Reputation and Brand Management by Political Parties: Party Vetting of Election Candidates in Canada

Gatekeeping by Central and Local Party Actors: Theory and Evidence from a Field Study of New Brunswick Nominations, 2017–2018

“…Party leaders can refuse to sign non-preferred candidates’ nomination papers (Courtney, 1978; Cross, 2006; Erickson and Carty, 1991). Vetting committees can prevent non-preferred candidates from running by rejecting their candidate applications (Marland and DeCillia, 2020; Pruysers and Cross, 2016). Central party organizations can manipulate the dates of nominating conventions to make it more difficult for non-preferred candidates to run or win (Pruysers and Cross, 2016; Thomas and Morden, 2019).…”

“…Party leaders and their staff realized that they could use this power as a “leader's veto.” They could block unacceptable candidates by refusing to sign their nomination papers, even if the candidates had won the nomination through a nominating convention (Courtney, 1978; Erickson and Carty, 1991). Since the 1990s, Canadian parties have adopted candidate-vetting processes that require candidates to submit candidate applications and undergo background checks (Marland and DeCillia, 2020). Over time, this vetting process has come to include in-depth social media checks by party researchers.…”

“…For over a century, the expectation in Canadian parties has been that party delegates, members or supporters in each riding should pick candidates at local nominating conventions (Carty, 2002; Farney and Koop, 2018; Siegfried, 1906). However, there is mounting evidence that both central party actors (such as party leaders, their staff, or party executive directors) and local party actors (such as riding association executives) exert influence over candidate selection behind the scenes (Cheng and Tavits, 2011; Cross, 2006, 2016; Cross and Prusyers, 2019; Koop and Bittner, 2011; Marland and DeCillia, 2020; Pruysers and Cross, 2016; Thomas and Morden, 2019; Tolley, 2019). Given the evidence that central and local actors can influence the outcomes of candidate selection, Cross (2018) reconceptualizes candidate selection as an area of shared authority rather than local autonomy.…”

Social media analytics for nonprofit marketing: #Downsyndrome on Twitter and Instagram

“…As Zhang et al argue, “social media reflect underlying social dynamics and values” and provide a “treasure” to social media marketers, strategic communicators, and institutional actors alike (Zhang et al, 2019, p. 182). The opportunities offered by UGC in humanitarian emergencies and natural disasters, as well as in nonprofit marketing and crisis management situations, have been well documented (Akhgar et al, 2017; Marland & DeCillia, 2020; Ozanne et al, 2020). UGC is usually monitored and analyzed in real‐time through automated processes, with the aim of being able to adapt and change tactics and thus potentially improve an overall social media marketing strategy.…”

Expressing one's opinions freely on politicians using parodies: Effect of the sources of political parodies (user‐ vs. media‐generated parodies)

“…As commercial and political contexts are perceived as essentially similar from a marketing perspective (Kaskeala, 2010; Kotler & Keller, 2006; O'Shaughnessy, 2001), political marketing has been defined as “the process by which political candidates and ideas are directed at the citizens to satisfy their political needs and thus gain their support for the candidate and ideas in question” (Shama, 1975, p. 106). To achieve this goal and gain support from citizens, politicians, like any other brand, may rely on political communication and message dissemination to promote and monitor their online and offline reputation (Maarek, 2014; Marland & DeCillia, 2020; Yoon et al, 2005). Message dissemination includes development of persuasive messages and political advertisements (Fossen et al, 2020; Fulgoni et al, 2016) and lines of defense against threats and opposition messaging disseminated online and offline (Boler, 2008; Newman & Davies, 2006).…”