Arenas and content of campaigning

The arenas of election campaign communication have changed together with technological and social developments. The first forums of election campaigning were town meetings and other face-to-face situations where people met. The rise of broadcast media brought newspaper advertisements and articles as a platform for elections. Later, radio and television again changed the importance of rhetoric and appearance with the introduction of election debates and interviews. Figure 3 presents the various broadcast media structures in relation to election campaign communication. Generally, they are controlled by the guidelines for journalism and broadcasting, and represent the traditional media (The Union of Journalists in Finland, 2011).

As Figure 3 shows, increased fragmentation appeared in campaign communication with the development of the internet. The ease with which to start websites had parties and candidates building websites for promotion and information spreading. These quickly added personal blogs that are still a meaningful way to communicate arguments and political issues to the public. But instead of moving from one forum to another, ultimately, the forums and ways of communicating have increased both in number and the type of communication available.

Particularly, social media platforms center around campaign events because they allow fast information to be given about the campaign trail. They can also be used to broadcast events and extend campaign trail conversations beyond the events.

Different platforms complement each other (Lilleker, Tenscher & Štětka, 2015) and support different aims, and for example, Twitter is suggested to support dialogue with the electorate better than Facebook (Graham et al., 2013; Enli and Skogerbø, 2013).

Figure 3. Arenas of election campaign communication

Figure 4 shows that various factors affect candidates' social media use in political campaigns. The audience, the electoral system, the candidate's current position, and the candidate's party are the main factor determining how candidates use social media. These primary elements have determining elements that candidates also consider when communicating in their campaigns, for example, predictions about the election result, their preference in platforms and social media use in general, their voter demographic, their parties' general approach to social media, and their opponents' use of social media.

Figure 4. Factors influencing a political candidate´s campaigning on social media (modified from Obholzer & Daniel, 2016).

Town meetings

Obholzer and Daniel (2016) conclude that the use of social media in campaigning is different depending on the electoral institution, and is affected by the candidate's party, target audience, voters, and legislator characteristics. Usually, those aiming for a younger voter base are more active on social media. Mobilizing younger voters for the campaign is more effective through social media (Aldrich et al., 2016). Mellon and Prosser (2017) have found that British social media users are younger, better educated, and more attentive to political issues. But they argue that because of this, for Facebook and Twitter, the user group is not representative of the whole population. However, Finnish election studies find a more heterogenic user group in social media following political communication (Strandberg, 2016: 105–111; Marttila et al., 2016: 117–118).

As represented in Figure 4, the candidates’ position in the election is also another deciding factor in their social media presence. Those candidates with fewer resources or who are in a weaker position regarding the elections are more likely to use social media more in their campaigning. Strandberg (2016: 106, 109) suggests that online campaign communication is still controlled by bigger parties and parliament members, and they tend to use social media merely to distribute material. Accordingly, this would seem to imply that social media campaigning does not always work to the benefit of smaller candidates and parties. However, Gibson and McAllister (2011) see benefit in breaking away from traditional means and exploiting new ways and channels which serve smaller parties and younger candidates. This ongoing debate on whether social media campaigning promotes this is referred to as equalization or normalization which means that the dominant and established actors benefit more from social media activities, and has interested several researchers in political communication (Lev-On & Haleva-Amir, 2016).

Even though some research has found support for less known candidates benefitting from social media (see Samuel-Azran, Yarchi & Wolfshed, 2015), a fair argument is that since more strategic communication on social media is resource-intensive, it benefits the major actors who have a ready-built exposure and more resources in terms of both human capital and finances. This approach has also guided my selection of data to include vote-pullers and party leaders.

The candidate’s party and the guidelines and culture for communication of the party also affect the use of social media. Political parties often have a “prototype representative” who defines how the other party members are defined (Figure 4;

Keipi et al., 2017: 25). In this study, the vote-puller candidates and party leaders are all candidates with general or concentrated visibility, with added attention to them as a person (Van Aelst, Sheafer & Stanyer, 2012). Thus, their social media activity can partly be seen as building an image for the whole party. Castells (1997:

360–361) terms this condition as ‘the prophet’, where one person gives voice and

defines the social media behavior in a group. This was seen as the case with Alexander Stubb from the National Coalition Party when he used Twitter dominantly in its early years (Hämäläinen & Stubb, 2016). From the Finns Party, party leader Jussi Halla-aho provides a similar example by almost always representing a party in their online campaign videos, and was seen to be especially active during the European Union parliamentary election campaign in 2019.

