While research has gauged the degree to which political actors focus on their personal rather than their more public sides in their communication efforts, few studies have assessed the extent to which personalized content succeeds in gaining traction among online followers. The current study does just that, focusing on the Instagram accounts operated by Norwegian parties and party leaders. Results indicate that party leaders emerge as more successful than parties in gaining attention through ‘likes’ and comments and that they offer personalized content to higher degrees than the parties they represent. While personalized content might lead to increased political engagement among citizens, the fact that personalization ‘works’ in terms of gaining attention might also skew political PR and marketing towards excessive use of such themes.
AdamSMaierM (2010) Personalization of politics: A critical review and agenda for research. In CTS. (ed), Communication Yearbook 34. New York and London: Routledge, pp. 213–258.
2.
AlbrechtSLubckeMHartig-PerschkeR (2007) Weblog campaigning in the German Bundestag election 2005. Social Science Computer Review25(4): 504–520.
3.
BarberaP (2016) Dev version of instaR package: Access to Instagram API via R. Available at: https://github.com/pablobarbera/instaR. (accessed 6 November 2017).
4.
BimberB (2014) Digital media in the Obama campaigns of 2008 and 2012: Adaptation to the personalized political communication environment. Journal of Information Technology & Politics11(2): 130–150.
5.
BlumlerJGKavanaghD (1999) The third age of political communication: Influences and features. Political Communication16(3): 209–230.
6.
BrunsAHighfieldT (2013) Political networks on Twitter. Information, Communication & Society16(5): 667–691.
7.
BuhiteRDLevyDW (1992) FDR’s Fireside Chats. London: University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
8.
de VreeseCH (2007) Digital renaissance: Young consumer and citizen?The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science611(1): 207–216.
9.
EnliG (2015) Mediated Authenticity: How the Media Constructs Reality. New York: Peter Lang.
10.
EnliGSSkogerbøE (2013) Personalized campaigns in party-centred politics. Information, Communication & Society16(5): 757–774.
11.
FilimonovKRussmannUSvenssonJ (2016) Picturing the party: Instagram and party campaigning in the 2014 Swedish elections. Social Media + Society2(3): 1–11.
12.
FraserN (1992) Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. In: CalhounCJ (ed), Habermas and the public sphere: Studies in contemporary German social thought. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
13.
GibsonRKLusoliWWardS (2008) Nationalizing and normalizing the local? A comparative analysis of online candidate campaigning in Australia and Britain. Journal of Information Technology & Politics4(4): 15–30.
14.
GorrellGBontchevaK (2015) Classifying Twitter favorites: Like, bookmark, or thanks?Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology67(1): 17–25.
15.
HabermasJ (1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
16.
HermansLVergeerM (2012) Personalization in e-campaigning: A cross-national comparison of personalization strategies used on candidate websites of 17 countries in EP elections 2009. New Media & Society15(1): 72–92.
JacksonNLillekerD (2011) Microblogging, constituency service and impression management: UK MPs and the use of Twitter. The Journal of Legislative Studies17(1): 86–105.
20.
JandaKColmanT (1998) Effects of party organization on performance during the ‘golden age’ of parties. Political Studies46: 611–632.
21.
JohnstonAKaidLL (2002) Image ads and issue ads in U.S. presidential advertising: Using videostyle to explore stylistic differences in televised political ads from 1952 to 2000. Journal of Communication52(2): 281–300.
22.
JungherrA (2014) The logic of political coverage on Twitter: Temporal dynamics and content. Journal of Communication64(2): 239–259.
23.
KaidLLHoltz-BachaC (2006) The SAGE Handbook of Political Advertising. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications.
24.
KalsnesB (2016) The social media paradox explained: Comparing political parties’ Facebook strategy versus practice. Social Media + Society2(2): 1–11.
25.
KarlsenR (2013) Obama’s online success and European party organizations: Adoption and adaptation of US online practices in the Norwegian Labor Party. Journal of Information Technology & Politics10(2): 158–170.
26.
KluverRJankowskiNFootK, et al. (2007) The Internet and National Elections: A Comparative Study of Web Campaigning. London, New York: Routledge.
27.
Koc-MichalskaKLillekerDGSurowiecP, et al. (2014) Poland’s 2011 online election campaign: New tools, new professionalism, new ways to win votes. Journal of Information Technology & Politics11(2): 186–205. 140311104053001.
28.
KriesiH (2011) Personalization of national election campaigns. Party Politics18(6): 825–844.
29.
KruikemeierSvan NoortGVliegenthartR, et al. (2013) Getting closer: The effects of personalized and interactive online political communication. European Journal of Communication28(1): 53–66.
30.
LarssonAO (2015) Pandering, protesting, engaging. Norwegian party leaders on Facebook during the 2013 ‘Short campaign’. Information, Communication & Society18: 459–473.
31.
LarssonAOIhlenØ (2015) Birds of a feather flock together? Party leaders on Twitter during the 2013 Norwegian elections. European Journal of Communication30: 666–681.
32.
LarssonAOMoeH (2012) Studying political microblogging: Twitter users in the 2010 Swedish election campaign. New Media & Society14: 729–747.
33.
LarssonAOMoeH (2014) Triumph of the underdogs? Comparing Twitter use by political actors during two Norwegian election campaigns. SAGE Open4: 1–13.
34.
LarssonAOMoeH (2016) From emerging to established? A comparison of twitter use during Swedish election campaigns in 2010 and 2014. In: BrunsAEnliGSkogerbøE, et al. (eds) The Routledge Companion to Social Media and Politics. Routledge, pp. 311–324.
LomborgSBechmannA (2014) Using APIs for data collection on social media. The Information Society30(4): 256–265.
37.
MahrtMScharkowM (2013) The value of big data in digital media research. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media57: 20–33.
38.
MarcinkowskiFMetagJ (2014) Why do candidates use online media in constituency campaigning? An application of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Information Technology & Politics11(2): 151–168.
39.
RahatGSheaferT (2007) The personalization(s) of politics: Israel, 1949–2003. Political Communication24(1): 65–80.
40.
SegaardSBNielsenJA (2013) Local election blogs: Networking among the political elite. Information Polity18: 299–313.
41.
SennettR (1992) The Fall of Public Man. New York, NY: WW Norton & Company.
42.
Stromer-GalleyJ (2014) Presidential Campaigning in the Internet Age. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
43.
SvenssonJ (2012) Negotiating the political self on social media platforms. An in-depth study of image-management in an election-campaign in a multi-party democracy. eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government4(2): 183–197.
44.
Van AelstPSheaferTStanyerJ (2011) The personalization of mediated political communication: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism13(2): 203–220.
45.
van ZoonenL (2005) Entertaining the Citizen: When Politics and Popular Culture Converge. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
46.
VergeerM (2012) Politics, elections and online campaigning: Past, present…and a peek into the future. New Media & Society15(1): 9–17.
47.
VergeerMHermansL (2013) Campaigning on Twitter: Microblogging and online social networking as campaign tools in the 2010 general elections in the Netherlands. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication18(4): 399–419.
48.
VergeerMHermansLSamsS (2011a) Is the voter only a tweet away? Micro blogging during the 2009 European Parliament election campaign in the Netherlands. First Monday16(8): 1–15.
49.
VergeerMHermansLSamsS (2011b) Online social networks and micro-blogging in political campaigning: The exploration of a new campaign tool and a new campaign style. Party Politics19(3): 477–501.
50.
ZamithRLewisSC (2015) Content analysis and the algorithmic coder: What computational social science means for traditional modes of media analysis. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science659: 307–318.
