (2008). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2013). Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in a networked culture. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Jewell, H. (2015). Ed Miliband has developed a small but growing fandom of teen girls. Buzz Feed, April 21. http://www.buzzfeed.com/
  25. Kahn-Harris, K. (2015). Is the Sun’s “save our bacon” front page antisemitic? The Guardian, 6 May.Google Scholar
  26. Kettell, S., & Kerr, P. (2008). One year on: The decline and fall of Gordon Brown. British Politics, 3(4), 490–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Klotz, R. (2014). Sources and formats of campaign information on YouTube. In A. M. G. Solo (Ed.), Political campaigning in the information age. Hersey: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  28. Labour Party. (2015). Britain can be better. The Labour Party manifesto 2015. London: Labour Party.Google Scholar
  29. Lilleker, D. G. (2014). Political communication and cognition. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lilleker, D. G. (2015a). Interactivity and branding: Public political communication as a marketing tool. Journal of Political Marketing, 14(1–2), 111–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lilleker, D. G. (2015b). The battle for the online audience: 2015 as the social media election? In D. Jackson & E. Thorsen (Eds.), UK election analysis 2015: Media, voters and the campaign (pp. 70–71). Bournemouth: Centre for the Study of Journalism, Culture and Community.Google Scholar
  32. Mander, J. (2015). Voters in the UK: Analysing attitudes and digital behaviours among conservative, labour, Lib Dem, UKIP, green and SNP voters – as well as those yet to pick a party. London: Global Web Index. http://bit.ly/1PL1VmB.Google Scholar
  33. Ormrod, R. P., Henneberg, S. C. M., & O’Shaughnessy, N. J. (2013). Political marketing: Theory and concepts. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ridge-Newman, A. (2014). Cameron’s conservatives and the internet: Change, culture and cyber toryism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  35. Simmons, G. (2008). Marketing to postmodern consumer: Introducing the internet chameleon. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 25(6), 299–310.Google Scholar
  36. Stromer-Galley, J. (2000). On-line interaction and why candidates avoid it. Journal of Communication, 50(4), 111–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Social and Political SciencesUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowUK
  2. 2.Department of Media ArtsRoyal Holloway UniversityEghamUK

Personalised recommendations