Web 2.

0 in the Norwegian 2007 and 2009 Campaigns 1

_____________________________________________________________________

Web 2.0 in the Norwegian 2007 and 2009 Campaigns

Øyvind Kalnes

Lillehammer University College, NORWAY.

Paper for IAMCR Conference, July 21-24, 2009 in Mexico City

AUTHOR NOTE

Øyvind Kalnes is Assistant professor in Political Science at the University College of

Lillehammer, Norway. Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed

to: oyvind.kalnes@hil.no or Lillehammer University College, Pb 952, 2604

Lillehammer, NORWAY.

KEYWORDS

Norway, parties, campaigning, Web 2.0

Web 2.0 in the Norwegian 2007 and 2009 Campaigns 2
_____________________________________________________________________

Abstract
This paper analyses how Norwegian political parties have handled the appearance of
Web 2.0. It focuses on the campaign for the local elections in September 2007 and
the developments up to the forthcoming Parliamentary elections two years later.

By 2005 most parties had learned to use their Web sites as instruments for
professional political marketing. In this process of streamlining party presence on the
Web acquired the characteristics of what now is conceptualized as Web 1.0. But in
2007 Facebook became the most popular website in Norway, with YouTube rising to
number three. The political parties appeared bewildered by the Web 2.0
phenomenon, indicating a similar stage at which they were ten years earlier with
Web 1.0.

All seven parliamentary parties and four smaller parties outside parliament are
included in the analysis. The data consists of samples of party activity on Facebook,
YouTube and politicians' blogs, as well as an overview of other types of Web 2.0
activity. The data samples have been taken at regular intervals since spring 2007, up
to and including spring 2009. Hence, data from the campaign for the Parliamentary
elections in September 2009 is somewhat limited in this paper. Furthermore,
interviews with all party web managers were conducted in 2007 and will be supplied
with new interviews after the campaign.

The data is discussed on the background of an “e-ruption hypothesis” versus a “Web

1.5 – hypothesis”. While the first hypothesis expects Web 2.0 to have at least
potential for making changes in both internal party structure and party system
structure, the latter hypothesis expects continuity, rather than change. The central
topics are whether the emergence of Web 2.0, with its potential for grassroots
participation and networking, as well as multilateral interactivity, was a catalyst of
“e-ruptive” change towards greater pluralism in the party system or more grassroots
participation. The data so far indicate that in terms of party competition Web 2.0 has
had at best a weak pluralizing effect, as party visibility on Web 2.0 roughly reflects
party share of votes. While Web 2.0 temporarily appeared to have enhanced
participatory democracy in the sense of lowering the threshold for involvement of
party grassroots and –sympathizers, data from 2009 indicates that the party
organizations now are in the process of getting more control.
Web 2.0 in the Norwegian 2007 and 2009 Campaigns 3
_____________________________________________________________________

Introduction
Periods of technological transition invite to speculations about radical systemic
changes. Web 2.0 is shorthand for a new breed of Internet applications for
multilateral sharing, discussion and networking. Hence, it is the collective of users
that generates the contents, in contrast to an Internet based on unilaterality and a
strict separation between content producers and –users. The latter represents what
now is generally conceptualized as Web 1.0. While Tim Berners-Lee has protested
against this as an imprecise and artificial definition (cited in Anderson, 2006), it
nevertheless captures a trend in the development of the World Wide Web, which
“enable new ways of connectivity for networking, interfacing and producing
content” (Pascu et al., 2007) or generates “user participation, openness and network
effects" (O'Reilly 2005).
The scope of Web 2.0 applications varies enormously, but includes blogging,
podcasting, wikis, as well as peer-to-peer and social networking sites. As long as
users are co-producers and networking is provided for one might, like Pascu et al
(2007) also include search engines, auction Web sites, games, and Voice-over-IP
services. Web sites may therefore also be hybrids containing Web 1.0 elements side
by side with Web 2.0 elements, tilted more or less towards one side or the other.
This article discusses the Norwegian political parties’ adaption to the Web 2.0
phenomenon, focusing on election campaigning. In the course of roughly a fifteen
year period these parties have adapted to the rise of the Internet and established
their presence on the Web. By 2005 this presence had taken the form of party Web
sites geared towards professional political marketing, conforming to a standard
resembling Web 1.0. If this represents a consolidation mirroring the standard
business of politics, would it reasonable to expect that a Web 2.0 might trigger
changes in how parties and activists operate on the World Wide Web (WWW) - or
even how they operate as actual organizations?

A rationale for the adoption of ICT in party politics

The introduction suggests a tension between web technologies as instruments
supporting parties in doing politics as usual and being agents of change. Party theory
Web 2.0 in the Norwegian 2007 and 2009 Campaigns 4
_____________________________________________________________________
suggests that parties, due to institutionally conditioned resistance and learning,
would resist or attempt to add web technologies as another “instrument” grafted
onto the party organization. As noted by Harmel & Janda (1994: 265): “Party change
does not just happen…”, it involves decision-making, often against “a wall of
resistance common to large organizations” (1994: 261) … “A high level of
institutionalization will therefore tend to stifle the effects of factors promoting
change”. Established parties are conservative and do not change for the sake of
change.
However, these institutional effects are balanced against political parties also
being geared towards winning elections. They may not be the total opportunistic and
single-minded vote maximisers as assumed in the rational choice model of Downs
(1957). But the political parties’ adoption of Web technology should at least be
considered in the light of expected trade-offs between costs and benefits in the form
of gaining votes in circumstances where traditional ties between parties and voters
are weak or dissolving. Lusoli (2005) suggest such a link between what he calls “fluid
situations” (“low voter turnout … an unaligned or dealigned political system … a
traditional media system more or less in disarray … ”) and increased significance of
political use of the internet. Almost needless to say; these situations also have to
correlate with widespread internet access among voters.
Furthermore, there are observations in the party literature that political
parties have changed, if not deinstitutionalized, making them more sensitive to the
necessity of campaigning and communication with voters outside the “classé gardé”
of the mass party model conceptualized by Duverger (Duverger, 1954). In the
process they have been transformed into “electoral-professional” parties
(Panebianco, 1988), also emphasizing the professionalization of the party
organization, through increased use of specialized skills which tend to be acquired by
employing experts from outside of the traditional party rank and file.
While these circumstances may provide a rationale for political parties to use
new communication technologies, it does not necessarily imply any form of
transformation of party politics. The development of the Norwegian Web 1.0 case
appears closer to the “politics as usual” scenario (Norris, 20xx), although passing
through a steep learning curve of trial and error (Hestvik, 2004).
Web 2.0 in the Norwegian 2007 and 2009 Campaigns 5
_____________________________________________________________________

Norwegian parties and the World Wide Web

Parties in Norway, as in most other established Western countries, have experienced
environmental changes leading to the more “fluid situations” suggested by Lusoli
(op.cit), the most important being the coincidence of political dealignment and
increasing non-partisanship in the traditional mass media. Political dealignment
(Dalton, 1988) implies increasing voter volatility, in our case the share of Norwegian
voters deciding on party choice during the election campaign period rising from
about a fifth (21% in 1985) to more than half (56% in 2005) (Aardal, 2007a: 20). As
declining partisanship makes media campaigning vital, the parties now have little
control over its form and contents (Aardal et al., 2004: 17; Allern, 2001: 125ff;
Bjørklund, 1991)1. Consequently, the Internet offered an attractive channel of direct
communication with a growing online population of daily internet user reaching 66%
of all Norwegian adults in 2007 (Norsk Mediebarometer, 2007). It added further to
the attraction that the age profile of the online population closely matched the age
profile of voters most likely to be mobilized by short term campaigning (Aardal &
Stavn, 2006).
Norwegian party Web sites started to appear before the parliamentary
election of 1997, and by the 2001 election 20 out of 22 registered parties had
established their own Web site (Hestvik, 2004). ICT and the Web were integrated as
a "normal" part of the parties' organization and communication strategy during the
next five years (Saglie, 2007, interviews). The major parties allocated considerable
resources to their presence on the Web, and the development and maintenance of
party Web sites were professionalized. Although the Web site managers of the small
parties still were unpaid activists, by 2007 even these small parties could present
themselves far more professionally on the Web than their bigger competitors were
able to just a few years earlier2.
However, the party Web sites thus came to embody the unilateral approach
now associated with Web 1.0. Elements of multilateral interactivity through, for

