Will Facebook messaging replace Email? Probably Not!

Email is on the decline as a communication tool, and some claim were are observing the start of a trend which sees other forms of online communication taking over. In particular, some claim, the new integrated text, chat and messaging service offered by Facebook. A recent Pew Report highlights the use of a range of technologies for communicating, Text remains on top, followed surprisingly perhaps (or to me anyway) by phone calls (Cell and landline have daily use by 30-38%), face-to-face and then online with email languishing at the bottom with 11%.

As the Pew team note, however, this is demonstrating that different tools are used for different groups. Closest friends with whom we share phone numbers are texted and spoken to, and we are likely to see some of them each day and so have 'real' conversations. There are then a wider circle of friends who we communicate with online, they will be within our Facebook network and some linked to via instant messaging services aided by their prevalence across smart phones. Email is now the most formal level of communication. It has become the equivalent of a letter in the modern age. Young people will communicate formally using email but are unlike to use this for informal communication with their friends.

This suggests that email will not die, but its use will be modified. It also suggests a more social dimension to communication that needs to be understood perhaps. That tools that can be used to communicate directly to individuals are only appropriate for certain types of communication. There may be a use of social networking for promotion, but it is not a channel for advertising but socialising across geographical spaces. Equally, communication tools are no longer built for a purpose only but shaped by usage and to understand how to communicate you must firstly understand how people communicate to one another and want to receive communication from different sources - friends, organisations etc. Usage sets the rules, and it is not necessarily the usage built into the design. Food for thought perhaps

The online election battle

Some interesting stats based on election search trends among on line users. Firstly the post debate interest in Nick Clegg seems to be continuing and he may well now be far better known then he was a matter of days ago. While there seems to be interest in Samantha Cameron, there is less so in David himself as he lags behind Gordon Brown, though this may not reflect actual traffic to sites of course, only searches!

1. nick clegg +500%

2. david cameron wife +180%

3. gordon brown +120%

4. samantha cameron +110%

5. labour +110%

6. david cameron wiki +90%

7. david cameron twitter +80%

8. conservatives +50%

9. conservative party +50%

10. david cameron poster +40%

The LibDems can also find great comfort in the numbers of fans they have on Facebook, though they lag behind the Conservatives.

* http://www.facebook.com/conservatives - 51,000 fans

* http://www.facebook.com/labourparty 26,000 fans

* http://www.facebook.com/libdems - 46,500 fans

Equally this appears to be a doubling of fans across all parties indicating heightened interest in all things election related. Does this indicate that the Internet is becoming a significant source of information for voters, and so also a significant battle ground that for the first time will be ignored at the parties' peril?

I have heard a lot of discussions about the use of the Internet in relation to political engagement in one form or another. Political science approaches at the ECPR are becoming attuned to the new 'communicative ecosystem', in particular that it is no longer sensible to talk of a politics as usual when participation at some level is unavoidable - and if initiated by the political actors and organisations or not. Equally, discussions at the Web Metrics symposium organised by Royal Holloway University of London largely centred on understanding the users and fitting that to the strategy of either the research or the organisation.

In terms of political communication what seems clear is that organisations have a choice of whether or not to develop a Web 2.0 strategy, and in considering this the organisation has also to consider what benefits and threats exist. Parties and governments may see open access as a threat, as individuals contribute and so distort the message and make communication unmanageable. However individuals and other organisations see only opportunities. I noted this example from Greenpeace's use of Facebook. Canadian activists have seized two giant dump trucks and a shovel at the Albian Sands open-pit mine north of Fort McMurray and have vowed to remain chained to the equipment until their message was heard. It has received widespread news coverage; however Greenpeace are reaching a global audience via Facebook also, posting pictures and receiving 'likes' from their audience (see screenshot). The reason they may do this is that this might target their supporters better, mobilise support online and gain greater interest in this and their other campaigns. While 155 likes and 14 comments may seem paltry, one has to remember that all the friends of those 155 have been informed of their friends' endorsement. Some may look at the link out of curiosity, and thus the reach increases. Such tactics seem increasingly common and a part of the new networking ecosystem that social networking facilitates. Electoral politics, Obama aside, are behind the curve on this but activists are showing the way in reaching wide audiences quickly and cheaply.

Jo Swinson experiences the dangers of SNS

Social networking is becoming a part of the political communication process for many MPs, and linking up Twitter and Facebook is a way of getting messages out to a range of audiences. A couple of studies undertaken by myself and Nigel Jackson have shown party politics to be the least popular usage of such sites and perhaps this is one bit of clear evidence why not.

