The Internet’s Role in Political Campaigns
38
Transcript of The Internet’s Role in Political Campaigns
The Internet’s Role in Political Campaigns: Utilization by 2006 United States Senatorial Candidates Executive Summary........................................................................................................................ 3 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 7 Methodology.................................................................................................................................... 8 Findings ........................................................................................................................................... 9
Summary Graphs........................................................................................................................ 9 En Español................................................................................................................................ 11 News ......................................................................................................................................... 13 Biography .................................................................................................................................. 15 Contacts .................................................................................................................................... 17 Donations .................................................................................................................................. 19 Fundraising Campaigns ............................................................................................................ 21 Volunteer Forms........................................................................................................................ 23 Team Tools ............................................................................................................................... 25 House Parties............................................................................................................................ 27 Downloads ................................................................................................................................ 29 Blogs ......................................................................................................................................... 31 Podcasts.................................................................................................................................... 33 Multimedia ................................................................................................................................. 35 RSS........................................................................................................................................... 37
Executive Summary The Bivings Group recently conducted a study in an effort to assess the current role of the Internet in the 2006 Senatorial campaigns. Similar to our 2002 report on Web use by Senate and House candidates, this report explores the Internet presence and efficacy of the campaign committees of 77 candidates: 30 Senate incumbents and 47 Senate challengers, including 37 Democrats and 40 Republicans. We also compared the use of the Internet in 11 key races to all Senatorial campaigns in general. Key Findings:
• Use of the Internet for political campaigns has grown dramatically since 2002. Currently, 97 percent of Senate candidates have live websites, while only 55 percent had a Web presence in 2002.
• Despite all the publicity during the 2004 cycle about tools such as blogs and podcasts,
only a small number of Senate campaigns are using these technologies. Only five percent of campaigns are podcasting while 23 percent of campaigns include blogs.
• This study indicates a three-tiered pattern of Web use by political campaigns.
q The first tier consists of baseline tools such as news, biography, contact information, online donations, and volunteer forms. Between 80 and 94 percent of all websites provided this information.
q The second tier consists of multimedia, blogs, RSS, and downloads, which were used by between 14 percent and 55 percent of candidates’ websites.
q The third tier includes more advanced technologies, such as en español, fundraising campaigns, team tools, house parties, and podcasts, which were only offered on between three percent and 12 percent of all websites.
• Not only did a large majority of candidates use Tier 1 tools, but these tools were
used at almost the same rate by both Democrats and Republicans. q This shows that Tier 1 tools represent a core of features necessary to any
campaign website. q The few websites that lacked these tools appeared incomplete and insufficient
compared to other candidates’ websites.
• The most pronounced inter-party difference existed in the use of en español. q While only 8 percent of Republican candidates offered a Spanish alternative to
their website, 22 percent of Democratic sites used this feature. q The second most pronounced difference between Democrats and Republicans
was in the use of RSS, where Democrats used this tool 24 percent of the time, compared to Republicans, who only used it 13 percent of the time.
q Differences in all other categories between Democrats and Republicans were no more than six percent.
• Challengers, regardless of party affiliation, tended to use most Web tools at a
higher rate than incumbents. q Tier 3 Web tools, including blogs, podcasts, and RSS Feeds:
§ 32 percent of challengers used blogs compared to ten percent of incumbents;
§ No incumbents used podcasts, while nine percent of challengers offered this service;
§ 28 percent of challengers used RSS Feeds compared to three percent of incumbents.
q Challengers used most Tier 1 Web tools, including news, biography, contact information, and donations, more often than their incumbent opponents. The following results were particularly pronounced: § 89 percent of challengers used news compared to 67 percent of
incumbents; § 96 percent of challengers used biography compared to 80 percent of
incumbents. q However, incumbents used three other tools more often than challengers:
§ 87 percent of incumbents used volunteer forms compared to 72 percent of challengers;
§ 20 percent of incumbents used downloads compared to 11 percent of challengers;
§ 57 percent of incumbents used multimedia compared to 53 percent of challengers.
