SEEKING UNMEDIATED POLITICAL INFORMATION IN A MEDIATED ENVIRONMENT: The uses and gratifications of political parties' e-newsletters

Abstract

Political parties are increasingly attempting to communicate to sections of the electorate directly, in order to relay targeted messages. E-newsletters are one key communication mode that facilitates this strategy, and previous research indicates that these, like many communications using information and communication technology, offer much potential for the sender. This research focuses on the receiver, explicitly taking a uses and gratifications approach to understanding the function of e-newsletters for the UK electorate. Our findings suggest that the majority of receivers are committed party members who desire to receive information directly from the party that will help them in their campaigning and activist roles. There is, however, a minority of less-active, politically interested, subscribers who also use e-newsletters to aid their voter choice. The data suggest that e-newsletters are able to encourage subscribers to develop and build relationships with a political party, possibly becoming more active in their support than simply offering a vote at election times.

Keywords:

• Uses and gratification theory
• UK political party e-newsletters
• UK political communication
• online political activism

Introduction

Although the use of the Internet in party politics stretches back no more than to 1993 (Johnson 2001), online communications have now become a mainstream campaigning tool (Jackson 2003a; Jackson & Lilleker 2004). The focus of the research conducted so far has been primarily on how parties and individual politicians have used websites (Ward & Gibson 1998; Gibson et al. 2003; Jackson 2003a; Ward & Lusoli 2005). The sole focus upon websites use is perhaps wrong; other forms of e-communications are argued to be more effective, and more appropriate for political campaigning (Painter & Wardle 2001; Jackson 2004; Jackson & Lilleker 2004). Email has been described as a killer application, one that has the capacity to change the way people communicate generally (Downes & Mui 2000), joining letters and the telephone as a normal everyday means of communication between individuals and organizations. As a consequence, email represents an opportunity for parties to communicate directly with party activists, members and floating voters. Parties, therefore, are starting to offer a range of communication services that interested voters may subscribe to. Evidence suggests that e-newsletters are growing in importance; for example, in the 2004 election cycle in the US some 14 million people subscribed to an e-newsletter to receive the latest political news (Rainie et al. 2005). Certainly, in the UK subscriptions to party e-newsletters are on the increase (Jackson 2004); however, parties do not yet appear to have a clear long-term view of how e-newsletters can be integrated into a campaign. This research develops an understanding of how e-newsletters are viewed by subscribers that offers insights into their importance as a campaigning and relationship building tool. The focus is predicated on ideas borne out of a workshop held by the authors to discuss the potential of e-campaigning. The political campaigners who attended emphasized email above other tools at their disposal, integral to which was the e-newsletter. However, while they believe transmitting their messages to as large a group as possible is sufficient, they had no tangible data on how communication was received, by whom, or what they did with the content.

The use of e-newsletters

An e-newsletter is simply a form of email campaign (Chaffey 2003) which can simply replicate the articles that we might find in an offline newsletter, or provide website links to help entice the subscriber to elaborate on issues of interest. E-newsletters, therefore, can be of at least two different formats, one which is a full newsletter, and one of which is essentially a ‘taster’ which filters the subscriber to stories on websites that might be of interest to them. However, the key to a successful e-newsletter is the quality of the list of subscribers (Ollier 1998; Haig 2001; Philips 2001; Chaffey 2003). In order to avoid spamming potential supporters the norm is now that such a list is based on an opt-in permission basis.

E-newsletters are advantageous for users, they are cheap (Katz 2003; Mednick 2004; Weil 2004), quick to produce and update (Haig 2001; Chaffey 2003) and they bypass the mass media (Haig 2001; Philips 2001). As a result they can be created more frequently than offline alternatives, and possibly tailored to meet the discrete needs of different audiences. Furthermore, as a two-way communication medium they offer the sender the opportunity of receiving almost instant feedback (Klein 2002), for example to track subscribers' interests (Miller 2003). At the same time, because of the frequent nature of e-newsletters, the subscribers can see what effect, if any, their feedback has had. More fundamentally, e-newsletters can help build up a relationship between a sender and subscriber that may have long-term benefits (Weil 2004; Miller 2003; Klein 2002; Philip 2001). In a commercial context, e-newsletters are a tool for retaining, and gaining a closer association with, customers and supporters, rather than necessarily recruiting new support; the same potential maybe available for political parties.

