Descriptive model for strategic political communication on multiple arenas. 

Contexts in source publication

Context 1

... include elected representatives for the party, elected representatives within the party, in-house staff, hired consultants, activists and members. On the media arena, the key stakeholders include journalists, editors and owners, that is, all who might have an influence over the visibility of the party. On the electoral arena, the key stakeholders include voters at large and different target groups within the electorate. Hence, political communication and political public relations in election campaigns include several different streams of communication with different stakeholders located within different arenas, and for each group of stakeholders, the campaign management team may have different strategic purposes. Depending on the purpose of communicating with each group of stakeholders and the available communication alternatives, the most appropriate channel and mode of communication has to be selected (Strömbäck and Kiousis 2011) (see also the chapter by Kiousis and Strömbäck). Comparing different media, the mass media occupy a central position however. Not only do the mass media constitute an arena on its own; the main impor- tance of the mass media resides in the fact that they in most cases constitute the main source of information and channel of communication (Plasser and Lengauer 2009; Purcell et al. 2010; Strömbäck and Kaid 2008; de Vreese 2010) (see also the chapter by Wolling and Emmer). This holds true not only with respect to the party’s campaign management team and its efforts to communicate with the electorate, but also with respect to the communication with stakeholders on the parliamentary and the internal arena. In addition, party-political actors are themselves avid media consumers and influenced by the mass media’s coverage of politics and society (van Aelst et al. 2008; Davis 2007; Kepplinger 2007). The mass media not only inform voters at large about the policy positions and behaviors of political actors, or about societal developments with political ramifications; the mass media also inform political actors about the policy stances and behaviors of other political actors, societal developments with political ramifications, and about the state of or trends with respect to public opinion (Eshbaugh-Soha 2007; Herbst 1998; Kernell 2007; Sellers 2010). The media may set not only the public, but also political agendas (Koch-Baumgarten and Voltmer 2010; Vliegenthart and Walgrave 2010; Walgrave and van Aelst 2010) (see also the by chapters Shaefer, Shenhav, and Balmas and by van Aelst). However, strategic political communication does not take place only through the mass media. In fact, the single most important development in terms of campaign communication over the last decade is that different kinds of digital media such as web pages, social media and blogs have become increasingly important (Davis 2009; Harfoush 2009; Hendricks and Denton 2010; Lilleker and Jackson 2011; Smith 2009; Sweetser 2011). Aside from mass media and digital media, direct contacts, text messages and telephone conversations may also be highly important. This holds true for the communication with target groups among the electorate (Johnson 2011) as well as in internal communication processes and in the inter- actions with elite groups such as journalists (van Aelst, Shehata, and van Dalen 2010). Another important aspect of election campaign communication is related to the tension between long-term strategy and planning on the one hand, and the short-term impact of real-world events, the activities of other parties, and of the media’s coverage. No matter how strategically political parties plan their campaign activities and communication, during the course of a campaign a number of unanticipated events will occur. Sometimes such events will open up new opportu- nities – sometimes they will pose threats. In either case, the short-term impact of unanticipated events will always create stress and pose a challenge to the strategic planning done beforehand, although successful campaign strategies should include contingency plans and be flexible. Nevertheless, the implication is that election campaign communication often might be less “strategic” than it appears. In either case, a broader understanding of strategic political communication in election campaigns requires an analysis of how the campaign management teams of different types of parties may use different forms of communication to communicate with different stakeholders located within different arenas in order to reach the strategic goals of the parties and the campaigns. For example, a party may use e-mail or social media or news media to communicate with members of parliament (on the parliamentary arena), party members (on the internal arena), voters (on the electoral arena) or journalists (on the media arena). There might of course also be feedback loops, not least from the news media, which strategic campaign management needs to take into consideration (see Figure 1). Although strategic political communication in election campaigns is a broader phenomenon than political parties or campaigns using information and communication strategically to mobilize and persuade different voter groups, and political parties are complex organizations with multiple arenas and strategic goals, most research assumes that parties want to maximize their vote share and focus on the related themes of how political parties and campaigns communicate with voters, and how they organize and run their election campaigns. One prominent theme in research on election campaigning and campaign communication has been attempts to model changing campaign practices across time. Several authors have described a development where three phases of election campaigning can be identified. Norris (2000: 138) as well as Plasser and Plasser (2002) label the phases Premodern , Modern and Postmodern ; Farrell (1996: 170) labels them Premodern , Television revolution and Telecommunications revolution , whereas Farrell and Webb (2000: 104) label them Stage 1 , Stage 2 and Stage 3 . Despite some differences between these typologies, the changes and trends they identify are highly similar. Table 2, with some modifications adapted from Plasser and Plasser (2002), is a good representation of the phases and trends identified by other schol- ars as well (Farrell 1996; Farrell and Webb 2000; Negrine 2008; Norris 2000; Strömbäck 2007) (see also the chapter by Schulz). While there appear to be some general macro trends, and different typologies suggest that election campaigns and campaign communication have changed sig- nificantly across time, it is however important to recognize that virtually all typologies of changing campaign practices are characterized by some problematic assumptions. First, it is assumed that campaign practices change in a linear fash- ion, as witnessed by labels such as “premodern”, “modern” and “postmodern”. Second, labels such as “premodern” and “modern” are “contemporary lenses” (Negrine 2008: 24) through which we perceive and evaluate the past as well as the present. In this respect, typologies like these will always be biased towards the present. Third, it is assumed that election campaigns do not mix characteristics from the different stages. Fourth, it is assumed that there are general characteristics of different types of election campaign practices, as if the country-specific contexts do not matter. Fifth and finally, implicitly or explicitly it is assumed that U.S. presidential election campaigning is the standard by which all kinds of election campaigning and campaign communication should be measured and evalu- ated (Johnson 2011; Negrine 2008) (see also the chapter by Schulz). All of these assumptions can be criticized and questioned on empirical as well as theoretical grounds. The main benefit of different typologies of changing campaign practices is thus not that they provide an accurate and generally valid description of how campaign practices change across time and what characterizes one type of campaign in comparison with another. The main benefit is rather that they provide an overview and starting point for further analyses. Also important is that they highlight the linkage between modes and media of political communication on the one hand, and campaign practices on the other. As strategic actors, political parties and campaigns continuously adapt to changes in the environments in which they are operate. They adapt to changes in societal structures, to changes in communication technologies, and to changes with respect to voters’ political attitudes and behaviors. They adapt either because they feel under pressure to adapt, or because they perceive strategic advantages in adapting. Both reasons are relevant for an understanding of why and how election campaigning and campaign communication have changed over time. Turning to research trying to explain how and why election campaigning and campaign communication have changed across time, three themes stand out as particularly important: Americanization , Modernization and Professionalization (see also the chapter by Schulz). The starting point for the thesis of an Americanization of political campaigning and campaign communication is the notion that campaign practices have become more similar across countries – and that U.S. election campaigns are at the fore- front of the development of new campaign practices with other countries following suit (Esser and Strömbäck 2012; Negrine 2008; Negrine and Papathanassopoulos 1996; Plasser and Plasser 2002). Every time there is a presidential election in the US, campaign practitioners from across the world travel to the United States to observe and learn from how presidential campaigning is run. When they return home, they bring with them new lessons that they implement in subsequent campaigns. In addition, while it used to be the case that political consultancy was mainly a U.S. ...

Context 2

... example, a party may use e-mail or social media or news media to communicate with members of parliament (on the parliamentary arena), party members (on the internal arena), voters (on the electoral arena) or journalists (on the media arena). There might of course also be feedback loops, not least from the news media, which strategic campaign management needs to take into consideration (see Figure 1). ...