Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2013-2
Personalization in e-campaigning: A cross-national comparison of personalization strategies used on candidate websites of 17 countries in EP elections 2009
Candidate websites provide politicians with opportunities to present themselves in an individual way. To a greater or lesser extent politicians share personal information in their biographies and provide options to connect with citizens by putting links on their websites to their social networking sites (SNS). In this paper, although acting on different levels, both strategies are indicated as forms of personalization strategies used by politicians in their online communication. This cross-national study explores the use of these strategies on candidate websites in 17 countries during the elections for the European Parliament (EP) in June 2009. This is a comparative study of the personalized and individualized campaigning styles used during elections. Findings show that three general dimensions of personalization can be distinguished; ‘professional’, ‘home and family’ and ‘personal preferences’. While the first two dimensions show a higher level of use among candidates, the third dimension on private information is hardly used. Results show also that countries from Central Europe inform their citizens more about their professional and personal circumstances, and Mediterranean countries use personalization strategies the least. Furthermore, the overall findings show that SNS were not frequently used during the 2009 e-campaigning. West European countries use links to SNS more frequently than countries in other regions. In general these findings suggest cross-cultural differences regarding online personalized political campaigning.
AdamSMaierM (2010) Personalization of politics: a critical review and agenda for research. In: SalmonCT (ed.) Communication Yearbook34. New York and London: Routledge, pp. 213–258.
2.
CampusD (2010) Mediatization and personalization of politics in Italy and France: the case of Berlosconi and Sarkozy. International Journal of Press-Politics15(2): 219–235.
3.
De ZunigaHPuig-I-AbrilERojasH (2009) Weblogs, traditional sources online and political participation: an assessment of how the Internet is changing the political environment. New Media & Society11(4): 553–574.
4.
DriessensORaeymaekersKVerstraetenH. (2010) Personalization according to politicians: a practice theoretical analysis of mediatization. Communication35: 309–326.
5.
EsserFPfetschB (2004) Comparing Political Communication: Theories, Cases, and Challenges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
FlickingerRSStudlarDT (2007) One Europe, many electorates? Models of turnout in European Parliament elections after 2004. Comparative Political Studies40(4): 383–404.
10.
FootKSchneiderS (2006) Web Campaigning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11.
GibsonR (2004) Web campaigning from a global perspective. Asia-Pacific Review11(1): 95–126.
12.
GibsonRRömmeleA (2001) Changing campaign communications – a party-centered theory of professionalized campaigning. Harvard International Journal of Press-Politics6(4): 31–43.
13.
GibsonRRömmeleA (2009) Measuring the professionalization of political campaigning. Party Politics15(3): 265–293.
14.
GibsonRWardS (2009) Parties in the digital age: a review article. Representations45(1): 87–100.
15.
GulatiJWilliamsB (2007) Closing the gap, raising the bar: candidate web site communication in the 2006 campaigns for Congress. Social Science Computer Review25(4): 443–465.
16.
HagemannCVan OsRJankowskiN. (2005) Professionalisering en personalisering? De Websites van Nederlandse Partijen en hun Kandidaten bij de Campagne voor de Europese Verkiezingen van 2004 [Professionalization and personalization? The websites from Dutch political parties and their candidates for the EP elections 2004]. Available at: http://irs.ub.rug.nl/dbi/4607c2fad816a (accessed 21 June 2012).
17.
HallinDCManciniP (2004) Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18.
Holz-BachaC (2002) Professionalization of political communication: the case of the 1998 SPD campaign. Journal of Political Marketing1(4): 23–37.
19.
HoogheMVissersS (2009) Reaching out or reaching in? The use of party websites during the 2006 electoral campaign in Belgium. Information, Communication & Society12(5): 691–714.
20.
JacksonNALillekerDG (2009a) MP’s and e-representation: Me MySpace and I. British Politics4(2): 236–264.
21.
JacksonNALillekerDG (2009b) Building an architecture of participation? Political parties and Web 2.0 in Britain. Journal of Information Technology & Politics6(3/4): 232–250.
22.
JankowskiNWFootKKluverR. (2005) The Web and the 2004 EP election. Comparing political actor websites in 11 EU member states. Information Policy10(3): 165–176.
