Studying media in London, as a media student, during this crazy election-time period in both the US and in the UK, there seems to be no shortage of political media coverage. As a regular consumer of social media, and as a student planning on entering the field of public relations post-grad, I am fascinated by the ways in which social media provides an instant platform for important world events, such as the elections going on now. As digital platforms and technology are rapidly evolving, so are the endless possibilities for the ways they can be used. While this may sound incredibly appealing, along with high-speed developments comes the potential for abuse and misuse of these platforms with minimal regulation.
As I went about my research, I was particularly interested to discover the differences in the US and UK digital markets. I quickly learned that the way people consume media could not be more different. Although the two countries are connected by language, the cultures are distinct.
As a start, the US and UK have different media consumption habits. The site We Are Social has offered updated data on this for both the US and the UK as of January 2019:
As you can see, the average American spends more time spent consuming media per day than the average Brit. The daily difference might not seem to be too significant of a figure at first glance. But if you total this to the weekly, monthly and even annual difference this statistic, the difference is even more apparent.
We Are Social provides similar statistics regarding social media:
For both the US and the UK, the percentage of people who are considered to be active mobile social media users is over half of the total population. What struck me though, is the stark difference in overall population of social media users - 45 million in the UK vs 230 million in the US.
Another thing to also consider is the geographic size difference between the two countries. The United States is about 40 times bigger than The United Kingdom. But within the small area of The United Kingdom, there are major differences as well, including various accents and dialects and the large cultural contrast between those who live in major cities and those who do not. This presence is also prevalent in the US.
In terms of the attitudes of the overall market, research has uncovered a difference in consumer behavior trends.
Because of many differences in consumer trends, politicians have different market bases when appealing to viewers on social media platforms, and must cater to these differentiated audiences in different ways. For example, since Americans are more likely to be affected by emotional advertising than Brits, a political campaign that focused on pulling at the heartstrings of citizens would be more effective in the US than in the UK.
While both countries have their own political issues going on, and while these things are very important focuses for politicians during elections, the UK has a larger emphasis on global news. According to an article in CountryNavigator, "Despite the ongoing Brexit debate, British people tend to take a broader world view of issues. Many Brits see themselves as ‘European’, while Americans focus much more intently on domestic policy and issues."
The UK election is something that I find very interesting, especially compared to the spectacle that is made during US elections, as after the dissolution of old parliament, "political parties and candidates have 38 days to appeal to voters."
Living and studying in London during this election, it has been really fascinating to watch it unfold on social media.
As per an article written for EuroNews:
"Despite all political parties placing emphasis on reaching potential voters through a wide variety of social media platforms, analytics show the social media conversation has become a “total two-horse race”.
“On social media, there are only really two big names in town; the Labour Party and the Conservative Party, and everyone else has been squeezed out of that conversation,” said Mike Harris, the founder and CEO of 89up.
89up has been a major follower of social media trends during this year's election and Tweeted out a thread of graphics, some of which are included and linked below:
As I looked at these statistics, a few important questions came to mind. First off, I wondered how important social media must be in the election, if Jeremy Corbyn took the lead with engagement and did not come out victorious. However, logically, this does somewhat makes sense if you look at the figure "How the public is associating issues to each party" in contrast with the results of the figure "Top Issues in the UK General Election 2019." The top 2 issues listed, Brexit and the NHS, are associated as "Mainly Tory Issues."
The BBC, in an article referring to this year's election as being "The Social Media Election," notes some interesting takeaways from the conservative victory. According to the article, despite having earned more money during the campaign, the conservative party spent less money on targeted ads on Facebook than the Labour or Lib Dem: "We can't scientifically prove the effect ads have on persuading voters; but it is striking that the Lib Dems, who had a bad election, spent more than the Conservatives, who had a great one."
The article also refers back to Twitter as a "handmaiden to appalling abuse and the proliferation of fake news," and cites this as a reason people may not be relying on things they see on Twitter when they are choosing how to vote in the election.
The conservative press Twitter account also went through a curious temporary rebrand through the duration of the general election this year.
This was considered to be incredibly problematic and misleading, and allowed the account to tweet pro-conservative rhetoric and provide association with the word "fact."
According to an article written for The Guardian, "In a statement, Twitter said the Conservatives had misled the public and it would take 'decisive corrective action' if a similar stunt was attempted again. 'Twitter is committed to facilitating healthy debate throughout the UK general election,' said a spokesperson.
'We have global rules in place that prohibit behaviour that can mislead people, including those with verified accounts. Any further attempts to mislead people by editing verified profile information – in a manner seen during the UK election debate – will result in decisive corrective action.'"
The United Kingdom aren't the only ones finding themselves in some sticky situations when it comes to electoral campaigns. The United States have found themselves under scrutiny with many aspects of the 2016 general election, in which Donald Trump was elected as the 45th president.
I was in high school during the time of the election, and followed everything closely on social media, which is now being accredited as the reason for Trump's victory by Brad Parscale, digital director for the president-elect in an article for Wired.
"Our biggest incubator that allowed us to generate that money was Facebook," says Parscale, who has been working for the campaign since before Trump officially announced his candidacy a year and a half ago. Over the course of the election cycle, Trump's campaign funneled $90 million to Parscale's San Antonio-based firm, most of which went toward digital advertising. And Parscale says more of that ad money went to Facebook than to any other platform."
Donald Trump used Twitter advertisement in a way that no other candidate in the United States has done before him- and dropped millions of dollars in the process. Yet, how is it possible that the conservative party in the UK won the election and spent less money than ever on targeted ads on Facebook? Does this have something to do with audience demographics or is it simply that in the shorter timeframe of the UK election, other forms of advertising are more effective? .
The concept that social media platforms have the potential power to influence full elections is one that frightens me, especially in the rapidly evolving digital world we currently live in. I find it to be incredibly interesting that while Twitter is publicly perceived as a platform of trolls and abuse, and Facebook is is reputed as a site that perpetuates fake news, these social media platforms still have influence. The sheer volume of social media users in the US and UK demonstrate that.
As the number of active users on social media continues to climb, as younger generations grow older and are growing up with such technology, and the capabilities of digital technology and social media continue to develop, regulation needs to catch up. The spreading of misinformation needs to be taken more seriously than a "statement from Twitter" reprimanding a political party- or it could be to the detriment of all of us, regardless of whether we are in the US or the UK.
References:
https://econsultancy.com/the-uk-and-us-digital-markets-consumer-culture-differences-and-commonality/
Comments