Politics via SMS: Message sent?

Dimitra Dimitrakopoulou

Instructor at the Department of Public Relations and Communication, Technological Educational Institute of

Western Macedonia

PhD Candidate, Department of Journalism and Mass Communication,

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

Focus of the paper

The aim of this present paper is to examine the use of SMS (Short Message System) as a new form of political communication.

We present the empirical research that we have conducted in order to examine the new form of political communication via mobile text messaging in the Greek political scene.

We have focused particularly on the pre-election campaign of the Greek parliamentary elections of 7th March 2004.

Which elements of political communication do mobile text

messaging incorporate? Non verbal, written form of political

communication Include political content Aim to influence the electorate Are an intentional production and transmission

of messages which is achieved regardless of spatial and temporal boundaries

The revolutionary feature of SMS which all new ICTs share, is the transcendence of any intermediaries (in this case, journalists) which act as carriers of political messages in traditional media

ICTs offer a unique opportunity to politicians to communicate with their electorate directly without the need of journalists

“The next social revolution” in “the third age of political

communication” Rheingold studies the phenomenon of “smart mobs” as the next social revolution.

For Rheingold, “mobile communications and pervasive computing technologies, together with social contracts that were never possible before, are already beginning to change the way people meet, mate, work, fight, buy, sell, govern and create. Some of these changes are beneficial and empowering, and some amplify the capabilities of people whose intentions are malignant”

Blumler and Kavanagh: the third age of political communication is characterized by “more cyber politics”.

Cyber politics will evolve into three directions: a.) it could become a campaign medium in its own right, not necessarily displacing but supplementing more traditional ones, b.) it could become an important vehicle of interest group solidification and mobilization within and across national boundaries and c.) it could diversify the exposure to political communication of those regular users who enjoy exploring the access to a wider range of views and perspectives that the Internet affords.

OWNERSHIP OF MOBILE PHONE, 2001 - 2004

Do you own a mobile phone?

15-65 years old

Total sample

Source: VPRC, www.vprc.gr (last accessed 2/2/2005)

IMPORTANCE OF MOBILE PHONE, 2002 - 2004

How important is the mobile phone for you personally?

Very Quite Little Not at all

Source: VPRC, www.vprc.gr (last accessed 2/2/2005)

Empirical researchResearch questions:

How do politicians use/exploit this new communication medium?

How does mobile text messaging affect the communication between political candidates and voters?

Is text messaging a way of empowerment of the citizen as far as his/her information and political involvement are concerned? (from the politicians’ point of view)

What is the importance of communication via SMS in comparison to communication with other media?

Hypotheses to be tested

Politicians use SMS as a way to communicate with the electorate as far as procedural and informational only issues are concerned.

SMS constrain to a large extent the communication between politicians and citizens.

Traditional media still count as more important for politicians.

Methodology

Our field work was conducted during 8-22 February 2005.

We used a structured questionnaire with 11 close-ended questions. The questionnaire was sent all 300 Members of the Greek Parliament via email.

66 completed questionnaires were returned, which amount to 22% of our total sample.

SMS USE

Yes46%

No54%

FREQUENCY

10%

2 με 453%

> 547%

66,7

6,7

20

0

6,7

0

80

6,7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Invitation-information for aspeech/meeting

