cybercampaigning in the philippine presidential elections 2010

8/8/2019 Cybercampaigning in the Philippine Presidential Elections 2010

1/30

Mary Grace P. MirandillaDecember 7, 2009

CPRsouth4, Negombo, Sri Lanka


2/30

Background

Internet is transforming the information and

communication environment of political landscape,

including election campaigns

Lower cost vs. traditional campaigningo Implications on political financing/governance

o Level the playing field

Interactivity and networking features allow

candidates to engage voters and vice-versa

Create, update, and verify information anytime,

anywhere as long as internet available


3/30


4/30

Objectives

Objectives: To compare how Filipino politicians use cybercampaign

platforms from the traditional mainstream media (TMM)

To determine how site visitors perceive the use and benefits ofcybercampaign platforms

T

o analyze the policy and regulatory implications ofcybercampaign platforms in the Philippines

Research questions:1. How and to what extent are potential 2010 candidates using

online platforms compared to TMM for election campaigns?

2. What is the potential of the internet to complement,supplement, or supplant costly campaigning on TMMs?

3. How do Filipino internet users perceive the use and benefits ofcybercampaign platforms?

4. What are the policy and regulatory implications ofcybercampaigning in the Philippines?


5/30

Cyberspace Normalization

Socioeconomic and political relationships

online resemble those of the real world

Internet is shaped by real-world features

common campaign tactics, established power andresource relations, or traditional cultural values(Margolis, Resnick, & Wolfe, 1999)

Internet will do little to change politics-as-usualin election campaigns (Small, 2008; Norris & Curtice, 2008)


6/30

Cyberspace Normalization

DOMINANT

CANDIDATE

MAINSTREAM

MEDIA

EXPOSUREDOMINATE

CYBERSPACE

INFOPRODUCER

INFOCONSUMER

BLAH!

BLAH!


7/30

Cyberspace Equalization/Innovation

Unlike standard, mainstream media, where

information flows from one to many, the Internet

permits many-to-many reciprocal flows

As an interconnected and interactive medium, theInternet is a network that has no privileged center

Any netizen can create and distribute

information, not just consume it (Margolis, Resnick, &Wolfe, 1999)


8/30

Cybercampaign Innovation

ONE-WAY

EMPOWERING

INTERACTIVE

COST-EFFECTIVE

Access, provide, and

validate information

Promote or criticizea candidate

Quick feedback

Interact w/ candidate

and other voters

Information provision

Candidate promotion

Political discussionVoter mobilization

Campaign participation

Fundraising


9/30

Methodology

Combination ofquantitative and qualitative

methodologies

Supply analysis ofcandidate websites adopting a

scoring system that marks presence or absence of

campaign-related content/features (Bentivegna, 2002;

Gibson and Ward, 2000; and Gibson, Margolis, Resnick,

and Ward, 2003); structured and unstructured interviews

Demand

online survey of site visitors thru candidatessocial networking sites (SNS) to inquire about: familiarity

with online and offline campaign tools; kind of information

they access from both sources; and their perceived benefits

of online campaigning


10/30

Candidate Websites


11/30

Candidate Website Scoring System

Information

candidate as communication producer; data such

as biographical and political profiles, news

releases, position papers, and policy lines

Mobilization

candidates daily schedule, public appearances,

opportunities to meet potential voters, electoral

committee management team, solicitation of

participation to join online and offline events,

fundraising, and provision of campaign

paraphernalia


12/30

Candidate Website Scoring System

Community

venues for citizens to express opinion aboutcandidates program; take part in forums, live chats, orpolls; leave messages in a noticeboard, which others

can reply to or view

Services

downloading of software, links to other websites,entertainment (comic strips, political trivia, and jokes),

and sending of SMS

Website design and Multimedia

graphics, moving icons, video, photos, live streamingthat helps information and communication


13/30

CANDIDATE INFORMATION MOBILIZATION COMMUNITY SERVICES DESIGN TOTAL

ESCUDERO, FRANCIS CHIZ 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.7 3.0

PANGILINAN, FRANCIS KIKO 0.9 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.7 2.8

LEGARDA, LOREN 0.7 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.5 2.2

VILLAR, MANNY 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.8 2.1

ROXAS, MAR 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.7 2.1

LACSON, PANFILO PING 0.7 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.5 2.1

FERNANDO, BAYANI BF 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.7 2.0

BINAY, JEJOMAR JOJO 0.5 0.0 0. 0.2 0.7 1.5

ESTRADA, JOSEPH ERAP 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.3 1.3

DE CASTRO, NOLI

KABAYAN0.6 0.0 0. 0. 0.3 1.1

MEAN SCORE 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.6 2.0

Candidate Website Scores


14/30


15/30

Candidate SNS


16/30

72 Respondents

7

15

9

11

15

2

3

2

4 4

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Escudero Legarda Pangilinan Roxas Villar

acebook

riendster

57

15


17/30

Profile

Age

30-4 y/o 33 (54.2%)18-29 y/o 20 (38.9%)

50+ y/o 4 (5.0%)

Sex

Male 40 (55.6%)Female 32 (44.4%)

Location

Manila 30 (41.7%)Luzon 20 (27.8%)Abroad 13 (18.1%)

Mindanao 5 (6.9%)

Visayas 4 (5.6%)

Employment

Yes 53 (73.6%)Student 11 (15.3%)Unemployed 8 (1.1%)


