GraylingPlugged-in Report

Singapore General Election 2011May 2011

Why are you reading this?In the Singapore General Election 2011, the national political parties were allowed to campaign using social media for the first time ever. With approximately 74% of internet users in Singapore on facebook, close to 1 million tweeting and as many as 7 out of 10 writing blogs, the potential impact of digital politics is immense. The engagement levels enjoyed by certain politcians are well documented, but at Grayling we wanted to drill deeper to measure not just the volume of noise, but also who was saying what, where, how and when. Using our unique online monitoring tools we have compiled the following report that assesses the online penetration of five leading political parties.

A word on methodology…This report is a comparative study of conversations taking place outside official party channels, in blogs, forums, microblogs, comments and news sites. No party facebook pages, twitter accounts or websites are included in the study, though some individual candidate blogs are. In order to return accurate results, all comparisons exclude other parties or events – for instance, the percentage of votes polled (page 3) is the percentage from total votes polled by the assessed parties, not the percentage of votes polled in the election as a whole. Similarly, in order to assess metrics such as sentiment in a like-for-like manner, figures are normalised, rather than evaluated as raw figures, as some parties generated significantly more buzz than others. Posts have been analysed by man and machine to ensure their relevancy and to avoid skewed results. The parties assessed are: the People’s Action Party (PAP), the Workers’ Party (WP), the National Solidarity Party (NSP), the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) and the Singapore People’s Party (SPP). The study was conducted for four weeks, from 10 April to 7 May.

The interesting stuff… Executive summary 2Share of voice 3Sentiment 4Conversation spikes 5Channels 6Influencers 7

1

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2

Results of the study show several interesting findings for digital communicators, including how other aspects of an integrated campaign can influence online conversation.

Lots of noise doesn’t mean everyone is listeningFirstly, a share of voice does not translate into direct results. All opposition parties enjoyed a higher share of voice than the percentage of either the votes polled or seats awarded. This can partly be explained by the fact that share of voice includes neutral and negative mentions, as well as positive ones, so not every online comment would translate into an advocate or vote. In addition, the share of voice is not geographically defined. It is important to drive conversation in target markets or areas. For instance, based on election results, we can assume that though the NSP had a greater share of voice than the WP (16% v 15%) those people mentioning them (NSP) were spread across Singapore rather than being concentrated in key areas.

It is people with a problem who speak upBeing an established entity tends to drive mentions, with PAP generating nearly three times as many mentions as its closest competitor, the WP. However, this also meant the PAP had the largest proportion of negative comments – in fact it had more negative mentions than any party (PAP included) had positive mentions. People were more likely to engage with the election in order to criticise rather than support. With regards to sentiment, the percentage of positive mentions more accurately reflects voting patterns. Only the PAP and WP achieved significant proportions of positive mentions.

Offline events mean online engagementSpikes in mentions and search do not directly correlate, indicating that an increase in awareness and interest (search) does not automatically result in an increase in engagement (mentions). Spikes appeared on both levels in the days of, or immediately following, the election and major rallies. Engagement was driven by real-life events which provided users with direct reference points and opportunities to post firsthand content.

Advocates get involved at crucial timesThe channel that generated most mentions was microblogs (namely Twitter). Users were more likely to make brief comments or share links than they were to produce lengthy content such as blogs or forum posts. This was particularly relevant during election week and especially as results were announced. Microblog sentiment in election week revealed more positive mentions, indicating that advocates are more likely to post online in the immediate lead-up to an actual event.

News outlets start onversations, individuals spread them In terms of which users made most mentions, the online portals of traditional news outlets posted much more frequently than any individual blogger or microblogger. The proportion of total mentions made via news sites, however, was significantly smaller. News sites serve to provide regular and reliable information and start the conversation – it’s social users who take the content and popularise it online. There is a large number of social users who made frequent mentions, many of whom have high followings and influence, which highlights the importance of engaging both traditional and social media.

Following the General Election 2011, the PAP continues to dominate the Singapore parliament, though the party received a lower percentage of votes than in previous years. The PAP also enjoyed the largest online share of voice, though as a percentage of total buzz it was significantly smaller than both the percentage of seats and votes won. Although the NSP failed to win a seat in parliament, it enjoyed the second largest online share of voice.

Online share of voice is important, but it doesn’t account for spread over electoral constituencies, thus explaining why buzz didn’t necessarily translate into votes and seats. In addition the total share of voice does not evaluate the manner in which parties were mentioned.

