Research on social media use during election campaigns has largely focused on Twitter. Building on recommendations from previous scholarship, the work presented here provides comparative insights into party and citizen engagement on several platforms – Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube – during the 2017 Norwegian elections. Results indicate that the themes of popular, ‘viral’ posts vary across platforms, suggesting the need to adapt political messages to each specific outlet. The findings are discussed in the light of the suggested ‘analytics turn’ – when political actors can gauge the minutiae of how their online efforts are engaged with, how do those types of insights influence the shape and content of political campaigns?
BekafigoMAMcBrideA (2013) Who tweets about politics? Political participation of twitter users during the 2011 gubernatorial elections. Social Science Computer Review31(5): 625–643.
2.
BodeLEpsteinB (2015) Campaign Klout: measuring online influence during the 2012 election. Journal of Information Technology & Politics12(2): 133–148.
3.
boydDCrawfordK (2012) Critical questions for big data. Information, Communication & Society15(5): 662–679.
4.
boydDMEllisonNB (2008) Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication13(1): 210–230.
5.
BrunsABurgessJ (2011) #ausvotes – How Twitter covered the 2010 Australian federal election. Communication, Politics & Culture44(2): 37–56.
6.
BrunsAEnliG (2018) The Norwegian twittersphere – structure and dynamics. Nordicom Review39: 1–20.
7.
BrunsAStieglitzS (2012) Quantitative approaches to comparing communication patterns on twitter. Journal of Technology in Human Services30(3–4): 160–185.
8.
ChadwickA (2013) The Hybrid Media System – Politics and Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9.
ChadwickAStromer-GalleyJ (2016) Digital media, power, and democracy in parties and election campaigns. The International Journal of Press/Politics21(3): 283–293.
10.
DenverDHandsG (2002) Post-Fordism in the constituencies? The continuing development of constituency campaigning in Britain. In: FarrellDMSchmitt-BeckR (eds.) Do Political Campaigns Matter? Campaign Effects in Elections and Referendums. London, New York: Routledge, pp. 108–126.
11.
EnjolrasBKarlsenRSteen-JohnsenK, et al. (2013) Liker – Liker Ikke. Sosiale Medier, Samfunnsengasjement og Offentlighet. Oslo: Cappellen Damm Akademisk.
12.
EnliG (2015a) Mediated Authenticity: How the Media Constructs Reality. New York: Peter Lang.
13.
EnliG (2015b) Politisk logikk eller medielogikk? – Norske partilederes strategier, imagebygging og autentisitet i sosiale medier. Norsk medietidsskrift22(03): 1–19.
14.
EnliG (2017a) New media and politics. Annals of the International Communication Association41(3–4): 220–227.
15.
EnliG (2017b) Twitter as arena for the authentic outsider: exploring the social media campaigns of Trump and Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election. European Journal of Communication32(1): 50–61.
16.
EsserFHanitzschT (2012) On the why and how of comparative inquiry in communication studies. In: EsserFHanitzschT (eds.) The Handbook of Comparative Communication Research. London: Routledge, pp. 3–22.
17.
EvansSKPearceKEVitakJ, et al. (2017) Explicating affordances: a conceptual framework for understanding affordances in communication research. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication22: 35–52.
18.
FarrellDWebbP (2000) Political parties as campaign organizations. In: DaltonRJWattenbergMP (eds.) Parties without Partisans. Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 102–128.
19.
FeltM (2016) Social media and the social sciences: how researchers employ big data analytics. Big Data & Society3(1): 1–15.
20.
FilimonovKRußmannUSvenssonJ (2016) Picturing the party: Instagram and party campaigning in the 2014 Swedish elections. Social Media + Society2(3): 1–11.
21.
FootKASchneiderSM (2006) Web Campaigning. Cambridge: MIT Press.
22.
FreelonD (2018) Computational research in the post-API age. Political Communication00: 1–4.
GibsonR (2004) Web campaigning from a global perspective. Asia-Pacific Review11(1): 95–126.
25.
GibsonRKMcAllisterI (2015) Normalising or equalising party competition? Assessing the impact of the web on election campaigning. Political Studies63(3): 529–547.
26.
GibsonRRömmeleA (2001) Changing campaign communications: a party-centered theory of professionalized campaigning. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics6(4): 31–43.
27.
GruzdAWellmanB (2014) Networked influence in social media. American Behavioral Scientist58(10): 1251–1259.
28.
HansenKMKosiara-PedersenK (2014) Cyber-campaigning in Denmark: application and effects of candidate campaigning. Journal of Information Technology & Politics11(2): 206–219.
29.
HershED (2015) Hacking the Electorate: How Campaigns Perceive Voters. New York: Cambridge University Press.
JungherrA (2014) Twitter in Politics: A Comprehensive Literature Review. Konstanz: University of Konstanz.
32.
JungherrA (2015) Twitter use in election campaigns: a systematic literature review. Journal of Information Technology & Politics13(1): 72–91.
33.
JungherrATheocharisY (2017) The empiricist’s challenge: asking meaningful questions in political science in the age of big data. Journal of Information Technology & Politics14(2): 97–109.
34.
KalsnesB (2016a) The Power of Likes: Social Media Logic and Political Communication. Oslo, Norway: Ph. D., University of Oslo.
35.
KalsnesB (2016b) The social media paradox explained: comparing political parties Facebook strategy versus practice. Social Media + Society2(2): 1–11.
36.
KalsnesBLarssonAO (2018) Understanding news sharing across social media. Journalism Studies19: 1669–1688.
37.
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.
38.
