Academic analysis of the growth and nature of political campaigning online has concentrated largely on textual interactions between politicians, parties, their members, and supporters, as well as voters more widely. In evaluating the shift from traditional to online campaigning techniques, the use of social media’s increasingly visual capabilities has been comparatively neglected in research. This article considers one type of online visual political communication, the online political poster, in terms of its strategic campaign functions relating to persuasive and organizational roles. The article uses a case study of an extensive data set of online political posters collected from political parties in the United Kingdom, on Facebook, between September 2013 through to and including the general election in May 2015, to try to understand how parties used online political posters and how audiences responded to them. The findings show that despite a clear emphasis on sharing images, very few received widespread attention, arguably limiting their persuasive role. However, their prevalence suggests a role relating to parties trying to maintain relationships with existing online supporters as a form of displaying virtual presence, credibility, and belonging, paralleling the function of traditional window posters and yard signs but in a social media setting.
Baldwin-PhilippiJessica. 2015. Using Technology, Building Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
2.
BarnhurstKevin G.QuinnKelly. 2012. “Political Visions: Visual Studies in Political Communication.” In The Sage Handbook of Political Communication, ed. SemetkoHolli A.ScammellMargaret, 276–91. London: Sage.
3.
BartlettJamieBennettSidBirnieRutgerWibberleySimon. 2013. Virtually Members: The Facebook and Twitter Followers of UK Political Parties. London: Demos
BurgessChris. 2011. “‘This Election Will Be Won by People Not Posters’ . . . Advertising and the 2010 General Election.” In Political Communication in Britain: The Leader Debates, the Campaign and the Media in the 2010 General Election, ed. WringDominicMortimoreRogerAtkinsonSimon, 181–97. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
6.
ChadwickAndrew. 2009. “Web 2.0: New Challenges for the Study of E-Democracy in an Era of Informational Exuberance.”I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy5 (1): 9–41.
7.
ChadwickAndrew. 2013. The Hybrid Media System. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8.
De BruynArnaudLilienGary. 2008. “A Multi-Stage Model of Word-of-Mouth Influence through Viral Marketing.”International Journal of Research in Marketing25 (3): 151–63.
9.
DumitrescuDelia. 2011. “The Importance of Being Present: Election Posters as Signals of Electoral Strength, Evidence from France and Belgium.”Party Politics18 (6): 941–60.
10.
DuvergerMaurice. 1954. Political Parties, Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. London: Methuen.
11.
GibsonRachel K.2013. “Party Change, Social Media and the Rise of ‘Citizen-Initiated’ Campaigning.”Party Politics21 (2): 183–97.
JungherrAndreas. 2013. “The Role of the Internet in Political Campaigns in Germany.”German Politics24 (4): 427–34.
14.
KatzRichard S.MairPeter. 1995. “Changing Models of Party Organization and Party Democracy: The Emergence of the Cartel Party.”Party Politics1 (1): 5–28.
15.
KirchheimerOtto. 1966. “The Transformation of the Western European Party Systems.” In Political Parties and Political Development, ed. LaPalombaraJosephWeinerMyron, 177–200. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
LeeBenjamin.2013. “Are Digital Technologies Supporting Traditional Styles of Electioneering? Measuring and Explaining the Use of Interactive Web Campaigns by Candidates in the 2010 UK General Election.” Ph.D. diss., University of Manchester.
18.
LewisJonathanMasshardtBrian J.2002. “Election Posters in Japan.”Japan Forum14 (3): 373–404.
19.
LillekerDarren G.Koc-MichalskaKarolinaSchweitzerEva JohannaJacunskiMichalJacksonNigelVedelThierry. 2011. “Informing, Engaging, Mobilizing or Interacting: Searching for a European Model of Web Campaigning.”European Journal of Communication26 (3): 195–213.
20.
LillekerDarren G.TenscherJensŠtětkaVáclav. 2015. “Towards Hypermedia Campaigning? Perceptions of New Media’s Importance for Campaigning by Party Strategists in Comparative Perspective.”Information, Communication & Society18 (7): 747–65.
21.
LöfgrenKarlSmithColin. 2003. “Political Parties and Democracy in the Information Age.” In Political Parties and the Internet: Net Gain? ed. GibsonRachel K.NixonPaulWardStephan, 39–52. London: Routledge.
22.
MairPetervan BiezenIngrid. 2001. “Party Membership in Twenty European Democracies, 1980–2000.”Party Politics7 (1): 5–21.
23.
MargettsHelen. 2001. “The Cyber Party: The Causes and Consequences of Organisational Innovation in European Political Parties.”Paper presented at the European Consortium of Political Research (ECPR) Joint Sessions of Workshops, Grenoble, France, April 6–11.
24.
MargolisMichaelResnickDavid. 2000. Politics as Usual: The Cyberspace “Revolution.”London: Sage.
25.
McKenzieRobert. 1963. British Political Parties. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
26.
McNairBrian. 2012. An Introduction to Political Communication. 5th Edition. London: Routledge.
27.
MiltnerKate. 2014. “‘There’s No Place for Lulz on LOLCats’: The Role of Genre, Gender, and Group Identity in the Interpretation and Enjoyment of an Internet Meme.”First Monday19 (8). http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/5391/4103. Accessed April 16, 2015).
28.
MorozovEvgeny. 2011. The Net Delusion. New York: PublicAffairs.
SchillDan. 2012. “The Visual Image and the Political Image: A Review of Visual Communication Research in the Field of Political Communication.”Review of Communication12 (2): 118–42.
34.
SchudsonMichael. 1984. Advertising the Uneasy Persuasion: Its Dubious Impact on American Society. New York, NY: Basic Books.
35.
SeidmanSteven A.2008a. Posters, Propaganda and Persuasion in Election Campaigns around the World and Through History. New York: Peter Lang.
36.
SeidmanSteven A.2008b. “Studying Election Campaign Posters and Propaganda: What Can We Learn?”International Journal of Instructional Media35 (4): 413–27.
37.
ShifmanLimor. 2014. Memes in Digital Culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
38.
Stromer-GalleyJennifer. 2000. “On-Line Interaction and Why Candidates Avoid It.”Journal of Communication50 (4): 111–32.
39.
SwanepoelCelesteLyeAshleyRugimbanaRobert. 2009. “Virally Inspired: A Review of the Theory of Viral Stealth Marketing.”Australasian Marketing Journal17 (1): 9–15.
VaccariCristian. 2012. “From Echo Chamber to Persuasive Device? Rethinking the Role of the Internet in Campaigns.”New Media & Society15 (1): 109–27.
42.
VaccariCristianValerianiAugusto. 2015. “Follow the Leader! Direct and Indirect Flows of Political Communication during the 2013 Italian General Election Campaign.”New Media & Society17 (7): 1025–1042.
43.
VliegenthartRens. 2012. “The Professionalization of Political Communication? A Longitudinal Analysis of Dutch Election Campaign Posters.”American Behavioral Scientist56 (2): 135–50.