Liberal Democrats have the greatest number of MPs using social networking, and there is a logic for them to do things like this by Jo Swinson: advertise what party leader Nick Clegg contributed to PMQs. The mainstream media focus on the battle between prime minister and prime minister in waiting, not the actions of the minor parties to the same extent. So they try to alter this imbalance. However, once they are party political, and if they amass an array of friends or followers from outside of the party circle, they can gain comments such as this. If removed it suggests censorship, if not they have a highly negative, and yes pretty crude, comment about the current party leader on their profile. This can be embarrassing either way. Therefore, there are dangers with using SNS to promote the party in this way as such comments can also be mediated by other members of these communities and the result can be the antithesis of what was intended.

E-Representation

It is easy to criticise MPs, however for many there are various jobs they have to balance in order to do their job. A good MP will pay particular attention to the constituency, after all they are (as some state on Facebook profiles) their employer, but also because that is the fundamental purpose and justification for the British electoral system. However, being able to be a constituency MP can be a challenge. Talking to Jim Knight prior to the 2005 General Election about his promotion of the almost 6,000 pieces of casework he had dealt with since 2001 one got the sense of a very hard working MP but also that this was helped by the fairly easy journey between London and Weymouth (compared to many areas) and also his backbench status. The real challenge is for all MPs to find was to connect to their constituency and so represent their constituents fully.

Tom Brake may have found one solution that allows direct live contact from anywhere, the use of Facebook chat and messaging facilities. His first online Facebook surgery was held last night and he says it was a success and an experiment that will continue: "it was a great success and I'm delighted to speak to so many of you. People raised really interesting issues with me about parking, speed bumps, housing, disability services, care services, crime and schooling. I was delighted to be able to help answer you questions and will make online surgeries a regular thing". Tom brake is not a Minister but he is Liberal Democrat Home Affairs Spokesperson and a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee so is required to be in Westminster more than a backbencher. His seat of Carshalton and Wallington is marginal (1,068 votes) so perhaps a driving force, though that is an entirely cynical view. But, if this was the success he suggests it perhaps offers a model of MPs; finding how to reach a section of constituents and using that to enhance their representative role. It can only be a supplement, not everyone is on Facebook, but it can also draw people to Facebook and so increase the amount of people he has access to. Of course in terms of his own personal standing, this additional level of accessibility cannot harm is reputation either. So, could this be a valuable addition to the communication tools of an MP?

One use for Facebook

Mention Facebook as a tool of political communication and you get very mixed reactions, and loads of issues emerge. The jury is certainly out on whether risks outweigh benefits, whether it represents reaching out or dumbing down or, perhaps most importantly, if it is about individuals communicating with individuals or individuals marketing themselves to potential voters. They are all accepted arguments for and critiques against! Here is an interesting example. With the European Parliamentary Elections on the horizon the Green Party are organising and one part of their mobilisation strategy is via Facebook. Their party group has been going for just short of two years, there is an active group that share links, event and campaigning ideas via the wall, it has 2,260 members and the admins include current MEP and party leader Caroline Lucas who is also an individual member. All good but nothing special one could argue.

But as the election nears what the party is looking for are activists, in fact messages from the group invite volunteers willing to do: "leafleting, mobilising members and potential supporters, writing letters to the local press, helping to create events for visiting Euro-candidates, watching for hustings opportunities…" The email calls it an Obama-style ground-level campaign and is aimed at the student activist seeking to add to their CV, but it also represents a way of targeting the people they need to. If they are prepared to join a 'Green Party' group and publicise their support they are likely to be at least interested in the idea of greater involvement and hence willing to be be encouraged to take part. So while it easy to condemn Facebook as mind-numbing and a thief of time it is enabling communication between the Green Party and a group of supportive individuals that may be hard to replicate if social networks did not exist. So, based on that argument, could an MP not also gain s similar support base within a constituency via Facebook that could be encouraged to be actively supportive at times of an election?

E-Representation

Tom Brake, LibDem MP for Carshalton and Wallington, uses Facebook. Not especially as an ordinary member, in terms of ordinary (mundane) status reports or poking or that sort of thing, but as an MP. It is a model of representation, what myself and Nigel Jackson describe as e-representation, where the MP uses the Internet to enhance and make easier their role as a constituency MP. This is a perfect example: Tom updates his Facebook friends on the weather reports and is thanked by fivefor doing so. It is part of the job of the modern day MP, but it also builds up a link between him and constituents, perhaps earns a degree of loyalty but, most importantly, enforces the idea of the MP as a servant of the community. It is an emergent model that has few adherents so far, however while enhancing the service role it is also in some way a conversation starter and Tom does quite a few of these (as do many LibDem Facebook users and a very small minority of other party's MPs). The one aspect that seems to be most lacking is a reply, currently most conversations start with a note from an MP and then receive responses but there is no public sense of the MP commenting back in line with the note. Perhaps this would enhance the representative nature of the relationship to a greater extent and take e-representation to a different level.