• The degree to which candidates used most Web tools was highly pronounced in
states dubbed by the Washington Post as “Key Races”1. q Candidates in key races used Tier 1 tools (news, biography, contact information,
online donations, and volunteer forms) 100% of the time in all cases except for news (93%).
q The use of Tier 2 tools was more common in key races than in the combination of all races. The use of multimedia in key races was particularly pronounced, with 70 percent of key race campaign websites including some form of audio or video files, compared to just 55 percent in the combination of all races.
q For Tier 3 tools, (en español, fundraising campaigns, team tools, house parties, and podcasts), the use of en español and podcasts was higher in the key races than in the combination of all races, but none of the candidates who used house parties, team tools, or fundraising campaigns were running in key races.
It is clear from these results that patterns among web use by political candidates do exist. But what do these patterns mean? Following are some speculative conclusions based on a review of the data:
• Challengers are running more aggressive Internet campaigns than incumbents. Incumbents often have a record of past success in the Senate upon which they can focus in order to maintain and build upon their current level of pre-existing support. They are also usually the favorites in these re-election campaigns. For this reason, incumbent websites tend to be safer and less creative than those of challengers. Challengers are more likely to take chances online in an effort to secure votes.
• The only significant difference between the sites of Democrats and Republicans was in the use of RSS and en español. Democrats tended to use these tactics at a
1 According to the Washington Post, 11 states have key races for the 2006 Senate elections: Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Washington.
higher rate than Republicans. One could draw some small, obvious conclusions from this: that Democrats are more likely to see the value in RSS and are reaching out to Spanish speakers to a greater degree than Republicans. But the real story here is how similar the tactics used by Democrats and Republicans are. For most tools, the usage rates for Democrat and Republican campaigns were essentially identical.
• Key race websites tended to use Tier 1 tools more often than candidates in non-key races. This is not surprising, since candidates involved in key races would tend to run more aggressive campaigns overall than candidates in less contested races, and thus maintain more complete websites. For this reason, it would be expected for key race candidates to be more likely than general candidates to use sophisticated Web tools; however, this was not the case: no candidates in key races used fundraising campaigns, team tools, or house parties on their websites.
• Not that many campaigns are blogging (23 percent). Newspapers are full of stories
about blogging by politicians. The success of Howard Dean’s campaign blog was the big online story of the 2004 election cycle. Yet, in reality, not that many campaigns are using this technology. First off, it is important to remember the demographics of the candidates running for office and the limitations of the campaigns’ themselves. Candidates are extremely busy, and older Americans are unlikely to have the time or inclination to personally participate in the blogosphere. For many campaigns, having a blog just doesn’t make strategic sense. Many campaigns also have extremely limited resources, and are hesitant to devote these resources to an activity like blogging. Second, there is a perception among many political consultants and candidates that blogging is a risky strategy. Candidates worry that by fully participating in the blogosphere, they will be dragged further to the left or to the right. Bloggers are typically the most active and ideological of Americans, so there is a fear by some that reaching out to these groups may turn away moderate voters.
• Tools such as fundraising campaigns, team tools, house parties, and podcasts
were barely used at all by Senate campaigns. While these tools were used by many of the 2004 Presidential candidates and the national committees, they are simply not being used widely by 2006 Senate candidates. These tools are more emerging technologies than proven tactics, and as such Senate campaigns haven’t fully embraced them. Also, fundraising campaigns, team tools and house parties are most effective on sites that generate high traffic levels on a daily basis (like a committee or Presidential candidate site). It may be that campaigns don’t feel their website attract the critical mass of users necessary for these tools to work. The campaigns are most likely waiting for proof that these kinds of tools can work for a Senate campaign before implementing.
• Multimedia is used by 55 percent of campaigns. During the 2004 campaign cycle, both candidates from both parties published audio and television commercials on their websites, in many cases creating humorous multimedia pieces about their opponents. Senate candidates are embracing this technology to a greater extent than blogs and podcasts. Why? Multimedia on websites is an extension of more traditional broadcast media tactics that campaigns are well versed in, and thus have become common
features of campaign websites.