1
The lack of control in the Norwegian case is amplified by a long-standing ban on political
advertising on TV. This ban may be lifted after a recent judgment by European Court of Human Rights
(2008).
2
A couple of the smaller parties were not able to fully implement new solutions in time for the
elections.
Web 2.0 in the Norwegian 2007 and 2009 Campaigns 6
_____________________________________________________________________
instance, open discussion forums, were closed down, due to low activity,
harassment, and a lack of resources for moderation and participation by the party
organization (Hestvik, 2004; Saglie, 2007; interviews). What Panebianco termed “the
electoral-professional party” appeared to have found its extension on the Web.
Hence, Web 1.0 was a technology grafted on to existing party organizations
adapting to changing circumstances among voters and media. It was not an agent of
change in its own right, and scored relatively low as a channel for political
information. During the 2005 parliamentary election campaign the Internet was
regarded by very few as an “important source of information”, and only 13% of the
voters had used party Web sites to gather information (Karlsen, 2007).
As late as 2005, Web 2.0 was an unknown entity in the Norwegian public
sphere, the main exception being blogging. The popularity of Web 2.0 sites
skyrocketed from 2006 on, both in term of use and media attention. The
phenomenon was communicated to the uninitiated through the traditional media in
a manner strikingly similar to the Gartner Group’s “hype”-concept (Fenn & Linden
2005, Gartner Group 2007). Figure 1 indicates the cumulated number of articles in
the printed press from 2005 through 2009 (estimate of whole year) mentioning a
selection of Web 2.0 sites or concepts (Twitter, MySpace Nettby, Flickr, Facebook,
YouTube and blog), compared to those mentioning the Prime Minister (Jens
Stoltenberg) during the same period. Given the current trend this sample of Web 2.0
will get more media attention than the Prime Minister in 2009.

Figure 1. Appearances in printed press 2005-2009 reported by Retriever

10000
9000
8000

7000
6000

5000 Web 20 total

4000 Jens Stoltenberg

3000

2000
1000

0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Web 2.0 in the Norwegian 2007 and 2009 Campaigns 7
_____________________________________________________________________
Source:
Retriever at https://Web.retriever-info.com/services/archive.html, April 24, 2009.

For all its apparent limitations, the Alexa list of Norwegian top 100 sites
(<http://www.alexa.com/>) list indicates high usage levels for Web 2.0 sites among
Norwegians both in 2007 and 2009, with Facebook and YouTube in the top three on
both occasions. Flickr and MySpace appeared much lower (50th and 43rd position in
2009), while several blog sites also featured on the list. The major Norwegian social
networking site, Nettby.no, figured high on the list, at ninth position in 2009. The
much talked about newcomer in 2009 was Twitter, rapidly rising, but in late April still
only at the 71st position.
Therefore, Web 2.0 has represented a considerable challenge and potential
opportunity for political parties and activists from the local election year 2007
onwards. While parties now had a well established Web 1.0 presence through their
party web sites, this was insufficient to reach most voters, even the youngest groups.
Judging by comments in the press from the party leadership and leaders of the
information departments of the major and middle-sized parties, they all were aware
of the potential of Web 2.0, but also the risks and costs contained in taking the leap
(Aftenposten February 19, 2007; vg.no 2007ab). Information from the interviewed
party informants confirmed this ambivalence among the majority of parties (phrases
like “opportunity and nightmare” were common).

Web 2.0: “E-ruptions” or “Web 1.5”?

The obvious question is whether the Web 1.0 experience simply would be repeated
on Web 2.0. Two competing scenarios can be hypothesized; the e-ruption scenario
and the “Web 1.5” scenario. The first scenario rests upon the assumption that there
are significant differences between old and new web technologies, as captured by
the conceptual division into Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. Time Magazine described this in
2006 as being “about the many wresting power from the few and helping one
another for nothing and how that will not only change the world, but also change the
way the world changes” (Time Magazine, 2006). Pascu et al.’s concept of "e-
ruptions" refers to a “potentially disruptive power” contained in Web 2.0 (2007).
Web 2.0 in the Norwegian 2007 and 2009 Campaigns 8
_____________________________________________________________________
While not focused on politics in particular, it is hypothesized that these technologies
might be stronger agents of change than those conceptualized as Web 1.0. A first
type of vertical change can be deduced almost by definition, as the user is
empowered to produce content, as well as to form or join networks. The second
type of change is horizontal, as the technological changes may empower new or
previously disadvantaged players. Translated into party politics on the web, the first
disruptive effect would be that the national party organizations lose (or abdicate)
control to local party branches and activists, the second that new or small parties get
a chance to make themselves more visible and attract new supporters.
A less disruptive scenario is suggested through Jackson and Lilleker’s analysis
of Web 2.0 in the UK (Jackson and Lilleker, 2009). Their contribution builds on the
assumption that established parties enter Web 2.0 carrying a “mindset” of pre-
existing goals and norms. This is not necessarily compatible with the inherent
“mindset” of Web 2.0, where user control, participation and openness are norms
that appear to be compatible with the technologies. This party “mindset” is the same
as identified in the previous section, identifying parties as collective actors geared
towards winning elections and as institutions resisting change. Hence, parties may
very well decide to jump on the Web 2.0 “bandwagon”, to woe voters - or simply
adapt to the media-generated hype on this phenomenon. But doing so do not
necessary implies yielding to the “Web 2.0” mindset.
As such, the Web 2.0 presence of political parties may indicate a clash of
mindsets, as parties incorporate some of the Web 2.0 technology/applications but
retain firm control of the user/networking effects. From the UK evidence Jackson
and Lilleker therefore suggest “Web 1.5” gives a better description, as a hybrid of
Web 1.0 regarding control and contents and Web 2.0 regarding formal appearance.

Research design for testing the hypotheses

For the “e-ruption” hypothesis to have any significance at least some parties would
have to use Web 2.0 elements, either incorporated on the party web sites and/or as
profiles and groups on specific Web 2.0 sites. A second and related test regards the
reach of these Web 2.0 elements, in terms of actual users. If the Web 2.0 elements
Web 2.0 in the Norwegian 2007 and 2009 Campaigns 9
_____________________________________________________________________
are present, but fail to attract a significant number of users, the validity of the e-
ruption thesis is significantly reduced. Still, this does not fully qualify as e-ruptions.
What appears as formal Web 2.0 elements may very well reproduce the existing
party system structure, as well as internal party structure. Of course, a final test
would be regarding the actual effects on voting behavior.
The data presented in this article relies on a quantitative strategy to explore
the parties’ adoption of Web 2.0, rather than qualitative analysis of contents. This
strategy admittedly has its limitations in testing only certain aspects of the
hypotheses. But it pinpoints some minimal requirements that should be satisfied
before entering into deeper qualitative analyses of contents of individual sites. E-
ruption in the party system structure would at least demand some deviations
between party size on the one hand and parties’ use of Web 2.0, as well their reach
on Web 2.0, on the other. Especially smaller and/or less established parties would be
expected use these technologies to make themselves visible and communicate with
voters they do not reach through other channels. As for e-ruption in internal party
structures, the introduction and control over Web 2.0 should be grassroots driven,
rather than introduced and managed top down via the established party hierarchy.
The data on Norwegian parties on Web 2.0 was sampled during the two
recent election years of 2007 and 2009, the first being local elections at municipal
and county level and the latter being parliamentary elections. The two types of
elections alternate regularly in September every second year. It should of course be
noted then, that the 2009 data are collected at an early stage in the campaign, while
the 2007 data reflects the whole campaign.
There are now 23 officially registered Norwegian parties
(Brønnøysundregistrene, 2009). 11 of these are included in our sample; all 7 parties
represented in Parliament, as well 4 of the most significant parties outside
parliament. An electoral system based on proportional representation has led to the
relatively high number of parliamentary parties, as well a number of fringe parties
with at least a distant hope of getting representation. The sample provides a huge
variation both in party size, ideological position and institutionalization, as summed
up in table 1. As for the indicator on ideological position, it should be noted that due
Web 2.0 in the Norwegian 2007 and 2009 Campaigns 10
_____________________________________________________________________
to the multi-dimensional cleavage structure of Norwegian politics, some caution
should be taken.