SHARE OF VOICE

Seats won in Singapore GE 2011 (%)

Votes received in Singapore GE 2011

(% of total votes cast for five focus parties)

Online share of voiceSingapore GE 2011

(% of total mentions offive focus parties)

PAP WP NSP SDP SPP

93

7

13

5

2

65

14

16

13

7

49

15

3

SENTIMENT

Positive Neutral Negative100

80

60

40

20

0PAP WP NSP SDP SPP

Data is normalised with 100 representing the highest level of mentions within the study. Other volumes of mention are divided

by the highest level to produce all other points on the chart.

In the four weeks leading up to the election the PAP was the party mentioned most frequently online, but it wasn’t always good news. While more supportive comments were made about the PAP than any other party, the incumbents were actually mentioned negatively more frequently than positively. Netizens felt more strongly about voicing their dissatisfaction with the PAP than sharing their support or admiration for an opposition party. Conversely, opposition parties were barely referred to negatively at all.

The opposition’s share of voice peaked in weeks two and three, fuelled first by a rapid increase in NSP mentions and then a surge in SDP related conversations. Significantly, mentions were primarily neutral and did not translate into mass positive conversation. After week one the WP maintained a consistent share of voice though this gradually became more positive, a trend reflected by the PAP. Other opposition parties, on the other hand, were mentioned less frequently and less positively in election week than earlier in their campaigns.

Overall

Weekly Week 1 Week 2

Week 3 Week 4

4

CONVERSATION SPIKES

WP SPP SDP PAP NSPBuzz

Search

Unsurprisingly, most mentions of each party came during the election weekend. The buzz dwarved other online conversation peaks. Search volume, on the other hand, saw parties achieve more consistent peaks throughout, while all opposition parties other than WP actually peaked before election day. This would suggest that offline events like speeches and news frequently influence search but only particpatory events and gatherings have a strong influence on online conversation.

Party by party

PAP

WP NSP

SDP SPP

Aside from election weekend, the time at which each party saw the closest correlation between online conversation and search volume was within a day of a major rally. In addition to generating news headlines and awareness, major rallies resulted in firsthand content from attendees in the form of blogs, comments, photos and videos.

5

Buzz Search Peaks

29 April 30 April

4 May 2 May

4 May

CHANNELS

Throughout the campaign conversation was generated through blogs, news sites, comments, forums and social media, but in election week itself the overwhelming majority of online mentions of the contesting parties were made through microblogging, or more specifically Twitter. With the exception of the SDP all parties were mentioned at least three times more frequently in microblogs than regular blog posts. The easy and succinct nature of platforms like Twitter was the choice of an engaged electorate who wished to voice their opinions instantly. This was particularly relevant on election day as netizens awaited and then shared results from different constituencies.

Week 4 conversations by channel (%)1. Microblogs 2. News 3. Blogs 4. Comments

Microblog sentiment (normalised)

16

5

74

5

12

12

70

6

24

1

59

16

18

0

64

18

7

0

76

17

Microblog sentiment in election week saw a big upsurge in positive mentions of parties, when compared to total online sentiment at any other stage of the campaign. The SPP was the exception and was mentioned negatively more frequently than positively, a trend reflected in a drop in votes year-on-year, while the WP was the only party mentioned positively more often than neutrally. Negative mentions of the PAP were only slightly fewer than positive mentions. Microblogging sentiment in election week bears the closest reflection to actual voting patterns, with proportion of positive mentions of opposition parties comparing to actual votes.

6

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

INFLUENCERS

Sites which mention PAP most frequently

Sites which mention WP most frequently

Sites which mention NSP most frequently

Sites which mention SDP most frequently

Sites which mention SPP most frequently

The frequency with which a site mentioned a party is demonstrated by the size of it’s name. Sizes are dettermined in

relevance to the most frequent poster, or largest name.

In all cases, parties were mentioned most frequently by the online portals of traditional media outlets. Only the two parties who ultimately entered parliament received similar levels of conversation outside of news sites, accurately demonstrating their popularity with the masses.

The overall majority of mentions did not come from traditional media sites, rather from regular bloggers and numerous microbloggers. Thus it is illustrated that established news sites are instrumental in providing frequent and reliable information and ultimately in starting conversations.

Non-news site influencersExcluding news sites, there are many blogs, forums and microbloggers which consistently discussed the 2011GE, highlighting the importance of engaging with voters online in future elections.

7

Non-news sites which most frequently mentioned political parties

Peter McFeelySenior digital consultant

+65 6325 4606peter.mcfeely@grayling.com

Grayling Singapore6 Shenton Way #12-08ADBS Building Tower Two

Singapore 068809