Email is a ‘push’ technology (Ollier 1998; Chaffey 2003): the sender determines what information is sent to the receiver, and therefore the balance of power lies with the sender. Conversely, with a ‘pull’ technology the receiver determines what information, if any, he/she receives and in what order. The balance of power, therefore, lies with the receiver. The Web is considered to be a ‘pull’ technology (Ollier 1998). We suggest, however, that e-newsletters are multifaceted in that they may be both ‘push’ and ‘pull’. Though constructed by the sender, the subscriber chooses when to opt in or unsubscribe and, unlike many other forms of communication, an e-newsletter is non-linear and the reader can select what is relevant to him/her, despite being partially pushed by the sender. This means that e-newsletters may meet the needs of the postmodern audience in an era of media fragmentation while complementing traditional communication by enabling the sender to reinforce his/her messages.

However, as a direct form of communication e-newsletters have been under-utilized by political communicators. Research found that only four out of 100 respondents provided an e-newsletter (Jackson 2003b) and out of 51 registered political parties,1 only eight parliamentary and one non-parliamentary party claimed to provide a freely available e-newsletter or collect email addresses (Jackson 2004). Following interviews with party e-campaigners, Jackson (2004) suggests that the motivation for providing an e-newsletter is to develop a closer relationship with internal audiences such as members and supporters.2 However, at the same time parties did not completely ignore potential external audiences. The flexibility of their content makes e-newsletters potentially a ‘catch-all’ communication tool as e-newsletters attract more than one audience at any one time.

The growing importance of direct communication implies a change in not just the channels used but the purpose. Political communication via the mass media is primarily a numbers game; political actors seek to broadcast their messages to the largest number possible. The shift towards direct communication suggests that political communicators seek to narrowcast their message to specific audiences. Narrowcasting tends to focus on opinion formers (Keller & Berry 2003) who influence the political messages and channels that others access. Once they have reached these opinion formers, political actors hope to be able to use an e-newsletter as a vehicle for broader mobilization (Davis 2005)

Individuals may subscribe to e-newsletters to receive information or to provide their own opinions on political issues. Rogers's (1995) Law of Diffusion suggests that people respond differently to the existence of new products, services and technological developments. Early adopters are likely to consider trying out new technologies and products almost as soon as they become available. Conversely, laggards resist new technologies and products and are usually the last to adopt them. Importantly for political parties early adopters tend to be opinion formers, suggesting that e-newsletter subscribers may act as endorsers who amplify party messages among a wider network.

Uses and gratifications theory

As unsubscribing from e-newsletters is simple, they therefore need to keep the interest of subscribers. Thus the focus should not be what the political party wants to achieve, but what the subscriber gets out of receiving it. This is contrary to traditional communication theory, which focused upon the sender of a message: his/her motivation, aims and objectives (Shannon & Weaver 1949; Severin & Tankard 1997). To understand the effectiveness of party e-newsletters this article adopts a uses and gratifications approach. Uses and gratifications theory makes four assumptions. First, users deliberately seek out information, rather than being passive receivers of a message who merely process information, they are goal oriented and have clear reasons for accessing a medium (Blumler & Katz 1974); they will seek the best medium for meeting their needs (Katz et al. 1973); and have alternative media that can satisfy their need (Severin & Tankard 1997). If the uses and gratifications model is accepted, then political parties need to understand the motivation and uses of e-newsletter subscribers.

The receiver's exact uses and gratifications depend on the specific communication channel and the nature of each individual, but we can identify from the literature five possible generic motivations. First, and most importantly, seeking information (Katz et al. 1973); this is common to most studies and recognizes that a user has to ‘take something away’ from a communication channel. Second, people seek escapism from their everyday lives and problems (Katz et al. 1973). Third, a medium may provide entertainment (Weiss 1969; McQuail 1987). Fourth, people may wish to engage in social interaction (Weiss 1969; Katz et al. 1973). Finally, media can support the development of personal identity that provides a sense of individual worth (Katz et al. 1973; McQuail 1987). Three of these factors are likely to operate for e-newsletters: seeking information; personal (political) identity; and social interaction.

The online uses of the Internet are very similar to that of offline mass communication channels. Ferguson and Perse (2000) identified five Web satisfaction factors, each of which mirrors to an extent the generic motivations underpinning uses and gratifications theory: they are entertainment; passing time; relaxation; escapism; and social information, with 42 per cent recording that the single most important online use was entertainment. Luo (2002) found that those with a positive attitude towards the Web viewed information and entertainment motivations as key. Exactly the same two needs, information and entertainment, were satisfied by email (Papacharissi & Rubin 2000). Therefore, whilst users of online media may have a similar range of motivations to offline media users, entertainment and information emerge as the two dominant uses.

