I hadn’t really gone into Sir Hayden Phillips review of party spending but I spotted an article on the front page of today’s Campaign which reports that Sir Hayden is encouraging parties to give up poster advertising because it’s a waste of money and doesn’t change anyone’s mind. I’m not sure of how much normally gets spent on such advertising but presumably even if posters get dumped, the parties will still want to market directly to voters. Does that mean resources going more towards online marketing?
I’m off to Stockholm for the weekend as Clare is attending the ICC conference there so I will probably take a couple of days off from this blogging stuff. I’m sure there are more interesting things for me to do while I’m over there.
Thursday 22 March 2007
Wednesday 21 March 2007
Surprise Surprise
Now, we weren't expecting that ending from Gordon to the budget today, were we?
Just a couple of other things to mention today. Two massive emails have arrived from Karen at Media Contacts no doubt full of very exciting information about how all our on line movements are tracked. I haven't had time to look at them yet though so we'll have to wait and see.
On the course front, today's political communications lecture was about whether there is a crisis in political communications and if there is, is it confined to traditional formal politics? I was quite pleased to hear Steve Barnett, who took the class, basically cover the same ground as I have over the last few weeks.
Issues concerning media proliferation and competition, a more sophisticated electorate more inclined to abandon traditional party political loyalties for more focussed issue groups, the increasing use of marketing tools, focus groups etc to decide policy etc etc etc . The concluding sentence of the lecture was that things aren't as bad as some people make out. It's a sentiment I have to agree with.
Just a couple of other things to mention today. Two massive emails have arrived from Karen at Media Contacts no doubt full of very exciting information about how all our on line movements are tracked. I haven't had time to look at them yet though so we'll have to wait and see.
On the course front, today's political communications lecture was about whether there is a crisis in political communications and if there is, is it confined to traditional formal politics? I was quite pleased to hear Steve Barnett, who took the class, basically cover the same ground as I have over the last few weeks.
Issues concerning media proliferation and competition, a more sophisticated electorate more inclined to abandon traditional party political loyalties for more focussed issue groups, the increasing use of marketing tools, focus groups etc to decide policy etc etc etc . The concluding sentence of the lecture was that things aren't as bad as some people make out. It's a sentiment I have to agree with.
Tuesday 20 March 2007
In The House
Our lobbying class had a trip to the Palace of Westminster this evening. We had a bit of a chat with Tom Watson MP, whose blog you can check out by going to my 'General Interest' links, about his views of the public affairs industry. Surprisingly he doesn't seem to think Parliament is a rubber stamp for the government. I suppose he has a point, specially in the current climate. I also have to conceed that he made a fair point when he talked about the fact that changes in legislation or policy brought about by pressure from MPs goes unreported. Anyway, it was all very interesting stuff and I have to say it was great to have a good look round after we finished the meeting.
Anyway, back to the topic of this blog. I took the opportunity of our visit to hand in a couple of letters for Diane Abbott and Meg Hillier who represent the two Hackney constituencies. Basically having gone through an extensive background check on why people don't vote and how new media is being deployed, especially in the States, I've decided it's time to check out the feelings of some people on the front line in the UK.
As I highlighted in my post on 3rd March Hackney is one of those areas which has a particular turnout problem. What I intend to do is check out the perceptions of those on either side of political communications, those sending and those receiving the messages. What do the senders think they can achieve? And what do the receivers believe will be the impact?
I will be trying to get as wide a range of views as possible. Hopefully, a few interesting discussion points will come out that can help those in politcial communications to be more effective.
Anyway, back to the topic of this blog. I took the opportunity of our visit to hand in a couple of letters for Diane Abbott and Meg Hillier who represent the two Hackney constituencies. Basically having gone through an extensive background check on why people don't vote and how new media is being deployed, especially in the States, I've decided it's time to check out the feelings of some people on the front line in the UK.
