Pa y-ci izen
online challenges:
Po uguese pa ies’
Facebook usage and
audience engagemen
So ia Se a-Sil a
Diana Dias Ca alho
Júlio Fazendei o
8.
186 ci izenship in c isis
in oduc ion
Despi e he o mal and heo e ical impo ance o poli ical pa ies and hei
oles in ep esen a i e democ acies, se e al opinion polls ha e been e ealing
signs o poli ical apa hy, disa ec ion and discon en among Eu opean ci izens
ega ding poli ical ins i u ions; and pa ies a e no immune o his end (No is
1999; Dal on and Wa enbe g 2000; Dal on 2004; Pha , Pu nam and Dal on
2000; To cal and Mon e o 2006; Ingleha 2016). This has led ins i u ions
o e-e alua e hei cu en p ac ices and seek new app oaches o connec
wi h ci izens, by de eloping s a egies o inc ease poli ical pa icipa ion,
including ways o ake ad an age o new echnologies and he in e ne o
each he “digi al na i es” (Fu long 2009). Acco dingly, many poli ical ac o s
and ins i u ions ac oss he wo ld ha e unde gone conside able e o ms o e
he las wo decades, mo e ecen ly by using in e ne channels and ools, o
suppo a deepening o public engagemen (ipu 2009; Hansa d Socie y 2011;
Les on-Bandei a 2009).
Cu en ly, a my iad o in o ma ional and communica i e possibili ies a e
a ailable o poli icians and he public, such as eso ing o In o ma ion and
Communica ion Technologies (ic ). Skep ics and cybe op imis s ha e been
discussing he consequences o he In e ne on democ a ic poli ics. Skep ics
belie e ha he ise o he in e ne will no b ing abou any signi ican changes.
This so-called no maliza ion hesis con ends ha , con a y o p edic ions ha
i would e olu ionize ou e e yday li es, expansion o he Web has done
li le mo e han p o ide a new medium h ough which es ablished pa e ns,
in all aspec s o social li e, pe sis (Ma golis and Resnick 2000, 73). While
“cybe op imis s” belie e ha in an e a o almos unlimi ed In e ne access,
ci izens can be be e in o med o public issues. Thus, he In e ne has he
po en ial o s eng hen he connec ion be ween he public and in e media y
o ganiza ions, including poli ical pa ies and social mo emen s. The public
space would be eac i a ed h ough hese new o ms o e ical and ho izon al
communica ion wi hou hie a chies (No is 2011).
Howe e , he ull impac o he new ic on pa ies and he poli ical
p ocess is no ye clea (Gibson and Wa d 2010), as well as whe he digi al
echnologies a e widening he pool o he poli ically ac i e o exace ba ing
exis ing democ a ic biases (Can ijoch e al. 2015). Ne e heless, al hough no
consensus has been deli e ed, li e a u e inc easingly poin s o he conclusion
o a posi i e bu small impac o In e ne use on engagemen (Boulianne 2009).
po uguese pa ies’ acebook usage and audience engagemen 187
None heless, he widesp ead use o In e ne and ic among ci izens is
undeniable. And wi h he ansi ion om a one-way op down channel (Web
1.0) o a mo e con e sa ional and in e ac i e ool (Web 2.0), social media a e
becoming mo e impo an . In pa icula among you h who sa is y hei abo e-
a e age poli ical in e es s ia he in e ne (Emme e al. 2011). Millennials
(indi iduals bo n a e 1980 and un il abou 2000) a e hea y use s o social
media, elying on pla o ms such as Facebook ( b) and Twi e o connec ,
and spend much mo e ime on hei mobile de ices and on he web. Howe e ,
poli ical online communica ion is no longe a ma ginal phenomenon among
young, u ban, and high-income coho s, bu a widely known and egula ly
p ac iced one (Klinge 2013).
In a closed lis and pa y-based sys em, such as he Po uguese (Les on-
Bandei a 2009), he poli ical pa y plays a majo ole in spelling ou poli ics,
since he e a e no incen i es o candida es o build a pe sonal image. The e o e,
pa ies a e in cha ge o he o e all communica ion s a egies in he elec ion
and non-elec ion pe iods. Wi hin his amewo k, along wi h he widesp ead
access o In e ne and social media in Po ugal, his s udy eso s o a social
media me ics se o assess how Po uguese poli ical pa ies use social media and
how people engage wi h pa ies online. We analyse pa ies’ b usage ac oss a ime
span o 7 yea s (2010-2017) and examine how use s’ engage wi h pa ies online.
Po ugal has o en been somewha ma ginalized in he s udy o pa ies’
online communica ion s a egies. The inc ease in ic usage in he coun y
(in e ne di usion inc eased by 32.3% be ween 2005 and 2016), along wi h he
cu en p esence o all pa ies in one o mo e social media pla o ms, makes i
a wo hy case s udy. While plen y o esea ch has p o ided impo an insigh s
on he use o he In e ne by poli ical pa ies du ing elec ion campaigns,
e ec i ely p o iding us wi h pe iodically skewed da a, ecen esea ch has
been ocusing on “pe manen ” (Jackson and Lilleke 2004) o “pos mode n”
(Vacca i 2008) campaigning – indica ing he need o look a hese ac i i ies
beyond elec ion season. As we conside a ime span o 7 yea s (2010-2017),
his s udy con ibu es o his ecen and g owing li e a u e by app oaching
he ways in which Po uguese pa ies use b as a communica ion ool and
how he public esponds o his new way o poli ical communica ion. This
chap e con ibu es o he olume’s pu pose o add essing he con empo a y
challenges o ci izenship by looking a he cu en ela ionship be ween pa ies
and ci izens in he digi al con ex , a space whe e poli ical ac ion and ac i e
ci izenship is inc easingly unde aken. The chap e is s uc u ed in h ee main
188 ci izenship in c isis
sec ions. The i s e iews he li e a u e on how poli ical pa ies use ic and
social media. The second ou lines he me hodological phases o he empi ical
s udy. Finally, he hi d p esen s he indings and discussion.
