Oh Snap: Chat Style in the 2016 US Presidential Primaries
Abstract
Based on Goffman’s theories of self-presentation and framing, this exploratory investigation adapted Videostyle and Webstyle protocols to analyse the 2016 US presidential primary candidates’ Snapchat posts. This quantitative content analysis (N = 871) coded for the visual content, production techniques, nonverbal content and frames used by the five candidates who used Snapchat as a strategic tool to engage voters throughout the course of the 2016 US primary campaign. The results indicate Clinton (D) deviated from the other candidates in the visual and nonverbal content as well as the frames used in her snaps. The implications of these findings on gendered self-presentation theory as well as inferences about the campaigns’ strategic social media motivations and effectiveness are also explored.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
References
Adams A., & McCorkindale T. (2013). Dialogue and transparency: A content analysis of how the 2012 presidential candidates used Twitter. Public Relations Review, 39(4), 357–359.
Aguinis H., Simonsen M. M., & Pierce C. A. (1998). Effects of nonverbal behavior on perceptions of power bases. Journal of Social Psychology, 138(3), 455–469.
Baker A., & Stromer-Galley J. (2006). Joy and sorrow on interactivity on the campaign trail: Blogs in the primary campaign of Howard Dean. In Williams A., & Tedesco J. (Eds), Internet election. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Banwart M. C. (2002). Videostyle and webstyle in 2000: Comparing the gender differences of candidate presentations in political advertising and on the Internet (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://shareok.org/handle/11244/464
Brantner C., Lobinger K., & Wetzstein I. (2011). Effects of visual framing on emotional responses and evaluations of news stories about the Gaza conflict 2009. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 88(3), 523–540.
Bystrom D. (2014). Advertising, web sites, and media coverage: Gender and communication along the campaign trail. In Carroll S. J., & Fox R. L. (Eds), Gender and elections: Shaping the future of American politics (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Bystrom D. G., Robertson T., Banwart M. C., & Kaid L. L. (Eds). (2004). Gender and candidate communication: Videostyle, webstyle, newstyle. New York, NY: Routledge.
Dimitrova D. V., & Bystrom D. (2013). The effects of social media on political participation and candidate image evaluations in the 2012 Iowa Caucuses. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(11), 1568–1583.
Donath J., & Boyd D. (2004). Public displays of connection. BT Technology Journal, 22(4), 71–82.
DMR Stats/Gadgets (2016, July 2). By the numbers: 80 amazing Snapchat statistics. Retrieved from http://expandedramblings.com/index.php/snapchat-statistics/
Filimonov K., Russman U., & Svennsoon J. (2016). Picturing the party: Instagram and party campaigning in the 2014 Swedish elections, Social Media and Society, 2, 1–11.
Frier S. (2016a, June 2). Snapchat passes Twitter in daily usage. Bloomberg Technology. Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-02/snapchat-passes-twitter-in-daily-usage
Frier S. (2016b, April 28). Snapchat user ‘stories’ fuel 10 billion daily video views. Bloomberg Technology. Retrieved from http://expandedramblings.com/index.php/snapchat-statistics/
Goffman E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc.
Goffman E. (1974). Frame analysis. New York, NY: Northeastern University Press.
Goodnow T. (2013). Facing off: A comparative analysis of Obama and Romney Facebook timeline photographs. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(11), 1584–95.
Gordon A., & Miller J. (2005). When stereotypes collide: Race/ethnicity, gender, and videostyle in congressional campaigns (Vol. 4). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Grabe M., & Bucy E. (2009). Image bite politics: News and the visual framing of elections. New York: Oxford University Press.
Graham T., Broersma M., Hazelhoff K., & van’t Haar G. (2013). Between broadcasting political messages and interacting with voters. Information, Communication, & Society, 16(5), 692–716.
Hackett R. (2016, March 1). Snapchat video traffic has caught up with Facebook. Fortune. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2016/03/01/snapchat-facebook-video-views-2/
Highfield T., & Leaver T. (2015). A methodology for mapping Instagram Hashtags. First Monday, 20(1). Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v20i1.5563
Holiday S., Lewis M. J., & LaBaugh J. L. (2015). Are you talking to me? The socio-political visual rhetoric of the Syrian presidency’s Instagram account. Southwestern Mass Communication Journal, 30(2), 1–27.
Holsti O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Jamieson A. (2016, April 5). The first Snapchat election: How Bernie and Hillary are targeting the youth vote. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/05/snapchat-election-2016-sanders-clinton-youth-millennial-vote
Johnston A., & Kaid L. L. (2002). Image ads and issue ads in US presidential advertising: Using videostyle to explore stylistic differences in televised political ads from 1952 to 2000. Journal of Communication, 52(2), 281–300.
Kahneman D., & Tversky A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39(4), 341–50.
