Mary Grace P. MirandillaDecember 7, 2009

CPRsouth4, Negombo, Sri Lanka

Background

• Internet is transforming the information and communication environment of political landscape, including election campaigns Lower cost vs. traditional campaigning

o Implications on political financing/governanceo 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

Why study cybercampaigning in RP?

• Filipino internet use growing and diversifying Internet users grew by over 900% from year 2000 Many Filipinos into social networking sites

• Scant literature on RP internet use for politics. Few studies since 2004 elections

• Not much information on how Filipino voters perceive and use cybercampaigning tools

• Need to build body of knowledge on the internet’s role in election campaign in RP

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 of cybercampaign platforms

To analyze the policy and regulatory implications of cybercampaign 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 of

cybercampaign platforms?4. What are the policy and regulatory implications of

cybercampaigning in the Philippines?

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 and resource relations, or traditional cultural values (Margolis, Resnick, & Wolfe, 1999)

• Internet will do little to change “politics-as-usual” in election campaigns (Small, 2008; Norris & Curtice, 2008)

Cyberspace Normalization

DOMINANT CANDIDATE

MAINSTREAM MEDIA

EXPOSUREDOMINATE

CYBERSPACE

INFO PRODUCER

INFO CONSUMER

BLAH!

BLAH!

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, the Internet is a network that has no privileged center

• Any netizen can create and distribute information, not just consume it (Margolis, Resnick, & Wolfe, 1999)

Cybercampaign Innovation

ONE-WAY

EMPOWERING

INTERACTIVE

COST-EFFECTIVE

Access, provide, and validate informationPromote or criticize

a candidateQuick feedback

Interact w/ candidate and other voters

Information provisionCandidate promotionPolitical discussionVoter mobilizationCampaign participationFundraising

Methodology

• Combination of quantitative and qualitative methodologies

• Supply – analysis of candidate 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 candidates’ social 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

Candidate Websites

Candidate Website Scoring System

• Information candidate as “communication producer”; data such as biographical and political profiles, news releases, position papers, and policy lines

• Mobilizationcandidate’s 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

Candidate Website Scoring System

• Community venues for citizens to express opinion about candidate’s program; take part in forums, live chats, or polls; 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 streaming that helps information and communication

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 0.1 0.2 0.7 1.5

ESTRADA, JOSEPH “ERAP” 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.3 1.3

DE CASTRO, NOLI “KABAYAN”

0.6 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 1.1

MEAN SCORE

0.6 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.6 2.0

Candidate Website Scores

What do candidate websites contain?

• Most websites (7 out of 10) offer candidate information and creative web services “Political profile” and “media releases” present in all “Electoral information” found in only 1 website Dominated by downward ICF

• Community and mobilization features garnered the lowest score; mobilization was hardly present “Guestbook/contact form” (in 8 out of 10) “Join a team of supporters” (in 7 out of 10) Dominated by interactive, asynchronous and upward

ICF functions

Candidate SNS

72 Respondents

5715

Profile

Age

30-49 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%)

ProfileIncome

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

P30,001-P50,000 (Class B - Upper Class) 13P15,001-PP30,000 (Class C1 - 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-listInterest group

Support for a candidate

Still choosing a candidate 38 (52.7%)

Active supporter of a candidate 14

Passive supportive of a candidate 12

Apolitical/doesn’t support any 8

55.6%

Profile

Last voted

2007 elections32 (44%)First-time voter in 2010

12

2004 presidential elections13

Other 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 stageDon’t believe in our voting systemDon’t know how to register for absentee votingI have no reason to do soI will be out of the country for further studiesName lost in registerCan’t register in RP in time for election

Internet Use

For how long now7+ years 49

(68%)5+ to 7 years 123+ to 5 years 61+ to 3 years 1A few months to 1 year 3

Mode of accessSubscription at home 39 (54%)Office/school 17Internet café 5Prepaid access 2Missing 9

Frequency

Everyday 54 (79%)

3-5 times a week 8Once a week

1Missing

9

Information accessed online

News/current affairs 64 (88.8%)Work-related information 59Info about family/friends 59Politics and government 44Show business 36School-related information 31

Membership in Candidate SNS

• Networking at work! Knowledge of a candidate’s SNS thru membership 36 (50%) belonged to more than one network

• Access to information about candidate is main reason for joining candidate’s 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”

Offline Info Source on 2010 Elections

• Info about 2010 election and candidates was in news and personal ad format

• Villar and 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 electionsRank #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6

Television 42 13 5 0 0 0Radio 2 3 5 24 6 3Newspaper 7 21 24 4 0 0Magazine 0 0 3 9 20 5Mobile phone 0 0 1 1 6 22Internet 18 20 14 6 3 0

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 popular among 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

Perception of Cybercampaign 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

Candidate’s credential/track record, personal advocacies considered most useful feature

Info on meetings, forums and activities only ranked #4

Participation in Campaign Activities

• Over 50%: 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

• Over 35%: has campaigned for a candidate offline has participated in offline/online issue-based forums is likely to join a miting-de-avance offline

ConclusionsSUPPLY SIDE

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

content, delivered like in TMM Untapped potential of internet for mobilization and

greater participation of electorates Community features, meant to engage voters in

discussion, debates, and consultations, scored low

• But, a promising feature—invitation to join team of supporters—was seen in 7 out of 10 websites

Can lead to creation of “edge-based organizations” Empowering teams of core supporters, thru Internet, to

play key role in campaign, instead of relying on patrons in local government, would be manifestation of equalization

ConclusionsDEMAND 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

• Opportunity in “still undecided” voters?

ConclusionsReality 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.

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 relationship”—an

opportunity never before seen in Philippines politics

• Comelec should maximize internet to better monitor and make campaign process transparent and accountable

Thank you very much.

gmirandilla(at)gmail(dot)com

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