Strategic Political Communication in Election Campaigns

Abstract

This chapter reviews research on strategic political communication in election campaigns, which still is a rather fragmented field despite its long tradition. To structure this area of study, the authors propose a descriptive model integrating different types of actors, modes, goals and arenas of political campaigning and campaign communication. They describe and explain long-term changes in campaign practices and communication patterns and critically reflect on the Amer-icanization-and modernization-thesis as the two most prominent theoretical explanations for those changes. In addition, key trends in contemporary campaign communication as well as deficits of current campaign studies are discussed. To remedy those deficiencies the authors call for more longitudinal and comparative research as well as a comprehensive theoretical framework to guide future research.

Full text

Jesper Strömbäck and Spiro Kiousis
6 Strategic political communication in
election campaigns
Abstract: This chapter reviews research on strategic political communication in
election campaigns, which still is a rather fragmented field despite its long tradi-
tion. To structure this area of study, the authors propose a descriptive model inte-
grating different types of actors, modes, goals and arenas of political campaigning
and campaign communication. They describe and explain long-term changes in
campaign practices and communication patterns and critically reflect on the Amer-
icanization- and modernization-thesis as the two most prominent theoretical
explanations for those changes. In addition, key trends in contemporary campaign
communication as well as deficits of current campaign studies are discussed. To
remedy those deficiencies the authors call for more longitudinal and comparative
research as well as a comprehensive theoretical framework to guide future
research.
Key Words: strategic communication, campaign communication, political market-
ing, Americanization, modernization, product-oriented parties, sales-oriented par-
ties, market-oriented parties
1 Introduction
At heart, election campaigns are nothing but political communication. If election
campaigns are about organizing, communication is required between the cam-
paign leadership and campaign volunteers, donors, activists and supporters. If
election campaigns are about building alliances between groups with similar inter-
ests and goals, communication is required to build and maintain relationships and
to coordinate activities. If election campaigns are about mobilizing supporters,
communication is required to reach out to and help convince them to actively
support the campaign. If election campaigns are about how the mass media cover
politics, communication is required to build relationships with editors and journal-
ists and to influence the news media, their agendas and how they frame issues,
events and processes. If election campaigns are about voter contact, communica-
tion is required to reach out to voters through phone, outdoor activities or knock-
ing on doors, and for the interpersonal discussion with voters. And, if election
campaigns are about shaping the information environment in order to position the
campaign as favorable as possible, and opponents as unfavorable as possible, all
efforts at shaping the political information environment, branding and positioning
requires political communication.
Authenticated | jesper@jesperstromback.com
Download Date | 7/7/14 3:05 PM

110 Jesper Strömbäck and Spiro Kiousis
From this perspective, it is only natural that the histories of political communi-
cation and election campaign research have always been closely intertwined
(Blumler and McQuail 2001). Today, the number of books that deal with political
communication in election campaigns is massive (see, e.g., Burton and Shea 2010;
Johnson 2007, 2009; Kavanagh 1995; Lees-Marshment, Strömbäck and Rudd 2010;
Maier, Strömbäck and Kaid 2011; Maarek 2011; Medvic 2011; Plasser and Plasser
2002; Trent and Friedenberg 2004; Vavreck 2009). After every election, new books
are usually published that seek to describe and explain the campaigns and the
campaign communication, and how these influenced the final election outcome
(see, e.g., Hendricks and Kaid 2011; Kavanagh and Cowley 2010; McKinney and
Banwart 2011; Sides and Vavreck 2013).
Despite this, it can be argued that research on election campaign communica-
tion remains a rather fragmented field (Esser and Strömbäck 2012). There are sev-
eral reasons for this. First, research in this area is carried out within several differ-
ent disciplines, such as communication, political science and marketing. Within
each of these disciplines there may be several different theoretical assumptions,
approaches and topical foci. Second, there is a lack of broader theories that can
guide and unify research on political communication in election campaigns. Third,
there is a tendency to focus on political communication in single election cam-
paigns in single countries, often providing rich descriptions of singular cases but
less theory-driven research. Fourth, most research in the international literature
focuses on political communication in election campaigns in the United States, a
quite atypical country. Fifth and finally, there is a manifest lack of longitudinal
and cross-national research on political communication in election campaigns.
Taken together, all this serves to limit the comparability across time and space
and to build theories that have broader applicability (see the chapters by Schulz
and by Pfetsch and Esser).
In addition, most research focuses on how campaigns communicate with vot-
ers, either directly or through the news media, or on the overall mode of political
campaigning and communication. Other forms of communication, such as internal
communication to organize volunteers, are typically neglected. Political communi-
cation in election campaigns is almost exclusively conceptualized as the strategic
use of communication to reach voters directly through different forms of controlled
communication or indirectly through the news media, or as different modes of
communication and campaigning.
Against this background, the purpose of this chapter is to review research on
strategic political communication in election campaigns. Reflecting extant research, it
will focus on the strategic use of political communication and modes of political
campaigning and campaign communication by political parties and campaigns.
Detailed discussions about how mass media cover election campaigns and on cam-
paign and media effects on voters are discussed in detail in sections V and VII of
this handbook, because still most of the research in those fields refers to election
times.
Authenticated | jesper@jesperstromback.com
Download Date | 7/7/14 3:05 PM

