Interest groups on social media: Four forms of networked advocacy

Abstract

The affordances of social media both constrain and enable new forms of political advocacy. The present study identifies four forms of networked advocacy and analyses these with emphasis on constituencies, platforms, activities, and aims. Based on over 40 semistructured elite interviews with interest group leaders and heads of communication, it first finds that interviewees distinguish between social media platforms, tailoring content and genre, to target intended audiences. Second, it finds that social media affordances make awareness‐raising and community‐building more efficient and purposeful for all groups. At the same time, only large organizations with bigger budgets, credibility, technical knowhow, and political relations, systematically engage in networked mobilization and lobbying. Third, interviewees representing these resourceful organizations underline that Twitter represents a new efficient form of middle‐stage lobbying. The study contributes empirical insights into the aims and strategies behind networked advocacy among different groups within one policy field in a local, non‐American context. Theoretically, it combines insights from networked media logics, social affordances, and interest group advocacy to conceptualize how networked media can afford a new form of lobbying conducted as real‐time, semi‐private direct communication with decision makers.

Lobbying Inside (and) Out: Interest Group Behavior on Social Media

“…Our future systematic analyses may help to parse out some of these questions. Given the high number of posts that are currently getting coded as both inside AND outside lobbying, can we provide additional support for Figenschou and Fredheim's (2020) finding that social media can serve as a unique middle-stage form of lobbying, somewhere between inside and outside?…”

“…Obar, Zube and Lampe (2012) found that advocacy organizations favored Facebook for facilitating civic engagement and collective action. A study of Norwegian interest groups working in the health care sector found that organizations used Facebook for a wide range of activities, including educating the public and their membership, attracting members and funders, and mobilizing political action (Figenschou and Fredheim 2020). They used Twitter as a tool for direct communication with policymakers and other stakeholders.…”

“…Although some studies have examined interest groups' use of social media for inside and outside lobbying purposes, most have considered European contexts (e.g. Chalmers andShotton 2016, Figenschou andFredheim 2020) or very small samples (100 organizations or fewer) of American interest groups (Bortree andSeltzer 2009, Lovejoy, Waters andSaxton 2012). Our pa-per investigates these questions in the American context, using a much larger sample of American interest groups and their activity on two social media platforms.…”

“…Calls to action were less common in the hand-coded sub-samples, though they did occur. Some posts and tweets contained elements of both inside and outside lobbying, illustrating the "middle stage" discussed by Figenschou and Fredheim (2020). These posts were coded as both inside and outside lobbying.…”

“Hey there in the Night”: The Strategies, Dilemmas and Costs of a Personalized Digital Lobbying Campaign

“…With new communication technologies and platforms, ordinary people have gained opportunities to influence the form and content of news and public debates. Social media in particular represent an open, low-cost opportunity to provide information, mobilize supporters, raise funds, interact with multiple constituencies (Guo & Saxton, 2014;Lovejoy, Waters & Saxton, 2012;Vromen, 2017), and network with decision makers to achieve political impact (Figenschou & Fredheim, 2019). Extant studies of such personalized political communication and digital activism have largely focused on professional actors such as governments, interest groups or news professionals.…”