Introduction The Internet represents an effective and affordable means for politicians to reach their constituencies, address their concerns, and raise the funds necessary to win an election. The Internet is an excellent medium for politicians to present their positions, develop an identity, and “brand” themselves. The Web enables them to engage interested parties, provide them with in-depth background information on the issues, and seek support. In light of this, The Bivings Group conducted this study in an effort to assess the current role of the Internet in the 2006 Senatorial Campaign. This report explores the Internet presence and efficacy of the campaign committees 77 Senatorial candidates: 30 Senate Incumbents and 47 Senate Challengers, including 36 Democrats and 41 Republicans. The data was collected between May 8 and May 16, 2006, and therefore represents a snapshot of a dynamic situation, as the campaign committees for candidates continue to mobilize. As websites are constantly changing to keep up with new technologies, it is likely that these figures will remain in flux as the campaigns continue to evolve throughout the remainder of the 2006 election cycle. In the name of full disclosure, The Bivings Group currently does work for a variety of Republican organizations and a few Republican candidates for office.
Methodology The data was collected over a period of eight days (between May 8 and May 16) for 77 Senatorial candidates running for election in 2006. Of these candidates, 36 are Democrats, and 41 are Republicans; 30 are incumbents, and 47 are challengers. The data collected for each candidate’s campaign committee includes the following:
• En Español: Does the website provide a Spanish version? • News: Does the website provide news and press releases? • Bio: Does the website provide a biography of the candidate? • Contacts: Does the website provide adequate contact information? • Donations: Does the website provide the ability to make donations online? • Fundraising Campaigns: Does the website provide the ability for voters to organize their
own fundraising campaigns? • Volunteer Forms: Does the website provide a volunteer sign-up form? • Team Tools: Does the website provide the ability for volunteers to organize and track
activity? • House Parties: Does the website help volunteers set up house parties? • Downloads: Does the website provide downloadable fliers, web stickers, or other
campaign materials? • Blogs: Does the website offer a blog? • Podcasts : Does the website offer podcasts? • Multimedia: Does the website offer audio or video files? • RSS: Does the website offer an RSS feed?
Websites were located by searching Google for “candidate’s name”, “candidate’s name campaign”, and “candidate’s name Senate”. If these searches were unsuccessful, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (dscc.org) and the National Republican Senatorial Committee (nrsc.org) were consulted. These websites were also used to identify each state’s candidates.
Findings The following series of graphs provide a summary of the data collected and provides answers to the questions posed during this study. Additional analysis can be found in the executive summary above.
Summary Graphs
Web Campaign Tools: 2006 Senatorial Incumbents and Challengers
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
En Es
pano
lNew
s Bio
Contac
ts
Donatio
ns
Fund
raisin
g Cam
paign
s
Volun
teer F
orms
Team
Tools
House
Parties
Downlo
ads
Blogs
Podca
sts
Multimed
ia RSS
Web Tools
Per
cent
age
of C
andi
date
s
Incumbents
Challengers
Web Campaign Tools: 2006 Democrats and Republicans
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
En Es
pano
lNew
s Bio
Contac
ts
Donatio
ns
Fund
raising
Campa
igns
Volun
teer F
orms
Team
Tools
House
Partie
s
Downlo
ads
Blogs
Podca
sts
Multimed
ia RSS
Web Tools
Per
cent
age
of C
andi
date
s
All Candidates
All Democrat Candidates
All Republican Candidates
Campaign Web Tools: Key Races
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
En E
span
ol
News Bio
Conta
ctsDon
ation
s
Fund
raisin
g Cam
paign
sVo
luntee
r Form
sTe
am To
olsHo
use P
arties
Down
loads
Blogs
Podc
asts
Multim
edia RSS
Web Tools
Per
cent
age
of C
andi
date
s
All Candidates
Democrats
Republicans
En Español
Do Senate Candidates Offer Spanish Alternatives to their Websites?
14%
86%
Yes No
Are Incumbents More Likely than Challengers to Offer Spanish Versions of their Websites?
21%9%
79%91%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Incumbents Challengers
No Spanish AlternativeSpanish Alternative
Are Republicans More Likely Than Democrats to Offer Spanish Versions of their Websites?
8%22%
93%78%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Republicans Democrats
No Spanish AlternativeSpanish Alternative
Are Candidates in Key Races More Likely than All Combined Candidates to Offer a Spanish Alternative to
their Websites?
14% 19%
86% 81%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
All Candidates Key Race Candidates
No Spanish AlternativeSpanish Alternative
News
Do Senate Candidates Offer News on their Websites?