Strategic political communication in election campaigns 111
2 Towards a general model of strategic political
communication in elections
On a general level, strategic political communication is about organizations’ pur-
poseful management of information and communication to reach political objec-
tives it has set out for itself. This holds true for political parties and campaigns as
well as for interest groups, governments or other organizations that are either
inherently political or have political agendas. It also holds true within as well as
beyond election campaigns. Different organizations want to achieve certain goals,
and they use information and communication strategically to reach these goals
(Manheim 2011; Strömbäck and Kiousis 2011).
In the context of strategic political communication, the strategic goals of politi-
cal parties and campaigns are thus crucial. Although it is often assumed that the
primary goal of political parties and campaigns is “to maximize political support”
(Downs 1957: 11), in most cases, parties have numerous goals, and the primary
strategic goal may vary across parties. According to Strøm (1990), three different
types of parties can be distinguished based on their primary goals: vote-seeking,
office-seeking and policy-seeking parties. The distinguishing feature of vote-seeking
parties is that they seek to maximize their share of votes. Office-seeking parties,
in contrast, “seek to maximize, not their votes, but their control over political
office” (Strøm 1990: 567), while the primary goal of policy-seeking parties is to
maximize influence over public policy (Strøm 1990; see also Harmel and Janda
1994). Based on this distinction, vote-seeking parties can be assumed to place
greater priority on election campaign communication than office- and, in particu-
lar, policy-seeking parties, as their fortunes are more directly linked to election
campaigning.
Another distinction is between product-oriented,sales-oriented and market-ori-
ented parties (Henneberg 2002; Lees-Marshment 2001a, 2001b; Newman 1994;
Shama 1976). Based on a merger of political science and marketing, political mar-
keting theory holds that product-oriented parties or campaigns tend to focus on
the core of the political product – the ideology and policy positions as formed
through internal processes and deliberations. Such a party “argues for what it
stands for and believes in. It assumes that voters will realize that its ideas are the
right ones and therefore vote for it” (Lees-Marshment 2001b: 696). A product-ori-
ented party could thus be described as policy-seeking.
A sales-oriented party is similar to a product-oriented party in the sense that
the ideology and policy positions are formed in internal processes. In contrast to
product-oriented parties, however, it makes use of market intelligence and market-
ing techniques for studying and segmenting the electorate, for message design,
and for the selling of the party. Sales-oriented parties thus focus much more on
election campaigning and campaign communication than product-oriented par-
ties. While both product- and sales-oriented parties can be described as policy-
Authenticated | jesper@jesperstromback.com
Download Date | 7/7/14 3:05 PM

112 Jesper Strömbäck and Spiro Kiousis
Tab. : Defining characteristics of product-, sales- and market-oriented parties.

Type of party
Product-oriented party Sales-oriented party Market-oriented party
Defining – Forms the policies in – Forms the policies in – Uses market intelli-
characteristic internal processes. internal processes. gence to identify voter
– Argues for its ideas – Believes in its own wants and needs.
and policies. ideas and policies, but – Designs its policies
– Assumes that voters realizes that they have and behavior to pro-
will realize that its to be sold to the pub- vide voter satisfac-
ideas and policies lic. tion.
are the best ones – Attempts to make peo- – Attempts to offer peo-
and therefore vote ple want what the party ple what they already
for it. has to offer. want.
Reaction to – Believes voters do – Attempts to make bet- – Uses market intelli-
election defeat not realize that the ter use of marketing gence to redesign the
party’s policies and techniques to sell the party and its policies
ideas are the best party and its policies, so that it becomes
ones: if the party and to professionalize better suited to the
changes, it is how it plans and run wants and needs of
towards becoming its campaigns. selected target
ideologically purer. groups.
Predominant – Primarily policy-seek- – Primarily policy- and – Primarily vote- and
party logic ing vote-seeking office-seeking
seeking, sales-oriented parties are more vote-seeking than product-oriented par-
ties.
Neither party would however change the policies to appeal to voters. This is
in contrast to market-oriented parties that use market intelligence not only to
design the message and to develop and execute as effective campaigns as possible,
but also to design the political product and policies per se. If sales-oriented parties
try to make people want what it offers, market-oriented parties try to offer what
people want (Lees-Marshment 2001a, 2001b). Market-oriented parties should be
understood as the least policy-seeking, and the most vote- or office-seeking, party
type (see Table 1).
Of course, these descriptions are simplified, the party types are ideal types,
and there may be differences within parties. In reality there are no clear-cut vote-
seeking, policy-seeking or office-seeking parties (Müller and Strøm 1999). Neither
are there any clear-cut product- sales- or market-oriented parties (Lees-Marshment,
Strömbäck, and Rudd 2010). To the extent that parties change policies to accom-
modate voters, it is mainly a matter of abandoning particular unpopular positions
1Based on but modified from Lees-Marshment 2001a, 2001b; Strömbäck 2007a.
Authenticated | jesper@jesperstromback.com
Download Date | 7/7/14 3:05 PM

Strategic political communication in election campaigns 113
rather than a wholesale accommodation. Hence, it could be described as selective
market-orientation. In addition, these categories are not necessarily mutually
exclusive, and parties may attempt to maximize the share of votes at the same
time as they attempt to win office and maximize policy influence.
Still, the discussion about party types and strategic goals suggests that there
is a close linkage between political parties or campaigns as organizations, and
their election campaigns and campaign communication. Important to note in this
context though is that political parties or campaigns are no monoliths, but com-
plex and multidimensional organizations.
This is highlighted by Sjöblom’s theory of strategic party behavior (1968a),
according to which parties act not only on an electoral arena but also on an inter-
nal and a parliamentary arena. Assuming that the primary goal is that “The party
itself shall make the authoritative decisions in accordance with its evaluation sys-
tem” (Sjöblom 1968a: 73), to reach this primary goal, parties need to act strategi-
cally to reach the goals on each of these arenas. On the electoral arena, the stra-
tegic goal is to maximize the share of votes; on the internal arena, to maximize
internal cohesion; and on the parliamentary arena, to maximize parliamentary
influence (Sjöblom 1968a, 1968b). Subsequent theorizing has suggested the addi-
tion of a media arena, where the strategic goal is to maximize positive visibility
(Nord 1997).
On each of these arenas, political parties and campaigns have a number of
publics or stakeholders with whom they need to communicate (Sjöblom 1968a,
1968b; compare Hughes and Dann 2009; Lilleker 2005; Sellers 2010; Strömbäck
2010). On the parliamentary arena, the key stakeholders include members of the
own parliamentary group as well as members of parliament from other parties. On
the internal arena, the key stakeholders 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 journal-
ists, 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 cam-
paigns include several different streams of communication with different stake-
holders 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 communi-
cation 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 how-
ever. 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
Authenticated | jesper@jesperstromback.com
Download Date | 7/7/14 3:05 PM