Table 1. Norwegian political parties sampled

Votes (%) in 2007 Year of party Ideological

Party
municipal elections establishment position

Parliamentary parties
Labour Party 29.6 1887 Left
Conservative Party 19.3 1884 Right
Progress Party 17.5 1973* Right
Centre Party 8.0 1920* Centre
Christian People's Party 6.4 1933 Centre
Socialist Left Party 6.2 1961* Left
Liberal Party 5.9 1884 Centre
Non-parliamentary parties
Red 1.9 1973* Left
Pensioners' Party 0.9 1985 Centre
Coastal Party 0.2 1999 Centre
Democrats 0.2 2002 Right

Sources:
Kommunal- og regionaldepartementet:
http://www.regjeringen.no/krd/html/valg2007/bk5.html
* Party has changed name since year of establishment and/or merged with
other parties.

An interpretation of the e-ruption thesis on the party system level would be

that the parties relatively more prone to take advantage of Web 2.0 would be
smallest and/or least institutionalized parties. The level of institutionalization
roughly follows with party size. Five out of the seven parliamentary parties are highly
institutionalized, being established before 1900 (Conservatives, Liberals and Labour
party) or between the World Wars (Centre Party and Christian People’s Party). The
last two parliamentary parties are less institutionalized and usually described as
“new politics” parties. The four small, non-parliamentary parties are more recent,
but Red can trace its origins and organization back to the early 1970s.
Web 2.0 in the Norwegian 2007 and 2009 Campaigns 11
_____________________________________________________________________
A pattern of Web 2.0 activity correlating positively or negatively with party
size would support respectively the Web 1.5- or the e-ruption thesis. However, if a
majority of the activity occurs on sites or pages established by the central party
organization, as opposed to local party organization, candidates, activists or
supporters, it would still qualify as Web 1.5 on the second dimension. As indicated
earlier, the lack of qualitative analysis of contents means this test is not particularly
strict.

Analysis of Web 2.0 activity

The data on these parties’ Web 2.0 presence was gathered through three types of
sources. The first source was the official party web sites, whose front pages were
scanned for links to external Web 2.0 pages, as well as Web 2.0 elements built or
embedded within the web site itself. This gives a good indication of what was
officially approved by the party in question, in the sense of representing the party
organization, as well as having a sufficient quality.
In 2005 there were no signs of any Web 2.0 elements, apart from RSS-feeds
on a couple of sites. By the local elections in 2007 most parties had started to at least
try out the new technologies. But few apparently felt confident enough to market
them on the main site. The exception that stood out was the Labour Party, who
advertised their official presence on Facebook, VG-Blog, YouTube and Flickr. Most of
the other parties were more cautious and advertised a single element, either
Facebook or blogs, although other data indicate they were present elsewhere as
well. Only the the Progress Party, the Pensioners' Party and the Coastal Party did not
advertise anything Web 2.0 at all in 2007. Table 2 indicates how far the parties have
come in developing Web 2.0 as officially sanctioned instruments by May 17th 2009, 1
indicating presence and 0 non-presence.
Web 2.0 in the Norwegian 2007 and 2009 Campaigns 12
_____________________________________________________________________
Table 2. Web 2.0. elements on front page of party web site, May 17. 2009

Party Facebook Twitter Blogs YouTube Flickr Other TOTAL

Labour Party 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Socialist Left Party 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Liberal Party 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Conservative Party 1 1 1 1 1 0 5
Red Electoral Alliance 1 1 0 1 1 1 5
Centre Party 1 1 0 0 1 1 4
Christian People's Party 0 0 1 0 0 0 2
Progress Party 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Coastal Party 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Pensioners' Party 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Democrats 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 6 5 6 7 6 35

These 35 Web 2.0 elements represent a considerable leap from the 12

elements registered in 2007. The Labour party is still at the forefront, but others
have been catching up. An educated guess would be that this is due to the
awareness of diminishing returns of spreading its presence on less significant sites.
At the other end, the smallest non-socialist parties, as well the Progress Party and
partly the Christian People’s Party appear as hesitant as in 2007. This and the
relatively strong official presence of other medium sized or small parties suggest that
party size only matters in the sense of acting as a minimum threshold below the
1.9% of Red. Above that threshold it is a matter of “Web 2.0 mindset”, in the sense
of taking a strategic decision on whether Web 2.0 is important enough to dedicate
one’s resources to.
Interviews with party web site managers in 2007 suggested that parties knew
very well that to establish an effective and professional presence, scarce resources
such as time and competence were still necessary. Blogs which are not updated,
Facebook-groups with no postings or YouTube videos of uncomfortable candidates
filmed on cell phones are bad publicity. The smaller parties simply felt compelled to
dedicate the few resources they had to get their Web 1.0 presence working. One
informant (Conservatives) also indicated skepticism based on the view that Web 2.0
was a different type of arena best left to individual and grassroots initiatives. Hence,
“the mindset” of most parties was not ready to fully embrace Web 2.0 in 2007. The
Web 2.0 in the Norwegian 2007 and 2009 Campaigns 13
_____________________________________________________________________
two parties that appeared to be the most positive in terms of taking the risk and
dedicating resources were the Labour party and the Liberals.
Data beyond the officially sanctioned and advertised Web 2.0 were identified
through the Alexa list of Norwegian top 100 sites (<http://www.alexa.com/>),
besides specialized catalogs and search engines on blogs, such as Valgprat.no,
Twingly and Google Blogsearch. Of the global Web 2.0 sites on the list Facebook,
YouTube, Flickr, MySpace and Twitter were scanned for party names, in abbreviated
and full form. The procedure was repeated for the major Norwegian social
networking site Nettby.no, besides VG-Blog (<http://www.vgb.no>) and the popular
video service snutter.no (<http://www.snutter.no>), both within the web site of the
most popular Norwegian newspaper VG. These data were supplemented by the
questions on Web 2.0 in my semi-structured interviews with the web managers of all
11 parties, conducted immediately before or after the elections in 2007 (see the
interview list at the end of this article), besides statements made to the press or on
the web by party leaders.
While the data in table 2 on official activity indicate an increasingly proactive
Web 2.0 mindset from the party organizations, the interviews from 2007 indicated
that the party organization hesitated to interfere with the Web 2.0 activity already
taking place at the grassroots level. On the one hand, it was appreciated as a
potential resource for campaigning and mobilizing - or as expression of political
engagement as such. On the other hand, no one expected to fully monitor or control
developments, even if they had wanted it. The technology allowed individuals and
groups to establish a presence using the name - and even logos - of the parties,
without the party's knowledge or consent3. As observed by one of the party web site
managers:

Until two years ago we thought it would suffice to own the domain name
(www.partyname.no), but now new places appear every day, using our name
and even our logo. A lot of the people behind this are probably (party)
members with good intentions, but the result is that we have no control.

3
When party informants were asked about activity on Web 2.0. "... as far as I know" was a frequent
addition to their statements.
Web 2.0 in the Norwegian 2007 and 2009 Campaigns 14
_____________________________________________________________________

