The networked nature of social media allows users to link their pre-existing connections and develop new types of online relationships. This study aimed to examine the relationships between candidates' camps and ‘netizens' during the 2012 Taiwan presidential election. To benefit from the rapid growth of social networking, political candidates have used social media as an election campaign tool. However, the strategic approach of these candidates seems to contradict the networked nature of social media, especially in terms of friendship. Through in-depth interviews with campaign staff, journalists and scholars, this research found that a new concept – strategic network campaigning (SNC) – can be proposed. Combining ‘two-step flow’ communication, para-social relationships and network society theory, SNC explains how election camps mimic Facebook's networked nature by placing staff in the network to influence netizens. Through SNC, campaign staff develop hubs that they can control, establish friend-like relationships with netizens, and influence perceptions of candidates.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsA.McCorkindaleT.2013, ‘Dialogue and Transparency: A Content Analysis of How the 2012 Presidential Candidates Used Twitter’, Public Relations Review, no. 39, pp. 357–59.
2.
AllenM.2010, ‘The Experience of Connectivity: Results form a Survey of Australian Internet Users’, Information, Communication & Society, no. 13, pp. 350–74.
3.
AndersenK.N.MedagliaR.2009, ‘The Use of Facebook in National Election Campaigns: Politics as Usual?’Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Dordrecht.
4.
AparaschiveiP.A.2011, The Use of New Media in Electoral Campaigns: Analysis on the Use of Blogs, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube in the 2009 Romanian Presidential Campaign. Journal of Media Research, no. 4: 39–60.
5.
BarberH.CallaghanJ.2010, ‘Virtual Friends: Experiences of an Online Fan Community’, in MousoutzanisA.RihaD. (eds), New Media and the Politics of Online Communities, Inter-Disciplinary Press, Oxford, pp. 59–68.
6.
BaumannS.2010, ‘Election 2.0: How to Use Cyber Platforms to Win the US Presidential Elections – An Investigation into the Changing Communication Strategies of Election Candidates’, in MousoutzanisA.RihaD. (eds), New Media and the Politics of Online Communities, Inter-Disciplinary Press, Oxford, pp. 155–64.
7.
BenoitW.L.BenoitP.J.2000, ‘The Virtual Campaign: Presidential Primary Websites in Campaign 2000’, American Communication Journal, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 1–22.
8.
BergB.L.2001, Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, Pearson Education, Boston.
9.
BoydD.M.EllisonN.B.2007, ‘Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 13, pp. 210–30.
10.
BrockingtonD.2008, ‘Celebrity Conservation: Interpreting the Irwins’, Media International Australia, no. 127, pp. 96–108.
11.
CastellsM.2001, The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, Business, and Society, Oxford University Press, New York.
12.
CastellsM.2004, ‘Informationalism, Networks, and the Network Society: A Theoretical Blueprint’, in CastellsM. (ed.), The Network Society: A Cross-cultural Perspective, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
13.
ComptonJ.2008, ‘Mixing Friends with Politics: A Functional Analysis of '08 Presidential Candidates' Social Networking Profiles‘, paper presented to National Communication Association conference, San Diego, 20 November.
14.
D'AlessioD.2000, ‘Adoption of the World Wide Web by American Political Candidates, 1996–1998’, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 556–68.
15.
DavisR.BaumgartnerJ.C.FranciaP.L.2009, ‘The Internet in U.S. Election Campaigns’, in ChadwickA.HowardP.N. (eds), Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics, Routledge, New York.
16.
DijkJ.V.2006, The Network Society, Sage, London.
17.
EriksonE.2008, ‘“Hillary is My Friend”: MySpace and Political Fandom’, Rocky Mountain Communication Review, no. 5, pp. 3–16.
Frizzo-BarkerJ.Chow-WhiteP.A.2012, ‘“There's an App for That”: Mediating Mobile Moms and Connected Careerists Through Smartphones and Networked Individualism’, Feminist Media Studies, vol. 12, pp. 580–9.
20.
GhiutaO.-A.2009, ‘Integrated Marketing Communication in Politics?’The Annals of The ‘Ştefan cel Mare’University Suceava, p. 9.
GranovetterM.S.1973, ‘The Strength of Weak Ties’, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 78, pp. 1360–80.
23.
GueorguievaV.2008, ‘Voters, MySpace, and YouTube: The Impact of Alternative Communication Channels on the 2006 Election Cycle and Beyond’, Social Science Computer Review, no. 26, pp. 288–300.
24.
HandelmanD.2003, ‘Towards the Virtual Encounter: Horton's and Wohl's “Mass Communication and Para-social Interaction”’, in KatzE.PetersJ.D.LiebesT. (eds), Canonic Texts in Media Research: Are There Any? Should There Be? How About These?Polity Press, Cambridge, pp. 137–51.
25.
HansonG.HaridakisP.M.CunninghamA.W.2010, ‘The 2008 Presidential Campaign: Political Cynicism in the Age of Facebook, MySpace, and YouTube’, Mass Communication and Society, no. 13, pp. 584–607.
26.
HaythornthwaiteC.2005, ‘Social Networks and Internet Connectivity Effects’, Information, Communication & Society, vol. 8, pp. 125–47.