114 Jesper Strömbäck and Spiro Kiousis
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 elect-
orate, but also with respect to the communication with stakeholders on the parlia-
mentary 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 politi-
cal 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 politi-
cal 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 cam-
paign 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 impor-
tant. This holds true for the communication with target groups among the elector-
ate (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 unan-
ticipated 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
Authenticated | jesper@jesperstromback.com
Download Date | 7/7/14 3:05 PM

Strategic political communication in election campaigns 115
Fig. 1: Descriptive model for strategic political communication on multiple arenas.
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 communi-
cation 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.
Authenticated | jesper@jesperstromback.com
Download Date | 7/7/14 3:05 PM

116 Jesper Strömbäck and Spiro Kiousis
3 Modeling and explaining changing campaign
practices and communication
One prominent theme in research on election campaigning and campaign commu-
nication has been attempts to model changing campaign practices across time.
Several authors have described a development where three phases of election cam-
paigning 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 typolo-
gies 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 characteris-
tics 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 elec-
tion 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 communi-
cation 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
Authenticated | jesper@jesperstromback.com
Download Date | 7/7/14 3:05 PM

Strategic political communication in election campaigns 117
Tab. : Typology of changing campaign practices.
Stage  Stage  Stage 
(“Premodern”) (“Modern”) (“Postmodern”)
Mode of political Party-dominated Television-centered Multiple channels and
communication system multi-media
Dominant style of Messages along Sound bites, image and Narrow-casted, tar-
political party lines impression management geted micro-messages
communication
Dominant media Partisan press, Television broadcasts Television narrow-
posters, newspaper through main evening casting, targeted
adverts, radio news direct mail and email-
broadcasts campaigns
Dominant advertising Print advertise- Nationwide television Targeted television
media ments, posters, advertisements, colorful advertisements, e-mail
leaflets, radio posters and magazine campaigns and tele-
speeches and mass adverts, mass direct marketing, web-based
rallies mailings advertisements
Campaign coordination Party leaders and Party campaign manag- Special party cam-
leading party staff ers and external media, paign units and more
advertising and survey specialized political
experts consultants
Dominant campaign Party-logic Media logic Marketing logic
paradigm
Campaign preparation Short-term, ad-hoc Longer-term campaign Permanent campaign
Campaign Low Increasing Spiraling up
expenditures
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
Authenticated | jesper@jesperstromback.com
Download Date | 7/7/14 3:05 PM

118 Jesper Strömbäck and Spiro Kiousis
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 cam-
paigns. In addition, while it used to be the case that political consultancy was
mainly a U.S. phenomenon, political consultancy has become more common also
in many other countries, and it has become increasingly common that American
campaign consultants work abroad (Plasser and Plasser 2002; Plasser 2009).
Finally, the mass media in countries across the world usually devote extensive
attention to U.S. election campaigns, including innovations in campaign strategies
and tactics used (Painter et al. 2011).
Thus, U.S. campaign practices may diffuse through three routes: by campaign
practitioners from other countries visiting and studying U.S. presidential election
campaigns, by U.S. political consultants working for parties in other countries,
and by international media coverage of U.S. presidential campaigns. In all three
cases, election campaign practices in other countries are allegedly becoming
increasingly similar to U.S. presidential election campaign practices, which is to
say Americanized.
While few would dispute that U.S. election campaign practices are very inno-
vative, and that campaign practitioners and the media from across the world fol-
low U.S. campaigns with great interest, critics of the Americanization-thesis claim
that its notion of one-way diffusion and imitation is too simplified and inadequate
for a full understanding of why and how campaign practices change. The main
reason for this is that political campaigning and campaign communication never
take place in a vacuum. Instead it is shaped by factors at the macro- as well as
the meso- and the micro-levels of analysis, which vary across countries and
together form the contextual conditions for election campaigning and campaign
communication. Among the most important structural and semi-structural factors
are the political system, the media system, the campaign rules and regulations,
the political culture, and the type of parties and party system (for a recent over-
view, see Esser and Strömbäck 2012; see also Farrell 2000; Kaid and Holtz-Bacha
2006; Norris 2000; Plasser and Plasser 2002; Plasser 2009; Strömbäck 2010; Ström-
bäck and Kaid 2008) (see also the chapter Pfetsch and Esser).
As an alternative explanation for growing similarities in campaign practices,
modernization theory attributes the spread of modern campaign techniques to
processes of change within society, and views influences from outside as a comple-
mentary factor. More specifically, modernization theory holds that macro-level
changes of social structure, political structure, and media structure are caused by
endogenous and exogenous factors. One of the most important endogenous factors
is increasing functional differentiation within societies; another is increasing indi-
vidualization (Castells 1998; Esser and Strömbäck 2012; Giddens 1984; Swanson
and Mancini 1996). For example, as the media increase their independence from
political parties and form a subsystem on their own, parties can no longer rely on
Authenticated | jesper@jesperstromback.com
Download Date | 7/7/14 3:05 PM