81%
19%
Yes No
Who is More Likely to Offer News on their Website, Incumbents or Challengers?
68%
89%
32%
11%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Incumbents Challengers
No NewsNews
Whois More Likely to Offer News on their Websites, Democrats or Republicans?
83% 78%
18% 22%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Republicans Democrats
No NewsNews
Who is More Likely to Offer News on their Websites, Key Race Candidates or All Combined Candidates?
81%93%
7%19%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
All Candidates Key Race Candidates
No NewsNews
Biography
Do Senate Candidates Offer Biographies on their Websites?
90%
10%
Yes No
Who is More Likely to Offer Biographies on their Websites, Incumbents or Challengers?
80%96%
20%4%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Incumbents Challengers
No BioBio
Who is More Likely to Offer Biographies on their Websites, Republicans or Democrats?
93% 86%
8% 14%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Republicans Democrats
No BioBio
Who is More Likely to Offer Biographies on their Websites, Key Race Candidates or All Combined
Candidates?
90%100%
10%0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
All Candidates Key Race Candidates
No BioBio
Contacts
Do Senate Candidates Offer Adequate Contact Information on their Websites?
94%
6%
Yes No
Who is More Likely to Offer Contact Information on their Websites, Challengers or Incumbents?
90% 96%
10% 4%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Incumbents Challengers
No Contacts
Contacts
Who is More Likely to Offer Contact Information on their Websites, Democrats or Republicans?
95% 92%
5% 8%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Republicans Democrats
No ContactsContacts
Who is More Likely to Offer Contact Information on their Websites, Key Race Candidates or All Combined
Candidates?
94% 100%
6% 0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
All Candidates Key Race Candidates
No ContactsContacts
Donations
Do Senate Candidates Offer Online Donations on their Websites?
90%
10%
Yes
No
Who is More Likely to Offer Online Donations on their Websites, Incumbents or Challengers?
87% 91%
13% 9%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Incumbents Challengers
No Donations
Donations
Who is More Likely to Offer Online Donations on their Websites, Democrats or Republicans?
88% 92%
13% 8%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Republicans Democrats
No Donations
Donations
Who is More Likely Offer Online Donations on their Websites, Key Race Candidates or All Combined
Candidates?
90% 100%
10% 0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
All Candidates Key Race Candidates
No DonationsDonations
Fundraising Campaigns
Do Senate Candidates Offer Individual Fundraising Campaigns on their Websites?
8%
92%
Yes No
Who is More Likely to Offer Fundraising Campaigns on their Websites, Incumbents or Challengers?
7% 9%
93% 91%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Incumbents Challengers
No FundraisingCampaignsFundraising Campaigns
Who is More Likely than to Offer Fundraising Campaigns on their Websites, Democrats or
Republicans?
10% 5%
90% 95%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Republicans Democrats
No FundraisingCampaignsFundraising Campaigns
Who is More Likely to Offer Fundraising Campaigns on their Websites, Key Race Candidates or All
Combined Candidates?
8% 0%
92% 100%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
All Candidates Key Race Candidates
No FundraisingCampaignsFundraising Campaigns
Volunteer Forms
Do Senate Candidates Offer Volunteer Forms on their Websites?
78%
22%
Yes
No
Who is More Likely to Offer Volunteer Forms on their Websites, Incumbents or Challengers?
87%72%
13%28%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Incumbents Challengers
No Volunteer FormsVolunteer Forms
Who is More Likely to Offer Volunteer Forms on their Websites, Republicans or Democrats?
75% 81%
25% 19%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Republicans Democrats
No Volunteer FormsVolunteer Forms
Who is More Likely to Offer Volunteer Forms on their Websites Key Race Candidates or All Combined
Candidates?
78%
100%
22%
0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
All Candidates Key Race Candidates
No Volunteer FormsVolunteer Forms
Team Tools
Do Senate Candidates Offer Team Tools on their Websites?
3%
97%
Yes No
Who is More Likely to Use Team Tools on their Websites, Incumbents or Challengers?
7%0%
93%100%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Incumbents Challengers
No Team Tools
Team Tools
Who is More Likely to Offer Team Tools on their Websites, Democrats or Republicans?
