This article analyzes how political leaders communicate with their target audiences and examines whether they adopt a country-specific communication persona, or react to the global media-intensive environment by offering more universal communication. Politicians communicate through presentational (e.g., social media) and representational (e.g., press) outlets, and the compatibility between these outlets represents the leader’s effectiveness in transmitting the desired messages to the audience. The authors of this study suggest a theoretical framework that classifies public figures’ communication along two dimensions: universality (particular–universal) and media compatibility (low–high). The authors used language processing tools to study the sentiment, topic mixture, and use of pronouns by 61 global world leaders in more than 300,000 messages from the leaders’ Twitter accounts and press articles. The results show a high level of universality across political leaders in sentiment, topic mixture, and pronoun usage. The media compatibility is high, with Twitter being slightly more positive. Most leaders fall within the categories of Cosmopolitan Antagonist (high universality, low media compatibility) and Global Icon (high universality, high media compatibility). Overall, the sentiment of their communications is positive. Popular topics include diplomacy, economy, corruption, and the Arab world. No significant relationship was found between the sentiment or communication topics and country characteristics.
BennettLance W.IyengarShanto (2008), “A New Era of Minimal Effects? The Changing Foundations of Political Communication,” Journal of Communication, 58 (4), 707–31.
3.
BosLindaBrugWouter Van derVreeseClaes De (2011), “How the Media Shape Perceptions of Right Wing Populist Leaders,” Political Communication, 28 (2), 182–206.
4.
BovetAlexandreMakseHernán A. (2019), “Influence of Fake News in Twitter During the 2016 US Presidential Election,” Nature Communications, 10 (1), 7–20.
5.
BovetAlexandreMoroneFlavianoMakseHernán A. (2018), “Validation of Twitter Opinion Trends with National Polling Aggregates: Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump,” Scientific Reports, 8 (1), 8673–88.
6.
BrantsKeesde VreeseClaesMöllerJudithvan PraagPhilip (2010), “The Real Spiral of Cynicism? Symbiosis and Mistrust Between Politicians and Journalists,” International Journal of Press/Politics, 15 (1), 25–40.
7.
BüschkenJoachimAllenbyGreg M. (2016), “Sentence-Based Text Analysis for Customer Reviews,” Marketing Science, 35 (6), 953–75.
8.
CaylaJulienArnouldEric J. (2008), “A Cultural Approach to Branding in the Global Marketplace,” Journal of International Marketing, 16 (4), 86–112.
9.
ChadwickAndrew (2006), Internet Politics: States, Citizens, and New Communications Technologies. New York: Oxford University Press.
10.
ChadwickSimonBurtonNick (2008), “From Beckham to Ronaldo—Assessing the Nature of Football Player Brands,” Journal of Sponsorship, 1 (4), 307–17.
11.
CouldryNickHeppAndreas (2017), “The Continuing Lure of the Mediated Centre in Times of Deep Mediatization: Media Events and Its Enduring Legacy,” Media, Culture & Society, 40 (1), 114–17.
12.
CrystalDavid (2006), Language and the Internet. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
13.
DahlgrenPeter (2009), Media and Political Engagement. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
14.
D’AlessioDaveAllenMike (2000), “Media Bias in Presidential Elections: A Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Communication, 50 (4), 133–56.
15.
DiamantopoulosAdamantiosDavvetasVasileiosBartschFabianMandlerTimoArslanagic-KalajdzicMajaEisendMartin (2019), “On the Interplay Between Consumer Dispositions and Perceived Brand Globalness: Alternative Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Assessment,” Journal of International Marketing, 27 (4), 39–57.
EnliGunn SaraSkogerbøEli (2013), “Personalized Campaigns in Party-Centred Politics: Twitter and Facebook as Arenas for Political Communication,” Information, Communication & Society, 16 (5), 757–74.
18.
FrenchAlanSmithGareth (2010), “Measuring Political Brand Equity: A Consumer Oriented Approach,” European Journal of Marketing, 44 (3/4), 460–77.
19.
GeisMichael L. (1987), “The Problem of Bias in Political Journalism,” in The Language of Politics. New York: Springer, 58–77.
20.
GolbeckJenniferGrimesJustin M.RogersAnthony (2010), “Twitter Use by the U.S. Congress,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61 (8), 1612–21.
21.
GuoXiaoling (2013), “Living in a Global World: Influence of Consumer Global Orientation on Attitudes Toward Global Brands from Developed Versus Emerging Countries,” Journal of International Marketing, 21 (1), 1–22.
22.
Gürhan-CanliZeynepSarıal-AbiGülenHayranCeren (2018), “Consumers and Brands Across the Globe: Research Synthesis and New Directions,” Journal of International Marketing, 26 (1), 96–117.
23.
GuzmanFranciscoSierraVicenta (2009), “A Political Candidate’s Brand Image Scale: Are Political Candidates Brands?” Brand Management, 17 (3), 207–17.
24.
HennebergStephan C.O’ShaughnessyNicholas J. (2007), “Theory and Concept Development in Political Marketing: Issues and an Agenda,” Journal of Political Marketing, 6 (2/3), 5–31.
25.