Mobilise the vote via Facebook

Now my participation will have no impact whatsoever, but as both a reminder and an endorsement this could have a huge impact on mobilising young voters in the US. The idea is simple, that the Facebook user is invited to donate their status to remind their friends to vote and, if you wish, to vote for one of the candidates in the US presidential election.

The tool is created by Project Agape run by two young men with a history of creating online communities and being involved in grassroots political organisations. I can see it working well in the US, not sure if it would be applicable more widely.

The Facebook Chart

As mentioned yesterday, a Facebook profile and supporters page is becoming the must have accessory of the aspiring candidate. So, out of those allowing us to show our love for them, who are the winners?

1. Barack Obama, 865,535
2. Hillary Clinton, 158,512
3. John McCain, 132,686 (so would Obama beat McCain based on this?)
4. Ron Paul, 87,832 (failed US Republican hopeful)
5. Mike Huckabee, 51,116 (as above)
6. Mitt Romney, 34,056 (and again)
7. John Edwards, 30,084 (Democrat and poss running mate for Obama)
8. Wen Jia-bao, 24,943 (Chinese Premier)
9. Dennis Kucinich, 22,963 (failed Democrat hopeful)
10. Arnold Schwarzenegger, 20,914 (Governor Terminator)
11. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, 15,495 (Leader of Danish Liberal Party and Prime Minister)
12. Sebastian Pinera, 14,353 (Chilean Senator and former Presidential hopeful)
13. Boris Johnson, 12,034 (Mayor of London)
14. George W. Bush, 11,869
15. Nicolas Sarkozy, 11,845 (French President)
16. Fred Thompson, 11,761 (another failed Republican hopeful)
17. Rudy Giuliani, 11,042 (as above)
18. Stephane Dion, 10,983 (Leader of Canadian Liberals)
19. Jack Layton, 10,694 (Leader of Canadian New Democrats)
20. Helle-Thorning-Schmidt, 10,006 (Leader of Danish Social Democrats)

Put into perspective against the UK parties, the Conservatives have 4,469 supporters, and leader David Cameron 3,296; RESPECT Leader/Independent MP George Galloway has 3,279; Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg 827; UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown has 106. Is this indicative of anything one wonders?

Vote for me, I joined Facebook

Incredible to know but, what do Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf, Myanmar's Aung San Suu Kyi, Taiwan's Ma Ying-jeou, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, George W. Bush and every major US presidential hopeful all have in common? Well like Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao they have a Facebook profile. Wen has 13,000 supporters, small considerign the size of the Chinese populace but significant when Internet penetration is considered. OK it is impossible to say how many have to be his friend, given the Communist Party's style of government, but there may well be a love for the 66 year old who earlier this week reportedly called by bullhorn to one child trapped in the aftermath of the earthquake 'This is Grandpa Wen Jiabao, hang on child, we will rescue you!'. Whatever the case, it seems that even in China being on Facebook is a must have political accessory and must be seen as a way of enhancing ones reputation for being real, authentic, in touch etc etc; all those things that are supposed to engender trust. Will it have the desired effect one wonders or will it become another tool that effectively cancels itself out but will be seen as necessary as to not have one would be too great a risk?

The Perils of Facebook

Tamsin Dunwoody, not to be outdone, has a supporters group on Facebook that has 309 members; well why not. The only problem is that the wall posts are censored, well I can understand that given the context, but it creates orphan responses to insults if they too are not removed. Hence one supporter posts "Its right sad that Joel took time out of his day and joined a group just to sit and slag people off .. Sort it out you tool!" while the post from Joel 'said tool' is missing. This, perhaps, sends out the wrong image; someone was slagging you off but you removed it. Does this offer a worse perception that leaving the original 'slag off' message or not: it's a question.

Politics 1.0 masquerading as Politics 2.0

I am currently doing some research assessing how interactive MPs are using Web 2.0 platforms such as Facebook etc. While it may be assumed that having a 'Facebook' is interacting it is not, and hence we return to that Web 1.5 idea I blogged a couple of weeks ago. I was informed that the Elizabeth Shenton, Liberal Democrat candidate for the forthcoming Nantwich & Crewe by-election, had announced her candidature first on Facebook - a first. Visiting her site I expected requests for help, attempts at interaction, perhaps joining groups relevant to the area. I was disappointed!