2.5%
97.5%
3%
97%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Republicans Democrats
No Team ToolsTeam Tools
Who is More Likely to Offer Team Tools on their Websites, Key Race Candidates or All Combined
Candidates?
3% 0%
97% 100%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
All Candidates Key Race Candidates
No Team ToolsTeam Tools
House Parties
Do Senate Candidates Offer Tools for Organizing House Parties on their Websites?
4%
96%
Yes
No
Who is More Likely to Offer Tools for Organizing House Parties on their Websites, Incumbents or
Challengers?
3% 4%
97% 96%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Incumbents Challengers
No House PartiesHouse Parties
Who is More Likely to Offer Tools for Organizing House Parties on their Websites, Republicans or
Democrats?
5%
95%
2.5%
97.5%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Republicans Democrats
No House Parties
House Parties
Who is More Likely to Offer Tools for Organizing House Parties on their Websites, Key Race Candidates or All Combined Candidates?
4% 0%
96% 100%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
All Candidates Key Race Candidates
No House PartiesHouse Parties
Downloads
Do Senate Candidates Offer Downloads on their Websites?
14%
86%
Yes
No
Who is More Likely to Offer Downloads on their Websites, Incumbents or Challengers?
20%11%
80%89%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Incumbents Challengers
No Downloads
Downloads
Who is More Likely to Offer Downloads on their Websites, Republicans or Democrats?
12.5% 16%
87.5% 84%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Republicans Democrats
No Downloads
Downloads
Who is More Likely to Offer Downloads on their Websites, Key Race Candidates or All Combined
Candidates?
14% 11%
86% 89%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
All Candidates Key Race Candidates
No DownloadsDownloads
Blogs
Do Senate Candidates Offer Blogs on their Websites?
23%
77%
Yes No
Who is More Likely to Offer Blogs on their Websites, Incumbents or Challengers?
7%
32%
93%
68%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Incumbents Challengers
No BlogsBlogs
Who is More Likely to Offer Blogs on their Websites, Republicans or Democrats?
20% 25%
80% 75%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Republicans Democrats
No Blogs
Blogs
Who is More Likely to Offer Blogs on their Websites, Key Race Candidates or All Combined
Candidates?
23% 33%
77% 67%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
All Candidates Key Race Candidates
No BlogsBlogs
Podcasts
Do Senate Candidates Offer Podcasts on their Websites?
5%
95%
Yes No
Who is More Likely to Offer Podcasts on their Websites, Incumbents or Challengers?
0%9%
100%91%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Incumbents Challengers
No Podcasts
Podcasts
Who is More Likely to Offer Podcasts on their Websites, Republicans or Democrats?
8% 3%
93% 97%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Republicans Democrats
No Podcasts
Podcasts
Who is More Likely to Offer Podcasts on their Websites, Key Race Candidates or All Combined
Candidates?
5% 11%
95% 89%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
All Candidates Key Race Candidates
No PodcastsPodcasts
Multimedia
Do Senate Candidates Offer Multimedia on their Websites?
54.5%
45.5%Yes
No
Who is More Likely to Offer Multimedia on their Websites, Incumbents or Challengers?
57% 53%
43% 47%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Incumbents Challengers
No Multimedia
Multimedia
Who is More Likely to Offer Multimedia on their Websites, Democrats or Republicans?
57.5% 53%
42.5% 47%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Republicans Democrats
No Multimedia
Multimedia
Who is More Likely to Offer Multimedia on their Websites, Key Race Candidates or All Combined
Candidates?
70.37%
45%30%
55%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
All Candidates Key Race Candidates
No MultimediaMultimedia
RSS
Do Senate Candidates Offer RSS Feeds on their Websites?
18%
82%
Yes
No
Who is More Likely to Offer RSS on their Websites, Incumbents or Challengers?
3%
28%
97%
72%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Incumbents Challengers
No RSS
RSS
Who is More Likely to Offer RSS Feeds on their Websites, Republicans or Democrats?
12.5%25%
87.5%75%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Republicans Democrats
No RSS
RSS
Who is More Likely to Offer RSS Feeds on their Websites, Key Race Candidates or All Combined
Candidates?
18%30%
82%70%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
All Candidates Key Race Candidates
No RSSRSS
