1. 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

2. 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

3. 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?

4. 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

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

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

7. Facebook community growth 2 weeks of campaign

8. 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

9. Facebook community growthOR
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

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

11. 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)

12. Community members

13. 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

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

15. FB affordances for community activity
Communication
17863 posts
facilitated:
likes
shares
comments

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. Thank you