As I highlighted in my post on 3rd March Hackney is one of those areas which has a particular turnout problem. What I intend to do is check out the perceptions of those on either side of political communications, those sending and those receiving the messages. What do the senders think they can achieve? And what do the receivers believe will be the impact?
I will be trying to get as wide a range of views as possible. Hopefully, a few interesting discussion points will come out that can help those in politcial communications to be more effective.
Sunday 18 March 2007
Lessons Learnt
A bit of a late start today after last night’s St Patrick’s festivities. Why I should be celebrating St Patrick’s Day is a good question but I suppose any excuse will do. Diageo will be pleased!
Anyway, I think my senses have recovered enough to go through a bit of a round up of the issues I’ve been looking at over the past month or so. The trouble with blogging is that you post ideas and thoughts as they come up rather than in any particular coherent sequence so now and again it’s good to have a little review. What I have been trying to look at is whether new media channels can be used by those in political communications to address the issue of low voter turnout.
So, what have we learnt recently? I kicked off by doing some background research and looking at the reasons why people don’t vote and discovered that there were lots of them! Many it seems have nothing to do with apathy or lack of interest but range from practical issues such as procedures relating to registering to vote (particularly in the United States and in areas where there is a high turnover in population in the UK) to more complex issues relating to people’s greater awareness of the effect that their single vote can have, the relative power of the legislature they are voting for, and awareness of other ways in which the decision making process can be affected particularly through pressure groups. Cynicism and apathy of course also play their part. But, perhaps, things are not as bad as politicians, who have a vested interest in high turnouts, make out.
So, low turnout is not necessarily a symptom of lack of interest in politics. In fact some research seems to show that interest in political issues in the UK is increasing. Therefore, any potential which new media might have for political communications purposes has to be put in the context of a situation where there may be structural issues preventing people from voting, for which changes to the system of registering may be required, and where low turnout might be a reflection of a more thoughtful and sophisticated electorate, not an apathetic one.
Despite all this, the fact remains that getting people to vote (particularly the young) is increasingly difficult. What hope do new media channels have of addressing this issue? The use of the internet as a campaign tool became a feature of the 2004 US Presidential race. We have seen the examples of Howard Dean’s nomination campaign as well as the use of email in the Bush v Kerry contest. The analysis of these campaigns seems to show that the internet proved a useful tool in organising those who were already interested or committed to supporting a candidate but had little or no effect in changing people’s minds or in increasing turnout.
Three years down the line, the rapid changes in technology have led to a much more sophisticated approach toward online campaigning. The current contest for the Democratic nomination has already seen contender Braack Obama launching a MySpace site while Hillary Clinton has also launched a virtual campaign on Second Life. These are very interesting developments because they allow for third party endorsement of candidates. I might not be interested in Barack Obama but a friend of mine might be. If I see Obama is on the “friends’ list” of someone I know, then I might take a look. How effective this could be at convincing me to vote is another matter. Still, the social networking aspect of these latest developments does offer an interesting opportunity which those in political communications might be able to exploit in order to get more voters or to get more people out to vote.
Another development which might have potential, and which came up in my discussion with Karen Casey at Media Contacts, is the use of behavioural targeting. Technology now allows political parties to track the online behaviour of people and to tailor their advertising or political messages accordingly. It will be interesting to see whether political parties will use this technology and what the public’s reaction might be. There seem to be lots of new taboos about privacy springing up when it comes to the internet so maybe it won’t be such a good idea.
Whatever the true impact, the use of new media in political communications is here to stay. After all, politicians can’t afford to be seen to be out of touch with the latest developments. Using new media also generates good PR on traditional media so even if the online impact is limited, it’s still not a waste of time. The jury on whether it can encourage more young people to vote is still very much out and unfortunately the rapid changes in technology make it very difficult for academics to assess any impact. By the time any study is concluded technology has moved on again.