Blogging
Blogging is perhaps the most individualistic form of Web 2.0. It is also the most
established form. Although it would be a mistake to count each “blogger” as a single
voter, one person often having several blogs, the blogosphere is still very significant
as a political outlet and still growing. One recent estimate suggested 300,000
Norwegian bloggers, as well as a growth of 3,000 new bloggers and 30,000 new blog
posts every day (Digi.no, 2009). The exact number of party political blogs is not
known, but the most comprehensive Norwegian site on the subject (Valgprat.no
2009) has registered 5,675 posts and 173 party political blogs, including microblogs.
Most parties lack a coherent blog strategy, as suggested both by the
interviews of the party informants and promotion on party web sites. Some of the
informants also directly expressed that blogging is individual and something the
party organization should not interfere with. A further argument went the other
way, with concern that blog readers would mistake individual opinions with official
party policy. But there are some significant variations.
Two parties, the Liberal Party and the Socialist Left Party, have included
politicians’ blogs embedded on the party web site. While latter was rather modest,
including blogs from only a few top politicians, the former had an extensive strategy
were a large number of politicians had their own blogs within the confines of the
party web site. A somewhat less ambitious strategy is to provide cues, in the form of
visible links on the party web site to external blogs. However, the front pages of the
party Web sites before Election Day in 2007 (September 9th) and on May 17th 2009
revealed that only five of eleven parties linked prominently on their Web site to
external or internal blogs. Among the 7 larger and medium-sized parties only the
Centre Party and the Progress Party abstained consistently from linking to blogs, as
the Conservatives had changed their party leader quasi-blog from 2007 into a
conventional blog by 2009. The Democrats were the only small party with prominent
linking to external blogs in 2007, but this had disappeared by 2009.
Party leaders appear mostly as reluctant bloggers. But since the election
campaign in 2005, the media has set up dedicated blogging foras for the parties,
leaving them very little choice. As mentioned, VG-Blog in the Web edition of VG has
Web 2.0 in the Norwegian 2007 and 2009 Campaigns 15
_____________________________________________________________________
been the most ambitious, also including local party branches4. In 2007 the leaders of
the three smallest parties did not have their own blogs on VG-blog, but all except the
Pensioners’ Party were present in 2009. However, the level of activity has been low
and sporadic, with a range from 4 to 24 posts from the party leaders during the last 6
weeks of the campaign in 2007 and in general few new posts since then. The leaders
of the Socialist Left Party, the Liberals and the Conservatives had highest numbers of
posts in 2007, but only the Liberals and partly the Conservatives appear to have any
significant activity after the elections. The activity of the two small party newcomers,
the Democrats and the Coastal Party, also seem to be regular. Taking recent
developments into consideration it therefore appears to be little relation between
party size and party leader activity on VG-Blog.
While all party leaders - with the exception of the Pensioners’ Party - now
have their own blog on VG-blog or elsewhere, only three parties (the Liberals, the
Conservatives and the Christian People’s Party) found it worthwhile to link to their
leader’s blog. The same three blogs also appeared to be the most popular in terms
of being linked to on the WWW in general, according to Google Web. Still the
relatively low number of links5 indicates that the effect of party leader blogging is
modest at best. In addition to the three mentioned parties, two of the smallest
parties (the Democrats and the Coastal Party) appeared to get far more attention
than could be expected from party size.
However, other party politicians have been far more successful than the
party leaders. In the Twingly Top 100 of Norwegian blogs, at least 5 blogs could be
identified with specific parties. Two of these blogs belonged to members of the
Socialist Left Party leadership, while two belonged to local Christian People’s Party
politicians and the last to a Labour Party activist. Four of these had ten times as
many reported links on the WWW as the most popular party leader blog, and the
fifth still outperformed all the party leader blogs together (347 versus 256 links).
Hence, there are other qualities than party size or formal positions that count in
generating interest in the blogosphere.

4
See the invitation at http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/valg-2007/artikkel.php?artid=194804
5
The highest number of 81 links to the blog of the leader of Christian Peoples’s Party
Web 2.0 in the Norwegian 2007 and 2009 Campaigns 16
_____________________________________________________________________
Another indication on the effects of generating interest through the
blogosphere is the number of blogs linking to the party’s web site or mentioning the
name of the party leader. The results are summed up in figure 2, using the party’s
share of votes in 2007 as a predictor for share of links in 2009. There are
considerable variations, ranging from 354 linking to the Conservatives’ site, down to
8 for the Pensioners’ Party and the Coastal Party. While the patterns roughly follows
party size (r2=0.54), there are some interesting deviations, as the Conservatives
scores significantly higher and the Labour Party lower than expected. Of the middle
sized parties, both the Socialist Left and the Liberals seem to benefit while the
Centre Party appears as a loser in terms of blog attention. Of the small parties, the
Democrats appeared to benefit from the blogosphere, getting 5% of the links.

Figure 2. Blogs linking to party websites

25

R² = 0,54
20
Share of lin ks

15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Share of votes

Source: Search on Twingly April 10, 2009 for links to party website

The focus on party leaders in the blogosphere correlated even closer with party size
(r2=0.85). Once more, the Socialist Left Party, appear to benefit from the
blogosphere, although the leader of the Progress Party also got more attention than
predicted by party size. The reverse relation holds for the leader of the Conservative
party.
Web 2.0 in the Norwegian 2007 and 2009 Campaigns 17
_____________________________________________________________________
Figure 3. Blogs mentioning leader of party
35
R² = 0,85
30

25
Share of m entions

20

15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Share of votes

Source: Mentions of party leader (full name) on blogs per April 10th 2009, according
to Google Blogsearch

To sum up, the Liberals and to some extent the Socialist Left Party, appear to
be the most conscious and active blogging parties among the parliamentary parties,
with the Centre Party and the Progress Party at the other end of the spectrum. But
factors related to the individual blogger determine success in getting attention in the
blogosphere. Formal positions do not guarantee success for politician bloggers, but
neither do parties nor party leaders necessarily need to participate much in the
blogosphere to get the attention of bloggers, whose sympathies appear to be more
right- and left wing libertarian than voters in general.

Twitter
By 2008 microblogging and Twitter in particular, became another potential channel
the parties had to evaluate as part of their strategy for the 2009 campaign.
According to Nielsen (2009), Twitter grew from 475,000 to 7,038,000 profiles, from
February 2008 to February 2009, making it the fastest growing member community
on the WWW. In Norway there has been a doubling of new users every month
during the first tertial of the election year, reaching 8,599 new users in April
Web 2.0 in the Norwegian 2007 and 2009 Campaigns 18
_____________________________________________________________________
(Tvitre.no 2009). Still, by May 2009, there were probably not more than 25,000
Norwegians on Twitter (Aalen 2009, Tvitre.no 2009).
Although being dwarfed by Facebook and conventional blogging; by May 17th
2009 9 of the 11 parties were established on Twitter with an official profile for the
party, the party leader or both. As for Facebook and YouTube, in some instances the
party’s name was already taken, making it unclear whether the profile in question
was official or not. Hence, the party organization had to settle for a profile name
approximating the party name and trust that user followed the cues given on the
party web site. To add to the confusion, some parties chose not to link. The number
of followers is relatively small yet, and it would be reasonable to expect these
numbers to increase significantly during the campaign, on the basis of mobilization
and the huge growth of Twitter itself.
Table 3 shows a complete dominance of Labour, in terms of followers,
probably due to the profiling based on personal popularity of the party leader.
Another striking observation is how the Progress Party so candidly uses Twitter for
unilateral promotion of the party leader, both through a personal rather than
institutional profile, as well choosing not to follow others.

Table 3. Parties and party leaders on Twitter

Following Followers Updates Linked
Red Electoral Alliance P 785 743 253 1
Red Electoral Alliance L 691 615 50 0
Liberals 1809 1445 317 1
Conservatives P/L 634 1977 92 1
Labour Party P 1918 1845 319 0
Labour Party L 10139 10441 30 1
Progress Party L 0 362 11 0
Socialist Left Party P 587 1174 210 1
Center Party P 593 521 286 1
Christian People's Party P 417 255 156 0
Demokratene P 20 55 295 0
17593 19433 2019

Sources: Data retrieved May 17., 2009. Official Twitter channels, as indicated by
links on party web site. In the absence of links, Twitter was searched for party leader
Web 2.0 in the Norwegian 2007 and 2009 Campaigns 19
_____________________________________________________________________
and party name. For the leaders of Liberals and the Center Party there were empty
profiles which could not be validated.

Data on the total Twitter presence of the 8 largest parties (Twittertinget 2009)
suggest strong bivariat correlations between the parties’ number of politicians,
tweets and followers on Twitter (r2 >0.9). The correlations between party size in
terms of share of votes in 2007 and number of politicians and followers are strong,
but still significantly weaker (r2=0,52 and 0,58). This differences may be explained
both as a result of party strategy or that the “Twitter population” is unrepresentative
of the voters in general. Among the 260 party politicians registered by Twittertinget
the Labour Party dominates with almost a half (124). Their dominance is even
stronger in terms of followers, with more than a half (33,062) of the 65,235
followers. At 29,6 % of the votes in 2007, this party’s mobilization on Twitter has to
be characterized as very successful this far. The Socialist Left Party, the Liberals and
Red apparently have also been very successful in mobilizing politicians and followers
on Twitter. The Conservatives and especially the Progress Party are located at the
other end of the spectrum, as large parties among voters but with a very modest
presence on Twitter.
However, the as yet modest use of Twitter in general probably makes these
variations insignificant in terms of influencing the upcoming elections. But it is
interesting to note the parties’ awareness of new channels and that much of the
same pattern from 2007, with the Labour Party at the forefront followed by the
Liberal Party and the Socialist Left Party. Furthermore, Red appears to have closed
the technological gap and follows on the heels of its larger competitor on the left.