18/30

Profile

Income

P50,001 and up (Class A - UpperClass) 27

P30,001-P50,000 (Class B - Upper Class) 13

P15,00

1-PP30,000 (Class C

1- Middle Class) 8

P8,001-P15,000 (Class C2 - Middle Class) 7

P3,001-P8,000 (Class D - Lower Class) 2

P3,000 or less (Class E - Extremely low class) 2

Political GroupNo 53 (73.6%)Yes 19 Political party

Party-list

Interest group

Support for a candidateStill choosing a candidate 38 (52.7%)

Active supporter of a candidate 14

Passive supportive of a candidate 12

Apolitical/doesnt support any 8

55.6%


19/30

Profile

Last voted

2007 elections 32 (44%)

First-time voter in 2010 12

2004 presidential elections 13Other 8

Registered voter

Yes 51 (70.8%)

Will register 15

No 6

Will vote in 2010

Yes 65 (90.2%)

No 7

Don't know at this stage

Dont believe in our voting system

Dont know how to register for absentee votingI have no reason to do so

I will be out of the country for further studies

Name lost in register

Cant register in RP in time for election


20/30

Internet Use

Forhow long now

7+ years 49 (68%)5+ to 7 years 12

3+ to 5 years 6

1+ to 3 years 1A few months to 1 year 3

Mode of access

Subscription at home 39 (54%)Office/school 17

Internet caf 5

Prepaid access 2Missing 9

Frequency

Everyday 54 (79%)3-5 times a week 8

Once a week 1

Missing 9

Information accessed online

News/current affairs 64 (88.8%)Work-related information 59Info about family/friends 59

Politics and government 44

Show business 36

School-related information 31


21/30

Membership in Candidate SNS

Networking at work!

Knowledge of a candidates SNS thru membership

36 (50%) belonged to more than one network

Access to information about candidate is mainreason for joining candidates SNS

Only 12 (17%) joined because they believe in the

candidate; 8 (11%) to support the candidate

Only 3 (4%) joined to participate and be heard


22/30

Offline Info Source on 2010 Elections

Info about 2010 election and candidates was in news

and personal ad format

Villarand Roxas dominated TMM exposure

Stand on issues and policies ranked #1 & 2 in kind

of info accessed in TMM

Main source of news/info about 2010 elections

Rank #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6

Television 42 13 5 0 0 0

Radio 2 3 5 24 6 3

Newspaper 7 21 24 4 0 0

Magazine 0 0 3 9 20 5

Mobile phone 0 0 1 1 6 22

Internet 18 20 14 6 3 0


23/30

Online Info Source on 2010 Elections

Online news sites main source of info re 2010

elections/candidates on web, apart from SNS

Escudero and Roxas both ranked #1 as candidate

usually seen/heard/read about online

Cybercampaign tools not popularamong SNS users

25 (34.7%) visited websites

19 (26.4%) visited blogs

7 (9.7%) visited micro-blogging sites

CANDIDATE INFORMATION MOBILIZATION COMMUNITY SERVICES DESIGN TOTAL

ESCUDERO, FRANCIS CHIZ 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.7 3.0

ROXAS, MAR 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.7 2.1


24/30

Perception ofCybercampaign Tools

Information access dominates main reason for visiting

cybercampaigning resources

to know about agenda, platform, and advocacies; and to

get updates on work and activities

Access to more candidate info is most commonly

perceived benefits of cybercampaign tools

Candidates credential/track record, personal

advocacies considered most useful feature

Info on meetings, forums and activities only ranked #4


25/30

Participation in Campaign Activities

Over50%:

has voted during elections

has left a comment on websites

is likely to join in campaign activities offline is not likely to give candidates financial contributions

Over35%:

has campaigned for a candidate offline has participated in offline/online issue-based forums

is likely to join a miting-de-avance offline


26/30

Conclusions

SUPPLYSIDE

Cyberspace normalization seen at play One-way information features dominate website

content, delivered like in TMM

Untapped potential of internet formobilization andgreater participation of electorates

Communityfeatures, meant to engage voters indiscussion, debates, and consultations, scored low

But, a promising featureinvitation to join team of

supporterswas seen in 7 out of10 websites Can lead to creation of edge-based organizations

Empowering teams of core supporters, thru Internet, toplay key role in campaign, instead of relying on patrons inlocal government, would be manifestation of equalization


27/30

Conclusions

DEMAND SIDE

People with the resources (upper

class, employed) make up cybercampaign tool

users

Despite biased sample, Internet not top choice

for main source of election/candidate info

Normalization seen in demand side

More candidate info main reason for access and most

commonly perceived benefit

Low demand for more interaction with politicians either

online or offline


28/30

Conclusions

Reality check! Contextualize empowerment in RP election campaign

Key informants and experts point to mobile phone as

more appropriate ICT for RP campaigning

Fundraising not entrenched in RP election culture

Few Filipinos trust internet for transactions;

Parties lack infrastructure to generate contributions

Youth and OFWs main targets of cybercampaign, but

do they use internet for politics?

More access to info may not lead to higher political

consciousness or change how citizens value elections.


29/30

Conclusions

Regulation on cybercampaigning in a grey area

Commission on Elections (Comelec): internet use to

promote oneself is a right, form of freedom of

expression

Regulating cybercampaign tools not recommended

Implications on internet as a medium, in general

Transforming candidate-voter relationshipan

opportunity never before seen in Philippines politics

Comelec should maximize internet to better monitor

and make campaign process transparent and

accountable


30/30

Thank you very much.

[email protected]

http://www.linkedin.com/in/gracemirandilla

cybercampaigning in the philippine presidential elections 2010

Documents