Although most research suggests that online uses are the same as offline uses, one study does introduce the idea of a specific online use. Eighmey and McCord (1998) asked 31 participants to look at five websites. They agree that entertainment and information were the most important uses, but they also identified that some of their participants highlighted the importance of developing a continuing relationship. Although traditional uses and gratifications theory explains that the first use of a medium may be accidental, and that there needs to be a reason why users return (McGuire 1974), Eighmey and McCord suggest that building relationships between sender and receiver is particular to uses and gratifications theory in an online context. Such relationships can best be explained via the loyalty ladder (Christopher et al. 2002), from the first rung whereby the user becomes a prospect through to the fifth rung when he/she becomes an advocate. Therefore, the Internet could be an effective means of contacting people and then developing a dialogue that helps them ‘move up’ the ladder to become champions on behalf of the sender. Eighmey and McCord's (1998) research highlights a weakness in all of the offline and online research conducted so far. Although each communication medium is viewed by how it meets the needs of users, it is also viewed as a one-dimensional process whereby users merely take what they want: they offer nothing in return. Yet, the ability to provide feedback is a gratification in its own right, one which the Internet, by its interactive nature, facilitates.

There is limited research on uses and gratifications in political communication, and what exists concentrates on offline media. Blumler and McQuail (1968) found that the most important motivation for watching political election broadcasts (PEBs) in 1964 was surveillance of the political environment. Becker (1976) suggests that this was also the case with viewers of the Watergate hearings on television. The second most common use in watching PEBs is that it helps reinforce individuals' existing political views. The third most popular use was that the PEB helped them with voter choice making, so highlighting the persuasive element to political communication. The fourth most popular use relates to the excitement engendered by an election contest. Blumler and McQuail (1968) draw an analogy with spectators' enjoyment at a sporting event. This response is also akin to dependency theory (Ball-Rokeach & DeFleur 1976), which suggests that when something important is happening, as with a general election, people become more dependent on communication channels for news concerning that event. Only political activists were interested in using the information gained from PEBs to try and persuade others. However, the findings of this research must be tempered by the fact that watching PEBs is a largely passive activity; this may not be the case with subscribing to e-newsletters.

Another study which looked at uses and gratifications during an election campaign was conducted by Ohr and Schott (2001). They interviewed 339 people during the North-Rhine-Westfalian state election in 1995 to understand why electors chose to use any of eight political communication channels.3 Ohr and Schott (2001) suggest that while some individuals feel a duty to be politically informed (McCombs & Pointdexter 1983), others view an election contest as an entertainment event, but by far the most important gratification for political information seeking was the social context. An individual's status and social recognition may be influenced by his/her ability to take part in political discussions in an informed manner. The expectations of the social environment may encourage even citizens not interested in politics to gather information during an election campaign. However, political information is easily available via print and broadcast media, and a medium such as e-newsletters, which the receiver has to actively subscribe to, may indicate a different level of political interest and activity.

Luo (2002) identified the importance of user perception on their use of the Web; a similar trend can be identified with political views. Research suggests that users who are most interested, or involved, in political discourse are the most likely to be motivated to access media for guidance and surveillance purposes (McLeod & Becker 1974; Garramore 1985). The users of political parties' e-newsletters are likely to be interested in both the Internet and political discourse. However, in the context of e-newsletters, we may also suggest that a user would also need an interest in the messenger; it is unlikely that anyone accessing a political party e-newsletter would not have an interest in the party's communication, be it professional, ideological or as an undecided voter.

The two studies that have combined uses and gratifications theory, political communication and the Internet take completely opposing stances. Sadow (2000) takes a sceptical view in that he suggests uses and gratifications theory does not explain voter information seeking. He believes that potential voters have no incentive to gather information regarding political parties and individual politicians online, rather they will use mass communication channels, such as television. Only a few highly motivated politically interested citizens might use the Internet for such a gratification, as well as other more traditional communication routes. Sadow (2000) suggests instead that uses and gratifications should be understood from the candidates' and not the citizen's perspective. However, this represents a return to the ‘hypodermic needle’ view of communication that preceded the development of the uses and gratifications approach.

A more optimistic view of the fit between online political communication and uses and gratifications is provided by Kaye and Johnson (2002), who suggest that it enables an individual to fulfil a number of needs at one time. They conducted a web-hosted survey, during and after the 1996 US Presidential election, with 308 respondents. This survey identified four primary motives for why voters accessed a political website: guidance; information seeking/surveillance; entertainment; and social utility. These four factors are highly consistent with the type of uses identified in the offline non-political model outlined above. However, it is clear from previous applications of uses and gratifications theory in a political context that guidance and surveillance are the key motivational factors.

