P1: C-152-Gronke
Gronke WL040/Bidgoli-Vol III-Ch-07 July 11, 2003 11:45 Char Count= 0
POLITICALINSTITUTIONS:THEINTERNET AS ATOOL OFMOBILIZATION 91extensions increases stickiness and improves a page aes-
thetically. Likewise, added customizability allows site
owners to tailor messages to a specific audience, be that
audience political or commercial. With such advantages
come tradeoffs, however, both in time and money and in
heightened consumer expectations.
The incorporation of images, sound, and movies was
described previously in emphasizing the democratization
of new technologies for the purposes of discussion and
debate. These same technologies tend to originate in the
hands of those with a major Web presence: large and well-
established interest groups, political parties, and their
preferred candidates. Smaller interest groups, fringe po-
litical parties, and less well-funded political candidates
have slowly followed suit. The same trickle-down trends
have held for extensions of Web pages, such as message
boards, chat rooms, and opinion polls. To enhance a site in
these ways requires significant monetary investments for
both site creation and maintenance. The sites are phys-
ically larger, consuming disk space, processor capacity,
and bandwidth that previously were unneeded. Content
creation requires yet more equipment as well as user
training and the time inherent in recording, editing, and
polishing. Finally, software packages for features such as
message boards may be used “off the shelf,” but typically
customization is needed above and beyond installation
(not to mention policing of posts and other clerical work).
The payoff cited by Sadow and James in the commercial
realm is tangible, but so are the expenses.
Customization is another dilemma altogether. As the
drive to push campaigning online grows in coming years,
candidates and interest groups will feel obligated to ad-
just their sites to the desires of each individual user (or
at the very least each class of users). Business has already
begun to deal with the pros and cons of customizing sites,
and the experiences of such corporations are instructive
for coming applications to the political sphere. J. Scott
Sanchez, formerly employed by Procter & Gamble and
now part of Intuit’s Quicken team, notes thatOne of the long held goals of traditional mar-
keters has been to send the right message to the
right person, since every consumer tends to have
a slightly different view of things. In the past, this
was impossible and marketers just relied on mass
advertising to try to get a consistent message to
as many people as possible. However, with the
advent of the Internet, it will now be possible to
tailor messages to specific individuals. (Sanchez,
2000)Replace the word “consumer” with “voter” and “mar-
keters” with “campaign workers” and it yields an equally
compelling message.
The promise of customization is one of the driving
forces behind numerous online ventures, from Internet
portals (My Yahoo) to music sites (My.MP3.Com). Often
in registering for a custom site a user will provide the site
owner with marketing information such as an e-mail ad-
dress as well, adding to the allure. Although Sanchez notes
that “the message is perfectly targeted and its effective-
ness rockets upwards,” he also points out that “one of theinteresting repercussions of this individualized market-
ing, however, is that companies now may be held more
accountable for their promises. Because individuals are
receiving a tailored e-mail that promises to do a certain
task in a certain way, such as ‘gets the whites whiter,’ con-
sumers may feel betrayed if it does not.” Again, a paral-
lel exists in politics. Cass Sunstein, a legal scholar at the
University of Chicago, worries about the customization
of our Internet experience, because we are not forced to
confront opinions and ideologies different from our own
(Sunstein, 2002). Personalization of campaigns is prob-
lematic for campaigns as well. Although it does allow a
custom message to be delivered to a potential voter, a
politician or interest group opens the door to conflicting
or at mutually nonsatisfiable promises. After all, one of
the main reasons for political parties and elections is that
people are forced to choose among “bundles” of less than
ideal, yet feasible, alternatives. In the individualized world
of the Internet, everyone might feel that government must
satisfy his or her particular bundle of desires. The result,
according to one observer, could be “accelerated plural-
ism,” a further breaking down of coherent political com-
munities (Bimber, 1998).
Thus, candidates have found the Internet to be a viable
source for recruitment, campaign fundraising, and mobi-
lizing voters. The Internet, then, may empower individu-
als, but only if they are the sort of individuals that candi-
dates wish to reach. Furthermore, even if candidates, by
using the Internet, motivate far more citizens to partici-
pate, the individualization of the Internet experience may
result in an electorate that is more polarized and plural-
ized than at present.Interest Groups and Political
Parties on the Web
The Internet thus far has revolutionized commerce, as
well as much of day-to-day social interaction. The capa-
bility of the Internet to act as a post office and an inter-
active, worldwide accessible bulletin board, as well as a
real-time source of information, will likely impact the po-
litical arena in important ways. Beyond political candi-
dates, the role of intermediary groups in politics is likely
to be affected dramatically simply because the essence of
the Internet lies in its potential to connect. Intermediary
groups, organizations who act as the connecting tissue
between the mass public and the governmental elite, are
the political players most likely to benefit from the conve-
nient tools for communication and organization that the
Internet makes readily available.
The Internet lowers the cost of communication. There
are a number of regular chores the Internet makes easier
and faster. Because of the low transaction costs, some have
claimed that the Internet will result in a more even play-
ing field between interest groups with abundant resources
and those with much less. Indeed, some have even gone
so far as to say that the Web is “potentially the greatest
thing since the postal system and the telephone for politi-
cal groups” (Hill & Hughes, 1998, p. 133). Others however,
have claimed that, although the Internet may make things
cheaper overall, there are still prohibitive costs, and there,
as everywhere else, resources still matter. Regardless, the