heo e ical backg ound: poli ical pa ies
and in o ma ion and communica ion echnologies
Today pa ies a e no longe he ulc um o poli ical li e in democ acies. Ci izens
can now in luence he decision-making p ocess wi hou going h ough a
pa y by o ming in e es g oups (Dal on e al. 2003). Fu he mo e, he e is a
consensus a ound he idea ha pa ies a e expe iencing ha d imes and hei
ep esen a i e unc ions do no wo k as hey used o (Mai 2013). The e is a
clea decline in pa y membe ship (Ka z e al. 1992; Mai and an Biezen 2001;
Delwi 2011; an Biezen, Mai and Pogun ke 2012), concomi an wi h a g ow h
in popula disenchan men wi h pa ies and a ci izen disengagemen wi h
poli ics (Gallaghe e . al. 2005; Mai 2006, 2013; an Biezen and T. Pogun ke
2014). Likewise, in Po ugal poli ical pa ies a e also expe iencing a decline
in ci izens’ suppo (Lopes and F ei e 2002; Ma ins 2004; Magalhães 2006;
Jalali 2007; Lisi 2011; Fazendei o 2017). Addi ionally, poli ical dis ance seems
o ha e inc eased in ecen imes, sugges ing ha he c isis has ein o ced he
gene al eeling o poli ical apa hy (Lobo e al. 2015).
Rega dless, pa ies con inue o pe o m o some ex en se e al impo an
unc ions in democ acies, namely “ o in eg a e and, i necessa y, o mobilize
he ci izen y; o a icula e and agg ega e in e es s, and hen o ansla e hese
in o public policy; o ec ui and p omo e poli ical leade s, and o o ganize he
pa liamen , he go e nmen and he key ins i u ions o he s a e” (Mai 2013,
203). E en i hey a e no longe he only ehicles o ci izens’ ep esen a ion,
pa ies emain c i ical ac o s in democ a ic poli ics.
Today, a he same ime ci izens ecoil om pa icipa ion wi hin o mal
o ganized ins i u ions (Picka d, Na i el, and Po ie 2012), he e is a a as e
a ay o poli ical ac ion and ac i i y unde aken, including online o ms
o ac ion. The online pa icipa o y expe ience (Ca on 2014) akes many
shapes: “ he use o Facebook and o he social media o ollow candida es and
pa ies, discuss poli ical issues, o o ganize a ious poli ical ac ions, poli ical
exp ession on blogs, Twi e and YouTube” (Gallan 2018, 79). Fo ins ance, in
he Uni ed S a es he pe cen age o ci izens ollowing candida es, poli icians,
po uguese pa ies’ acebook usage and audience engagemen 189
o poli ical pa ies on social media inc eased om 6% o egis e ed o e s in
2010 o 16% in 2014.
The use o ic s and he in e ne by poli ical ac o s is no a new phenomenon.
Especially since he mid-1990s, poli ical ac o s ha e begun o use In e ne -
based ools such as e-mail and websi es (No is 2001). When compa ed wi h
adi ional media, he in e ne o e s he po en ial o gi e poli icians di ec
con ac wi h o e s; c ea e ongoing dialogue; each di e en o e g oups
mo e easily; in o m and mobilize o e s mo e e ec i ely; inc ease isibili y;
and decen alize he pa y campaigning. In his cybe op imis pe spec i e,
In e ne inc eases he oppo uni ies o in e ac ion and is conside ed a ool
capable o e i alizing he ci izen-based democ acy and challenging he
monopoly o he exis ing poli ical hie a chies by empowe ing and ampli ying
he o dina y people (Rheingold 1993; Taylo and Bu 1999).
Poli ical ac o s, including poli ical pa ies, ha e no been indi e en o
he oppo uni ies o e ed by he inno a i e echnologies and began o use
hem o achie e hei goals. Howe e , some s udies ha e been showing how
poli ical pa ies and ac o s ha e been using he in e ne as ano he op-down
channel o p o ide in o ma ion and communica ion, and less as a wo-way
pla o m o encou age in e ac ion, discussion and dialogue (Bax e e al.
2011; Klinge 2013; Magin e al 2017). E en hough In e ne acili a es di ec
communica ion be ween leade s and o dina y membe s (Heida and Saglie
2003), many poli ical ac o s show some eluc ance o espond o ques ions
o engage in in e ac i e online communica ion o discussions wi h he
elec o a e (Bax e e al. 2011). Obse ing elec ion campaigns wo ldwide, i is
no o ious ha poli icians a e conside ing he in e ne a “Swiss A my Kni e o
poli ical communica ion” (Lachapelle and Maa ek 2015, 175), in which hey
can communica e bypassing pa y o ganiza ion o any o he hu dles posed
by jou nalis s o media ga ekeepe s. Ma ge s’ “Cybe -Pa ies” (2006, 530)
clea ly displays how pa ies could bene i om he use o ic s o “s eng hen
he ela ionship be ween o e s and pa y a he han adi ional no ions
o membe ship”. P obably s uc u ing wha Gibson (2015) calls “ci izen
campaigne s”, which a e ci izens who do no belong o he pa y bu pe o m
se e al ac ions h ough he web ha help pa ies and hei campaigns. Maybe
his is pa o he solu ion pa ies ha e ound o add ess hei decline and loss
o ele ance in con empo a y socie ies (Ba di e al. 2014, 8).