Strategic political communication in election campaigns 119
loyal media to provide them with positive visibility. Instead, they have to develop
their skills in news management. The reason why parties in a particular country
make use of similar news management techniques as parties in the U.S is therefore
not that they are imitating U.S. parties. It is instead that the need for news manage-
ment, as a consequence of increasing media autonomy, has increased in that coun-
try as it had done before in the United States. Similarly, as party identification has
declined and electoral volatility has increased (voter dealignment), parties world-
wide have to find new ways to target key voter groups. Often these can be found
in the U.S., but the main reason why it appears as if parties in different parts of
the world are imitating U.S. campaign techniques is that individualization
increased earlier there than in other countries.
Two approaches to the apparent process of Americanization can thus be distin-
guished: the modernization and the diffusion approach (Negrine et al. 2007; Plasser
and Plasser 2002; Swanson and Mancini 1996). According to the modernization
approach, increasing use of U.S. campaign strategies and tactics is a consequence
of the modernization of media systems and the relationship between parties and
voters, while according to the diffusion approach, it is a consequence of transna-
tional diffusion and implementation of U.S. campaign practices.
Plasser and Plasser (2002) also argue that there are two models that may
describe the diffusion of U.S. campaign practices: the adoption and the shopping
model. According to the adoption model, parties around the world adopt different
campaign practices that have proven successful in U.S. election campaigning. This
import of successful campaign practices results in a transformation of election
campaigns outside of the United States. The end result is standardization, that is,
a “gradual phase-out of country-specific traditional campaign styles” and their
substitution of U.S. campaign practices (Plasser and Plasser 2002: 19). According to
the shopping model, political parties around the world rather study and implement
selected U.S. campaign practices, depending on how well they fit within the con-
text of the own country. The parties shop those campaign practices that work
best and are most appropriate in a particular context. This leads to a process of
professionalization of political campaigning outside of the United States. The end
result is hybridization, that is, a path-dependent and “country-specific supplemen-
tation of traditional campaign practices with select features of the American style
of campaigning” (Plasser and Plasser 2002: 19).
While there is a lack of longitudinal and comparative research on the proc-
esses and diffusion of campaign practices, most analyses support the notions of
modernization and hybridization in front of unidirectional diffusion and standardi-
zation (Negrine et al. 2007; Negrine 2008; Esser and Strömbäck 2012; Swanson and
Mancini 1996). Research also suggests that there are substantial differences
between countries in election campaigning and campaign communication. Such
variations are more easily explained by modernization theory than by Americani-
zation. Finally, modernization theory has the advantage of linking factors on the
Authenticated | jesper@jesperstromback.com
Download Date | 7/7/14 3:05 PM

120 Jesper Strömbäck and Spiro Kiousis
macro-level to adaptive behavior on the micro-level and is in that respect more
ambitious (Esser and Strömbäck 2012; Plasser and Plasser 2002).
The emphasis in research on election campaigning and campaign communica-
tion has subsequently shifted to the notion of professionalization (Farrell and
Webb 2000; Gibson and Römmele 2001, 2009; Negrine et al. 2007; Norris 2000;
Strömbäck 2009), embedded in the discussion about different stages of campaign-
ing and campaign communication. Although often used as a rather vague catchall
term (Lilleker and Negrine 2002), at least four facets and conceptualizations of
campaign professionalization can be identified. First and on a very general level,
campaign professionalization might be conceptualized as “an ongoing process
where structures and practices are continually revised and updated in order to
make them more ‘rational’ and more ‘appropriate’ for the conduct of politics”
(Negrine 2008: 2). This is a “process of adaptation” to changes on the system level
in the relationship between politics, media and the electorate (Holtz-Bacha 2007:
63). Second, campaign professionalization might be conceptualized as a process
towards an increasing use of campaign professionals, that is, individuals with
particular expertise in different aspects of campaign strategies, tactics, or commu-
nication, or as a process where more people work fulltime with campaigning and
campaign communication (Negrine 2008; Negrine et al. 2007; Plasser and Plasser
2002). Here a distinction should be made between internal or external professionali-
zation (Plasser 2009). Internal professionalization refers to a process where more
people working within the parties acquire greater knowledge and expertise within
the field of election campaigning, and where the size of the staff working with
campaigning and communication is growing. External professionalization refers
to a process where parties and candidates increasingly hire professional, external
advisors and consultants with specialized expertise (Plasser 2009: 33; see also
Johnson 2007; Thurber and Nelson 2000). Third and related, campaign profession-
alization may be conceptualized as an increasing specialization of tasks related to
campaigning and campaign communication (Lilleker and Negrine 2002). Instead
of being “campaign experts”, consultants or staff may increasingly be experts on,
for example, opinion polls, voter segmentation or advertising. For example, the
online directory of “Campaigns and Elections”, the trade magazine for political
consultants, lists over 60 different categories of services offered by political con-
sultants.
Fourth, campaign professionalization may be conceptualized as increasing use
of different campaign strategies and tactics associated with professional campaign-
ing. In the party-centered theory of professionalized campaigning, for example,
the dependent variable is an additive index of different campaign strategies and
tactics (Gibson and Römmele 2001, 2009; Strömbäck 2009). Originally this index
included the use of telemarketing and direct mail for contacting own members
and outside target groups, use of computerized databases, conducting opposition
research, use of public relations or media consultants, use of opinion polling, use
Authenticated | jesper@jesperstromback.com
Download Date | 7/7/14 3:05 PM

