This study presents data from content analyses of the websites of all parties that stood in the 2009 European parliamentary elections in France, Germany, Great Britain and Poland. It cross-nationally examines the main functions of the websites, the adoption of Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 features, and the political and cultural factors that determine parties’ online communication. The findings show that while the main website function varies across countries, Web 1.0 is still the dominant mode of campaigning. Moreover, offline inequalities within and between nations determine differences in parties’ individual online strategies: specifically, major parties in states with long histories of democracy and EU membership lead the way and offer more interactive and innovative modes of campaigning. On the other hand, minor parties, particularly in Poland, remain in a more Web 1.0, information-heavy mode of communication. This supports the so-called normalization thesis on both the meso and the macro level.
Bellamy C. and Raab CD ( 1999) Wiring up the deck-chairs? Parliamentary Affairs52(7): 518-532.
2.
Bimber B. ( 1998) The Internet and political mobilisation. Social Science Computer Review16(4): 391-401.
3.
Bimber B. and Davis R. ( 2003) Campaigning Online: The Internet in US Elections . Oxford: Oxford University Press .
4.
Bucy E. ( 2004) Interactivity in society: Locating an elusive concept . The Information Society20(5): 373-383.
5.
Chadwick A. ( 2009) Web 2.0: New challenges for the study of e-democracy in era of informational exuberance. I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society5(1): 9-41.
6.
Chen P. ( 2010) Adoption and use of digital media in election campaigns: Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Public Communication Review1(1): 3-26.
7.
Coleman S and Ward S (eds) (2005) Spinning the Web: Online Campaigning during the 2005 General Election. London: Hansard Society.
8.
D’Alessio D. ( 1997) Use of the World Wide Web in the 1996 US election . Election Studies16(4): 489-500.
9.
Davis R. ( 1999) The Web of Politics: The Internet’s Impact on the American Political System. New York: Oxford University Press.
10.
De Landtsheer C., Krasnoboka N. and Neuner C. ( 1999) Participation friendliness of political websites in Eastern and Western Europe. Paper presented at the expert meeting on Political Communication and Technological Innovation , Perugia.
11.
De Landtsheer C., Krasnoboka N. and Neuner C. ( 2005) Participation friendliness of political websites in Eastern and Western Europe. In: Farnen RF, Dekker H, De Landtsheer C , Sünker H and German DB (eds) Democratization, Europeanization and Globalization Trends. Berlin: Peter Lang.
12.
Farmer R. and Fender R. ( 2005) E-parties: Democratic and Republican state parties in 2000. Party Politics11(1): 47-58.
13.
Gibson RK and Ward S. ( 1999) Party democracy on-line: UK parties and new ICTs . Information Communication and Society2(3): 340-367.
14.
Gibson R. and Ward S. ( 2000a) A proposed methodology for measuring the function and effectiveness of political web-sites. Social Science Computer Review18(3): 301-319.
15.
Gibson R. and Ward S. ( 2000b) An outsider’s medium: The European elections and UK party competition on the Internet. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties10(1): 173-191.
16.
Harfoush R. ( 2009) Yes We Did! An Inside Look at How Social Media Built the Obama Brand. New York: New Riders Press.
17.
Jackson N. ( 2003) MPs and web technologies: An untapped opportunity ? Journal of Public Affairs3(2): 124-137.
18.
Jackson N. ( 2006) Banking online: The use of the Internet by political parties to build relationships with voters. In: Lilleker D, Jackson N and Scullion R (eds) The Marketing of British Politics: Political Marketing at the 2005 General Election. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 157-183.
19.
Jackson N. ( 2008) ‘Scattergun’ or ‘rifle’ approach to communication: MPs in the blogosphere. Information Polity13(1): 57-69.
20.
Jackson N. and Lilleker D. ( 2009) Building an architecture of participation? Political parties and Web 2.0 in Britain. Journal of Information Technology and Politics6(3/4): 232-250.
21.
Jankowski N., Foot K., Kluver R. and Schneider S. ( 2005) The Web and 2004 EP elections: Comparing political actor web sites in 11 EU member states. Information Polity10(3/4): 165-176.
22.
Lilleker D. and Malagon C. ( 2010) Making elections interactive: Online discourse during the 2007 French presidential election. European Journal of Communication25(1): 25-42.
23.
Lilleker D. and Negrine R. ( 2002) Professionalisation: Of what? Since when? By whom?Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics7(4): 98-103.
24.
Lusoli W. and Ward SJ ( 2005) ‘Politics makes strange bedfellows’: The Internet and the 2004 European Parliament election in Britain. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics10(4): 71-97.
25.
Margolis M. and Resnick D. ( 2000) Politics as Usual: The Cyberspace Revolution. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
O’Reilly T. ( 2005) What is Web 2.0 Online? Available at: www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html .
27.
Park HM and Perry JL ( 2008) Do campaign web sites really matter in electoral civic engagement? Empirical evidence from the 2004 post-election internet tracking survey. Social Science Computer Review26(2): 190-212.
28.
Rafaeli S. ( 1988) Interactivity: From new media to communication . In: Hawkins RP, Wiemann JM and Pingree S (eds) Sage Annual Review of Communication Research: Advancing Communication Science 16. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 110-134.
29.
Rainie L. and Horrigan J. ( 2007) Election 2006 Online. Washington, DC : Pew Research.
30.
Rheingold H. ( 1993) The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. New York: Harper.
31.
Sadow J. and James K. ( 1999) Virtual billboards? Candidate websites and campaigning in 1998. Paper presented toAmerican Political Science Association, Atlanta.
32.
Schweitzer EJ ( 2008) Innovation or normalisation in E-campaigning? A longitudinal content and structural analysis of German party websites in the 2002 and 2005 national elections. European Journal of Communication23(4): 449-470.
33.
Schweitzer EJ ( 2009) Europeanisation on the Internet? The role of German party websites in the 2004 European parliamentary elections. Observatorio3(3): 20-40.
34.
Stempel GH III ( 2003) Content analysis. In: Stempel GH III, Weaver DH and Wilhoit GC (eds) Mass Communication Research and Theory. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 209-219.
35.
Stromer-Galley J. ( 2004) Interactivity-as-product and interactivity-as-process . The Information Society20(5): 391-394.
36.
Sudulich M. ( 2009) Do ethos, ideology, country and electoral strength make a difference in cyberspace? Testing an explanatory model of parties’ websites. Paper to ECPR Joint Session, Lisbon.
37.
Sundar SS, Kalyanaraman S. and Brown J. ( 2003) Explicating Web site interactivity: Impression formation effects in political campaign sites. Communication Research30(1): 30-59.
38.
Tolbert C. and McNeal R. ( 2003) Unraveling the effects of the Internet on political participation ? Political Research Quarterly56(2): 175-186.
39.
Vedel T. and Koc-Michalska K. ( 2009) The Internet and French political communication in the after-math of the 2007 presidential election. Paper presented at the 5th ECPR General Conference, Potsdam .
40.
Watt JH and Van den Berg S. ( 1995) Research Methods for Communication Science. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