Methodology

Subscribers to the publicly available e-newsletters for both the Conservative Party (‘News From Conservatives.com’) and the Liberal Democrats (Liberal Democrat eNews)4 were asked via an e-newsletter to complete a web-hosted survey. For subscribers to ‘News From Conservatives.com’ a first appeal was sent out in the July 2004 issue of the e-newsletter,5 followed up by another in the August issue. In both cases the appeal for subscribers to complete the questionnaire was in a prominent position at the beginning of the e-newsletter. A total of 381 completed questionnaires were returned. For subscribers to ‘Liberal Democrats eNews’ an appeal was sent out in January 2005, with 635 responses. The two political parties understandably maintain secrecy over the number of subscribers, and therefore we cannot provide response rates. However, we note that although the Liberal Democrats are a smaller party in terms of number of MPs and resources, they provided more respondents.

We used mainly closed questions but, where applicable, respondents could provide more than one answer. Except for minor changes reflecting different party cultures, the two surveys were identical, but to identify whether the uses and gratifications of the party respondents are different, where appropriate, we consider the results for the two surveys separately.

Both party e-newsletters have existed for a comparable amount of time, with ‘News from Conservatives.com’ starting in 2000, and ‘Liberal Democrat eNews’ in 1999, suggesting that there should not be significant differences in the sophistication of the different subscribers.

This article focuses on five questions:

1. Who subscribes to these e-newsletters and are there demographics particular to each party, or e-newsletters generally?

2. How important to users are e-newsletters compared with other communication channels?

3. What are the individual motivations for people subscribing to party e-newsletters?

4. Are individual motivations being met by subscribing to party e-newsletters?

5. Is there a correlation between user motivations and their gratifications?

Both e-newsletters are similar in format, offering tasters from a list that receivers can choose to read more about. The key difference is that the ‘Liberal Democrats eNews’ is constructed solely from press releases; in contrast ‘News from Conservatives.com’ is a customized list, but still directing the reader towards existing material on the party website (for more detail on content see Jackson 2004).

Who is subscribing to party e-newsletters?

Tables 1 and 2 strongly suggest that the closer the association with the party in terms of voting behaviour, then the more likely people are to subscribe. This supports Blumler and McQuail's (1968) view that seeking political information helps reinforce existing views. However, it may also suggest that internal communications, in the form of keeping up with party news and gossip, may also be relevant for the politically active.

Table 1  ‘News from Conservative.com’ subscriber's self-identified voting behaviour

	number	percentage of sample
members	179	47
loyal supporters	120	31
mild supporters	53	14
opponents	15	4
floating voters	14	4

Table 2  ‘Liberal Democrat eNews’ subscriber's self-identified voting behaviour

	number	percentage of sample
members	376	61
loyal supporters	85	14
mild supporters	90	14
opponents	13	2
floating voters	54	9

The age of subscribers, as Table 3 demonstrates, is very similar for subscribers to both parties' e-newsletters: evenly spread with no single age dominating. Only one age group, the over-65s, are slightly less likely than the others to subscribe to both parties' e-newsletter. However, whilst overall access to the Internet in the UK is higher among younger age ranges, for ‘News from Conservatives.com’ subscription to political e-newsletters is slightly higher in the older age range of 45–64. This might be explained by the fact that political interest tends to be higher among older age groups; alternatively this may reflect the sociodemographics attracted by each party.

Table 3  Age of subscribers

age	‘News from Conservatives.com’ (%)	‘Liberal Democrats eNews’ (%)
15–24	16	19
25–34	17	17
35–44	16	18
45–54	21	18
55–64	21	17
65 +	9	10

Whilst most research suggests that the initial wide gender gap in Internet use is closing rapidly, our data imply that this is not the case for party e-newsletter subscribers. Men are three times more likely to subscribe to party e-newsletters than women, with 76 per cent of ‘News From Conservatives.com’ and 74 per cent of ‘Liberal Democrat eNews’ subscribers being male. There is no evidence to suggest men are significantly more likely to be politically interested. The male bias, therefore, may be a result of non-response error, or due to the fact that women who are politically active are more likely to seek information elsewhere than via e-newsletters. It may also be the result of the two parties being less attractive to female voters (Mulholland 2004), and so there are quantitatively fewer female subscribers. Therefore, whilst the continued increase in online access amongst women may eventually address this disparity, it could also be that the content of both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats e-newsletters meet the needs of a female audience.

Table 4 suggests that professional/office-based occupations dominate, but students and the retired are also well represented, though it is expected that this is also linked to open access to a personal computer. This suggests that the content of e-newsletters reflects needs across these discrete occupational groups, due to their ability to address a range of issues at the same time, suggesting that e-newsletters are indeed able to meet the needs of different groups simultaneously.