Strategic political communication in election campaigns 121
of e-mail sign-up or subscription lists for regular news updates, outside campaign
headquarters, and continuous campaigning (Gibson and Römmele 2001).
Professionalization of political campaigning and campaign communication is
thus a multifaceted process. The extent to which campaigns and campaign com-
munication can be described as professionalized thus varies depending on how
professionalization is conceptualized. While there is little doubt that political par-
ties attempt to find better ways of planning for and running campaigns, on a
general level there is less research showing that there has been an increase, for
example, in the use of campaign professionals.
Whether this is because there has been no unequivocal process of campaign
professionalization, or because there is a manifest lack of systematic comparative
and longitudinal research, is less clear, although much speaks for the latter inter-
pretation.
4 Contemporary election campaign communication
While there are differences across countries in terms of election campaigning and
campaign communication, a review of the literature suggests that there are some
trends that apply across a broader range of countries. They certainly not apply
equally everywhere, but keeping that in mind and allowing a certain degree of
simplification, ten macro trends can be identified.
First, campaign communication remains heavily television-centered. For most
people in most countries, television remains the most important source of informa-
tion about politics (Plasser 2009; Purcell et al. 2010). The number of channels
has increased in many countries, and the television audience has become more
fragmented, but compared to other forms of media, television is still the most
important media type. This holds particularly true for those who need to communi-
cate with the otherwise modestly attentive and interested (see also the chapter by
Wolling and Emmer).
Second, election campaigns and campaign communication is heavily focused
on individual candidates or party leaders at the expense of the parties. This may
hold particularly true for the media coverage of election campaigns, and also for
how the parties themselves campaign (Mughan 2000; Poguntke and Webb 2005).
For both the parties and the media, it may be easier to communicate effectively
when focusing on individual candidate and party leaders than when focusing on
abstract parties, and media events such as televised debates naturally focus on
the party leaders and candidates (see also the chapters by Shaefer, Shenhav, and
Balmas and by Hopmann). Important to note, though, is that most research shows
that voters still vote for parties rather than for individual candidates or leaders,
particularly in party-centered democracies (Aarts, Blais, and Schmitt 2011).
Third, the Internet has become increasingly important. This holds true for both
traditional web pages (Web 1.0) and blogs and different social media such as Face-
Authenticated | jesper@jesperstromback.com
Download Date | 7/7/14 3:05 PM

122 Jesper Strömbäck and Spiro Kiousis
book and YouTube (Web 2.0). For every election cycle, more people turn to the
Internet for information about politics and society, and for every election cycle,
political parties and campaigns focus more on web campaigning (Hendricks and
Denton 2010; Lilleker and Jackson 2011). It is however important to recognize that
the Internet is a platform rather than a challenger to traditional media in terms of
audience competition. This is witnessed by the fact that most of those who turn
to the Internet for information, turn to the online versions of traditional media
(Purcell et al. 2010; Smith 2009). In that particular respect, it is often misleading
to discuss increasing usage of the Internet as posing a threat to traditional media.
Fourth, an ever-expanding media environment and increasing media choice
has resulted in a situation where individual preferences and motivations have a
stronger impact on media use than they used to have, leading to increasing audi-
ence fragmentation (Prior 2007; Stroud 2011; Strömbäck, Djerf-Pierre, and Shehata
2012). For campaigns, this means that it has become more difficult to reach out to
groups that are less interested, either in politics in general or in what particular
campaigns have to say. This holds particularly true with respect to the Internet.
While the Internet is an excellent medium to reach out to, mobilize and organize
supporters and activists (Harfoush 2009; Levenshus 2010; Sweetser 2011), it is less
efficient in terms of reaching out to new and inattentive voters (Dimitrova et al.
2011).
Fifth, microtargeting has become a more important campaign strategy. The
logic of microtargeting is to identify as many voter segments as possible that can
be distinguished from other voter segments and that internally are as homogenous
as possible. The ideal would be to tailor campaign messages to individual voters.
While that is not possible, segmentation based on demographics, geography, life-
styles, attitudes and opinions, and behaviors have become increasingly common,
particularly in countries that allow parties to buy and collect all kinds of individual
data and store them in consumer or voter databases (Johnson 2011; Hillygus and
Shields 2008; Shaw 2006; Spiller and Bergner 2011). In the United States, both
parties have databases covering virtually all registered voters, and this is used to
segment and microtarget voters. As concluded by Sara Taylor, strategist for Presi-
dent Bush in 2004, “We could identify exactly who should be mailed, on what
issues, and who should be ignored completely” (quoted in Hillygus and Shields
2008: 161).
Sixth and consequently, narrowcasting has become a more important cam-
paign strategy (Hillygus and Shields 2008; Johnson 2011). This is a consequence
of the expanding media environment, the increasing audience fragmentation, and
the increasing sophistication in terms of identifying voter segments. The more
media there are, the more individual preferences predict what type of media and
media content people expose themselves to, the more homogenous audiences for
different kinds of media and media content has become, and the greater the
prospects are for campaigns to target specific groups with messages tailored to
Authenticated | jesper@jesperstromback.com
Download Date | 7/7/14 3:05 PM

Strategic political communication in election campaigns 123
those group. All this presupposes, of course, that campaigns have reliable data.
Effective microtargeting and narrowcasting thus presupposes sophisticated voter
segmentation.
Seventh, the need for professional campaign and communication expertise has
increased. The two major reasons are that media landscapes have become more
diverse and fragmented, not only in terms of audiences but also in terms of media
types and media outlets (Bennett and Iyengar 2008), and that voter behavior in
many countries has become more volatile and less predictable due to decreasing
party identification and increasing individualization (Dalton and Wattenberg
2000). Thus, the challenges of reaching and communicating with different voter
groups have increased simultaneously with a greater need to reaching out to and
communicating with different voter groups. This calls for greater expertise in
political campaigning and campaign communication.
Eighth, there appears to be a process of increasing professionalization, defined
by continuous efforts at improving the use of different campaign strategies and
tactics as well as by increasing use either of internal campaign staff or outside
consultants. In some countries, this is a process of increasing internal professional-
ization. In other countries, it is a process of increasing external professionalization
(Negrine et al. 2007; Plasser 2009). However, while there is a process towards
increasing professionalization, the level of professionalization still differs widely
across countries (Plasser and Plasser 2002). The direction and the state of profes-
sionalization should thus not be conflated.
Ninth and related, political parties have become increasingly marketing ori-
ented, in the sense that they make increasing use of various marketing strategies
and tactics to research and segment the electorate, develop and test messages,
target messages to different groups, and when branding and positioning them-
selves as well as the opponents (Johnson 2009; Lees-Marshment 2009, 2012; New-
man 1994; Spiller and Bergner 2011).
Tenth, parties have become increasingly sales-oriented, but there is little evi-
dence to suggest that parties have become increasingly market-oriented (Lees-
Marshment, Strömbäck, and Rudd 2010). Marketing orientation does not equal
market orientation. Parties do make increasing use of marketing strategies and
tactics to find ways to reach out to and persuade voters, but in most cases, the
parties themselves define the ideology and the policies. While parties make use of
focus groups and opinion polls to find out what voters believe and want, this is
primarily used to influence what messages the parties focus on. It is seldom used
as a reason to change policies (Lees-Marshment, Strömbäck, and Rudd 2010).
Phrased differently, campaign communication may have become increasingly mar-
keting and market-oriented, but in general, the parties themselves have not.
Taken together, these ten macro trends and tendencies result in campaigns
becoming ever more expensive. This holds particularly true in countries where
televised advertising is allowed and external professionalization dominates, such
Authenticated | jesper@jesperstromback.com
Download Date | 7/7/14 3:05 PM

