Facebook affordances parties and community building in 28 countries during 2014 EP elections Karolina Koc-Michalska Audencia Business School, Nantes & Sciences-Po Paris Darren Lilleker Bournemouth University

Theoretical background greater numbers of members and interactions within a group lead to increased interest and support [Bortree & Seltzer, 2009] >> social media activities may influence the propensity to vote for certain candidates during 2016 US Presidential election [Groshek&Koc-Michalska 2017] >> social media political activity attract to politics possibly other groups (in France: young, disappointed with democracy, otherwise not politicized) [Koc-Michalska, Gibson, Vedel 2014] parties apply mainly broadcast messages [Jackson & Lilleker, 2009] and ‘controlled interactivity’ [Stromer-Galley, 2000] >> Web2.0 interactive feature using have more important impact on vote gain than Web1.0 top-down communication flow [Koc-Michalska & Lilleker 2016] environmental affordances [Gibson 2015] ‘what environment affords animal’ affordances: posses values and meanings – are external to the perceiver perceiver depends on them BUT may influence their usage affordances within social media environment [Bucher and Helmond 2017] ‘what media technology allow to do’ human creation of affordances > a design allowing others for actions

Research questions How Facebook affordance were used by political parties during EP2014 in order to: >> attract new communities? >> attract different types of communities? >> facilitate activities by community members?

Methodology 28 EU countries 2 weeks before 2014 European Parliament elections 350 parties > 291 with social media profile 73% with Facebook and Twitter profiles 3% only Twitter account 23% only on Facebook Two-level data: aggregated (party level) & disaggregated (post level) Sotrender: archiving tool

Potential of the community building FB ‘14 Average community potential use by party ~5%

How Facebook affordance were used by political parties during EP2014 in order to: >> attract new communities?

Facebook community growth 2 weeks of campaign

Facebook community growth Average community growth ~8.5% Podemos (ES) 47ths Kongres Nowej Prawicy (PL) 41ths UKIP (UK) 36ths Die PARTEI 25ths Matteo Salvini (IT) 23ths

Facebook community growth OR Coef. SM entry 1.005** video .032** link .003 text .008 photo .001 Party size (comp. Minor fringe) Major Parliamentary 1.88 .54 Minor Parliamentary 1.463 .319 Major Fringe .387 -.957 Party years of existence 1.006 .006 Party ideology Left leaning 1.452 .346 Right leaning 1.078 .027 Pro-EU 1.304 .302 Governmental party .538** -.590** FB/TW fans t1 .999** .00004** Active publication Video posts >> virality Parties in opposition non of other variables made difference Country fixed effects and interactions are omitted from the output

How Facebook affordance were used by political parties during EP2014 in order to: >> attract different types of communities?

FB affordances => Community members ONE-TIME SUPPORTERS - like once (low activity) LOYAL LIKERS - like frequently but perform no other actions (medium activity) LOYAL SUPPORTERS - comment, like or share moderately (medium interactivity) HYPER-ACTIVE SUPPORTERS - comment, like and share intensively (high interactivity) DEBATING VISITORS - comment without liking or sharing (high interactivity which may include opponents)

Community members

Community members supporters Clictivists Loyal activists Debaters   Clictivists Loyal activists Debaters Post type Status 1.018 1.014 1.015 Photo 1.011 * 1.008 Video 1.029 ** 1.041 Party Characteristics Major Parliament Party 6.336 *** 12.003 4.84 Minor Parliament Party 3.513 3.524 2.667 Major Fringe Party .945 1.051 .533 Party years of existence .999 1 Left id 1.491 1.417 1.437 Right Id 1.363 1.47 1.647 Pro-European 1.27 1.187 1.495 Governmental parties .942 .986 .887 Community size t1 1.001 Note: GLM negative binomial with the IRR as indicator for coefficient; * p<0.10, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01; Country fixed effects and interactions are omitted from the output

How Facebook affordance were used by political parties during EP2014 in order to: >> facilitate activities by community members?