E en hough he e is b oad ag eemen among esea che s ha ins i u ional
poli ical ac o s ha e missed oppo uni ies o e ed by he in e ne , maybe i

190 ci izenship in c isis
is oo soon o d aw his kind o conclusion (Vacca i 2013). I is known ha
pa ies a e mo e willing o publish in o ma ion han allow i o be discussed,
meaning ha pa ies (like o he s poli ical ac o s) a e e y cau ious when
allowing ci izens, o e en membe s, o discuss and pa icipa e in poli ical
issues (Nixon, Wa d, and Gibson, 2003). As in he ea lie days when
domina ed he media communica ion, pa ies a e slowly adap ing o he ic
and Web 2.01, ins ead o adically changing he way hey communica e wi h
hei sympa hize s. In C is ian Vacca i wo ds, “ea ly conclusions abou he
adop ion o digi al media by poli ical ac o s may simply ha e been p ema u e
because ully implemen ing inno a ions h oughou complex o ganiza ions
equi es ime” (Vacca i 2013, 50).
Due o he ole o social media in he exposu e o in o ma ion, consump ion
o news, and ne wo k con agiousness, hese pla o ms can be seen as ways o
inc ease oppo uni ies o pa icipa e in ci ic and poli ical li e o o p omo e
ci izens’ knowledge o poli ical in o ma ion; ha ing he e o e a posi i e impac
on poli ical pa icipa ion (Boulianne, 2015). Social ne wo king si es ha e been
ep esen ing new dynamics o poli ical pa icipa ion: g an ing poli icians new
ways o communica ion and in e ac ing wi h ollowe s, and o e ing ci izens
mo e oppo uni ies o in o ma ion exposu e and poli ical discussion, as well
as allowing an e alua ion h ough a communi y pe spec i e (Douglas e al.
2015). Via b, pa ies add ess hei messages di ec ly o he elec o a e (Bimbe
and Da is 2003), a s a egy pa icula ly impo an o small and newe pa ies
(Lilleke e al. 2015; La sson 2016).
Unlike communica ion ia mass media, b p o ides a eedback channel,
he eby enabling pa ies o engage in discussions wi h o e s, which migh
p o ide aluable in o ma ion o modi ying hei campaign s a egies. b
p o ides ools o a ge -audience-speci ic mobiliza ion (e. g., pho os and
ideos ha a e well-sui ed o being sha ed). Fu he mo e, b as an in o ma ion
esou ce, and can easily each he poli ically unin e es ed segmen s o o e s
who o he wise end o a oid poli ical in o ma ion in he cu en high-choice
media en i onmen (Lachapelle and Maa ek 2015; Bene 2017).2
1 The e m web 2.0 e e s o ools ha use a bo om-up app oach whe eby people can sha e con en
and collabo a e wi h people online, building social media (Co mode and K ishnamu hy 2008; O’Reilly
2005).
2 The dominance o “acciden al exposu e” o poli ical in o ma ion on b has been ound in he usa,
I aly, G ea B i ain, and Ge many, which may also in luence poli ical beha io , mos ly on o e s wi h
low poli ical in e es (Vale iani and Vacca i 2015).
po uguese pa ies’ acebook usage and audience engagemen 191
Al hough i has been a gued ha using Social ne wo k si es (snss)3 acili a es
he c ea ion o new i ual spaces o mobilize people in he poli ical a ena, his
has no ye been he subjec o ex ensi e empi ical s udy (Gibson and Wa d
2010), no has i been applied o he Po uguese con ex , by looking a he
poli ical pa ies. Ini ially, Po uguese poli ical pa ies de eloped Websi es, and
he ea e mo ed on o he Web 2.0. Cu en ly, he majo i y a e ully p esen a
di e en snss, including b and Twi e . While i migh be use ul o also know
why a pa y is choosing o engage in social media as pa o i s communica ion
s a egy (Jackson and Lilleke 2009; Kalnes 2009a; Masche oni and Minucci
2010), i is mo e impo an o know how hey a e doing i , and explo e how
hei s a egies a e being ecei ed.
How pa ies adap and use he new communica ion echnologies is
in insically associa ed wi h hei own poli ical cha ac e is ics. S äsand linked
he changes in he communica ion echnologies o he age o he pa y: “olde
pa ies he e o e will assume o ganiza ional cha ac e is ics o newe pa ies.
In many o he new democ acies, pa ies ha e de eloped in a echnological
en i onmen ha makes he adi ional communica ion unc ion edundan ”
(S äsand 2013, 267). These indings highligh ha pa y cha ac e is ics
in e play wi h pa ies’ online communica ion s a egies.
A he o ganiza ional le el, Vacca i (2013) iden i ies wo impo an pa y
cha ac e is ics ha in e ac wi h pa ies’ online communica ion usage:
incen i es and esou ces. Fo ins ance, pa ies ha a e in e nally o ganized
h ough g ass- oo s ac i is s, in bo om-up endea ou s, ind i easie o adap
and use online communica ions ools, such as social media (Lö g en and
Smi h 2003). Ano he ele an incen i e may be he pa y’s challenge s a us.
Pa ies in powe do no ha e he same incen i es o go online as pa ies in
opposi ion, whose elec o al ailu e may igge ambi ion and he u ge o change
and inno a e in he hope o e u ning o go e nmen (Gibson and Römmele
2001).4 Rega ding he pa y esou ces, he e a e wo opposing assump ions in
he li e a u e: he equaliza ion hesis a gues ha small pa ies y o compensa e
3 Social ne wo k si es a e web-based se ices ha allow indi iduals o cons uc a public o semi-public
p o ile wi hin a bounded sys em; a icula e a lis o o he use s wi h whom hey sha e a connec ion; and,
iew and a e se hei lis o connec ions, and hose made by o he s, wi hin he sys em (Boyd and
Ellison 2008).