Table 4  Occupation of subscribers

occupation	‘News from Conservatives.com’ (%)	‘Liberal Democrats eNews’ (%)
professional	27	33
senior manager	6	5
manager	7	8
supervisor	5	1
clerical	7	8
skilled manual	1	12
semi/unskilled manual	3	2
self-employed	8	6
student	12	17
unwaged	3	5
retired	12	12
Note: The remaining respondents did not state their occupation.

In conclusion, age is not a significant factor for either party, but strong party support for the party sending the e-newsletter and gender appear to influence subscription. A male member of either the Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats is much more likely to sign up than a female floating voter. A slightly less, but also important, factor is employment, with office and professional occupations being dominant. However, two specific audiences cannot be ignored, namely students and those who have retired. It may be the case though that these data hide the fact that subscription is associated with having unfettered Internet access and the spare time to receive, open and process the information.

E-newsletters as a political communication channel

Table 5 suggests that mass communication channels at a national level remain the dominant sources of political information, while local counterparts see limited use. Unsurprisingly for these respondents the Internet is a very significant source of political information in contrast to non-subscribers.

Table 5  Importance of communication channels in providing political information

channel	‘News from Conservatives.com’: % rated as important (ranking in parentheses)	‘Liberal Democrat eNews’: % rated as important (ranking in parentheses)
national newspapers	72 (1)	60 (2)
national television	66 (2)	63 (1)
national radio	60 (3)	55 (3)
party websites	58 (4)	46 (4)
face-to-face conversations with politicians	51 (5)	42 (6)
news organizations' websites	46 (6)	43 (5)
e-newsletters	43 (7)	36 (8)
party leaflets	37 (8)	39 (7)
public meetings	34 (9)	29 (10)
regional television	28 (10)	30 (9)
individual MPs' websites	24 (11)	29 (10)
friends and family	24 (12)	21 (13)
local newspapers	16 (13)	26 (12)
local radio	15 (14)	18 (14)

Whilst most people will rely on a number of sources, there does appear to be a clear league table. Collectively, national mass communications is the most important channel, with direct contact with politicians second, and the Internet, generally, third. Traditional campaigning tools such as leaflets and public meetings can be viewed as a fourth level, opinion formers (family and friends) next, with locally based mass communications the least important. Sadow (2000) is correct in saying that mass communication is still the most dominant tool for political communication; however, it now appears that for the online politically interested there is a serious alternative for political information gathering.

For this audience, the Internet, in general, is a significant source of political information. Being rated seventh and eighth (News from Conservatives.com and Liberal Democrat eNews respectively) out of 14 might suggest that e-newsletters are slightly less important than the Web. However, we must note that e-newsletters are considered by this Internet-literate audience to be of more relevance than the local media, traditional political communication and family and friends. The reasons are probably due to the accessibility, convenience and ability to selectively use e-newsletters. This suggests that, for political parties, e-newsletters offer an effective means of reaching certain types of citizen.

Why subscribe to an e-newsletter?

Table 6 suggests that there are three motivations as to why people subscribe. By far the most dominant for both parties is to receive information, on party policy or party activities for example, and over half do not want just to receive information but to receive it directly, not indirectly via a third party such as the media. There is, therefore, a sense that subscribers want to assess party communication in its original form. The second most important motive is use the material for campaigning purposes.

Table 6  Why subscribe to a party e-newsletter?

reason	percentage of ‘News from Conservatives.com’ respondents (ranking in parentheses)	percentage of Lib Dem eNews respondents (ranking in parentheses)
informed of party activities	69 (2)	68 (3)
informed of party policy	87 (1)	81 (1)
informed of party events	36 (9)	34 (8)
informed of current issues	67 (3)	70 (2)
informed about party personalities	40 (8)	24 (10)
receive press releases	57 (5)	51 (5)
receive speeches	43 (7)	36 (7)
received unmediated information	64 (4)	54 (4)
to inform political ideas	46 (6)	45 (6)
to decide how to vote	17 (13)	14 (12)
for campaigning	26 (11)	24 (9)
to pass on to party colleagues	12 (14)	11 (13)
to gain information on opponents	22 (12)	14 (11)
to offer my opinions	29 (10)	9 (14)

As the percentages and rankings of priority suggest, respondents to the two e-newsletters are very similar, except in one area. For ‘News from Conservatives.com’ an important motive for subscribing is the desire to offer opinions on the issues of the day, suggesting that nearly a third of respondents view an e-newsletter as both a push and a pull mechanism: they want information but also want to provide instant feedback. Yet, for respondents to ‘Liberal Democrat eNews’ providing feedback was important for less than 10 per cent of respondents. Kaye and Johnson (2002) suggest that guidance is a major motive but the low level of respondents who are floating voters (4 per cent) and those who state they want to use it to decide how to vote (17 per cent) suggest that this is not the case. Rather, the uses appear to reflect Blumler and McQuail's (1968) idea of reinforcing existing views.