Some candidates actively use social media to interact with the public, and even parties form agendas through social media. For example, Donald Trump's direct and informal communication in the US political context has caused researchers to suggest a trend towards de-professionalization political campaigning, and adopting an almost amateur approach in political communication (Enli, 2017).

While Donald Trump represents a case for de-professionalism in political communication, it is viewed in this study as an exceptional case that does not apply to how campaign communication has developed in Finland. However, some Finnish politicians approach the electorate spontaneously and with a less polished and strategic social media style. This type of approach is typically used by, for example, populist movements (de Vreese et al., 2018), and as stated before, The Finns Party has been exceptionally successful with this style. Particularly, it can be seen that the informal styles in communication of populist movements and candidates offer appealing content, which can help to mobilize masses.

In a study by Isotalus and Almonkari (2014), politicians criticized traditional media logic, and the interviews by Reunanen and Harju (2012: 135) revealed that politicians experienced Facebook as a ‘forced necessity’ requiring a presence even though there was no interest. However, they also experienced more interaction and positive feedback through their Facebook presence. While this study does not survey candidates on their feelings about their Facebook use, their content production can indicate their attitudes towards the significance of Facebook in their campaign. Overall, all parties and politicians have produced online content for their campaigns from a fairly early stage when possibilities like blogs were introduced. However, the significance of the internet and social media was evidently more visible in the Finnish election campaign communication context, notably in the Presidential elections of 2012 where the campaign of Pekka Haavisto created an online movement that exploited social media so skillfully that an unexpected second round in the elections became a reality (Eränti & Lindman, 2014). Thus, for Finnish politicians the internet is not just a tool, and it includes channels and platforms that offer a possibility for the candidates to convince constituents of both topic issues and their own personal appeal (Railo &

Ruohonen, 2016: 257).

Studies suggest that for many politicians, the use of social media in campaigning has contributed to the campaign's success (Pătruţ, 2015), even to the extent that a candidate can succeed without the use of traditional media forms, but not without making an effort in the digital world (Mattila et al., 2020: 82). However, some studies also contest the correlation between campaign success and social media use (Zhao, Lampe & Ellison, 2016). Strandberg and Borg (2020: 106) evaluate that the use of social media has increased the interactive nature of communication.

However, this interaction is still a question of debate if the use of different platforms is analyzed.

The use of social media by election candidates has been researched in regard to interaction and communication flow (Kalsnes, 2016; Nelimarkka et al., 2020), especially during elections (Isotalo et al., 2019), and benefits have been found for candidates who exploit these interaction possibilities (Grant, Moon & Busby Grant, 2010). However, these studies also highlight a need for qualitative research, which Strandberg and Carlson (2020: 84) note as being limited but highly needed regarding Finnish political communication. Also in Finland, more country-specific research is needed, and so far, only the Finns party has been analyzed as succeeding specifically through social media use (Maasilta 2012: 17, 113; Niemi, 2012; 2013; Ylä-Anttila, 2020). But regardless of national perspectives, more qualitative research in the area also contributes to the available research on online discussions and their characteristics.

My choice to focus on Facebook out of the different platforms present on social media is supported by both the gap in qualitative Facebook research in campaign communication, and also Facebook being more representative of the general voting population than Twitter (Isotalo et al., 2019; Mellon & Prosser, 2017), which is often referred as the elite social media platform in the Finnish context (Railo &

Ruohonen, 2016, 205; Ruoho & Kuusipalo, 2018; Vainikka & Huhtamäki 2015). So far, the limited research on the social media use of elected candidates (Marttila, 2018: 72) has only recognized the centrality of Facebook as a tool for the Haavisto presidential campaign in 2012, and as a factor in the success of the Finns Party (Eränti & Lindman, 2014; Suominen, Saarikoski & Vaahensalo, 2019: 171–175).

The choice to focus on Facebook in this study is justified both because of its size and the comprised demography of the electorate, defining its relevance as a campaign platform and addressing a noticeable gap in Facebook research in the field of Finnish political communication. When communicating on Facebook, the candidates target their messages to their target demographics. These form the target audience that they consider when planning and executing their communication in any channel.