4 In he same di ec ion he elec o al sys em will p oduce di e en incen i es, whe eas he p opo ional
sys em p esen s mo e incen i es han he majo i a ian ones (Vacca i 2013, 55).
192 ci izenship in c isis
hei s uc u al disad an ages by a ac ing he o e s’ a en ion h ough di ec
and low-p iced channels (La sson 2016). By con as , he no maliza ion heo y
(Ma golis and Resnick 2000) assumes ha he dispa i ies be ween pa ies in
he o line con ex a e mi o ed in he online. Hence, la ge pa ies wi h g ea e
inancial and pe sonal esou ces a e be e able o gene a e e ec i e online
communica ion han small pa ies (Klinge 2013; Gibson and McAllis e 2011).
Finally, some indings ha e shown an ideological di ide among pa ies:
hose o pa icula ideological amilies may ind i easie han o he s o adap
o digi al media (Vacca i 2013; Ås öm and Ka lsson 2013; Ve gee e al.
2011). Howe e , his is no ue o e e y coun y. A ew mechanisms may
be esponsible: key decision make s and o ganiza ional s uc u es a e mo e
inclined owa d he ype o communica ion os e ed by he in e ne , and/
o he o e s’ p o ile is mo e likely o be online o mo e willing o engage
online (Vacca i 2013). Va ious s udies ha e claimed ha ex emis pa ies,
especially hose on he adical igh , may be mo e likely o ake ad an age
o online ools because hey ha e mo e di icul access o he mains eam
media, and cul i a e ela i ely small cad es o dedica ed suppo e s who
eage ly engage wi hin he com o ably seg ega ed echo chambe o he
in e ne (Copsey 2003; B a en 2005). Also, p e ious s udies ha e no ed ha
g een pa y eli es and hei o e s also end o be pa icula ly a ease wi h
online communica ion (Vacca i 2013).
me hodological s a egy
This s udy explo es how Po uguese poli ical pa ies make use o Facebook
( b) and how ci izens engage wi h pa ies on his pla o m.
The empi ical esea ch was ca ied ou h ough a quan i a i e esea ch
design. We collec ed and analyzed pa ies’ b pages, in he ollowing s ages:
(1) iden i ying he o icial b accoun s o poli ical pa ies; (2) collec ing da a
om he pages iden i ied; (3) se ing up a me ics ool o measu e how pa ies
use b and hei associa ed le el o use s’ engagemen .
b was chosen as he pla o m o ou da a collec ion because i is one o
he mos used social media pla o ms in he wo ld, as well as in Po ugal. In
Po ugal, in 2017, he e we e 4.7 million b use s, ep esen ing 70% o he
esiden s on he mainland be ween he ages o 15 and 64. b is he mos ac i e
social media pla o m in Po ugal (Ma k es 2017). In ac , a ecen s udy o
po uguese pa ies’ acebook usage and audience engagemen 193
2014/2015 ound ha among he mos used sou ces o in o ma ion on policy/
go e nance issues, social media such as b and Twi e we e he hi d mos
equen sou ce, used by 34.4% o he esponden s (Ca doso 2015).
Acco dingly, we i s iden i ied he o icial b accoun s o poli ical pa ies
ha ook pa in he las gene al elec ions in Po ugal (2015 Gene al Elec ion)
and ha won a leas one pa liamen a y sea (Table 8.1). Fo his pu pose,
he o icial b accoun s o he ollowing poli ical pa ies we e examined: The
Ecologis Pa y (pe ), The Le -Bloc (be), People-Animals-Na u e Pa y
(pan), Socialis Pa y (ps), Social-Democ a ic Pa y (psd), and cds-People’s
Pa y (cds-pp).
Du ing ou da a collec ion (which was ca ied ou un il Oc obe 30 h o
2017) he Communis Pa y did no ha e an o icial b page. Howe e , while
w i ing his chap e he pa y s a ed a b page.5 Al hough pcp was no included
in he analysis, he ecen c ea ion o i s b page is al eady, in i sel , e ealing
a change in he pa y’s online communica ion. While he e was an b accoun
o he Democ a ic Uni a ian Coali ion (cdu, i. e. he elec o al coali ion o
he Po uguese Communis Pa y (pcp) and he Ecologis Pa y (pe )), he
wo main ain ai ly di e en pa y p og ammes. Mo eo e , he cdu b page
was inac i e o all he non-campaign pe iods, so we decided o exclude i
in ou analysis. Table 8.1 p esen s de ailed in o ma ion on he pa ies unde
analysis and hei social media p esence.
As able 8.1 shows, among he pa ies ha a e p esen in social media,
he common elemen is b. E e y Po uguese pa y is on b. Besides b, he
majo i y o pa ies ha e in es ed in o he snss such as Twi e , YouTube, Flick ,
Ins ag am, and Pin e es . psd is clea ly be ing o a mul i-channel s a egy.
While pan, he mos ecen pa y in he Po uguese poli ical sys em, is only on
b, which may be a esul o he ac ha i has ewe esou ces. These da a e lec
a consolida ion o he social media pla o ms: o he as a ay o pla o ms
a ailable, only a small pa has been selec ed and applied, which poin s o he
ques ion o whe he he e a e su icien esou ces o manage social medias’
demands o pa ies pe cei e hem as es ablished channels (Klinge 2013).