Gratifications from receiving party e-newsletters

Table 6 outlined the motivations for subscribing, but how closely do party e-newsletters meet subscribers' needs? From Table 7 we can identify three separate gratifications from subscribing to party e-newsletters: first, to inform their political views; second, to allow them to act as advocates, informing their discussions on politics, particularly among subscribers to ‘News from Conservatives.com’ (60 per cent) as opposed to ‘Liberal Democrat eNews’ (45 per cent). Subscribers to both e-newsletters achieve this directly through campaigning or by forwarding the e-newsletter to friends. This suggests that one gratification met by subscribing to party e-newsletters is that the content empowers them with the information to act as ‘champions’ for their Party. Third, there is a small but discrete group who use the material for functional reasons, be it students or scholars carrying out research, opponents checking what the Party is saying, journalists who might use it to write stories, or campaigners and lobbyists. All of these groups use, in part, both party e-newsletters for work-based purposes.

Table 7  E-newsletter use

use	percentage of ‘News from Conservatives.com’ respondents	percentage from ‘Liberal Democrats eNews’ respondents
forward to friends	23	20
use in discussions on politics	60	45
to inform my political views	65	62
for my job	9	11
for research	12	16
for news	10	17
for campaigning	23	24
for pressure group work	8	9

In terms of the uses and gratifications model, it is useful to test the extent to which there are associations between respondents' answers to why they subscribe and whether this motivation is realized. The gratifications of subscribers appear, on the surface, to be met by subscribing to Party e-newsletters.6 However, tests of association, all using the phi correlation test for dichotomous variables, tell us that there is a high variance between reasons for usage and the gratifications received. Tables 8 and 9, in the interests of ease of understanding, show the percentage of association, as derived from the phi coefficients, from the positive, significant associations recorded during analysis.

Table 8  Associations between subscriber's uses and gratifications (‘News from Conservatives.com’)

use	gratification
informed of party policy	20% with using the content to inform their political views
informed on current issues	19% with using the content in political discussion
to receive press releases	17% with forwarding them to friends
	18% with using the content in discussions
	18% with using the content for research
	18% with using the content for news stories
	18% with using the content for campaigning
to receive speeches	26% with using them in discussion
receive unmediated communication	22% with using the material in discussions
inform their political views	33% with using content to inform political views
	23% with using the material in discussion
for campaigning	62% with using content for campaigning
	36% with using content for pressure group campaigning
	20% with using content for their job
	20% with using content for research
to pass on to colleagues	34% with using content for campaigning
	29% with using content in pressure group campaigning
	28% with forwarding to friends
	21% with using content in discussion
to offer my opinions	18% with using content in discussions
	17% with passing content on to friends

Table 9  Association between subscriber's uses and gratifications (Liberal Democrat eNews)

use	gratification
informed of party policy	18% to persuade others
informed on current issues	18% to persuade others
informed about party personalities	24% with using content for pressure group
to receive press releases	19% with forwarding them to friends
	20% with using the content in discussions
	20% persuade
	29% with using the content for campaigning
to receive speeches	19% with using the content in discussions
	23% persuade
	21% with using the content for campaigning
receive unmediated communication	18% with using the content in discussion
	19% with using the content for news stories
to inform their political views	27% with using content to inform political views
	19% persuade
for campaigning	29% with forwarding them to friends
	34% persuade
	31% with using content for news stories
	70% with using the content for campaigning
to pass on to colleagues	41% with forwarding the content to friends
	18% with using the content in discussions
	23% persuade
	28% with using the content for news stories
	36% with using content for campaigning
to offer my opinions	21% with forwarding them to friends
	20% with using the content in discussions
	20% persuade
	21% with using the content for news stories
Note: the data in tables 8 and 9 show the percentage of association between the ‘what I hoped to gain’ variable and the ‘how I generally use’ variables. They should not be read as percentages of respondents.

What is lacking are strong, clear associations between the motivations, which link to the intended uses and the actual uses – what could be termed the gratification received from subscription. However, the only strong association is found among those who subscribe in order to use the material for campaigning: this is fulfilled. But it is hard to argue reliably that all motivations are realized. What would be expected if both party e-newsletters fulfilled the expectations of all receivers is a percentage representing closer to 100 per cent association between, for example, wanting to be informed of party policy and the use of the e-newsletter's content to inform political views. Perhaps what this demonstrates is that the e-newsletter is partially able to meet expectations; however, currently it remains one of several sources of information used by these politically interested and aware individuals.