Reminder ofyour

candidature

Rally ofvolunteers

Wishes forNamedays

CONTENT

0

66,7

27,8

5,6

11,1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

High cost Impersonalcommunication

Annoyance of the voter Contraint of politicalspeech

Other

REASONS

0

9,1

45,5

24,2

6,1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Not at all

Little

Quite

Very

Extremely

IMPORTANCE OF FOLLOWING CHARACTERISTICS OF POLITICAL COMMUNICATION VIA SMS - CHEAP

0

0

12,1

27,2

45,5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Not at all

Little

Quite

Very

Extremely

FAST

9,1

21,1

9,1

12,1

30,3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Not at all

Little

Quite

Very

Extremely

IMMEDIATE

6,1

6,1

21,1

36,3

12,1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Not at all

Little

Quite

Very

Extremely

FLEXIBLE

3

6,1

18,2

27,2

33,3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Not at all

Little

Quite

Very

Extremely

MASS

12,1

15,2

51,5

15,2

6,1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

very low

low

average

high

very high

LEVEL OF EMPOWERMENT OF THE POLITICIANS' COMMUNICATION WITH THE ELECTORATE

6,1

24,2

54,5

15,2

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Not at all

Little

Quite

Very

Extremely

IMPORTANCE OF POLITICAL COMMUNICATION VIA SMS

NE

WS

PA

PE

RS

Littl

e

Ver

y

TELE

VIS

ION

Littl

e

Ver

y

RA

DIO

Littl

e

Ver

y

INTE

RN

ET

Littl

e

Ver

y

EM

AIL

Littl

e

Ver

y

SM

S

Littl

e

Ver

y

S1

0 0 0

33,3

54,5

6,1

0 0 0

15,2

78,8

03

30,3

45,5

15,2

0

24,2

54,5

12,1

30

42,4

30,3

15,2

6,1

0

36,336,3

18,2

3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

MASS MEDIA IMPORTANCE - MASS RANGE

NE

WS

PA

PE

RS

Littl

e

Ver

y

TELE

VIS

ION

Littl

e

Ver

y

RA

DIO

Littl

e

Ver

y

INTE

RN

ET

Littl

e

Ver

y

EM

AIL

Littl

e

Ver

y

SM

S

Littl

e

Ver

y

S1

6,1

21,2

33,3

24,2

9,1

6,1

12,1

15,2

24,2

36,3

3

18,218,2

42,4

12,1

6,1

15,2

27,3

21,2

24,2

3

12,1

33,3

21,2

24,2

9,1

12,1

42,4

12,1

18,2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MASS MEDIA IMPORTANCE - INTERACTIVITY

36,3

27,3

24,2

6,1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Agree

Nor agree nor disagree

Disgree

Don't know/Don't answer

THE SENDING OF SMS…IS AN EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION MEDIUM WITH THE ELECTORATE

42,4

24,2

18,2

12,1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Agree

Nor agree nor disagree

Disgree

Don't know/Don't answer

...IS EXTREMELY CHEAP

54,5

15,2

21,2

3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Agree

Nor agree nor disagree

Disgree

Don't know/Don't answer

...IS IMPERSONAL

27,3

27,3

27,3

12,1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Agree

Nor agree nor disagree

Disgree

Don't know/Don't answer

...IS ANNOYING FOR THE RECEIVERS

54,5

27,3

6,1

6,1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Agree

Nor agree nor disagree

Disgree

Don't know/Don't answer

...CONSTRAINTS AND IMPOVERISHES POLITICAL SPEECH

66,6

21,2

12,1

3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Agree

Nor agree nor disagree

Disgree

Don't know/Don't answer

...CANNOT REPLACE THE COMMUNICATION VIA THE PRESS

78,8

12,1

0

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Agree

Nor agree nor disagree

Disgree

Don't know/Don't answer

...CANNOT REPLACE THE COMMUNICATIOJ VIA THE TELEVISION

0

3

48,5

12,1

39,4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Through mobile phonecompany

Through the companythat provided the

service of mass sendingof SMS

Through personaldatabase

Through written consentof receivers

Don't know/Don't answer

WAY OF ACQUISITION OF TELEPHONE NUMBERS

KNOWLEDGE OF LEGISLATION

Yes88%

No12%

6,1

21,2

51,5

21,2

0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

very low low average high very high

LEVEL OF OFFENSE OF PERSONAL DATA'S PROTECTION

Conclusions Politicians who use SMS as a new form of political

communication limit it to sending messages for procedural purposes (information and invitations for speeches and public meetings) and wishes.

Mobile text messaging is considered a subsidiary form of political communication, which is obvious in the respondents’ answers in the questions of empowerment and importance of communication via SMS.

Traditional media, with the television standing at the top of the hierarchy, still count as more important for politicians. New ICTs (Internet, email, SMS) come second in their preferences, which can partially be attributed to the low penetration and use of the new media in Greece.

The respondents do not seem to identify the sending of SMS as spamming or unwanted communication. However, this last issue is extremely important and needs definitely more elaboration and in depth research in order to clarify the vague issue of the citizens’ protection from unwanted communication.

Thank you for your attention!

Dimitra Dimitrakopoulougdimis@otenet.gr