5 pcp was he i s in Po ugal o ha e a web page, which has been conside ed he mos impo an
sou ce o in o ma ion o hei membe s and sympa hize s, acco ding o hei mani es os. In hei
gene al cong ess esolu ion epo s, hey ha e no s essed snss a all (2008) o ha e acknowledged
hem as some hing nega i e, because hey a ou indi idual ac ion o e collec i e (2012). Mo e ecen ly
(2016), hey men ion he need o emba k in he new echnological en i onmen , whe e snss play an
impo an ole, in which he webpage is he cen e o all in o ma ion.
200 ci izenship in c isis
Recen ly, o mos pa ies, we can obse e a new s a egy o publish con en
in a mo e in e ac i e way. The use o newe and ancie ools, such as ideo
and pho os, may be sugges i e o a be e unde s anding o how o ake
ad an age o social media o ge he mos alue om a pos (S einbe g 2017).
This s a egy also ollows he g owing demand o ideos on he in e ne .
In ac , in 2014, 64% o he wo ld’s da a a ic on he in e ne consis ed o
ideos (excluding pee - o-pee mo ie swaps and ideo on demand p e iews).
This alue will be 80% by 2019.9 This is pa ly due o young people wa ching
conside ably mo e ideo con en on YouTube and o he In e ne sou ces han
. While his ecen change o include mo e ideo con en is e iden , mos
pa ies do no p oduce o iginal ideo con en o snss. Ins ead, hey o en use
he con en c ea ed by he Pa liamen Channel, which is hen edi ed and
sha ed in he pa ies’ a ious ne wo ks, including YouTube and b.
acebook use s’ engagemen : popula i y, commi men , and i ali y
To uly assess how ci izens a e in e ac ing wi h pa ies on b we need o
look a he public’s eedback o hei pos s. Responses by hose who iew he
pos s se e as a measu emen o engagemen be ween he “like s”/ iends and
he pa y. An indi idual esponden can engage wi h pa ies’ pos s on b by
clicking “like”, by commen ing, o by sha ing a pos .
I is wi hou any su p ise ha we ound ha , in gene al, o all pa ies, a
leas 99% o hei wall pos s we e liked. Rega ding he pe cen age o pos s
commen ed o sha ed, he e a e signi ican di e ences be ween pa ies and
among dimensions o engagemen , showing di e en dynamics o use ’s
engagemen . In he case o cds-pp, 88.3% o he pos s we e discussed and 95%
we e sha ed. The Esque da.ne page o he Le Bloc p esen s he ollowing
s a is ics: 58.6% o he pos s we e discussed and 94.9% we e sha ed. In he case
o The G eens, 36.8% o he hei pos s we e discussed while 74.9% we e sha ed.
The pos s published by he psd we e likewise discussed on b (81.7%) as sha ed
(88.8%) by hei b use s. Con a y o he p e ious pa ies, he pan had mo e
con en discussed (89.3%) han sha ed (75.7%). Simila ly, he Socialis pa y
had mo e pos s discussed (92.7%) on i s page han sha ed (86.0%). The ac ha
he highes le els o engagemen we e achie ed in he dimension o popula i y,
9 In Cisco Visual Ne wo king Index™ (Cisco ni™), accessed a h p://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solu ions/
colla e al/se ice-p o ide /ip-ngn-ip-nex -gene a ion-ne wo k/whi e_pape _c11-481360.h ml.

po uguese pa ies’ acebook usage and audience engagemen 201
abo e commi men and i ali y, is p obably because i equi es less e o o
p ess a “like” bu on han o w i e a commen , and i is less comp omising
and mo e impe sonal han a sha e, which is shown on he use ’s imeline.
Indeed, as S einbe g (2017) emphasizes, when indi iduals espond by making
a “commen ,” hey a e making mo e o an e o o communica e, which implies
a g ea e deg ee o engagemen han “liking” o jus eading he pos .
In ela ion o he dimension o popula i y, we can examine he likes o he
pa ies’ pos s ac oss he mon hs and yea s, by looking a he a e age numbe o
likes pe pos (e e y pos was equally conside ed, ega dless o hei o ma ).
Looking a Figu e 8.2, o e all, all pa ies saw hei pos s’ popula i y inc ease
o e he yea s, bu all since 2015. We can also see a sligh inc ease in psd’s
pos popula i y in he 2011 elec ion, bu a g ea e e ec was no iced ega ding
he ecen elec ion o 2015.
The pa y wi h he highes a e age pos popula i y is he pan o 2016 and
2017. cds-pp, which s a ed i s b page in he same yea as pan, in 2015, shows
less use s’ engagemen , alling conside ably. In u n, he pe is he pa y wi h
lowes popula i y. E en hough he pa y publishes almos he same numbe
o pos s as he o he s (Figu e 8.2), i is clea ha hei pos s a e no engaging
i s audience. As S einbe g (2017) s esses, he alue o he “like” me ic is
ha i p o ides guidance o he pa y o ganiza ion ega ding which messages
appeal o i s membe s.
Looking a Figu e 8.3, we can obse e simila pa e ns in he commi men
dimension. On a e age he pan has he highes numbe o commen s made by
pos and pe is he pa y wi h he lowes use engagemen . Again we can see
a sligh inc ease in commi men du ing elec ion imes, in 2011 o psd and in
2015 especially o pan, ps, and psd.
The only wo pos s wi h mo e han 1,000 commen s a e bo h isual and
belong o pan and psd. The mos discussed (1,364 commen s) is a pho o
e e ing o a high-p o ile case on social media abou a young boy mis ea ing
his dog. While he second mos discussed pos (1,328 commen s) is a ecen
ideo published by psd wi h Ped o Passos Coelho announcing ha he will no
compe e in he nex in e nal pa y elec ions, lea ing i s leade ship.