124 Jesper Strömbäck and Spiro Kiousis
as the United States, but the general tendency holds true everywhere. Running
professionalized campaigns costs money, and as the need for running professional-
ized campaigns has increased due to modernization, changes in media environ-
ments and changes in voter behavior, so have the costs of campaigning. This may
increase the influence of the wealthy – in particular where campaign fundraising
is rather unregulated and parties and candidates depend on fundraising rather
than on membership fees and state support – and exacerbate political inequalities.
On a normative level, this raises troubling questions with respect to the impact of
contemporary campaign trends on democracy and the key normative ideal of
political equality (see Dahl 2006) (see also the chapter by Puppis).
5 Conclusion
The goal of strategic political communication during election campaigns is to use
information and communication as strategically and effectively as possible to
reach the objectives that have been set. The strategic goals of parties and cam-
paigns are thus imperative, which suggests that an understanding of strategic
political communication during election campaigns requires an understanding of
political parties and campaigns as organizations. For example, some parties are
more vote-seeking, while others may be more policy-seeking. Such party character-
istics will influence both the priority given to campaigning and campaign commu-
nication, and how the parties plan and run their campaigns.
At the same time, campaign practices and communication are always dynamic
and shaped by the contextual conditions formed by the political system, the media
system, laws and regulations, the political culture, and the type of parties and
party competition. What works in one context may thus not work in another con-
text. While there are cross-national patterns in campaign practices and campaign
communication, more detailed analyses usually reveals country-differences
beneath the surface. Hence, while it is important to identify macro trends, it is
also important not to oversimplify. The country context matters and filters the
innovations and import of campaign practices. Modernization theory thus holds
stronger explanatory power than the Americanization-thesis, and rather than
standardization of campaign practices, research suggests hybridization.
Still, this review has shown that research on election campaigning and cam-
paign communication suffers from several deficits. Most important is the lack of
longitudinal and comparative research, which partly follows from the lack of speci-
fied and standardized independent and dependent variables. Only with a compre-
hensive theoretical framework and clearly specified and standardized independent
and dependent variables can comparative research on election campaigning and
campaign communication flourish, and only then will it be possible to provide
firm answers to questions about differences and similarities in election campaign-
Authenticated | jesper@jesperstromback.com
Download Date | 7/7/14 3:05 PM

Strategic political communication in election campaigns 125
ing and campaign communication across time or space; their antecedents; and
their consequences. One thing holds generally true though: At heart, election cam-
paigns are nothing but political communication.
References
Aarts, Kees, André Blais and Hermann Schmitt (eds.). 2011. Political Leaders and Democratic
Elections. New York: Oxford University Press.
Van Aelst, Peter, Kees Brants, Philip Van Praag, Claes De Vreese, Michiel Nuytemans and Arjen
Van Dalen. 2008. The fourth estate as superpower? Journalism Studies 9: 494–511.
Van Aelst, Peter, Adam Shehata and Arjen Van Dalen. 2010. Members of parliament, equal
competitors for media attention? An analysis of personal contacts between MPs and
political journalists in five European countries. Political Communication 27: 310–325.
Bennett, W. Lance and Shanto Iyengar. 2008. A new era of minimal effects? The changing
foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication 58: 707–731.
Blumler, Jay G. and Denis McQuail. 2001. Political communication scholarship: The uses of
election research. In: Elihu Katz and Yael Warshel (eds.), Election Studies: What’s Their Use?,
219–246. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Burton, Michael J. and Daniel M. Shea. 2010. Campaign Craft. The Strategies, Tactics, and Art of
Political Campaign Management. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Castells, Manuel. 1998. The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell.
Dahl, Robert A. 2006. On Political Equality. New Haven, MD: Yale University Press.
Dalton, Russell J. and Martin P. Wattenberg (eds.). 2000. Parties without Partisans. Political
Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. New York: Oxford University Press.
Davis, Aeron. 2007. Investigating journalist influences on political issue agendas at Westminster.
Political Communication 24: 181–199.
Davis, Richard. 2009. Typing Politics. The Role of Blogs in American Politics. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Dimitrova, Daniela V., Adam Shehata, Jesper Strömbäck and Lars W. Nord. 2011. The effects of
digital media on political knowledge and participation in election campaigns: Evidence from
panel data. Communication Research, online before print. Retrieved on October 9
th
2012
from: http://crx.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/11/02/0093650211426004.full.pdf+html
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Eshbaugh-Soha, M. 2007. The President’s Speeches. Beyond “Going Public”. Boulder, CO: Lynne
Rienner.
Esser, Frank and Jesper Strömbäck. 2012. Comparing election campaign communication. In: Frank
Esser and Thomas Hanitzsch (eds.), The Handbook of Comparative Communication Research,
289–307. New York: Routledge.
Farrell, David M. 1996. Campaign strategies and tactics. In: Lawrence LeDuc, Richard G. Niemi
and Pippa Norris (eds.), Comparing Democracies. Elections and Voting in Global Perspective,
160–183. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Farrell, David M. and Paul Webb. 2000. Political parties as campaign organizations. In: Russell. J.
Dalton and Martin P. Wattenberg (eds.), Parties Without Partisans. Political Change in
Advanced Industrial Democracies, 102–128. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gibson, Rachel and Andrea Römmele. 2001. A party-centered theory of professionalized
campaigning. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 6: 31–43.
Authenticated | jesper@jesperstromback.com
Download Date | 7/7/14 3:05 PM

