Communication expert Andrius Šuminas, manager of Media Research Laboratory at Vilnius University's Faculty of Communication, predicts that there will be an explosion of social media use during this year's election.
- You studied electoral communication as part of your thesis. You concentrated on the case of last year's municipal elections. What are your findings?
- I tried to look into the operations of social media – how Lithuanian politicians are using and, more importantly, employing social media to advance their campaign communication.
I chose a period between 25 January 2011 – the day the Central Electoral Commission assigned numbers to parties and non-partisan candidates – and 27 February, the day of the election. An interesting phenomenon came to my attention: state laws that regulate electoral campaigning make no reference at all to social media. Such a gap enables politicians to continue campaigning for their candidacy even on the day people go to the polls – the day that any political promotion is prohibited. There were cases of certain candidates posting self-promotion on Facebook.
- Facebook is not the only instance of social media. Have Lithuanian politicians already discovered alternative channels?
- In my research, I concentrated on four channels of social media: Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, and blogging.
The results revealed that Facebook is the undisputed leader in electoral communication. Lithuanian politicians don't tweet at all. There have been several attempts, yet rather exploratory and unsystematic – they signed up, concluded no one really cared, and gave up.
I have no doubt that Facebook will continue dominate this year's parliamentary elections too. One and a half year have passed since the municipal elections and the number of Facebook users has grown significantly, topping one million. At least Facebook itself says it has over one million users in Lithuania. How many of them are active, though? Let's assume a more realistic figure of, say, 700 thousand users who log on at least once a week – and that is a massive audience.
- And it must tantalize every politician. However, how can they pick out their target group from this faceless crowd?
- Social media allow one to segment the general public according to certain criteria, thus reaching one's target audience: one can select certain age groups, residents of certain areas, select hobbies and interests. Our politicians, however, are not particularly expert at making use of that.
In this respect, a good example is Vilnius Mayor Artūras Zuokas. In the run-up to the municipal elections, he made a rather successful attempt to reach his target voters, the youth, on the internet. For example, when he opened the Fluxus Ministry (an arts centre for youth) in central Vilnius, he also created a Facebook profile for it. The page immediately acquired a big number of followers who received regular feed on the activities at the Fluxus Ministry. The content was not straightforwardly political, yet the information indirectly contributed to an attractive image for Zuokas. A number of young and active people got involved in the Fluxus Ministry and they shared Facebook posts with their friends thus unintentionally expanding the network of Zuokas fans.
- What is the most common mistake made by politicians in social media?
- Many politicians essentially miscomprehend the function and operational principles of social media. They think short-term, assuming they can join some channel and, one week later, a miracle will happen. So one month before an election, all politicians start gluing new friends to their profiles like crazy. But such efforts are in vain, since using social media requires, first, time and skill and then, personal connection, direct contact with one's audience.
In social media, political communication becomes softer, it is not confined to programme points. Politicians talk about their vacation, even personal matters – it is their chance to create an alternative face for themselves. Information about leisure, hobbies, personal impressions and thoughts help them become part of the online community, their potential electorate. That is not something that can be achieved in a day or two.
- Therefore buying a Facebook group and this way ballooning fan numbers is inefficient?
- Absolute rubbish and, in worse case, even counter-effective – people might feel deceived and automatically reject the politician in question. Buying Facebook groups shows utter ineptitude and incomprehension of social media principles. It is all about personal contact, openness, honesty, and transparency and not fooling people into liking you. You can fool people, but only once.
I've noticed that politicians invite just about anyone to friend them on Facebook and have thousands of fans. But what's the point if these are random people with nothing in common? Perhaps time will come when politicians realize that quality and not quantity is what matters. That it is better to reach a smaller but more targeted audience which could be included into generating content for the account.
Internet is not a political rally where every statement is met by a round of applause. In social media, truth is being said right in your face. Politicians still fail to understand this – merely being in social media, writing one-directional messages, and ignoring negative comments won't give what you desire.
- Can you give a general profile of politicians who use Facebook – their age, place of residence, etc.?
- A study of 2011 municipal elections has shown that up to 22 percent of politicians in Lithuania's major cities – Vilnius, Kaunas, Klaipėda, and Šiauliai – were using Facebook. Figures in other districts were much more modest. In Lithuania as a whole, about 14 percent of all politicians running for municipal councils were using social media for campaigning.
The average age of all candidates was 45.3 years, while for those using social media – 37.8.
Now, in the run-up to parliamentary elections, most politicians already have Facebook profiles. However, in terms of efficiency, the use of the channel is still rather low.
- Can social media ever become the main platform for catching voters' attention?
- Some politicians, mostly liberals, already declare that they do not need traditional media. They know very well who their voters are and how to reach them.
Facebook, Youtube, and other online channels help politicians reach youngsters who practically ignore all other forms of media. Young people hardly watch television, they rarely flip through the press. Internet therefore is the most effective niche to get the young generation involved and come to the polls.
Let's recall the 2008 parliamentary elections. Forecasts claimed that the Liberal Movement and the Liberal and Centre Union wouldn't get past the 5-percent threshold and get any seats. During their campaign, the liberals paid much attention to internet and therefore fared rather well (both won seats in the Seimas).
Besides, research suggests that, say, Facebook users are getting older. According to global statistics, the fastest-growing group of Facebook users are people over 60.
I personally think that social media are but one of the available channels. I wouldn't advice relying solely on them – it is far too early and very risky. Trends, however, are that social media can be a window to media in general.
- 2008 election campaign of US President Barack Obama is still held as the etalon of political campaigning. It clearly showed the potential force of social media. Why don't we learn from leaders?
- Because Lithuanian politicians still lack professionalism. Political communications is being done hopelessly amateurishly.
For instance, I analysed how presidents of the three Baltic states – Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia – were using social media. Lithuanian President Grybauskaitė communicates unilaterally on Facebook, while you can expect feedback from the Estonian President, he responds to people's questions.
Say, the Estonian President's Office updates its homepage. The President invites everyone on Facebook to take a look and evaluate it. People start commenting if they like it or not. One user asks which developer carried out the order. Soon, a post states the name of the firm. After that, a question how much it cost. Here you go – a concrete sum. That's what I call feedback and transparency.
On the other hand, have you seen a single comment from President Grybauskaitė or her getting involved in an online discussion?
