Social Media Use of German Politicians: Towards Dialogic Voter Relations?

Abstract

Social media like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are the latest innovation in modern e-campaigning. They allow candidates to address voters in a personalised, responsive and dialogue-oriented manner that is hoped to improve the strained connection between citizens and political elite. Whether and in what ways German MPs on different political levels make use of this facility is unclear since studies in this area are still missing. The paper fills this void by providing the first comprehensive assessment of German politicians’ social media use. The study is based on a large-scale content analysis that compares the use of all major platforms (Facebook, VZ, Twitter, YouTube and Twitter) by German MPs in the Bundestag, the European Parliament and five federal state parliaments in 2012. The results show that on all levels MPs began to employ social media and that first steps towards interactive voter relations were made, especially on Facebook.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Linette Heimrich, MA is a Consultant for crowdsourcing, Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Munich, Germany.

Karoline Oelsner, MA is a PhD Candidate and Research Assistant in the Department of Public Relations & Technology Communication, Ilmenau University of Technology, Germany.

Notes

1. See E.J. Schweitzer and S. Albrecht, ‘Das Internet im Wahlkampf: Eine Einführung', in E.J. Schweitzer and S. Albrecht (eds), Das Internet im Wahlkampf – Analysen zur Bundestagswahl 2009 (Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, 2011), p.19ff.

2. M. Emmer, G. Vowe and J. Wolling, ‘Ein Medium wird erwachsen: Die Entwicklung der politischen Internetnutzung 2002 bis 2008', in Jens Wolling, Markus Seifert and Martin Emmer (eds), Politik 2.0? Die Wirkung computervermittelter Kommunikation auf den politischen Prozess (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2010), pp.88–108 at p.99.

3. For an overview of social media in international election campaigns see among others J. Macnamara and G. Kenning, ‘E-Electioneering 2010: Trends in Social Media Use in Australian Political Communication’, Media International Australia (139 (May 2011), pp.7–22; D.G. Lilleker and N.A. Jackson, ‘Elections 2.0: Comparing E-Campaigns in France, Germany, Great Britain and the United States’, in Schweitzer and Albrecht (eds), Das Internet im Wahlkampf, pp.96–116; R. Gibson, ‘From Brochureware to “MyBo”: An Overview of Online Elections and Campaigning', Politics 32/2 (2012), pp.77–84.

4. C.B. Williams and G.J. Gulati, ‘Communicating with Constituents in 140 Characters or Less’, Working Paper 43 (2010), available from http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/pn_wp/43 (accessed 10 July 2012); G.J. Gulati, and C.B. Williams, ‘Congressional Candidates' Use of YouTube in 2008: Its Frequency and Rationale', Journal of Information Technology & Politics 7/2 (2010), pp.93–109; C.B. Williams and G.J. Gulati, ‘Facebook Grows Up: An Empirical Assessment of Its Role in the 2008 Congressional Elections’, prepared for delivery at the ‘2009 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association', Chicago, IL, 2–5 April 2009, available from http://blogs.bentley.edu/politechmedia/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/mpsa_2009_final8.pdf (accessed 11 June 2012).

5. See Schweitzer and Albrecht, ‘Das Internet im Wahlkampf’, p.11ff.

6. Newthinking Communications GmbH, Politik im Web 2.0 – Kurzstudie – Ausgabe Juli 2009, p.4, available from http://netzpolitik.org/wp-upload/kurzstudie-politik-im-web-2-auflage5.pdf (accessed 10 May 2010).

7. See L. Heimrich, ‘Politische Public Relations in sozialen Online-Netzwerken – Eine inhaltsanalytische Untersuchung zum Einsatz von Facebook-Seiten in der Kommunikation zwischen Politikern und Bürgern’, in Simon Appenzeller, Felix Flemming and Lena Küpper (eds), Bürgerproteste im Spannungsfeld von Politik und Medien – Beiträge zur 7. Fachtagung des DFPK (Berlin: Frank & Timme, 2012) pp.125–43, at pp.139–40.

8. K.-R. Korte and M. Fröhlich, Politik und Regieren in Deutschland (Paderborn: Schöningh, 2004), p.20.

9. Initiative Pro Dialog, ‘Das Verhältnis der Bürger zu Staat und Politik – Politikverdrossenheit in Deutschland' (2006), available from http://www.prodialog.org/content/dialogwissen/studien (accessed 10 May 2010).