27.
HolbertR.L.GeidnerN.2009, ‘The 2008 Election: Highlighting the Need to Explore Additional Communication Subfields to Advance Political Communication’, Communication Studies, vol. 60, pp. 344–58.
28.
HortonD.WohlR.R.1956, ‘Mass Communication and Para-social Interaction’, Psychiatry, vol. 19, pp. 215–29.
29.
HuntingtonS.P.1991, The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK.
30.
JensenK.B.2002, ‘The Qualitative Research Process’, in JensenK.B. (ed.), A Handbook of Media and Communication Research Qualitative and Quantitative Methodologies, Routledge, London.
31.
JungJ.-Y.2008, ‘Internet Connectedness and its Social Origins: An Ecological Approach to Postaccess Digital Divides’, Communication Studies, no. 59, pp. 322–39.
32.
LangloisG.ElmerG.McKelveyF.2009, ‘Networked Publics: The Double Articulation of Code and Politics on Facebook’, Canadian Journal of Communication, no. 34, pp. 415–34.
33.
LazarsfeldP.F.BerelsonB.GaudetH.1948, The People's Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign, Columbia University Press, New York.
34.
LeeN.NamyeonL.OhbyungK.2013, ‘Para-social Relationships and Continuous Use of Mobile Devices’, International Journal of Mobile Communications, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 465–84.
35.
LiuF.2007, ‘Constrained Opinion Leader Influence in an Electoral Campaign Season: Revisiting the Two-Step Flow Theory with Multiagent Simulation’, Advances in Complex Systems, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 233–50.
36.
LudersM.2009, ‘Becoming More Like Friends’, NORDICOM Review, vol. 30, pp. 201–16.
37.
LueckJ.A.2012, ‘Friend-zone with Benefits: The Parasocial Advertising of Kim Kardashian’, Journal of Marketing Communications, doi: 10.1080/13527266.2012.726235.
38.
MacnamaraJ.2011, ‘Pre and Post-election 2010 Online: What Happened to the Conversation?’Communication, Politics & Culture, vol. 44, pp. 18–36.
39.
MacnamaraJ.KenningG.2011, ‘E-Electioneering 2010: Trends in Social Media Use in Australian Political Communication’, Media International Australia, no. 139, pp. 7–22.
40.
MerazS.2006, ‘Using Blogs to Extend the Public Sphere? Data Mining the John Kerry Candidate Blog for Networked Community Structure Dynamics’, paper presented to International Communication Association 2006 Annual Meeting, Dresden.
41.
MeschG.TalmudI.2006, ‘Online Friendship Formation, Communication Channels, and Social Closeness’, International Journal of Internet Science, no. 1, pp. 29–44.
42.
RiceR.E.HagenI.2010, ‘Young Adults' Perpetual Contact, Social Connectivity, and Social Control Through the Internet and Mobile Phones’, Communication Yearbook, no. 34, pp. 4–39.
43.
RobertsonS.P.VatrapuR.K.MedinaR.2009, ‘The Social Life of Social Networks: Facebook Linkage Patterns in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election’, Proceedings of the 10th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Social Networks: Making Connections Between Citizens, Data and Government.
44.
RogersE.M.1962, Diffusion of Innovations, The Free Press, New York.
45.
RogersE.M.CartanoD.G.1962, ‘Methods of Measuring Opinion Leadership’, Public Opinion Quarterly, no. 26, pp. 435–41.
46.
SchneiderS.M.FootK.A.2005, ‘Web Sphere Analysis: An Approach to Studying Online Action’, in HineC. (ed.), Virtual Methods: Issues in Social Science Research on the Internet, Berg, Oxford, pp. 157–70.
47.
StakeR.E.2010, Qualitative Research: Studying How Things Work, Guilford Press, New York.
48.
StefanoneM.A.LackaffD.RosenD.2008, ‘We're All Stars Now: Reality Television, Web 2.0, and Mediated Identities’, paper presented to HT'08 Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, Pittsburgh.
49.
Stromer-GalleyJ.2000, ‘On-line Interaction and Why Candidates Avoid It’, Journal of Communication, no. 50, pp. 111–32.
50.
SweetserK.D.LariscyR.W.2008, ‘Candidates Make Good Friends: An Analysis of Candidates' Uses of Facebook’, International Journal of Strategic Communication, no. 2, pp. 175–98.
51.
SzomszorM.CantadorI.AlaniH.2008, ‘Correlating User Profiles from Multiple Folksonomies’, paper presented to HT'08 Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, Pittsburgh.
52.
ValenzuelaS.ParkN.KeeK.F.2008, ‘Lessons from Facebook: The Effect of Social Network Sites on College Students' Social Capital’, paper presented to 9th International Symposium on Online Journalism, Austin, TX.
53.
van DijckJ.2012, ‘Facebook and the Engineering of Connectivity: A multi-layered approach to social media platforms’, Convergence, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 141–55.
54.
van ZoonenL.2004, ‘Imagining the Fan Democracy’European Journal of Communication, vol. 19, pp. 39–52.
WeimannG.1982, ‘On the Importance of Marginality: One More Step into the Two-Step Flow of Communication’, American Sociological Review, vol. 47, pp. 764–73.