The las engagemen dimension is i ali y, measu ed acco ding o he numbe
o “sha es” o pos s. Sha ing is he soul o b communica ion and any hing can be
sha ed: a momen , an expe ience, an opinion, public in o ma ion, con en om
o he s, links e c. Use s c ea e communica ion ne wo ks, including mos ly hei
o line acquain ances, kep ali e by he ac i i y o sha ing con en (Bene 2017).
202 ci izenship in c isis
Figu e 8.2
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
BE PS
2011-05
2012-05
2013-05
2014-05
2015-05
2015-11
2010-05
2017-05
2010-11
2011-11
2012-11
2013-11
2014-11
2016-05
2016-11
2011-05
2012-05
2013-05
2014-05
2015-05
2015-11
2010-05
2017-05
2010-11
2011-11
2012-11
2013-11
2014-11
2016-05
2016-11
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
PEV PAN
2011-05
2012-05
2013-05
2014-05
2015-05
2015-11
2010-05
2017-05
2010-11
2011-11
2012-11
2013-11
2014-11
2016-05
2016-11
2011-05
2012-05
2013-05
2014-05
2015-05
2015-11
2010-05
2017-05
2010-11
2011-11
2012-11
2013-11
2014-11
2016-05
2016-11
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
PSD CDS-PP
2011-05
2012-05
2013-05
2014-05
2015-05
2015-11
2010-05
2017-05
2010-11
2011-11
2012-11
2013-11
2014-11
2016-05
2016-11
2011-05
2012-05
2013-05
2014-05
2015-05
2015-11
2010-05
2017-05
2010-11
2011-11
2012-11
2013-11
2014-11
2016-05
2016-11
Popula i y pe mon h among pa ies and o e yea s
Sou ce: Da a collec ed by he au ho s h ough RS udio. The do ed lines ep esen he elec ions da es.
po uguese pa ies’ acebook usage and audience engagemen 203
Figu e 8.3 Commi men pe mon h among pa ies and o e yea s
Sou ce: Da a collec ed by he au ho s h ough RS udio. The do ed lines ep esen he elec ions da es.
100
80
60
40
20
0
BE PS
2011-05
2012-05
2013-05
2014-05
2015-05
2015-11
2010-05
2017-05
2010-11
2011-11
2012-11
2013-11
2014-11
2016-05
2016-11
2011-05
2012-05
2013-05
2014-05
2015-05
2015-11
2010-05
2017-05
2010-11
2011-11
2012-11
2013-11
2014-11
2016-05
2016-11
100
80
60
40
20
0
PSD CDS-PP
2011-05
2012-05
2013-05
2014-05
2015-05
2015-11
2010-05
2017-05
2010-11
2011-11
2012-11
2013-11
2014-11
2016-05
2016-11
2011-05
2012-05
2013-05
2014-05
2015-05
2015-11
2010-05
2017-05
2010-11
2011-11
2012-11
2013-11
2014-11
2016-05
2016-11
100
80
60
40
20
0
PEV PAN
2011-05
2012-05
2013-05
2014-05
2015-05
2015-11
2010-05
2017-05
2010-11
2011-11
2012-11
2013-11
2014-11
2016-05
2016-11
2011-05
2012-05
2013-05
2014-05
2015-05
2015-11
2010-05
2017-05
2010-11
2011-11
2012-11
2013-11
2014-11
2016-05
2016-11
204 ci izenship in c isis
The dis ibu ion logic o ne wo k media is i ali y (Klinge and S ensson
2015). The e m is aken om ma ke ing and de ined as “ne wo k-enhanced
wo d-o -mou h” (Nahon e al. 2011). This de ini ion cap u es he dual meaning
o sha ing, namely an ac o communica ion as well as an ac o dis ibu ion.
B oadly speaking, i means being sha ed in many di e en communica ion
ne wo ks. The mo e people sha e a con en , i. e. use i wi hin hei ongoing
communica ion wi h membe s o hei ne wo ks, he mo e ex ended is he
each and in luence i can achie e.
Rega ding his dimension (Figu e 8.4), he di e ence be ween pan and he
es o he pa ies is e en mo e no able. The pan is he pa y wi h he mos i al
con en on b. Addi ionally, unlike he o he use engagemen dimensions, no
associa ion can be obse ed be ween elec ion imes and i ali y o pa ies’ pos s.
The mos sha ed, discussed, and liked pos s belongs o he pan. The pos
ha ga he ed he mos sha es (30,310) and likes (16,362) is a pho o celeb a ing
he app o al o a new law ha pu an end o he slaugh e o dogs and ca s in
municipal kennels. As well he mos discussed pos (1,364 commen s) is also
a pho o, as men ioned be o e.
pe con inues o be he leas success ul pa y in engaging i s b use s.
In e es ingly, be p esen s be e use s’ engagemen on con en i ali y han
he es o he pa ies (wi h he excep ion o pan).
Concluding, in o de o be e ec i e, poli ical communica ion on social media
also has o engage wi h b use s, ob aining popula i y, discussion, and i ali y.
In ac , in he online wo ld, sha ing is a common, low-limi , bu po en ially e y
e ec i e, mass-cen ic o m o pa ies’ mobiliza ion (Walls en 2010). I is now
clea ha he pos s ha ob ained mo e likes, commen s, and sha es a e isual pos s
such as pho os o ideos. A s a egy mos ly used by pan, which can help explain
why i eme ges as he mos success ul pa y ega ding b use s’ engagemen .