FB affordances for community activity Communication 17863 posts facilitated: 5 036 916 likes 1 083 657 shares 546 754 comments

FB affordances for community activity Likes Shares Comments Owner responsiveness .372 *** .596 1.041 Thread characteristics (ref. hyperlinks) Photo .834 .666 ** .306 Status -.914 -2.888 -1.158 Video .133 .647 .061   Length of the thread (ln) .035 .143 .072 Photo*Length of thread (ln) -.075 -.010 Status*Length of thread (ln) .125 .387 .185 Video*Length of thread (ln) .003 -.008 .016 Historical community Likes for last post (ln) .109 .022 .006 Shares for last post (ln) -.015 .039 -.016 Comments for last post (ln) -.001 .026 .100 Time specificity Day of campaign .029 .025 Time since last post (ln) .592 .719 .581 Time till next post (ln) .449 .283 .426 Nb. of posts within 1 hour -.062 -.069 -.085 Weekend -.072 -.067 Campaign silence 48h -.104 -.322 -.231 Campaign silence 24h -.168 -.267 .124 hours, time slots, party fixed effects are omitted from the output

FB affordances for community activity Likes Shares Comments Owner responsiveness .372 *** .596 1.041 Thread characteristics (ref. hyperlinks) Photo .834 .666 ** .306 Status -.914 -2.888 -1.158 Video .133 .647 .061   Length of the thread .035 .143 .072 Photo*Length of thread -.075 -.010 Status*Length of thread .125 .387 .185 Video*Length of thread .003 -.008 .016 hours, time slots, party fixed effects are omitted from the output

FB affordances for community activity Likes Shares Comments Owner responsiveness .372 *** .596 1.041 Thread characteristics (ref. hyperlinks) Photo .834 .666 ** .306 Status -.914 -2.888 -1.158 Video .133 .647 .061   Length of the thread (ln) .035 .143 .072 Photo*Length of thread (ln) -.075 -.010 Status*Length of thread (ln) .125 .387 .185 Video*Length of thread (ln) .003 -.008 .016 Historical community Likes for last post .109 .022 .006 Shares for last post -.015 .039 -.016 Comments for last post -.001 .026 .100 Time specificity Day of campaign .029 .025 Time since last post (ln) .592 .719 .581 Time till next post (ln) .449 .283 .426 Nb. of posts within 1 hour -.062 -.069 -.085 Weekend -.072 -.067 Campaign silence 48h -.104 -.322 -.231 Campaign silence 24h -.168 -.267 .124 hours, time slots, party fixed effects are omitted from the output

FB affordances for community activity Likes Shares Comments Owner responsiveness .372 *** .596 1.041 Thread characteristics (ref. hyperlinks) Photo .834 .666 ** .306 Status -.914 -2.888 -1.158 Video .133 .647 .061   Length of the thread (ln) .035 .143 .072 Photo*Length of thread (ln) -.075 -.010 Status*Length of thread (ln) .125 .387 .185 Video*Length of thread (ln) .003 -.008 .016 Historical community Likes for last post (ln) .109 .022 .006 Shares for last post (ln) -.015 .039 -.016 Comments for last post (ln) -.001 .026 .100 Time specificity Day of campaign .029 .025 Time since last post (ln) .592 .719 .581 Time till next post (ln) .449 .283 .426 Nb. of posts within 1 hour -.062 -.069 -.085 Weekend -.072 -.067 Campaign silence 48h -.104 -.322 -.231 Campaign silence 24h -.168 -.267 .124 hours, time slots, party fixed effects are omitted from the output

CONCLUSIONS FB affordances to build communities The potential of the Facebook users per country is not highly used by political parties => is there a real interest in attracting communities? – controlled interactivity During the electoral time there is a potential to attract new community members => being in opposition helps, but no other characteristics matter – same chances => Role of viral marketing (videos) => stagnation during non-electoral times? Different communities around parties => 85% of political party’s community – Clictivists => 16% highly engaged people => positive vs. commenting (trolls) => Left-wing parties - attract Clicktivists => Right-wing parties / pro-EU party - attract the Debating community => Size of the party and size of the community before election matter

CONCLUSIONS FB affordance to build communities Interaction with the community Posting photo or video (for virality) => video fuel the community growth and activity Posting status – text should be elaborated, not graffiti style => elaborated text entries encourage activities from the community Probable clustering of fans – likers > likers, commenting > commenting, sharing > sharing Importance of consistent publishing during the whole campaign period, BUT communities get more engaged closer to election date Time of posting matter => Constant posting ruins the activity of the community Maximizing the community activity => To get LIKES: 2 posts per day at 6-7 am and 6-7 pm => To get SHARES: 1 post per day at 6-7 am => To get COMMENTS: 1 post every two days

Thank you kkocmichalska@audencia.com