KarpfD (2010) Online political mobilization from the advocacy group’s perspective: looking beyond clicktivism. Policy & Internet2(4): 7–41.
39.
KarpfD (2016) Analytic Activism: Digital Listening and the New Political Strategy. New York: Oxford University Press.
40.
KlingerUSvenssonJ (2015) The emergence of network media logic in political communication: a theoretical approach. New Media & Society17: 1241–1257.
41.
KlingerURussmannU (2017) “Beer is more efficient than social media”—Political parties and strategic communication in Austrian and Swiss national elections. Journal of Information Technology & Politics14(4): 299–313.
42.
KluverRJankowskiNFootK, et al. (2007) The Internet and National Elections: A Comparative Study of Web Campaigning. London, New York: Routledge.
43.
Koc-MichalskaKGibsonRVedelT (2014) Online campaigning in France, 2007–2012: political actors and citizens in the aftermath of the web.2.0 evolution. Journal of Information Technology & Politics11(2): 220–244.
44.
KreissD (2012) Taking Our Country Back: The Crafting of Networked Politics from Howard Dean to Barack Obama. New York: Oxford University Press.
45.
KreissD (2014) Seizing the moment: the presidential campaigns use of Twitter during the 2012 electoral cycle. New Media & Society18(8): 1473–1490.
46.
LarssonAO (2015a) Pandering, protesting, engaging. Norwegian party leaders on Facebook during the 2013 ‘Short campaign'. Information, Communication & Society18: 459–473.
47.
LarssonAO (2015b) Studying big data – ethical and methodological considerations. In: FossheimHIngierdH (eds.) Internet Research Ethics. Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk, pp. 141–157.
48.
LarssonAO (2015c) Comparing to prepare: Suggesting ways to study social media today—and tomorrow. Social Media + Society1(1).
49.
LarssonAO (2016) Online, all the time? A quantitative assessment of the permanent campaign on Facebook. New Media & Society18(2): 274–292.
50.
LarssonAO (2017a) Going viral? Comparing parties on social media during the 2014 Swedish election. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies23: 117–131.
51.
LarssonAO (2017b) Skiing all the way to the polls. Published online at Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies.
52.
LarssonAOIhlenØ (2015) Birds of a feather flock together? Party leaders on twitter during the 2013 norwegian elections. European Journal of Communication30(6): 666–681.
53.
LarssonAOMoeH (2014) Triumph of the underdogs? Comparing twitter use by political actors during two norwegian election campaigns. SAGE Open4(4): 1–13.
54.
LarssonAOSvenssonJ (2014) Politicians online – Identifying current research opportunities. First Monday19(4).
55.
LevorashkaAUtzSAmbrosR (2016) What’s in a like? Motivations for pressing the like button. In: Tenth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM 2016), Cologne, Germany.
56.
LillekerDG (2015) Interactivity and political communication - hypermedia campaigning in the UK. Comunicação Pública10(18): 1–18.
57.
LillekerDGJacksonNA (2010) Towards a more participatory style of election campaigning: the impact of web 2.0 on the UK 2010 general election. Policy & Internet2(3): 67–96.
58.
LomborgSBechmannA (2014) Using APIs for data collection on social media. The Information Society30(4): 256–265.
ManciniP (1999) New frontiers in political professionalism. Political Communication16(3): 231–245.
61.
MarwickAEboydD (2010) I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society 13(1): 114–133.
62.
MoeHLarssonAO (2012) Methodological and ethical challenges associated with large-scale analyses of online political communication. Nordicom Review33(1): 117–124.
NahonKHemsleyJWalkerS, et al. (2011) Fifteen minutes of fame: the power of blogs in the lifecycle of viral political information. Policy & Internet3: 6–33.
65.
NielsenRK (2010) Mundane internet tools, mobilizing practices, and the coproduction of citizenship in political campaigns. New Media & Society13(5): 755–771.
66.
NielsenRKVaccariC (2013) Do people “like” politicians on Facebook? Not really. Large-scale direct candidate-to-voter online communication as an outlier phenomenon. International Journal of Communication7: 2333–2356.
67.
NielsenRKGanterSA (2017) Dealing with digital intermediaries: a case study of the relations between publishers and platforms. New Media & Society20: 1600–1617.
68.
NorrisP (2000) A Virtuous Circle: Political Communications in Postindustrial Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
69.
Porten-CheéPHasslerJJostP, et al. (2018) Popularity cues in online media: theoretical and methodological perspectives. Studies in Communication and Media7: 210–230.
70.
RiederB (2013, May2–4) Studying Facebook via Data Extraction: The Netvizz Application. Paper presented at the WebSci’13 Conference, Paris, France, 2–4 May.
71.
ScissorsLBurkeMWengrovitzS (2016) What’s in a Like?: attitudes and behaviors around receiving Likes on Facebook. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (eds GergleDRingelMorris M), San Francisco, California, USA, February 2016, pp. 1501–1510. ACM.
TandocECLouCMinVLH (2019) Platform-swinging in a poly-social-media context: how and why users navigate multiple social media platforms. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication24(1): 21–35.
74.
TenscherJ (2013) First- and second-order campaigning: evidence from Germany. European Journal of Communication28(3): 241–258.
75.
VaccariC (2012) From echo chamber to persuasive device? Rethinking the role of the Internet in campaigns. New Media & Society15(1): 109–127.
76.
Van AelstPSheaferTStanyerJ (2011) The personalization of mediated political communication: a review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism13(2): 203–220.
XenosMAMacafeeTPoleA (2015) Understanding variations in user response to social media campaigns: a study of Facebook posts in the 2010 US elections. New Media & Society19(6): 826–842.