The majority of respondents, in line with uses and gratification theory, subscribe to e-newsletters to gather information, some of which is to be used personally; some material may be disseminated depending on the motives and role of the individual. However, while the subscribers can be described as information gatherers, they are largely not gathering information to decide how to vote. While 17 per cent record this as motivation, few actually see this being realized; those who use e-newsletters to support their voter choice are, on the whole, existing supporters and so the medium reinforces their attitudes. Undecided voters are less likely to use the material, and record it having little effect, though there may be an unquantifiable subconscious effect. It is the large group of committed Conservative and Liberal Democrat members and supporters who appear to enjoy receiving the e-newsletter, use it in their political activities and so receive some gratification from their subscription. These gratifications are numerous and may well depend on the particular content of an e-newsletter, just as the responses to our questionnaire may also reflect the context of a particular issue.

The segmentation of uses and gratifications

The subscribers to both party e-newsletters are not a homogenous group; there are clear differences between then. In particular, we identify a clear divide between those who are activists and the less committed, non-activists: in other words, those who actively use the material to persuade others, and those who use the information for personal interest. Comparing the two groups across both parties, and matching up the motivations for subscribers, derived from the ‘what I hoped to gain by subscribing’ variable, with the gratifications, indicated by the ‘how I generally use the material received’ variable, we find that the activists are largely satisfied; perhaps indicating why they continue to subscribe. While satisfaction is equally shown among the non-activists, this is weaker; however, there are some significant positive associations among this group that indicate some personal satisfaction.

Table 10 shows the percentage of association across the two groups; here the uses and gratifications are also separated out into three categories: seeking and receiving information, satisfying purely personal political needs; and supporting social interaction. The data show that activists monitor the party and find the content of e-newsletters a suitable medium for information provision. This is true to a lesser degree among non-activists, who may well find other media more reliable, and in fact among this group the electronic resources are of slightly less importance than among activists. Among the activists there are weaker associations for personal uses and gratifications; here it is the non-activists that gain most, particularly in terms of supporting them in making voter choices. Non-activists are the least likely to see the e-newsletter as facilitating interaction with the party or with colleagues and friends; activists, however, do enjoy using the e-newsletter to feed back comments to the party.

Table 10  Uses and gratification, differences between party activists and non-activists

uses	activists' gratification (percentage of association)	non-activists' gratification (percentage of association)
information seeking
to gain information on party policy	93.7	86.6
to gain information about party events	52.4	32.4
to gain information about party personalities/personnel	46	39.8
to receive party press releases	74.6	52.8
to receive unmediated information about the party	69.8	64.6
personal
to inform my political views	55.6	44.9
to inform my vote choice	11.1	64
to gain a clearer view of party policy	58.7	49.4
social interaction
to pass on information to friends and colleagues	34.9	4.7
to feed back views to the party	73	42.1

What is interesting from these data is that this group of online information seekers are satisfied that they are gaining unmediated information and are able, if undecided, to use that to aid their voter choice. This perhaps suggests that, among this group, there is a desire to interact with and participate in the political arena to a far greater extent than the mass media allow, offering, as they are argued to do, little more than the role of spectator on the process.

We note that there are definite similarities between the two groups. Both activists and non-activists are interested in gaining information on party policy, receiving unmediated communication to inform their political views and to gain a clearer view of party policy. The differences between the two groups, however, suggest that activists are motivated by functional reasons. We might reasonably assume that seeking information is part of their role as campaigners: they seek to use information to inform and persuade others. In contrast, non-activists appear to be motivated more by personal reasons. In addition, we suggest that feedback fosters online relationships and so may encourage subscribers to climb the loyalty ladder. Whilst this feature appears to bemore important for activists, there is a suggestion that entering into a dialogue may also encourage some relationship building with non-activists. Whilst e-newsletters primarily help parties develop a closer association with activists, they can also have some beneficial influence on non-activists.

Conclusion

Email in general and e-newsletters in particular are a growing area of interest for UK political parties and individual politicians. The research conducted, so far, considered e-newsletters from the perspective of the sender of the message. This article, however, approached e-newsletters from the perspective of the receiver. By doing so we suggest that the traditional view of assuming that this communication channel is a ‘push’ technique is inappropriate. Instead it is the notion of e-newsletters as a push–pull communication channel that frames our four research questions.