Facebook
By April 2009 Facebook claimed to have 1,592,420 Norwegian users above voting
age (http://www.facebook.com/ads/create/), which amounts to 45% of the
3,528,000 eligible voters for the 2009 elections. Perhaps more crucial is the fact that
according to a recent estimate about 90% of all Norwegian between 13 and 30 now
has a profile on Facebook (Digi.no, 2009).
Web 2.0 in the Norwegian 2007 and 2009 Campaigns 20
_____________________________________________________________________
In tandem with the general explosive growth of Facebook in Norway in 2007,
at least 326 groups with 21,721 members sympathizing with particular Norwegian
parties was established within a few months leading up to the local elections in
September6. Although the national party organizations appreciated these initiatives,
they appeared to be sidelined in a more or less anarchic process (interviews). Most
of the groups were set up at the local level in a hurry as mobilization vehicles by local
party branches, local candidates and their respective supporters. Formal party
connections were often unclear or non-existent, or supporting individual candidates,
rather than party. Adding to the confusion many of these groups used the party logo,
linked to the party Web site, and referred to party offices and officers. Members of
the national party leaderships were virtually absent 7 and only the Conservatives, the
Labour Party and the Centre Party established groups to represent the national party
organizations8, sanctioned through a link from the main party Web site. One month
before the local elections in 2007 these groups contained a mere 941 of all 21,721
members of groups supporting political parties.
By April 2009, as the parties are preparing for the parliamentary campaign
this situation has changed somewhat. 5 parties now had an official national page or
group, visibly linked from the party web site, and all parties had supporter groups on
Facebook, although the status of the miniscule group for the Pensioners’ Party
should perhaps not be counted. It also appears that much of the growth is in official
groups at the local or regional level, which points towards that the party
organizations now are entering Facebook full scale. The number of party relevant
groups and their memberships has more than doubled, to at least 647 groups with
45,766 members. Still this is less than 3 % of the Facebook population above voting
age and only 1,3 % of all eligible voters. In terms of individual voters, the likeliness of
double or triple memberships, the real numbers would be far lower.
An important new feature on Facebook in 2009 was the 6 official supporter
groups or pages for the leaders of all the major or medium parties, except the

th
Search on party name and -abbreviation on August 15 , 2007.
6
7
Only a profile for one of the vice-leaders of Red Electoral Alliance and the leader of the Centre Party
was found.
8
Facebook group IDs; Conservatives: 2431161089, Labour Party 2421715973 and Centre Party
2256306844.
Web 2.0 in the Norwegian 2007 and 2009 Campaigns 21
_____________________________________________________________________
Christian People’s Party and the Socialist Left Party, and one for the leader of the
Democrats. These had 39,439 members or followers, which accounted for almost as
much as membership in party groups. Especially the page of the Labour Party leader
(and prime minister) Jens Stoltenberg and of Siv Jensen, leader of the Progress Party,
had formidable popularity with 26,000 and 11,000 followers, far more than the total
membership of the official and unofficial groups of their respective parties. While the
successes of these two pages are exceptional it might indicate a move towards
increasing personification of politics on Facebook, and therefore also less
“networking” as such.
While Facebook appeared more disruptive on the vertical dimension in its
early phase leading up to the 2007 election, by 2009 party organizations seemed to
be more in control, with relatively more officially sanctioned groups or pages. This
might partly be attributed to different contexts, 2007 being local elections and 2007
national elections, but also to institutional delay in adoption of new technologies,
leaving considerable room in the first phase for enthusiasts.
As for the horizontal dimension, the disruption appeared to be even smaller.
While just one of the small parties (the Pensioners' Party) was unrepresented on
Facebook in 2007 and for all practical purposes also in 2009, the pattern for numbers
of groups and members roughly followed party size, as seen in figure 4.

Figure 4. Parties’ share of votes 2007 and member in party Facebook groups

Relation votes 2007 and group members 2009

14000
R² = 0,88
12000

10000
Group mem bers

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Share of votes
Web 2.0 in the Norwegian 2007 and 2009 Campaigns 22
_____________________________________________________________________

The main deviations were considerably stronger than expected presences

from the Liberals and Red, and the other way around for the Centre Party and the
Christian People’s Party. It should also be noticed that except for the Siv Jensen
page, the success of this party in recent elections have not been accompanied by
strong official mobilization on Facebook, as most initiatives have been left to
supporters. The by far largest party supporter group on Facebook belongs to the
Progress Party, but its creators and officers do not appear hold any positions within
the party. As for blogging, this party’s lack of official strategic dedication to Web 2.0
does not preclude high visibility. Hence, Facebook probably does not have any
disruptive character, as activity mainly reflects party size and perhaps as important;
the “activity” is low considering that probably 3-4% of the electorate at most are
members or followers.

YouTube
YouTube was officially launched in December 2005, but was by the start of the 2007
election campaign already the leading web site in online Norwegian party political
videos. By 2009 its role was more or less twice as significant, in terms of sheer
numbers. Five national party organizations; the Liberals, Labour, the Conservatives,
the Centre Party and Red, established official channels on YouTube five months or
less before the 2007 election and by April 2009 only the Pensioners’ Party and the
Christian People’s Party were left out. Searches on party name indicate that the
number of videos related to the parties outside the official channels at least matches
the 268 and 420 videos found there in 2007 and 2009. Furthermore, the fact that
while only 1 out of 5 channels were linked from the party web site in 2008, against 6
out of 9 in 2009, indicates that YouTube is well on its way to become an established
part of the parties’ communication strategies.
Web 2.0 in the Norwegian 2007 and 2009 Campaigns 23
_____________________________________________________________________
Table 4. Party channels on YouTube September 10. 2007 and April 9. 2009

PARTY JOINED VIDEOS VIEWS LINKED CHANNEL

2007 2009 2007 2009 2007 2009 2007 2009
Conservatives 26.04.07 26 48 286 1536 0 1 1 1
Progress Party (1) 21.04.07 0 15 0 332 0 0 0 1
Socialist Left Party 08.10.08 0 9 0 211 0 0 0 1
Labour Party 14.04.07 110 164 87675 175982 1 1 1 1
Liberals 11.04.07 114 148 1827 4329 0 1 1 1
Christian People's Party 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Centre Party 25.04.07 8 9 858 1127 0 0 1 1
Red (2) 09.07.07 10 22 838 1645 0 1 1 1
Democrats 28.10.07 0 0 0 3558 0 0 0 1
Coast Party (3) 31.03.08 0 5 0 596 0 1 0 1
Pensioners' Party 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 268 420 91484 189316 1 6 5 9

(1) Appears not be used until 2009 and not included as “joined” in 2007
(2) Different channels for each election, 2007 included in 2009. 2007 data estimated
from search on July 25, 2008, only including videos posted more than 11 months
before
(3) Oslo branch' channel presented as the party's videos on web site
(4) Search under «News & Politics, Nonprofits & Activism»

Both the data in table 4 and interviews suggest Labour and the Liberals have
had the most pro-active strategy towards YouTube. Labour’s YouTube channel even
had a much publicized “grand opening” with the party leader and press present
(vg.no 2007a) and continues to dominate in terms of views. The rather modest
presence of the Conservatives, Centre Party and the Progress Party may partly be
explained by Web 2.0 scepticism, but also previous investments in WebTV on their
party Web sites.
As for the other types of Web 2.0 examined in this article, YouTube may
appear as disruptive in the sense that small (i.e. Red) or medium-sized parties (the
Liberals) may dedicate resources to present themselves, and even get a bigger
audience than could be expected from party size. A large and resourceful party such
as Labour may be able to dedicate enough resources to be completely dominant. On
the other hand, while the number of channel views in total has doubled to about
190 000 in less than two years; this is still only 11.9% of all eligible voters. As these
Web 2.0 in the Norwegian 2007 and 2009 Campaigns 24
_____________________________________________________________________
are views, not members or followers as on the other type of sites, the actual number
of unique visitors is probably far lower, perhaps on par with the 3% of Facebook.

Other social networking sites

There are of course a huge number of popular global and national networking sites,
in addition to blogging and the political big three of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.
Among the global sites with relevant activity, Flickr and MySpace are at 50 th and 43 rd
position in the Alexa top 100. However, Norwegian political parties, except for a
Coastal Party page of uncertain status (http://www.myspace.com/kystpartiet), are
completely absent from MySpace. Flickr was used very modestly in 2007 and on the
national level only used and advertised nationally by on the party web site the
Labour Party. But by April 2009 6 parties used and 5 advertised it. The three smallest
parties, plus the Christian Peoples’ Party and Socialist Left Party, still neither used
nor advertised this site 9. The 2,176 photos posted by all parties taken together, as
well as the lack of comments suggest a rather low level of activity in terms of user
interaction. The Labour Party, being 2 years ahead of the other parties and still in
2009 having roughly half of all photos, confirms the impression of being the most
proactive party. The Liberals, with one fourth of all photos seem to confirm pro-
activeness.
According to the Alexa top 100, the VG-owned Nettby.no at the 9th position is
only surpassed by Facebook among Internet-based communities in Norway. It
functions much like Facebook, but is based on nicknames, rather than real names.
Nettby’s growth has stagnated at 823,096 user profiles, but is still popular among
younger Norwegians, the average user age being 20 years (Aftenposten 2009).
However, none of the parties and few users have apparently considered Nettby as
important in party political mobilization or activism. A scan conducted in April 2009
showed that there were 38 groups with 2,780 members supporting political parties,
mostly their youth branches. All parties, except the Pensioners’ Party groups were
represented, but their presence was not advertised through the party web sites.