10. E.J. Schweitzer, ‘Normalization 2.0: A Longitudinal Analysis of German Online Campaigns in the National Elections 2002–2009’, European Journal of Communication 26/4 (2011), pp.310–27.

11. J. Wolling, A. Schmolinsky and M. Emmer, ‘Politiker vernetzt. Wie und warum sich Landtagsabgeordnete online präsentieren’, in Wolling et al. (eds), Politik 2.0?, pp.59–83 at p.80.

12. B. Witte, K. Rautenberg and C. Auer, ‘Marketing statt Mitmach-Netz? Web 2.0- Nutzung von Bremer Parteien und Medien', in Wolling et al. (eds), Politik 2.0?, p.244.

13. B. van Eimeren and B. Frees, ‘Drei von vier Deutschen im Netz- ein Ende des digitalen Grabens in Sicht? Ergebnisse der ARD/ZDF-Onlinestudie 2011’, Media Perspektiven 7–8 (2011), pp.334–49.

14. See Initiative Pro Dialog, ‘Das Verhältnis der Bürger zu Staat und Politik – Politikverdrossenheit in Deutschland' (2006), available from http://www.prodialog.org/content/dialogwissen/studien (accessed 10 May 2010); S. Coleman, ‘Connecting Parliament to the Public via the Internet: Two Case Studies of Online Consultations’ (2004), available from http://depts.washington.edu/ccce/assets/documents/coleman1.pdf (accessed 12 Sep. 2011); R. Peyton and P. Andersen, ‘Political Discourse on Facebook in a Time of Change: The election of 2008' (2009), available from http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/3/6/7/4/6/p367468_index.html (accessed 12 Sep. 2011).

15. See M. Ancu and R. Cozma, ‘MySpace Politics: Uses and Gratifications of Befriending Candidates’, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 53/4 (2009), pp.577–9; J. Kunert and J. Schmidt, ‘Hub, Fine-Tuner oder Business as Usual? Social Network Sites und die Bundestagswahl 2009’, in Schweitzer and Albrecht (eds), Das Internet im Wahlkampf, pp.226–43; L. Novy and D. Schwickert, ‘Ressource und Risiko: Potenziale des Internets für die Politik', in Bertelsmann Stiftung (ed.), Lernen von Obama? Das Internet als Ressource und Risiko für die Politik (Gütersloh: Verl. Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2009), pp.13–44; S. Utz, ‘The (Potential) Benefits of Campaigning via Social Network Sites’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14 (2009), pp.221–43; Coleman, ‘Connecting Parliament to the Public via the Internet’, p.5.

16. See T. Pape and T. Quandt, 'Wen erreicht der Wahlkampf 2.0? Eine Repräsentativstudie zum Informationsverhalten im Bundestagswahlkampf 2009', Media Perspektiven 9 (2010), p. 392.

17. A. Ebersbach, M. Glaser and R. Heigl, Social Web (Konstanz: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft, 2008), p.35.

18. L. Ye and E.-J. Ki, ‘The Status of Online Public Relations Research: An Analysis of Published Articles in 1992–2009’, Journal of Public Relations Research 24 (2012), pp.409–34.

19. J.E. Grunig and T. Hunt, Managing Public Relations (Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1984), p.22.

20. G. Bentele, ‘Politische Öffentlichkeitsarbeit', in U. Sarcinelli (ed.), Politikvermittlung und Demokratie in der Mediengesellschaft – Beiträge zur politischen Kommunikationskultur (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1998), pp.124–45.

21. Grunig and Hunt, Managing Public Relations, p.23.

22. M.L. Kent and M. Taylor, ‘Toward a Dialogic Theory of Public Relations’, Public Relations Review 28 (2002), pp.21–37.

23. A. Zerfaß, ‘Dialogkommunikation und strategische Unternehmensführung', in G. Bentele, H. Steinmann and A. Zerfaß (eds), Dialogorientierte Unternehmenskommunikation (Berlin: Vistas, 1996), pp.23–58.

24. S.J. McMillan, ‘A Four-Part Model of Cyber-Interactivity: Some Cyber-Places Are More Interactive Than Others', New Media & Society 4 (2002), pp.271–91 at pp.276–7.

25. J. Stromer-Galley, ‘Interactivity-as-Product and Interactivity-as-Process', The Information Society 20 (2004), pp.391–4 at p.393.

26. T. O'Reilly, ‘What Is the Social Web? Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software’, 2005, available from http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html (accessed 20 June 2012).