She lists her favourite music, TV shows, Movies and Books, her interests position her to some extent "Making hand-made greetings cards, setting puzzles for magazines, cats, visiting farmers markets, baking, country walks and of course my family!". the 'About Me' section reads bizarrely "The legal print for the by-election: published and promoted by Neil Trafford on behalf of myself, both at Capital House, Fourth Avenue, Crewe, CW1 6XL". Did a copy and paste go wrong? There are no wall posts, in fact the wall seems to be disabled.

Now it is early days and it is easy to criticise when you are not mobilising voters for today's local elections etc. So this is advise for the future. Find out what the Facebookers of the constituency are involved in and join in, support causes and campaigns they care about, perhaps offer to give them voice during the campaign; interact, messages of support give indication of having support. Facebook is about friends communicating, it can be used as a tool for becoming part of a community, it should not be used to advertise or to generate publicity; this is Web 1.0 not Web 2.0. I want to see Web 2.0 used, and see if it can have an impact, but to find this out it has to be used appropriately- there's a challenge set!

The turnout challenge

I will be interested to find out if turnout for the London Mayoral Election is higher than expected this year, and in particular if it is higher among the 18-25s. The reason for the latter is that a Facebook group has been created by London Elects, presumably, the body overseeing the running of the contest. It is very simple, it has a logo that reminds about the date, offers links on how to register and who the candidates are and has created an event which all members of the London network are invited to join: once joined they can be contacted about the event by London Elects and reminded the day before and on 1st May. The attempt is clearly designed to reach out to a voter group that have lesser likelihood of participating via a media they are expected to use and interact with; hits all the buttons but will it work? Will it be just the over 30s Facebook users and political anoraks (yes, that is me I refer to) that sign up and vote or will a few 18 yr old new voters be drawn out by this experiment?

London Elects is not alone in getting a seat on the Facebook bandwagon. The Power of Information Taskforce has been created, under the leadership of Tom Watson MP (right), which aims at helping government departments make better use of the Internet. Just focusing on one site Netmums a "unique local network for Mums (or Dads), offering a wealth of information on both a national and local level", Watson argues "Having 100,000 mums on a social network like NetMums sharing ideas about how you bring up kids or what it's like to give birth can be useful to government because they can talk about the services that they provide. Government can be useful to them to give them advice on what's good and what isn't good". So perhaps the notion of political marketing will incorporate data collection on the issues of concern via monitoring social networks which will then be reiterated back to the public via manifestos.

But Watson sees a far more benign purpose and one that mirrors the growing trend for politician's use of ICT, he argues: "We have got to go where our citizens are congregating". Therefore he is selling the idea of going online, reaching out to voters/citizens and I guess getting them to then visit bespoke government and party sites, ergo: "it is genuinely so easy to set up a Wiki or a chat room and that it's useful to help people do their job and share ideas". True but for what purpose and with what effect? Engagement is the bottom line it seems but, as with the bid to get more voters turning out on May 1st, will it work?

A new type of campaign

David Cameron has launched a new recruitment campaign, mainly using the online tools of Youtube and a Conservatives.tv video exclusely on Facebook. The campaign is about people getting involved in the Conservative party to ensure there is a change in politics: hence the title 'You can get it if your really want' which has a soundtrack of course provided by the late Jimmy Cliff.

The use of social media is an interesting one, Facebook seems to be the fashionable network at the moment, it was even mentioned in Gordon Brown's speech to Labour's Spring Conference. But it may also tie in with Cameron's ongoing theme of 'power to the people' that have seen Stand Up Speak Out have success. But there is a danger, could this offer very hihg expectations of the Conservatives offering a responsive, voter-led, style of government? Why is this dangerous, the question is whether it is possible? As with Blair in 1994-7 the language was about listening and being in-touch, but the pressures of office soon hindered that being put into practice (if there was ever a commitment to this) and so public disappointment; is Cameron following the same path?

Co-production: the positives and negatives!

Social networking sites such as Facebook are not promotional tools, attempts to use social networking to promote products, brands or individuals that can use other media and are not part of the community can mean network users can reject them. Brands advertise via social media but seldom intrude using profiles etc; politicians are different, as individuals they can be members of a community but must also follow the communities rules and allow co-production of site or profile content. Friends can post words, pictures etc on each other's wall, interact with one another and maintain relationships via the site.

Politicians like to use the Internet as a promotional tool, and particularly at the party level want to communicate to voters but are worried of the consequences of allowing the ordinary people (which also includes opponents) to contribute whatever whenever they like. David Cameron seems to be willing to take that risk. The Webcameron YouTube page allows comments, unlike Labour, and his Facebook profile is asking supporters to upload pictures of them meeting him. The former gives the appearance of being open, the latter builds on this by providing the impression of accessibility.