9
At the time of the scan the Progress Party had established an official group, but no posted any
photos yet.
Web 2.0 in the Norwegian 2007 and 2009 Campaigns 25
_____________________________________________________________________
Furthermore, there are some national YouTube-competitors offered by
national newspapers and TV-stations, of which the VG-owned snutter.no and
Nettavisen Video (http://www.2play.no/) are the most prominent and Web 2.0-
like10. So far in 2009 there appears to be little new activity since the local election
year 2007. Almost all videos reflect that these channels were vehicles for short-time
promotion from local parties and candidates. 93 out of the 111 videos put up on
snutter.no by Election Day September 10th 2007 and 85 of the 90 videos found on
Nettavisen Video (August 10 th 2008) were posted by local parties or local supporters.
Their majority of the estimated 75,000 views were much slimmer, due to a much
narrower appeal11. Some parties (Centre, Pensioners’ and Christian People’s) used
these channels much more than YouTube, and others less (Labour, Red Electoral
Alliance and Socialist Left Party). Furthermore, the Conservatives, the Christian
People’s Party and the Liberals appeared to be particularly successful in terms of
views on these channels. In terms of campaigning these sites had a partially
compensatory effect on YouTube, but for the smallest parties the presence was
weak to non-existent. This also has to be said for the Pensioners’ Party as their
presence on one of channels was simply due one single county branch putting up
videos for their candidates a few days before the local elections.
The political parties so far has lacked one site integrating their activity on the
web, like my.barackobama.com. But recent developments on the Norwegian
network site Origo.no (http://origo.no/) may indicate a new direction. With 113,000
members and traffic of 4,500-5.000 unique visitors per day (Aura Avis 2009), the site
itself falls below such lists as Alexa Top 100. However, 7 national political parties
have recently established their own “zones” on the site which may include blogs,
collaborative tools, calendars, traditional web pages. By June 23rd these 7 “zones”
had 1,145 members, who had produced 709 posts, the Labour Party once more
dominant with 961 of the members and 307 of the posts. Hence, Origo.no may be

For the local elections of 2007 another major newspaper Aftenposten

10

(<http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/politikk/article1904067.ece>) hosted promotion videos

by 452 candidates for mayor. short videos respectively.
11
VG-Snutter videos found through search string
(http://www.snutter.no/app/searchVideo.action?searchFields=tags&categoryId=11&searchString=val
g&s=S%C3%B8k) and Nettavisen Videos through search on party name. Furthermore, the number of
views for the videos on Nettavisen was measured on June 26, 2009.
Web 2.0 in the Norwegian 2007 and 2009 Campaigns 26
_____________________________________________________________________
insignificant in the 2009 campaign, but it may point to a future trend of greater
integration, with the Labour Party leading the way. They are clearly inspired by
Obama, even imitating the approach by the address and name, which translates to
mylabourparty.no.

Discussion: Web 2.0 as e-ruption or Web 1.5?

The development of the Web (1.0) suggests that after a period of transition political
parties adapt new technology according to the “electoral-professional” party model.
As for Web 2.0, the “e-ruption scenario” suggested that these particular
technologies might be stronger agents of change than those conceptualized as Web
1.0, while the “Web 1.5 scenario suggested that the technologies would be adapted
to existing party models.
Some key indicators on the political parties’ relative shares of the most
important Web 2.0 sites or activities are presented in table 5. While these indicators
are crude and superficial measures, they reveal significant variations among parties,
as well as among activities. There are five parties with roughly 10% or more of the
activity each, with Labour as the by far dominating on Web 2.0. In total these 5
parties have 87,29 % of the activity, leaving slightly more than 12 % to the remaining
6 parties.
Web 2.0 in the Norwegian 2007 and 2009 Campaigns 27
_____________________________________________________________________
Table 5. Parties’ activity on Web 2.0 spring 2009

Blogs (1) Twitter (2) Facebook (3) YouTube (4) Average

PARTY Links Leader Poli- Follow- Groups Mem- Videos Views
ticians ers bers
Labour Party 14,3 29,7 47,69 50,69 17,31 24,99 36,89 92,96 39,32
Progress Party 13,83 22,17 1,92 1,45 12,06 20,82 1,87 0,18 9,29
Conservatives 23,32 14,13 11,54 15,13 34,16 21,87 13 0,81 16,74
Centre Party 3,75 5,68 5 2,45 5,26 3,5 3,41 0,6 3,71
Christian People's Party 7,64 3,86 2,69 2,23 2,16 3,61 0,22 0 2,8
Socialist Left Party 13,11 15,73 15 14,76 8,96 7,08 3,52 0,11 9,78
Liberals 12,38 5,66 10,77 8,82 13,6 11,1 30,07 2,29 11,84
Red Electoral Alliance 5,6 1,42 5,38 4,48 4,79 5,32 7,6 0,87 4,43
Pensioners' Party 0,53 0,01 NA NA 0,15 0,01 0,33 0 0,13
Democrats 5,01 1,59 NA NA 0,77 0,92 0,99 1,88 1,4
Coast Party 0,53 0,05 NA NA 0,77 0,8 0,99 0,31 0,43
TOTAL 100 100 99,99 100,01 100 100 100 100 99,86
N 1518 85098 260 55503 647 45766 908 189316

1. Blogs – links to party website (http://www.twingly.com) and mentions of party

leader in blogosphere (http://blogsearch.google.com/). April 10. 2009
2. Twitter – Number of politicians and their followers. Source Twittertinget
http://www.twittertinget.no/, May 19, 2009. No records for 3 smallest parties.
However, a search on party names revealed there is a small group for Democrats
with 55 followers.
3. Facebook – Search on party name and abbreviation April 9,, 2009
4. YouTube - Search under «News & Politics, Nonprofits & Activism», April 9, 2009

Hence, all parties had some form of Web 2.0 presence, but there are
considerable variations in level of party strategy and activity. Table 6 reveals obvious
variations relating to party size, indicating that there is a minimum resource
threshold, separating large and medium-sized parties from the smaller ones. Still,
there are variations that indicate different strategic choices about Web 2.0 activity.
Labour, the Liberals, the Socialist Left Party and Red were the parties with the most
conscious Web 2.0 strategy, judging from cues on the party web site and share of
activity exceeding share of votes. On the other hand, the Progress Party in particular,
but also the Christian People’s Party and the Centre Party chose not to dedicate
much resources on Web 2.0. Although there are variations among the three smallest
parties, with the Democrats’ doing well in the blogosphere at one extreme and the
near over all absence of the Pensioners’ Party on the other, they fall far below the
other parties on most measures.
Web 2.0 in the Norwegian 2007 and 2009 Campaigns 28
_____________________________________________________________________

Table 6. Background factors and share of Web 2.0 activity

Parties by votes Votes (%) Party age Left - Website Share of

right cues activity
Labour Party 29.6 1887 Left 6 39,32
Conservatives 19.3 1884 Right 5 16,74

Progress Party 17.5 1973 Right 1 9,29

Medium parties
Centre Party 8.0 1920 Centre 4 3,71
Christian People's Party 6.4 1933 Centre 2 2,8
Socialist Left Party 6.2 1961 Left 6 9,78
Liberal Party 5.9 1884 Centre 6 11,84
Small parties
Red 1.9 1973 Left 5 4,43
Pensioners' Party 0.9 1985 Centre 0 0,13
Coastal Party 0.2 1999 Centre 1 0,43
Democrats 0.2 2002 Right 0 1,4