27. Lilleker and Jackson, ‘Elections 2.0’, p.111.

28. Heimrich, ‘Politische Public Relations in sozialen Online-Netzwerken’, pp.134–7; S. Gudat, ‘Social- Web-Campaigning im deutschen Wahlkampf. Ein Vergleich auf Länderebene im Superwahljahr 2011' [unpublished] Master Thesis, University of Technology Ilmenau, Ilmenau, 2011, pp.93–4.

29. A systematic sample was taken by including every second MP out of an alphabetically ordered list for every level or state.

30. The data were collected by four coders. To test the intercoder reliability, a random sample of 5 per cent of the material was coded again. For all categories, Holsti's concordance coefficient was between 0.85 and 1.00.

31. M. Meckel et al., ‘Politiker im Netz – Der Social Media Activity Index 2011des 17. Deutschen Bundestags – Zwischenbericht', available from http://isprat.net/fileadmin/downloads/pdfs/ISPRAT_Politiker_im_Netz_Uni_St_Gallen_Zb.pdf (accessed 10 June 2012).

32. See IVW Online-Nutzungsdaten, available from http://ausweisung.ivw-online.de (accessed 10 Sep. 2012).

33. Gender differences were also tested, but the analysis showed no significant differences between male and female politicians. This also confirms results from other studies where gender played no significant role. See, for example, W.J. Grant, B. Moon and J. Busby Grant, ‘How Do Australian Politicians Use Twitter?', Australian Journal of Political Science 45/4 (2010), p.589.

34. See Meckel et al., ‘Politiker im Netz', p.12.

35. See L. Heimrich, ‘Politische Public Relations in sozialen Online-Netzwerken – Eine inhaltsanalytische Untersuchung zum Einsatz von Facebook-Seiten in der Kommunikation zwischen Politikern und Bürgern' [unpublished] Bachelor Thesis, Ilmenau University of Technology, Ilmenau, 2011, p.34.

36. Van Eimeren and Frees, ‘Drei von vier Deutschen im Netz’, p.340.

37. See Meckel et al., ‘Politiker im Netz'; Heimrich, ‘Politische Public Relations in sozialen Online-Netzwerken’ in Appenzeller et al., Bürgerproteste im Spannungsfeld von Politik und Medien.

38. M. Kortmann, ‘Dossier Parteien in Deutschland', Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, 2010.

39. K. Busemann and C. Gscheidle, 'Web 2.0. Aktive Mitwirkung verbleibt auf niedrigem Niveau. Ergebnisse der ARD/ ZDF -Onlinestudie 2011', Media Perspektiven 7-8 (2011), p. 366.

40. Williams and Gulati, ‘Communicating with Constituents in 140 Characters or Less’, p.11.

41. CDUTV (http://www.youtube.com/user/cdutv): about two million clicks, 2500 subscribers, 460 videos; SPDvision (http://www.youtube.com/user/SPDvision): about two million clicks, 3000 subscribers, 495 videos, Kanal Grün (http://www.youtube.com/user/GRUENE): 2.8 million clicks, about 3600 subscribers, about 1000 videos; TV liberal (http://www.youtube.com/user/FDP): 2.4 million clicks, 2308 subscribers, 953 videos; Linke (http://www.youtube.com/user/dielinke): about one million clicks, 3600 subscribers, 399 videos (May 2012).

42. Wolling et al., ‘Politiker vernetzt’, p.80.

43. Williams and Gulati, ‘Communicating with Constituents in 140 Characters or Less’; Gulati and Williams, ‘Congressional Candidates' Use of YouTube in 2008'; Williams and Gulati, ‘Facebook Grows Up’.

44. M. Emmer, G. Vowe and J. Wolling, ‘Ein Medium wird erwachsen. Die Entwicklung der politischen Internetnutzung 2002 bis 2008', in Wolling et al. (eds), Politik 2.0?, pp.87–108 at p.99.

45. B. Witte, K. Rautenberg and C. Auer, ‘Marketing statt Mitmach-Netz? Web 2.0- Nutzung von Bremer Parteien und Medien', in Wolling et al. (eds), Politik 2.0?, pp.241–61 at p.255.

46. For example, Lilleker and Jackson 2011.

47. McMillan, ‘A Four-Part Model of Cyber-Interactivity', p.285.

48. Schweitzer, ‘Normalization 2.0.

49. See Meckel et al., ‘Politiker im Netz', p.16.