Kaid L. L. (2002). Videostyle and political advertising effects in the 2000 presidential Campaign. In Denton R. E. (Ed.), The 2000 presidential campaign: A communication perspective (pp. 183–197). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Kaid L. L. (2009). Videostyle in the 2008 presidential advertising. In Denton R.E. (Ed.), The 2008 presidential campaign: A communication perspective (pp. 209–227). Lantham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Kaid L. L., & Davidson D. K. (1986). Elements of videostyle: Candidate presentation through television advertising. In Kaid L. L., Nimmo D., & Sanders K. R. (Eds), New perspectives on political advertising (pp. 184–209). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Kaid L. L., & Johnston A. (2001). Videostyle in presidential campaigns: Style and content of televised political advertising. New York, NY: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Kim J. Y., Painter D. L., & Miles M. A. (2013). Campaign agenda-building online: Emotions, evaluations, and important perceptions. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 10(3), 326–340.
Knapp M. L., Hall J. A., & Horgan T. G. (2014). Nonverbal communication in human interaction. Boston: Wadsworth.
Kruikemeier S. (2014). How political candidates use Twitter and the impact on votes. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 131–139.
Kruikemeier S., Aparashviei A. P., Boomgaarden H. G., Van Noort G., & Vliegenthart R. (2015). Party and candidate websites: A comparative explanatory analysis. Mass Communication & Society, 18(6), 821–850.
Lee J. (2016). President’s visual presentation in their official photos: A cross-cultural analysis of the US and South Korea. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 3(1), 1–14.
Levenshus A. (2010). Online relationship management in a presidential campaign: A case study of the Obama campaign’s management of its Internet-integrated grassroots effort. Journal of Public Relations Research, 22(3), 313–335.
Lev-On A. (2012). YouTube usage in low-visibility political campaigns. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 9(2), 205–216.
Munoz C. L., & Towner T. L. (2017). The image is the message: Instagram marketing and the 2016 presidential primary season. Journal of Political Marketing, 29, 1537–7857.
Nadkarni A., & Hofmann S. G. (2012). Why do people use Facebook? Personality and Individual Differences, 52(3), 243–249.
Nesbit D. D. (1988). Videostyle in senate campaigns. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.
Pew Research Center (2015, April 8). Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat top social media platforms for teens. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/09/teens-social-media-technology-2015/pi_2015-04-09_teensandtech_01/
Rutenberg J. (2016, April 24). In this Snapchat campaign, election news is big and then it’s gone. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/25/business/media/snapchat-election-campaign-news.html?_r=0
Schill D. (2012). The visual image and political image: A review of visual communication research in the field of political communication. Review of Communication, 12(2), 118–142.
Seidman G. (2013). Self-presentation and belonging on Facebook: How personality influences social media use and motivations. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(3), 402–407.
Seo H. (2014). Visual propaganda in the age of social media: An empirical analysis of Twitter images during the 2012 Israeli-Hamas conflict. Visual Communication Quarterly, 25(3), 150–161.
Shannon C. E., & Weaver W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Sweetser K. D. (2011). Digital political public relations. In Stromback J., & Kiousis S. (Eds), Political public relations: Principles and applications (pp. 293–313). New York: Routledge.
Sweetser K. D., & Lariscy R. W. (2008). Candidates make good friends: An analysis of Candidates’ uses of Facebook. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 2(3), 175–198.
Utz S., Tanis M., & Vermeulen I. (2012). It is all about being popular: The effects of need for popularity on social network site use. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(1), 37–42.
Vesnic-Alujevic L., & Van Bauwel S. (2014). YouTube: A political advertising tool? A case study of the use of YouTube in the campaign for the European Parliament elections 2009. Journal of Political Marketing, 13(3), 195–212.
West D. M. (1994). Television advertising in election campaigns. Political Science Quarterly, 109(5), 789–809.
Williams C. B., & Gulati G. J. (2012). Social networks in political campaigns: Facebook and the congressional elections of 2006 and 2008. New Media & Society, 15(1), 52–71.
Zhao S., Grasmuck S., & Martin J. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 1816–1836.
Biographies
Eisa Al Nashmi (PhD) is an Assistant Professor at the Mass Communication Department, Kuwait University. The author’s research interests include online journalism, political communication and journalism education.
David Lynn Painter (PhD) is at the Department of Communication, Rollins College, Florida. The author’s research interests focus on political campaign communication, with particular expertise in social media engagement and television advertising.
Cite article
Cite article
Cite article
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published online: December 25, 2017
Issue published: March 2018
Keywords
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Journals metrics
This article was published in Journal of Creative Communications.
VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICSArticle usage*
Total views and downloads: 762
*Article usage tracking started in December 2016
Altmetric
See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores
Articles citing this one
Receive email alerts when this article is cited
Web of Science: 4 view articles Opens in new tab
Crossref: 6
-
Tell Me an Instagram Story: Ephemeral Communication and the 2018 Guber...
-
A Long Story Short: An Analysis of Instagram Stories during the 2020 C...
-
Networked gift-giving: Ethno-religious minority youths’ negotiation of...
-
360 Video Trend on YouTube Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic
-
From archive cultures to ephemeral content, and back: Studying Instagr...
-
The Digital Architectures of Social Media: Comparing Political Campaig...
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
Get access
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
loading institutional access options
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