23.
JohnstoneAKaidLL (2002) Image vs. issue ads in US presidential campaigns. Journal of Communication52(2): 281–300.
24.
KaaseM (1994) Is there personalization in politics? Candidates and voting behaviour in Germany. International Political Science Review15(3): 211–230.
25.
KaidLLHolz-BachaC (eds) (2006) The Sage Handbook of Political Advertising. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
26.
KarlsenR (2009) Campaign communication and the Internet: party strategy in the 2005 Norwegian election campaign. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties19: 183–202.
27.
KarvonenL (2010) The Personalization of Politics: A Study of Parliamentary Democracies. Colchester: European Consortium for Political Research Central Services.
28.
KluverRJankowskiNFootK. (eds) (2007) The Internet and National Elections: A Comparative Study of Web Campaigning. London: Routledge, pp. 105–113.
LangerAI (2010) The politicization of private persona: exceptional leaders or the new rule? The case of the United Kingdom and the Blair effect. International Journal of Press-Politics15(1): 60–76.
31.
LillekerDGPackMJacksonN (2010) Political parties and Web 2.0: the liberal democrat perspective. Politics30(2): 105–112.
32.
McAllisterI (2007) The personalization of politics. In: DaltonRJKlingemannH (eds) Oxford Handbook of Political Behaviour. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 571−588.
33.
MansellR (2010) Mediating the public sphere: democratic deliberation communication gaps and the personalization of politics. In: SalmonCT (ed.) Communication Yearbook34. New York/London: Routledge, pp. 259–274.
34.
NorrisP (2000) A Virtuous Circle: Political Communications in Post-Industrialised Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35.
NorrisP (2003) Preaching to the converted? Pluralism, participation and party websites. Party Politics9(1): 21–45.
PfetschBEsserF (2004) Comparing political communication: reorientations in a changing world. In: EsserFPfetschB (eds) Comparing Political Communication: Theories, Cases, and Challenges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 2–24.
38.
PoguntkeTWebbP (eds) (2005) The Presidentialization of Politics: A Comparative Study of Modern Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
39.
RahatGShaeferT (2007) The personalization(s) of politics: Israel, 1949–2003. Political Communication24(1): 65–80.
40.
SchneiderSFootK (2004) Web sphere analysis: an approach to studying online action. In: HineC (ed.) Virtual Methods: Issues in Social Science Research on the Internet. Oxford: Berg Publishers, pp. 157–170.
41.
SchweitzerEJ (2008) Innovation or normalization 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.
42.
StrömbäckJKaïdLL (eds) (2008) The Handbook of Election News Coverage around the World. New York: Routledge.
43.
UtzS (2009) The (potential) benefits of campaigning via social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication14: 221–243.
Van OsRHagemannCVoermanG. (2007) The Netherlands: party and candidate web sites during the 2004 European Parliament election campaign. In: KluverRJankowskiNWFootHA. (eds) The Web and National Elections: A Global Comparative Perspective. London: Taylor and Francis, pp. 23–59.
46.
Van SantenRVan ZoonenL (2009) Popularisering en personalisering in politieke communicatie [Popularizing and personalization in political communication]. Tijdschrift voor Communicatiewetenschap37(2): 155–176.
47.
VergeerMHermansLSamsS (2011) Online social networks and micro-blogging in political campaigning: the exploration of a new campaign tool and a new campaign style. Party Politics, doi: 10.1177/135406881140758010.1177/1354068811407580.
48.
VergeerMHermansLCunhaC (2012) Political parties, candidates, and Web campaigning in the 2009 European Parliament elections. New Media & Society (this issue).
49.
WirthWKolbS (2004) Design and methods of comparative political communication research. In: EsserFPfetschB (eds) Comparing Political Communication: Theories, Cases, and Challenges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 87–114.
50.
ZittelT (2004) Political communication and electronic democracy: American exceptionalism or global trend? In: EsserPfetschB (eds) Comparing Political Communication: Theories, Cases, and Challenges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 231–250.
51.
ZittelT (2009) Lost in technology? Political parties and the online campaigns of constituency candidates in Germany’s mixed member election system. Journal of Information Technology & Politics6: 298–311.