126 Jesper Strömbäck and Spiro Kiousis
Gibson, Rachel and Andrea Römmele. 2009. Measuring the professionalization of political
campaigning. Party Politics 15: 265–293.
Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Harfoush, Rahaf. 2009. Yes We Did. An Inside Look at How Social Media Built the Obama Brand.
Berkeley, CA: New Riders.
Harmel, Robert and Kenneth Janda. 1994. An integrated theory of party goals and party change.
Journal of Theoretical Politics 6: 259–287.
Hendricks, John Allen and Robert E. Denton (eds.). 2010. Communicator-In-Chief. How Barack
Obama Used New Media Technology to Win the White House. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Henneberg, Stephan C. M. 2002. Understanding political marketing. In: Nicholas J.
O’Shaughnessy and Stephan C. M. Henneberg (eds.), The Idea of Political Marketing, 93–
170. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Herbst, Susan. 1998. Reading Public Opinion. How Political Actors View the Democratic Process.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Hillygus, D. Sunshine and Todd G. Shields. 2008. The Persuadable Voter. Wedge Issues in
Presidential Campaigns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Holtz-Bacha, Christina. 2007. Professionalization of politics in Germany. In: Ralph Negrine, Paolo
Mancini, Christina Holtz-Bacha and Stylianos Papathanassopoulos (eds.), The
Professionalisation of Political Communication, 63–79. Bristol: Intellect.
Hughes, Andrew and Stephen Dann. 2009. Political marketing and stakeholder engagement.
Marketing Theory 9: 243–256.
Johnson, Dennis W. 2007. No Place for Amateurs. How Political Consultants are Reshaping
American Democracy. New York: Routledge.
Johnson, Dennis. W. 2009. The Routledge Handbook of Political Management. New York:
Routledge.
Johnson, Dennis W. 2011. Campaigning in the Twenty-First Century. A Whole New Ballgame? New
York: Routledge.
Kaid, Lynda Lee and Christina Holtz-Bacha (eds.). 2006. The SAGE Handbook of Political
Advertising. London: Sage.
Kavanagh, Dennis. 1995. Election Campaigning: The New Marketing of Politics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kavanagh, Dennis and Philip Cowley. 2010. The British General Election of 2010. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Kernell, Samuel. 2007. Going Public. New Strategies of Presidential Leadership. Washington,
D.C.: CQ Press.
Kluver, Randolph, Nicholas Jankowski, Kirsten Foot and Steven Schneider (eds.). 2007. The
Internet and National Elections: A Comparative Study of Web Campaigning. London:
Routledge.
Koch-Baumgarten, Sigrid and Katrin Voltmer (eds.). 2010. Public Policy and Mass Media. The
Interplay of Mass Communication and Political Decision Making. London: Routledge.
Lees-Marshment, Jennifer. 2001a. Political Marketing and British Political Parties. The Party’s just
Begun. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Lees-Marshment, Jennifer. 2001b. The marriage of politics and marketing. Political Studies 49:
692–713.
Lees-Marshment, Jennifer (ed.). 2012. The Routledge Handbook of Political Marketing. London:
Routledge.
Lees-Marshment, Jennifer, Jesper Strömbäck and Chris Rudd (eds.). 2010. Global Political
Marketing. London: Routledge.
Levenshus, Abbey. 2010. Online relationship management in a presidential campaign: A case
study of the Obama Campaign’s management of its internet-integrated grassroots effort.
Journal of Public Relations Research 22: 313–335.
Authenticated | jesper@jesperstromback.com
Download Date | 7/7/14 3:05 PM