But is this going to pay dividends or be a highly risky enterprise. At worst it could allow opponents to say what they like and give negative images and opinions wider circulation. But this may not be the problem it would seem. If Cameron and his communications team engage with critics it can diffuse the situation and provided images that could be damaging are greeted with humour rather than fear and censure, it could enhance the Cameron brand, it cannot replace substance but it may build positive perceptions and impressions.

The Facebook Experiment

There is a David Cameron fansite on Facebook, it is bland, non-interactive and I am surprised to say that it managed 710 fans, I was also a little surprised the party, or Cameron had bothered, given their use of other websites. Actually they had not. Mike Rouse came clean admitting it was "an exercise in proving that Facebook is a place that Cameron and his office and the wider Conservative Party (and politicians of other persuasions too for that matter) could come to engage with people" and he says he has "deliberately not advertised the group or added many applications to the page, just to show that 100 people could be reached just simply by having this page". It worked, his task is now to lobby Conservative Central office to get approval.

One problem though, why do people become fans of David Cameron or any politician? Not, as in the case of Adrian Sanders who I blogged about on Sunday, to get in contact with him or to interact; none of that goes on via his fansite. So a word of caution with this, Facebook is about social networking not promotion. There is already a backlash among members against the amount of applications that are really nothing more than advertising. Politicians should join if they want to network and use the network, but not just to have a profile sat there to say 'I'm here'. If you cant throw sheep at or play scrabble with them (metaphors for various applications), they are not real members.

New indicators of support?

It seems that there is little substantive data to indicate who is the favourite to win the Liberal Democrat leadership contest as voting begins. Here is an indication, on Facebook Chris Huhne has 613 friends while his rival Nick Clegg has 774. It is hard to see any peak or trough in membership following the recent problems surrounding the campaign and members range from parliamentary colleagues to the normal, young members that are the average Facebook user. Some friends are shared also, such as myself to see how they are using their profile pages.

Clegg's profile has more of a campaigning feel to it. He has videos, a long 'about me' section, causes and poppies. Huhne's is quite basic, has causes and a US politics box, but offers less campaigning. The key feature of both is the amount of messages of support posted to their walls. Clegg is more responsive, perhaps his team are involved or perhaps he personally uses it as a campaigning tool; Huhne took a week to reply but perhaps that indicates a more personal usage. We should not assume!

Does it mean anything? Who knows! It is impossible (well it is very time consuming and less than simple) to tell how many of the 'friends' can vote. But it may well be a general indication of support within a certain voter segment. It is a small amount compared to the 163,882 friends Barack Obama has gathered but it is a different context, but given that Hilary Clinton does not have a profile an d the most popular groups are opposing her, does this give Obama the edge. The bottom line is, does Facebook have any political impact or can it even be used as an indicator of anything?

The Killer App?

The Liberal Democrats are definitely cornering the market on Facebook, nearly all of their MPs are members, they are the most active posters and now they have their own application allowing the party to place their most recent campaign slogans and videos within the profiles of supporters. Sadly the app still has a video of Leader Ming Campbell (ahem) visiting the flooded towns during the summer (whoops); but could this be a new way to build relationships with Facebook's young, politically disengaged users?

The criticism of much political communication using Web 2.0 tools is that largely they use these interactive media to post static communication, so the kind of brochure-like material we associate with Web 1.0 websites. This adaptation to the Facebook environment is certainly gimmicky but allows a greater degree of connection between the party and its supporters and may encourage more interest in politics and the party. it is not inevitable, but there is potential.

Lib Dems conquer social networking

Critics may mock the fact that the Liberal Democrats have the most MPs (by percent) on Facebook, well 40% is only 25 MPs, but at least they have a strategy for joining the network. Steve Webb, an MP who has spearheaded the party's web presence through his blog, argues: ""Young people are far less likely to vote than their parents and grandparents, yet many of them have strong views on local and national issues and want their voice to be heard. Social networking sites such as Facebook provide an ideal way for this conversation to take place." And he may just be right in his perspective. While many have knocked Ming Campbell for appearing 'too old' to be a party leader, it is he that has the most friends and is nickname 'The Mingler' by some on his wall; is this the springboard for attracting votes also? It maybe too soon to tell but if Facebook can be a place to start a conversation, and a lot of young people choose to join that conversation, will we see an increase in young voters, and an increase in support for particular parties; is social media the new battleground during the permanent campaign?