HeppAndreasBreiterAndreasHasebrinkUwe (2018), Communicative Figurations: Transforming Communications in Times of Deep Mediatization. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
26.
HeppAndreadHjarvardStigLundbyKnut (2015), “Mediatization: Theorizing the Interplay Between Media, Culture and Society,” Media, Culture & Society, 37 (2), 314–24.
27.
HerzMarcDiamantopoulosAdamantios (2017), “I Use It but Will Tell You That I Don’t: Consumers’ Country-of-Origin Cue Usage Denial,” Journal of International Marketing, 25 (2), 52–71.
28.
HjarvardStig (2013), The Mediatization of Culture and Society. London: Routledge.
29.
HockettJeremy (2005), “Brand ‘W’ and the Marketing of an American President: Or, Logos as Logos,” Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture, 2 (2), 72–95.
30.
HofstedeGeert (2011), “Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context,” Psychology and Culture, 2 (1), article 8.
31.
HowardPhilip. N.ParksMalcolm R. (2012), “Social Media and Political Change: Capacity, Constraint, and Consequence,” Journal of Communication, 62 (2), 359–62.
32.
KockFlorianJosiassenAlexanderAssafGeorge (2019), “Toward a Universal Account of Country-Induced Predispositions: Integrative Framework and Measurement of Country-of-Origin Images and Country Emotions,” Journal of International Marketing, 27 (3), 43–59.
33.
KrippendorffKlaus (2004),”Reliability in Content Analysis: Some Common Misconceptions and Recommendations,” Human Communication Research, 30 (3), 411–33.
34.
KrotzFriedrich (2007), “The Meta-Process of Mediatization as a Conceptual Frame,” Global Media and Communication, 3 (3), 256–60.
35.
KrotzFriedrichHeppAndreas (2013), “A Concretization of Mediatization: How Mediatization Works and Why ‘Mediatized Worlds’ Are a Helpful Concept for Empirical Mediatization Research,” European Journal for the Philosophy of Communication, 3 (2), 119–34.
36.
MarshallDavid P. (2015), “Monitoring Persona: Mediatized Identity and the Edited Public Self,” Journal of Literary Studies, 28 (1), 115–33.
37.
NijssenEdwin J.DouglasSusan P. (2011), “Consumer World-Mindedness and Attitudes Toward Product Positioning in Advertising: An Examination of Global Versus Foreign Versus Local Positioning,” Journal of International Marketing, 19 (3), 113–33.
38.
ÖzsomerAyşegül (2012), “The Interplay Between Global and Local Brands: A Closer Look at Perceived Brand Globalness and Local Iconness,” Journal of International Marketing, 20 (2), 72–95.
39.
PackardGrantMooreSarah G.McFerranBrent (2018), “(I’m) Happy to Help (You): The Impact of Personal Pronoun Use in Customer–Firm Interactions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 55 (4), 541–55.
40.
PangBoLeeLillian (2004), “A Sentimental Education: Sentiment Analysis Using Subjectivity Summarization Based on Minimum Cuts,” in Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics, 271–78.
41.
PhippsMarcusBrace-GovanJanJevonsColin (2010), “The Duality of Political Brand Equity,” European Journal of Marketing, 44 (3/4), 496–514.
42.
ShangShari S.C.WuYa-LingLiEldon Y. (2017), “Field Effects of Social Media Platforms on Information-Sharing Continuance: Do Reach and Richness Matter?” Information & Management, 54 (2), 241–55.
43.
ShapiroMatthew A.HemphillLibby (2017), “Politicians and the Policy Agenda: Does Use of Twitter by the US Congress Direct New York Times Content?” Policy & Internet, 9 (1), 109–32.
44.
SmithGareth (2009), “Conceptualizing and Testing Brand Personality in British Politics,” Journal of Political Marketing, 8 (3), 209–32.
45.
SteenkampJan-Benedict E.M. (2019), “Global Versus Local Consumer Culture: Theory, Measurement, and Future Research Directions,” Journal of International Marketing, 27 (1), 1–19.
46.
StrömbäckJesperVan AelstPeter (2013), “Why Political Parties Adapt to the Media: Exploring the Fourth Dimension of Mediatization,” International Communication Gazette, 75 (4), 341–58.
47.
TirunillaiSeshadriTellisGerard J. (2014), “Mining Marketing Meaning from Chatter: Strategic Brand Analysis of Big Data Using Latent Dirichlet Allocation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (4), 463–79.
48.
UlrichDaveSmallwoodNorm (2007), “Building a Leadership Brand,” Harvard Business Review, 85 (7/8), 92.
49.
Van AelstPeterMaddensBartNoppeJoFiersStefaan (2008), “Politicians in the News: Media or Party Logic? Media Attention and Electoral Success in the Belgian Election Campaign of 2003,” European Journal of Communication, 23 (2), 193–210.
50.
WattalSunilSchufDavidMandviwallaMunirWilliamsChristine B. (2010), “Web 2.0 and Politics: The 2008 U.S. Presidential Election and an E-Politics Research Agenda,” MIS Quarterly, 34 (4), 669–88.
51.
ZhaoYanYanQinBingLiuTing (2010), “Sentiment Analysis,” Journal of Software, 21 (8), 1834–48.