The abo e da a p o ided a close look in o how b use s engage wi h pa ies
in absolu e e ms, no conside ing he ac i e popula ion o he audience
eached by he Pa ies’ b pages. We calcula ed he same me ics bu aking
in o accoun he ac i e popula ion o he audience ega ding popula i y,
commi men , and i ali y, by di iding he a e age numbe o likes, commen s,
and sha es pe pos o all he yea s by he numbe o page like s a he ime
o da a collec ion.10 An Index was composed wi h he sum o hese alues,
10 Since i is no possible o assess he numbe o b “like s”/ iends o each yea conside ed in he
analysis, he analysis is based on he numbe o “like s”/ iends a he ime o da a collec ion (Oc obe 2017).
po uguese pa ies’ acebook usage and audience engagemen 205
Figu e 8.4 Vi ali y pe mon h among pa ies and o e yea s
Sou ce: Da a collec ed by he au ho s h ough RS udio. The do ed lines ep esen he elec ions da es.
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
BE PS
2011-05
2012-05
2013-05
2014-05
2015-05
2015-11
2010-05
2017-05
2010-11
2011-11
2012-11
2013-11
2014-11
2016-05
2016-11
2011-05
2012-05
2013-05
2014-05
2015-05
2015-11
2010-05
2017-05
2010-11
2011-11
2012-11
2013-11
2014-11
2016-05
2016-11
PEV PAN
2011-05
2012-05
2013-05
2014-05
2015-05
2015-11
2010-05
2017-05
2010-11
2011-11
2012-11
2013-11
2014-11
2016-05
2016-11
2011-05
2012-05
2013-05
2014-05
2015-05
2015-11
2010-05
2017-05
2010-11
2011-11
2012-11
2013-11
2014-11
2016-05
2016-11
PSD CDS-PP
2011-05
2012-05
2013-05
2014-05
2015-05
2015-11
2010-05
2017-05
2010-11
2011-11
2012-11
2013-11
2014-11
2016-05
2016-11
2011-05
2012-05
2013-05
2014-05
2015-05
2015-11
2010-05
2017-05
2010-11
2011-11
2012-11
2013-11
2014-11
2016-05
2016-11
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

206 ci izenship in c isis
esul ing in an agg ega e measu e o Pa ies’ engagemen le el wi h i s public
on b. Mul iplica ion by 1,000 was pe o med in o de o o e he possibili y
o a be e compa ison, as he o iginal esul s we e close o ze o (Bonsón and
Ra kai 2013). This index has limi a ions and is a away om being pe ec ,
bu in his con ex i p o ides a ela i ely p oxy measu e o unde s and he
o e all engagemen a he same ime (popula i y, commi men , and i ali y)
aking in o accoun he numbe o he audience o pa ies’ b pages. The index
aw alues pe se does no gi e us much in o ma ion bu i can in o m us
abou he ela i e di e ences among pa ies.
Looking a Figu e 8.5 we can obse e a scena io di e en om he p e ious
ones. Taking in o accoun he numbe o “like s”/ iends p o ides a ela i e
measu e o engagemen ha acknowledges he ac i e audience eached by
each pa y. By ac i e audience we mean he b use s who ha e liked he pa y’s
page and po en ially ecei e i s upda es in hei imeline. Howe e , i should
be s essed ha b use s who do no ollow he pa y’s b page a e able o
in e ac and engage wi h he pa y in he same way. Mo eo e , a “non-like ”/
iend could also ecei e he pa y upda es in he /his imeline h ough o he
means, o example, i a iend has sha ed, commen ed, o liked a pos .
In ela i e e ms, cds-pp p esen s he highes engagemen le el and psd
p esen s he lowes . Compa ing psd and pan, which ha e a simila numbe
o “like s”/ iends on b, he di e ence o engagemen wi h he public is clea .
Figu e 8.5
CDS-PP
“like s”/ iends
PAN PS PEV PSDBE
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
58,733 147,096
9,424
59,707
136,171
30,284
Engagemen Le el ac oss pa ies
Sou ce: Da a collec ed by he au ho s h ough RS udio.
po uguese pa ies’ acebook usage and audience engagemen 207
Mo eo e , he highe use s’ engagemen le el wi h pan may be a esul o he
ac ha he pa y in es s mo e in social media since i ecei es less co e age
in he adi ional media compa ing wi h he o he pa ies.
conclusions
Ou s udy epo s on he ecen widesp ead use o social media by Po uguese
poli ical pa ies, namely ia b, acknowledging i s impo ance o pa y
communica ion. Since psd’s adop ion in 2010, almos all pa ies, apa om
pcp, joined b he ollowing yea . This e eals he con agious e ec among
pa ies in ela ion o hei communica ion p esence and s a egies.
Findings ega ding how pa ies use b show a ai ly consis en social
media communica ion s a egy, sha ed among pa ies: he olume o
published con en was ela i ely s able ac oss he yea s and 2017 saw an
inc eased in es men in b con en . Fo us i is s ill no clea abou he
ex en o which his s a egy is a esponse o he ecen and g owing signs
o poli ical apa hy.
Looking in dep h a he ype o pos s, we simila ly obse e cong uen
pa e ns be ween pa ies, as well as di e si y. Pa ies use a ious Facebook ools
o ge hei messages ac oss, bu hey s ill ely on links o hei own websi es o
o he ex -based websi es o p o ide in o ma ion, a he han make ull use o
mul imedia echnology such as pho os and ideos. Howe e , in ecen yea s
mos pa ies ha e been mo ing owa d a s a egy o inc easingly include mo e
mul imedia con en .
Rega ding use ’s in e ac ion wi h he pa ies’ pages, se e al le els o
engagemen we e obse ed. Disc epancies be ween di e en dimensions,
and ac oss pa ies, eme ged. The popula i y dimension is clea ly he
mos equen , in a much g ea e p opo ion han he emaining o ms o
engagemen (commi men and i ali y), due o i being less demanding and
comp omising. Addi ionally, he choice o ool can lead o di e ing le els o
engagemen : pos s ha s ood ou o ha ing mo e likes, commen s, and sha es
had a isual componen in he o m o pho o o ideo. This p obably helps
jus i y he ecen end ound o an in es men in ideo ools by po uguese
poli ical pa ies on hei b pages.