There is a clear link between the first and second of our research questions. The profile of respondents suggested that for certain people the Internet is a significant source for gaining political information. Whilst the sample is in no way representative of wider society, the data suggest that those who are strong supporters of a party (as opposed to floating voters), male, aged 45–64 and in a professional occupation, and obviously with open Internet access, are more likely to subscribe to a party e-newsletter. The profile of our respondents, if typical, would suggest that parties need to consider how their e-newsletters might meet the needs of women and younger age groups as well as those who currently subscribe. To reach a wider audience party e-newsletters need to consider changes to both the content and style of their e-newsletters.

Although there are no 100 per cent associations between the motivations for subscribing and what subscribers get out of the e-newsletter, we suggest that the uses and gratifications of users are partially met. There are three main motivations for subscribing to e-newsletters: personal ideological uses, to offer the subscribers' own opinions, and functional motives. The three most popular gratifications broadly meet the needs of those seeking information to support their political activities. The closest association suggests that e-newsletters empower the receivers and encourage them to be champions for the party. With the early adopters likely to be opinion formers, we may, therefore, be witnessing the beginnings of a powerful network. The value of these e-newsletters may not be so much in the people it directly reaches, but their use of them to persuade and inform their own network of contacts.

Our data support and add to existing uses and gratifications literature in a number of ways. The four assumptions of uses and gratifications theory appear to apply. Subscribers have to actively seek out the e-newsletter and have a range of personal goals. However, an e-newsletter based on hyperlinks to the full story can meet the needs of more than one audience at the same time as respondents can easily select only that material of personal relevance. Party e-newsletters meet three of the generic motivations, namely information seeking, social interaction and developing a personal identity, though it is information seeking that is by far the strongest motivator. As a political communication channel it has little to offer in terms of escapism and entertainment. Whilst supporting the general view that political communication uses and gratification reinforces existing views, our data add to the political uses and gratifications literature (Blumler & McQuail 1968; Ohr & Schott 2001; Kaye & Johnson 2002). We found that subscribers to e-newsletters responded to three motives not identified in previous studies. First, the means of communication appears to be important with nearly two-thirds wanting to receive information directly and not via a third party. Second, nearly a third of ‘News from Conservatives.com’ subscribers wanted to offer their own opinion to the sender on current political issues; interactivity is not generally described in the literature. Third, for a number of respondents there is a functional reason for subscribing, either to help them campaign or for work and study purposes. Whereas the previous political communication research was conducted during an election campaign, being outside such an event our research has identified the need for a long-term link between politicians and citizens, among a group of voters, rather than just participation in the process of voting.

E-newsletters are increasingly becoming a ‘must-have’ for political parties; while they are exploring newer technologies such as blogs and podcasts, currently it appears that email and the e-newsletter is seen as offering the greatest potential to reach a key segment of the electorate. However, we suggest that any enthusiasm for e-newsletters must be tempered by the fact that they are merely one additional communication channel. E-newsletters do appear to be a significant means of reaching a section of a party's core supporters but they provide only limited access to a wider audience; other new technologies may have this capability but currently parties are either unwilling or unable to explore their potential. As a communication channel e-newsletters are more likely to reach those with an existing association with a party, rather than attract and persuade floating voters. The e-newsletter allows parties to deliver a range of messages cheaply and easily to several audiences at once. This is clearly of benefit, but the real value of an e-newsletter is that the receiver of the message does not just receive it passively. Rather, our evidence suggests that subscribers are likely to become active promoters of the party message to a much wider audience.

Notes

1 According to the Electoral Commission Register of Political Parties April 2003. Available online at http://www.electoralcommission.gov.uk/regulatory-issues/partylinks.cfm (accessed 1 April 2003).

2 It might seem odd that parties used a freely available e-newsletter to reach party members and supporters. This can be explained by the fact that for those parties who use a pass-protected e-newsletter, it attracted mostly committed activists. The publicly available e-newsletter attracted less motivated and committed party supporters.

3 These were: newspaper reports; television reports; radio reports; party political broadcasts; bulletin boards; party manifestos; street stands; political meetings.

4 Both parties are mass electoral parties, contesting each constituency in England, Scotland and Wales; though the Liberal Democrats have less representation in parliament they can command support of around 20 per cent of the electorate at times. Furthermore, as opposition parties their methods of communication are more limited than those of a party in government, therefore we selected them as they argued that e-newsletters were a key means of communication. Labour use email as a promotional tool but do not provide regular e-newsletters.

5 On average the Conservative Party sent out their e-newsletters monthly; the Liberal Democrats use a more pragmatic approach and send them out whenever they have a message they want to communicate. This disparity is common: some parties, such as the Democratic Unionist Party, produce daily e-newsletters (Jackson 2004).

6 One of the features of e-newsletters is that it is very easy to unsubscribe. As a result we can assume that if gratifications were not being met, eventually subscribers would unsubscribe.