While one should not simply assume that the Web 2.0 is a revolutionary
device, it might be more or less easily adopted as an instrument among different
parties. Obviously, it follows from above that there may be a certain minimum
threshold below the 1.9% of Red. However, any neutralizing effects of
institutionalization, as measured by party age, do not appear. Established parties do
not necessarily resist the type of change related to Web 2.0, and among newer
parties Red and the Progress Party appear at either end of the extreme. As for
ideological effects, all parties on the left appeared to have embraced Web 2.0, while
the parties at the centre and right side of the spectrum were more ambivalent. This
may indicate that the leftist ideological mindset is closer to the Web 2.0 mindset,
although it does not appear to be a necessary condition, especially bearing the Web
2.0 activity of the Liberals in mind.
Still, for any e-ruption to spill over into electoral politics, it is not sufficient
that there are deviations in Web 2.0 activity and party size, regardless what these
deviations are effects of. These Web 2.0 elements have to attract – and influence the
Web 2.0 in the Norwegian 2007 and 2009 Campaigns 29
_____________________________________________________________________
decisions of - a significant number of the more than 3.6 million voters. The party
political Web 2.0 space has grown significantly since 2007, but by April 2009 it still
only consists of for instance 55,503 followers of politicians on Twitter, 45,766
members of party political groups on Facebook, while the videos on the party
channels on YouTube had got 189,316 views, most of these on the Labour Channel.
The activity will undoubtedly increase significantly during the months leading up to
the elections in September 2009. But for now, the “potential disruptive power”
attributed to Web 2.0 by the “e-ruption” thesis should be regarded as potential yet
to be fulfilled on the horizontal dimension. The Progress Party’s strategy of almost
neglecting Web 2.0, in favor of established mass media and the party web site seems
rational, at least in the short term.
There are of course, a number of qualifications to this argument. The
minority that participates on Web 2.0 may be effective in mobilizing the vote
indirectly. The virular quality that has been attributed to Web 2.0 need not even be
limited to Web 2.0 itself, if we follow along the logic originally formulated in
Lazarsfeld and his collaborators (Lazarsfeld et al., 1944, Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1955).
While the voting decisions of relatively few voters people may change directly as the
result of mediated messages, effects may still occur via the interpersonal influence
of opinion leaders using the media. Hence, the effects of Web 2.0 may be
underestimated, and even go through several intermediate steps, including
“impersonal influence”. Of particular interest may be the effects of communication
with people working the traditional mass media, who act in the next step of the
information flow. This may happen on the level of individual messages, as well as the
traditional media’s focus on the parties’ use of Web 2.0. Hence, use of Web 2.0 may
result in more attention and more positive or negative images of parties without
most voters not necessarily using Web 2.0 themselves.
In the longer term, of course the internal virular of digital social networking
will be important, as the potential number of opinion leaders can be almost endless
if the political Web 2.0 reaches a critical mass. For the political parties this is of
course a double-edged sword. Web 2.0 users may use the multilaterality of new
media technology to mobilize against or influence the other way, the flows no longer
being unilateral, something not foreseen by the original hypothesis.
Web 2.0 in the Norwegian 2007 and 2009 Campaigns 30
_____________________________________________________________________
This leads us to the vertical dimension of e-ruption, referring to the degree of
party vs. grassroots control over Web 2.0 elements. The quantitative nature of our
data poses certain limitations here. However, as the overall party political activity on
Web 2.0 probably has more than doubled from 2007 and 2009, the national party
organizations are now well on their way towards coordinating the activity. The ad
hoc and somewhat chaotic characteristics from the Web 2.0 campaign of 2007 are
now being ironed out. Most national party web sites give clear cues to what is the
official presence of the party on Web 2.0 and top politicians are more established
through blogs, profiles and official fan pages. Furthermore, as noted, the use of
Origo.no point to an ambition of greater integration of Web activities. However, the
very nature of Web 2.0 means that there still is a myriad of independent political
blogs, Twitter profiles, unofficial Facebook groups and YouTube-channels. But
overall, the signs of mmoderate vertical e-ruption in 2007 are now weaker, partly as
it was due to the rapid introduction of new technology, combined with the effect of
local - rather than national - elections.

Conclusion
So far, Web 2.0 has had a weak e-ruptive effect on Norwegian party politics. On the
horizontal dimension, the parties’ share of activities on Web 2.0 has mainly followed
what could be expected from their share of votes in 2007. But deviations from the
pattern indicate there are variable priorities, meaning that given a minimum of
resource, parties and activists can decide to be “big in Web 2.0 politics” or decide
not to. Regarding the vertical dimension of e-ruption, it appears that the national
party organizations has gained more control and initiative in 2009, the more
anarchical situation of 2007 being temporary, due to sudden introduction of new
technologies and this being a local election year. Furthermore, while the number of
users, viewers, members, followers and bloggers may have doubled since 2007, the
party political Web 2.0 segment is still very small. This is both as a segment on Web
2.0 and as segment of voters in general.
Therefore the Web 1.5 hypothesis appears to give the best description.
Furthermore, a likely next step is an even more integrated and proactive strategy, as
Web 2.0 in the Norwegian 2007 and 2009 Campaigns 31
_____________________________________________________________________
indicated by providing guidance and cues on the party web sites, as well as setting
up party specific networks or “zones” on places like Origo.no. Success stories of
internet politics, and especially Obama, have had a significant impact on Norwegian
media. Comments like the one quoted below is quite common:

Norwegian politicians have a lot to learn from Obama and his staff when it
comes to running electoral campaigns. In particular, they should notice his
priority of digital media, a part of the campaign which can be run without
especially high costs. (Digi.no 2008a, my translation)

Party strategists have also been inspired by the American experience, such as
for instance the leader of the information department in the Labour Party going to
the USA in 2007 to study the Democrats’ Internet strategy (Digi.no, 2008b).
However, to get Norwegian voters drawn into Web politics in sufficient numbers in
the first place, a more systemic approach is called for. During the American
presidential campaign common “entrances” or “portals” to party politics on the main
Web 2.0 sites were set up on established sites as on MySpace, Facebook and
YouTube.
Some differences between the American and Norwegian party systems
should also be noted. A national party in the USA and Norway is quite simply
different entities. Population- and territorial size, as well as diversity, place different
demands on local networking and autonomy, as well as effective coordination and
communication between the localities. American parties also have a much looser
structure, with relatively few members and dormant local branches. Norwegian
parties on the other hand are still are relatively strong organizations and less reliant
on ad hoc networking. Thirdly, American elections are candidate-centered, in
contrast to the party centered approach found in Norway. These differences may be
reduced over time, as Norway – along with other European countries – is
approaching a model with decoupled local branches, fewer members and more
focus on individual leaders. But they are still significant enough to warrant the
question whether Web 2.0 is more functional for American parties and therefore
Web 2.0 in the Norwegian 2007 and 2009 Campaigns 32
_____________________________________________________________________
more “rational” to use for winning elections, exactly because these parties are more
like network parties in the first place (Anstead & Chadwick, 2008).
As such, it may therefore seem like a paradox that it is the Labour Party
which has most fully embraced Web 2.0. It is one of the oldest parties and probably
still has the most effective and vital party organization. However, this also means
that the party has the resources and structure to effectively implement their Web
2.0 presence, provided the party leadership thinks it necessary. As remarked by the
party leader and prime minister, Jens Stoltenberg, the Labour Party has always been
aware of using media technology to mobilize voters and recruit members (reference
needed). This goes straight back to the e-ruption versus Web 1.5 scenarios.
Stoltenberg regards Web 2.0 as representing continuity in the party’s strategy. It is
another useful media channel for communicating with members and voters. One
should also add that Stoltenberg has attracted a substantial amount of attention in
the established media through the “premieres” of the party channel on YouTube, his
page on Facebook and profile on Twitter.
Web 2.0 in the Norwegian 2007 and 2009 Campaigns 33
_____________________________________________________________________