An inc ease in pos ing, as well as popula i y and commi men (o
pos s), be o e bo h elec ions was obse ed. Mo eo e , when compa ing
208 ci izenship in c isis
he wo elec ion pe iods, 2011 and 2015, he e was a g ea e impac o
b on pa ies’ campaign in 2015, which needs o be con i med by u he
obus analysis.
The e is no ques ion ha pan s ood ou as an in e es ing case. Despi e being
a small and ecen pa y, when aking in o conside a ion he ela i e numbe
o “like s”/ iends, i showed he second highes le el o use s’ engagemen .
In adi ion, i is he pa y wi h he mos likes g ow h, i.e. mon ly a e age, in
i s sho b p esence (see able 8.1) This esul highligh s how he use o new
echnologies can a ou new pa ies and help hem o e come hei limi a ions.
pan’s success ul b communica ion migh be explained because i eme ged in
a mo e ecen echnological con ex when compa ed o pa ies, such as pcp,
ps, and psd, which de eloped a a ime when he p in ed mass media we e he
dominan communica ion channels be ween leade s and ci izens. Fo hese
pa ies i will ake mo e ime o adjus o he new echnological en i onmen
(Klinge 2013). Addi ionally, li e a u e has shown ha newe pa ies a e he
impo ance o social media highe han es ablished ones (Lilleke e al. 2015),
which helps o explain he in es men pan has made in Facebook. This is likely
o be s eng hened in a con ex like he Po uguese one, wi h a pa y sys em
ha has emained qui e s able since he i s legisla i e elec ion in 1976 and
i is cha ac e ized by a wo-pa y dynamic (Van Biezen 2003), lea ing li le
space o new playe s.
I is indispu able ha Po uguese pa ies a e in es ing in social media
communica ion and ying o ake ad an age o i s possibili ies and po en ial.
Howe e , he e a e some challenges ahead. S udies ha e shown ha b
algo i hms bu y much o he con en om a poli ical page in use s’ news
eeds, comp omising he e y pu pose o pa ies being on b (Kalsnes 2016).
Thus, in o de o become isible, pa ies ha e o encou age ans o be e y
ac i e, in addi ion o buying isibili y, and o do so, hey need o engage in an
in e ac i e and dynamic communica ion s a egy ins ead o using i as a op-
down channel.
acknowledgemen s
The au ho s would like o hank he edi o s o his olume o all hei commen s and
sugges ions as well he pa icipan s o he “4.º Encon o ics, 2017” ha ook place in
No embe , 29 h a he Ins i u e o Social Sciences, Lisbon, Po ugal.
po uguese pa ies’ acebook usage and audience engagemen 209
____________________________________
so ia se a sil a
Ins i u o de Ciências Sociais, Uni e sidade de Lisboa
A . P o . Aníbal Be encou 9 — 1600-036 Lisboa, Po ugal
so ia aquels[email p o ec ed]m
o cid.o g/0000-0002-7731-7183
____________________________________
diana dias ca alho
Cen o de Adminis ação e Polí icas Públicas,
Ins i u o Supe io de Ciências Sociais e Polí icas, Uni e sidade de Lisboa
dianadiasca [email p o ec ed]
o cid.o g/0000-0002-6826-0664
____________________________________
júlio azendei o
Ins i u o de Ciências Sociais, Uni e sidade de Lisboa
julio[email p o ec ed]m
o cid.o g/0000-0002-2242-7238
____________________________________
e e ences
ås öm, J., M. ka lsson. 2013. “Blogging in he shadow o pa ies: explo ing ideological
di e ences in online campaigning”. Poli ical Communica ion, 30 (3): 434-455.
ba di, L., S. Ba olini, and A. T echsel. 2014. “Pa y adap a ion and change and he c isis o
democ acy”. Pa y Poli ics, 20 (2): 151-59.
bax e , G., R. Ma cella, and E. Va is. 2011. “The use o he in e ne by poli ical pa ies and
candida es in Sco land du ing he 2010 uk gene al elec ion campaign”. Aslib P oceedings,
63 (5): 464-483.
bene, M. 2017. “Sha ing is ca ing! in es iga ing i al pos s on poli icians’ acebook pages
du ing he 2014 gene al elec ion campaign in Hunga y”. Jou nal o In o ma ion Technology
and Poli ics, 14 (4): 387-402.
bimbe , B., R. da is. 2003. Campaigning Online. The In e ne in us Elec ions. Ox o d: Ox o d
Uni e si y P ess.
bónson, E., E. Ca ajal-T ujillo, and T. Escoba -Rod íguez. 2015. “Co po a e Facebook and
s akeholde engagemen ”. Kybe ne es, 44 (5): 771-787.
bonsón, E., M. Ra kai. 2013. “A se o me ics o assess s akeholde engagemen and
social legi imacy on a co po a e Facebook page”. Online In o ma ion Re iew, 37 (5):
787-803.
boulianne, S. 2015. “Social media use and pa icipa ion: a me a-analysis o cu en esea ch”.
In o ma ion Communica ion and Socie y, 18 (5): 524-538.
boulianne, S. 2009. “Does In e ne use a ec engagemen ? A me a-analysis o esea ch”.
Poli ical Communica ion, 26 (2): 193-211.
boyd, D., N. Ellison. 2008. “Social ne wo k si es: de ini ion, his o y, and schola ship”. Jou nal
o Compu e -Media ed Communica ion, 13 (1): 210-230.
b a en, C. 2005. “Online zealo y: la F ance du peuple i uel”. New Media & Socie y, 7 (4):
515-532.