Integrated Media Literacy

Photo by Josh Barwick on Unsplash

Across the globe, political campaigns are increasingly leveraging the power of data and psychological insights to gain an edge in elections. The digital age has ushered in an era where vast amounts of online information are analyzed to understand and influence voters, leading to a significant shift in political marketing strategies.

The convergence of big data and neuromarketing has become a defining characteristic of modern political processes. Technology giants now play a crucial role, offering sophisticated tools for online microtargeting that allow campaigns to deliver tailored messages to specific voter segments. This new reality, while offering unprecedented opportunities for targeted communication, also raises fundamental questions about the nature of political engagement and the integrity of democratic processes.

The ability to analyze online activities and emotional responses has given rise to what some might term the “big data president” phenomenon. This approach, with its potential to subtly shape political behavior, presents challenges to traditional notions of informed consent and raises concerns about the quality of democratic discourse. The effectiveness of these new scientific tools and modeling techniques in political marketing, while often leading to electoral success, has become a significant point of discussion regarding the health of democracy.

The Rise of Political Neuromarketing 2.0

The increasing reliance on data analytics has led to the evolution of “political neuromarketing 2.0.” This involves the meta-psychometric analysis of political consumers’ big data to understand their responses to political marketing without their conscious participation.

Unlike traditional neuromarketing, which often employed direct brain-imaging technologies, political neuromarketing 2.0 harnesses the vast quantities of data generated by online activity to create detailed psychological profiles of voters. This enables campaigns to gain insights into the subconscious drivers of voter behavior.

How Big Data Became a Political Weapon

Big data 2.0 can be simply defined as a “general term for the massive amount of digital data being collected from all sorts of sources” in the Web 2.0 era (Kim et al., 2014, p. 78). This data, characterized by its volume, velocity, and variety (Lycett, 2013), and sometimes also veracity and value (Rajaraman, 2016), is too large and unstructured for conventional analysis. The sheer scale of this data is staggering, with billions of bytes added daily (Jacobson, 2013). This has led to a “data-industrial complex” with significant revenue opportunities across various sectors, including government (IDC, 2016).

The digital age has given rise to “Virtual Politics,” a parallel realm where political phenomena increasingly unfold within online societies. In the context of political marketing, every individual essentially possesses a digital twin, leaving behind a unique trail of “digital fingerprints” through everyday online interactions. These traces – from search queries and social media posts to online purchases and location data – are meticulously collected and analyzed using advanced techniques. This process transforms raw data into high-value information, providing politicians worldwide with invaluable insights. Consequently, big data 2.0 has become the essential fuel driving modern political marketing strategies.

Big data 2.0 is employed in political marketing through several key approaches:

• Political Asset: Extensive datasets of personal information are gathered and utilized by political marketers to understand potential voters.
• Political Intelligence: This data undergoes analysis using artificial intelligence and machine learning to discern voter preferences, attitudes, and emotional responses.
• Political Influence: The insights gained are used to microtarget voters with specific messages crafted to influence their political views and actions (Hankey, 2019).

The “congruency principle” plays a significant role in this process, suggesting that voters tend to favor candidates whose traits align with their own (Caprara and Zimbardo, 2004, p. 581). By analyzing big data, campaigns can identify voter personality traits and then tailor their candidate’s image, messaging, and policy proposals to resonate with specific voter groups. This “personalization of the electoral process” aims to forge a deeper connection between voters and candidates, often operating at a subconscious level (Vecchione et al., 2011, p. 260).

The Evolution of Microtargeting in Elections

The use of online voter microtargeting has become increasingly prevalent in many democratic nations. Initially used in a limited capacity, it has evolved into a central component of modern political campaigning (Panagopoulos, 2015). Early examples demonstrated the power of data-driven strategies to identify and engage specific voter segments with tailored messaging. Over time, campaigns have become increasingly sophisticated in their use of social networks and online platforms for microtargeting (Anstead, 2017; Kim et al., 2018; Kruschinski and Haller, 2017). This has led to a new era of “big data-driven political marketing,” raising questions about the ethical implications and potential for manipulation (Boehm, 2015; Panagopoulos, 2015).

Navigating the Implications for Democracy

The rise of political neuromarketing 2.0 presents significant challenges for democratic societies. The ability to subtly influence and potentially manipulate voters’ subconscious raises ethical concerns about the autonomy of voters and the integrity of elections (Gorton, 2016). There is a growing need for research and discussion regarding the impact of these new political marketing approaches on democratic processes.

As technology continues its rapid advancement, the interplay between big data, neuromarketing, and political campaigning will likely intensify. Understanding the mechanisms and potential consequences of these techniques is crucial for safeguarding the fundamental principles of democracy in an increasingly digital world. The evolving landscape of political marketing necessitates ongoing scrutiny and a broader societal dialogue about the ethical boundaries and regulatory frameworks needed to ensure fair and transparent elections.

Source: The effect of political neuromarketing 2.0 on election outcomes: The case of Trump’s presidential campaign 2016

References:

• Anstead, N. (2017). The rise of the data-driven campaign in the United States and the United Kingdom. International Journal of Communication, 11, 1691-1708.
• Boehm, E. (2015). The data brokers: Selling your personal information. ProPublica.
• Caprara, G. V., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2004). Personalizing politics: A congruency model of political preference. American Psychologist, 59(7), 581–594.   
• Gorton, T. J. (2016). Online political microtargeting: Promises and pitfalls. Journal of Political Marketing, 15(1), 1-18.
• Hankey, B. (2019). Tactical Tech. [Reference to the work or publications of Hankey and Tactical Tech related to data in political marketing].
• IDC. (2016). Worldwide Semiannual Big Data and Analytics Spending Guide.
• Jacobson, S. (2013). IBM: 90% of data generated today was created in the last two years. Data Center Knowledge.
• Kim, S. H., Hong, J. H., & Lee, J. K. (2018). The impact of social media on political participation: Evidence from the US presidential election. Telematics and Informatics, 35(8), 2153-2163.
• Kim, W., Choi, S., Park, S. H., & Oh, J. (2014). What is big data in healthcare? Healthcare Informatics Research, 20(2), 78-83.
• Kruschinski, S., & Haller, J. (2017). The personalization of politics: How social media platforms shape political campaigns. Information, Communication & Society, 20(10), 1529-1546.
• Lycett, M. (2013). Data explosion: Challenges and opportunities. Strategic Direction, 29(8), 3-5.
• Panagopoulos, C. (2015). Political microtargeting: The state of the field. Journal of Political Marketing, 14(1-2), 1-16.
• Rajaraman, A. (2016). Big data analytics. In Encyclopedia of Database Systems (pp. 1-6). Springer.
• Vecchione, M., Caprara, G. V., & Dentale, F. (2011). The personalization of the electoral process: The impact of candidates’ personality traits on voting decisions. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 638(1), 259–271.

Book Recommendation:

For readers interested in delving deeper into the ethical and societal implications of data-driven political campaigns, I recommend “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power” by Shoshana Zuboff.