References
Aalen, Ida (2009), Deler og deltar, Aftenposten Morgen May 8., 2009.
Aardal, B. (2007a), Velgere på evig vandring? In Aardal, B. (Ed.), Norske velgere (pp.
13-40), Oslo: Damm.
Aardal, B. (2007b), Table on internet use. Retrieved July 13, 2008 from:
http://home.online.no/~b-aardal/vedlegg.pdf
Aardal, B.; Krogstad, A., Narud, H.M. & Waldahl, R. (2004), Strategisk
kommunikasjon og politisk usikkerhet. In Aardal, B.; Krogstad, A. & Narud, H. M
(Eds.), I valgkampens hete. Strategisk kommunikasjon og politisk usikkerhet (pp. 13-
32), Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Aardal, B. & Stavn, G. (2006), Enda flere skifter parti, Samfunnsspeilet, 20, 2-8.
ABCNyheter (2007), Facebook kan avgjøre valget. Retrieved May 18, 2007 from:
http://www.abcnyheter.no/node/46264
Aftenposten (2007), Få toppolitikere bruker blogger - . . . men alle er enige om at
Internett blir viktigere, Aftenposten Morning Edition, February 19, 2007.
Aftenposten (2009), Unge fjes går for Facebook. Retrieved April 10, 2009 from:
http://www.aftenposten.no/kul_und/article3019774.ece
Allern, S. (2001), Flokkdyr på Løvebakken: søkelys på Stortingets presselosje og
politikkens medierammer, Oslo: Pax
Anderson, N. (2006), Tim Berners-Lee on Web 2.0: "nobody even knows what it
means", Ars Technica. Retrieved February 25, 2008 from:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060901-7650.html
Anstead, N. & Chadwick, A. (2008), Parties, Election Campaigning and the Internet:
Toward A Comparative Institutional Approach. In Chadwick, A. and Howard, P. N.
(Eds.), The Handbook of Internet Politics (pp. 56-71), Routledge.
Aura Avis (2009), Tar valgkampen på nett. Retrieved June 23, 2009 from:
http://www.auraavis.no/lokale_nyheter/article4417799.ece
Barnett, S. (1997), New media, old problems: New technology and the political
process, European Journal of Communication; 12, 193-218.
Bjørklund, T. (1991), Election campaigns in post-war Norway (1945-1989): From
party-controlled to media-driven campaigns, Scandinavian Political Studies, 14, 279-
302.
Brønnøysundregistrene (2009), Partiregisteret. Retrieved June 9, 2009 from:
http://w2.brreg.no/partireg/.
Dagbladet (2007), Election pages. Available from:
http://www.dagbladet.no/valg2007/resultater/?fk=K&fylke=&r=05&vis=2
Dalton, R. (1988), Citizen politics in Western democracies, Chatham, NJ: Chatham
House Publishers.
Digi.no (2008a), Nettet avgjør valget i 2009. Retrieved September 15, 2008 from:
http://www.digi.no/php/art.php?id=786162.
Digi.no (2008b), Slik skal Arbeiderpartiet vinne nettvalget. Retrieved September 20,
2008 from: http://www.digi.no/787118/slik-skal-arbeiderpartiet-vinne-nettvalget
Digi.no (2009), - IT-ledere må delta i nettsamfunn. Retrieved May 10, 2009 from:
http://www.digi.no/812799/it-ledere-maa-delta-i-nettsamfunn
Downs, A. (1957), An economic theory of democracy, New York: Harper and Row.
Duverger, M. (1954), Political parties: Their organization and activity in the modern
Web 2.0 in the Norwegian 2007 and 2009 Campaigns 34
_____________________________________________________________________
state, London: Methuen, 1954.
European Court of Human Rights (2008), Chamber Judgment. TV Vest AS & Rogaland
Pensjonistparti vs. Norway, Press release issued by the Registrar, December 11, 2008.
European Social Survey (2007), Dataset on trust. Retrieved May 15, 2008 from:
http://essedunet.nsd.uib.no/cms/data/statdata/TrustData.exe
Fenn, J. & Linden, A. (2005), Gartner's hype cycle special report for 2005. Available at:
http://www.gartner.com/resources/130100/130115/gartners_hype_c.pdf
Gartner Group (2007), Understanding hype cycles. Retrieved April 20, 2007 from:
http://www.gartner.com/pages/story.php.id.8795.s.8.jsp
Harmel, R., & Janda, K. (1994). An integrated theory of party goals and party change.
Journal of Theoretical Politics, 6, 259-287.
Hestvik, H. (2004), «valgkamp2001.no» Partier, velgere og nye medier. Ny
kommunikasjon? In Aardal, B.; Krogstad, A. & Narud, H.M. (Eds.) I valgkampens
hete. Strategisk kommunikasjon og politisk usikkerhet (pp. 230-252), Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget.
Karlsen, R. (2007), Den første internettvalgkampen? Velgernes informasjonskilder. In
Aardal, B. (Ed.), Norske velgere (pp. 281-302), Oslo: Damm.
Katz, R. S. & Mair, P. (1995), Changing models of party organization and party
democracy. The emergence of the cartel party, Party Politics, 1, 5-28
Kommunal og regionaldepartementet (2007), Election results 2007. Available at:
http://www.regjeringen.no/krd/html/valg2007/bk5.html
Katz, Elihu & Lazarsfeld, Paul F. (1955), Personal Influence: The Part Played by People
in the Flow of Mass Communication, New York: The Free Press.
Lazarsfeld, Paul F., Berelson, Bernard, & Gaudet, Hazel (1944), The People’s Choice:
How The Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign, New York: Columbia
University Press.
Lusoli, W. (2005), A second-order medium? The Internet as a source of electoral
information in 25 European countries, Information Polity, 10, 247–265.
Nettavisen (2007), Se valgvideoene ekspertene slakter. Retrieved November 9, 2007
from: http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/innenriks/valg07/article1266375.ece
Nielsen (2009), Twitter’s Tweet Smell Of Success. Retrieved April 2, 2008 from:
http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/twitters-tweet-smell-of-success/
Norsk mediebarometer (2007), Internett. Available at:
http://www.ssb.no/emner/07/02/30/medie/sa86/internett.pdf
O'Reilly, T. (2005), What is Web 2.0. Design patterns and business models for the
next generation of software. Retrieved February 27, 2008 from:
http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-Web-20.html
Panebianco, A. (1988), Political parties: organization and power, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Pascu, C.; Osimo, D.; Ulbrich, M.; Turlea, G.; & Burgelman, J.C. (2007), The potential
disruptive impact of Internet 2 based technologies, First Monday, 12 (3). Retrieved
November 13, 2008 from:
http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1630/
Propaganda (2005a), Valgkampen kjempes på nettet. Retrieved April 20, 2005 from:
http://www.propaganda-as.no/php/art.php?id=116753
Saglie, J. (2007), Massepartier i cyberspace? Om bruk av IKT i norske partier, Norsk
statsvitenskapelig tidsskrift, (2), 123-144.
Web 2.0 in the Norwegian 2007 and 2009 Campaigns 35
_____________________________________________________________________
Saglie, J. & Vabo, S. I. (2005), Elektronisk politisk deltakelse - en aktivitet for de få?.
In Saglie, J. & Bjørklund, T. (Eds.), Lokalvalg og lokalt folkestyre, Oslo: Gyldendal
Akademisk
Scarrow, S.E. (2000), Parties without members? Party organization in a changing
electoral environment. In: Dalton, R.J. & Wattenberg, M.P. (Eds.), Parties without
Partisans. Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies (pp. 79-101), Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Tvitre.no (2009), Statistikk. Retrieved May 19, 2009 from: http://tvitre.no/stats
Valgprat.no (2009), Twittertoppen - lynmeldinger fra Norges politikere. Retrieved
May 18, 2009 from: http://valgprat.no/twittertoppen
Vg.no (2007a), Jens åpnet Ap-kanal på YouTube. Retrieved November 6, 2007 from:
http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/norsk-politikk/artikkel.php?artid=172252
Vg.no (2007b), Uten nettsatsing mister du velgere. Retrieved October 10, 2007 from:
http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/norsk-politikk/artikkel.php?artid=144597

Interviews with party informants

Ingrid Sagranden, Web manager Labour Party, Oslo July 12th 2007
Frode Fjeldstad, information adviser and Web manager, Liberals, Oslo July 12th 2007
Jan Kenrick Glad Jackson, Web manager Red (Red Electoral Alliance), Oslo July 12th
2007
Sunniva Flakstad Ihle, Web manager Conservatives, Oslo August 9th 2007
Ole Martin Nicolaisen, editor of party paper Fremskritt and news editor of party Web
site, Oslo August 9th 2007
Arun Gosh, information adviser and Web manager Socialist Left Party, Oslo
September 18th 2007.
Ragnar Kvåle, information adviser and Web manager Centre party, Oslo September
18th 2007
Christen Krogvig, Web manager Democrats, Oslo, September 28th 2007
John Herfindal, Web manager Christian People's Party, Oslo October 4th 2007
Mona Berg Brustad, Web manager Pensioners' party, telephone October 9th 2007
Kjell Ivar Vestå, party leader and Web manager Coastal Party, telephone September
26th 2007