Strategic political communication in election campaigns 127
Lilleker, Darren G. 2005. The impact of political marketing on internal party democracy.
Parliamentary Affairs 58: 570–584.
Lilleker, Darren G. and Nigel A. Jackson. 2011. Political Campaigning, Elections and the Internet.
Comparing the US, UK, France and Germany. London: Routledge.
Lilleker, Darren G. and Ralph Negrine. 2002. Professionalization: of what? Since when? By
whom? Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 7: 98–103.
Maarek, Philippe J. 2011. Campaign Communication and Political Marketing. Oxford: Blackwell.
Maier, Michaela, Jesper Strömbäck and Lynda Lee Kaid (eds.). 2011. Political Communication in
European Parliamentary Elections. Farnham: Ashgate.
Manheim, Jarol B. 2011. Strategy in Information and Influence Campaigns. How Policy Advocates,
Social Movements, Insurgent Groups, Corporations, Governments and Others Get What They
Want. New York: Routledge.
McKinney, Mitchell S., and Mary C. Banwart (eds.). 2011. Communication in the 2008 U.S.
Election. Digital Natives Elect a President. New York: Peter Lang.
Medvic, Stephen K. (ed.) 2011. New Directions in Campaigns and Elections. New York: Routledge.
Mughan, Anthony. 2000. Media and the Presidentialization of Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Müller, Wolfgang C. and Karee Strøm (eds.). 1999. Policy, Office, or Votes? How Political Parties
in Western Europe Make Hard Decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Negrine, Ralph. 2008. The Transformation of Political Communication. Continuities and Changes
in Media and Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Negrine, Ralph, Paolo Mancini, Christina Holtz-Bacha and Stylianos Papathanassopoulos (eds.).
2007. The Professionalisation of Political Communication. Bristol: Intellect.
Negrine, Ralph and Stylianos Papathanassopoulos. 1996. The •Americanization’ of political
communication: A critique. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 1: 45–62.
Newman, Bruce I. 1994. The Marketing of the President. Political Marketing as Campaign
Strategy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nord, Lars. 1997. Spelet om opinionen [The Game of Public Opinion]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Norris, Pippa. 2000. The Virtuous Circle. Political Communication in Postindustrial Societies. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Painter, David L., Eisa Al Nashmir, Jesper Strömbäck, Juliana Fernandes, Zheng Xiang and Ji
Young Kim. 2011. International coverage of the U.S. presidential campaign: Obamamania
around the world. In: John A. Hendricks and Lynda Lee Kaid (eds.), Techno Politics in
Presidential Campaigning. New Voices, New Technologies, and New Voters, 213–233. New
York: Routledge.
Plasser, Fritz. 2009. Political consulting worldwide. In: Dennis W. Johnson (ed.), Routledge
Handbook of Political Management, 24–41. New York: Routledge.
Plasser, Fritz and Günther Lengauer. 2009. Television campaigning worldwide. In: Dennis W.
Johnson (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Political Management, 253–271. New York: Routledge.
Plasser, Fritz and Gunda Plasser. 2002. Global Political Campaigning. A Worldwide Analysis of
Campaign Professionals and Their Practices. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Poguntke, Thomas and Paul Webb (eds.). 2005. The Presidentialization of Politics. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Prior, Markus. 2007. Post-Broadcast Democracy. How Media Choice Increases Inequality in
Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Purcell, Kristen, Lee Rainie, Amy Mitchell, Tom Rosenstiel and Kenny Olmstead. 2010.
Understanding the Participatory News Consumer. How Internet and Cell Phone Users Have
Turned News Into a Social Experience. New York: Pew Research Center.
Sellers, Patrick. 2010. Cycles of Spin. Strategic Communication in the U.S. Congress. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Shama, Avraham. 1976. The marketing of political candidates. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science 4: 764–777.
Authenticated | jesper@jesperstromback.com
Download Date | 7/7/14 3:05 PM

128 Jesper Strömbäck and Spiro Kiousis
Shaw, Daron R. 2006. The Race to 270. The Electoral College and the Campaign Strategies of
2000 and 2004. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Sides, John and Lynn Vavreck. 2013. The Gamble. Choice and Chance in the 2012 Presidential
Election. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Sjöblom, Gunnar. 1968a. Party Strategies in a Multiparty System. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Sjöblom, Gunnar. 1968b. The study of party propaganda. Scandinavian Political Studies 3: 15–46.
Smith, Aaron. 2009. The Internet’s Role in Campaign 2008. New York: Pew Research Center.
Spiller, Lisa and Jeff Bergner. 2011. Branding the Candidate. Marketing Strategies to Win Your
Vote. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Stroud, Natalie Jomini. 2011. Niche News. The Politics of News Choice. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Strøm, Karee. 1990. A behavioral theory of competitive political parties. American Journal of
Political Science 34: 565–598.
Strömbäck, Jesper. 2007a. Political marketing and professionalized campaigning: A conceptual
analysis. Journal of Political Marketing 6: 49–67.
Strömbäck, Jesper. 2010. A framework for comparing political market-orientation. In: Jennifer
Lees-Marshment, Jesper Strömbäck and Chris Rudd (eds.), Global Political Marketing, 16–33.
London: Routledge.
Strömbäck Jesper. 2009. Selective professionalisation of political campaigning: A test of the
party-centred theory of professionalised campaigning in the context of the 2006 Swedish
election. Political Studies 57: 95–116.
Strömbäck, Jesper, Monika Djerf-Pierre and Adam Shehata. 2012. The dynamics of political
interest and news media consumption: A longitudinal perspective. International Journal of
Public Opinion Research 25: 414–435.
Strömbäck, Jesper and Lynda Lee Kaid (eds.). 2008. The Handbook of Election News Coverage
Around the World. New York: Routledge.
Strömbäck, Jesper and Spiro Kiousis. 2011a. Political public relations. Defining and mapping an
emergent field. In: Jesper Strömbäck and Spiro Kiousis (eds.), Political Public Relations.
Principles and Applications, 1–32. New York: Routledge.
Swanson, David L. and Paolo Mancini (eds.). 1996. Politics, Media, and Modern Democracy.
An International Study of Innovations in Electoral Campaigning and Their Consequences.
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Sweetser, Kaye D. 2011. Digital Political Public Relations. In: Jesper Strömbäck and Spiro Kiousis
(eds.), Political Public Relations. Principles and Applications, 293–313. New York: Routledge.
Thurber, James A. and Candice J. Nelson (eds.). 2000. Campaign Warriors. Political Consultants in
Elections. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution Press.
Trent, Judith S. and Robert V. Friedenberg. 2004. Political Campaign Communication. Principles
and Practices. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Vavreck, Lynn. 2009. The Message Matters. The Economy and Presidential Campaigns. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Vliegenthart, Rens and Stefaan Walgrave. 2010. When media matter for politics. Partisan
moderators of mass media influence on parliament in Belgium, 1993–2000. Party Politics 17:
321–342.
De Vreese, Claes H. 2010. Campaign communications and media. In: Lawrence LeDuc, Richard G.
Niemi and Pippa Norris (eds.), Comparing Democracies 3. Elections and Voting in the 21
st
Century, 118–140. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ward, Stephen, Diana Owen, Richard Davis and David Taras (eds.). 2008. Making a Difference.
A Comparative View of the Role of the Internet in Election Politics. Lanham, MD: Lexington
Books.
Walgrave, Stefaan and Peter van Aelst. 2006. The contingency of the mass media’s political
agenda setting power: Toward a preliminary theory. Journal of Communication 56: 88–109.
Authenticated | jesper@jesperstromback.com
Download Date | 7/7/14 3:05 PM