So, where do we go from now? I suppose the forthcoming American Presidential election might offer us some interesting ideas about where new media and political communications are heading. We might also get some clues as to whether it can affect turn out. I’m sure political parties in the UK will also be paying very close attention to see how they will approach the use of new media in the coming months. I feel though that overall, new media will remain very much an organisational tool for campaigns and that its effectiveness in reaching those who don’t vote, people who after all generally have less access to new media, will be limited.
Anyway, I think my senses have recovered enough to go through a bit of a round up of the issues I’ve been looking at over the past month or so. The trouble with blogging is that you post ideas and thoughts as they come up rather than in any particular coherent sequence so now and again it’s good to have a little review. What I have been trying to look at is whether new media channels can be used by those in political communications to address the issue of low voter turnout.
So, what have we learnt recently? I kicked off by doing some background research and looking at the reasons why people don’t vote and discovered that there were lots of them! Many it seems have nothing to do with apathy or lack of interest but range from practical issues such as procedures relating to registering to vote (particularly in the United States and in areas where there is a high turnover in population in the UK) to more complex issues relating to people’s greater awareness of the effect that their single vote can have, the relative power of the legislature they are voting for, and awareness of other ways in which the decision making process can be affected particularly through pressure groups. Cynicism and apathy of course also play their part. But, perhaps, things are not as bad as politicians, who have a vested interest in high turnouts, make out.
So, low turnout is not necessarily a symptom of lack of interest in politics. In fact some research seems to show that interest in political issues in the UK is increasing. Therefore, any potential which new media might have for political communications purposes has to be put in the context of a situation where there may be structural issues preventing people from voting, for which changes to the system of registering may be required, and where low turnout might be a reflection of a more thoughtful and sophisticated electorate, not an apathetic one.
Despite all this, the fact remains that getting people to vote (particularly the young) is increasingly difficult. What hope do new media channels have of addressing this issue? The use of the internet as a campaign tool became a feature of the 2004 US Presidential race. We have seen the examples of Howard Dean’s nomination campaign as well as the use of email in the Bush v Kerry contest. The analysis of these campaigns seems to show that the internet proved a useful tool in organising those who were already interested or committed to supporting a candidate but had little or no effect in changing people’s minds or in increasing turnout.
Three years down the line, the rapid changes in technology have led to a much more sophisticated approach toward online campaigning. The current contest for the Democratic nomination has already seen contender Braack Obama launching a MySpace site while Hillary Clinton has also launched a virtual campaign on Second Life. These are very interesting developments because they allow for third party endorsement of candidates. I might not be interested in Barack Obama but a friend of mine might be. If I see Obama is on the “friends’ list” of someone I know, then I might take a look. How effective this could be at convincing me to vote is another matter. Still, the social networking aspect of these latest developments does offer an interesting opportunity which those in political communications might be able to exploit in order to get more voters or to get more people out to vote.
Another development which might have potential, and which came up in my discussion with Karen Casey at Media Contacts, is the use of behavioural targeting. Technology now allows political parties to track the online behaviour of people and to tailor their advertising or political messages accordingly. It will be interesting to see whether political parties will use this technology and what the public’s reaction might be. There seem to be lots of new taboos about privacy springing up when it comes to the internet so maybe it won’t be such a good idea.
Whatever the true impact, the use of new media in political communications is here to stay. After all, politicians can’t afford to be seen to be out of touch with the latest developments. Using new media also generates good PR on traditional media so even if the online impact is limited, it’s still not a waste of time. The jury on whether it can encourage more young people to vote is still very much out and unfortunately the rapid changes in technology make it very difficult for academics to assess any impact. By the time any study is concluded technology has moved on again.
So, where do we go from now? I suppose the forthcoming American Presidential election might offer us some interesting ideas about where new media and political communications are heading. We might also get some clues as to whether it can affect turn out. I’m sure political parties in the UK will also be paying very close attention to see how they will approach the use of new media in the coming months. I feel though that overall, new media will remain very much an organisational tool for campaigns and that its effectiveness in reaching those who don’t vote, people who after all generally have less access to new media, will be limited.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
