Over the past five years, Facebook has grown rapidly as a website for political advertising and campaigns.
Donald Trump, Jeremy Corbyn and Angela Merkel have all used it to promote their ideas.
However, despite Facebook's growing prominence, we currently know little about the actual spending of political parties on the platform.
In a recent paper published in the political quarter, we used data from the UK to study in detail Facebook's use in the campaign.
We have found that the parties spend a lot on the platform, but there is a serious gap in information about where the money is going.
There are also questions about the way third parties use Facebook, and how far the government has abandoned control over these companies to oversee the way funds are used.
How much do we know about spending on Facebook?
As a country known for election management and supervision, the UK provides more information about election spending than most countries.
However, there is little data on Facebook.
While political parties need to announce their election expenditures, they still don't need to report how much they spend on digital advertising as a separate category.
In our paper, we dig around in the election commission database in an attempt to further reveal the way political parties use online platforms.
Although political parties do not have to elaborate on how they spend money, they must, by law, report to the Electoral Commission a wide range of expenditures.
From a report by the 2018 Electoral Commission, we know that spending on digital advertising has increased significantly-even if it is not all reported.
At 2014, only 30,000 (1.
7% of the total advertising budget)
By 2017, the figure had risen to 4. 3m (42. 8%).
The return on advertising and digital advertising spending also shows that this figure is slightly higher than 3.
In the 2017 election, all British parties advertised £ 16 on Facebook.
In contrast, Google, just over £ 54,000 a month, is only on Twitter, and just £ 25,000 a 239,000 "traditional" advertising across national and regional media.
When parties or campaigns spend money on Facebook, they can put ads or videos in specific public areas.
This could be an advertisement for the Labor Party, suggesting that it is the only party that can "stop Nigel Farage's Brexit", or that conservatives think the Labor party "will not achieve Brexit"
These ads will then appear primarily in certain schedules-for example, users between 35 and 44 years of age and/or users living in the UK.
Full picture?
However, the data does not reveal exactly how Facebook's campaign budget is used.
For example, many of us would like to know if the parties have paid for the Micro
Targeting-the use of data to develop personalized information for voters.
However, the existing data does not show what kind of advertising the advertiser is paying for, nor does it show the extent to which these advertisements are widely seen.
It is also difficult to determine how much money is spent on Facebook through marketing and research companies, rather than directly from Facebook's party.
The same is true for offline campaigns, suggesting that this is a broader issue around advertising spending.
For example, the data tells us that during the 2017 general election, the Conservative Party paid more than half of the pounds for market research, advertising and transportation to the consultant Messina Group.
We also know that Messina is spending money on Facebook.
But we don't know how much of the money we spend on Facebook.
So we don't know how much the Conservative Party has spent on this platform in total.
In response to the pressure, Facebook has introduced some new transparency measures to help bridge this gap.
However, outside the election period, the official regulation of information disclosure is very limited.
For example, we know that during the period from October 2018 to April 2019, the British people's voting campaign, which held the second Brexit referendum, spent £ 433,384 on Facebook advertising. Pro-
Britain will spend 422,746 in the future.
Britain's best Brexit group spent 317,463 pounds. That’s over £1.
Brexit costs $1 million
Related ads on Facebook.
However, we know very little about who supports these organizations and whether they have any connection with the official party movement.
Facebook is a market, and another important factor is at work when we consider adjusting our Facebook spending.
In the offline world, it is easy to explain the number of election expenditures, because the declared items often have fixed costs.
If a party spends £ 10,000 on a flyer, it will get the same number of flyers as any other party.
However, the £ 10,000 spent by both parties on Facebook ads could lead to a very different campaign.
This is because when we show that Facebook follows the auction principle.
Advertising does not have a fixed cost, but varies depending on the audience the advertiser wants to reach and the nature of the content being produced (
More attractive content is cheaper).
As a result, ads for target audiences in marginal constituencies will be much more expensive than general information posted on secure seats.
The content that people watch and share becomes cheaper, while parties with less attractive materials will see prices rise.
These principles make it difficult to accurately determine what a declared expenditure figure has brought to the party in terms of content.
It also creates an unfair competitive environment for the parties, effectively pricing some people in the way they want.
So official statistics that only show aggregated spending know little about how parties use Facebook.
To reflect on whether and how existing reporting requirements need to be changed, it is critical to understand these limitations.
It is not enough to apply the existing consumption principles to the online field.
A lot of what we know is the result of political pressure on Facebook to increase transparency in the way political participants use the platform.
However, we should all consider the extent to which these platforms should play a leading role in combating the core issue of the way democracy operates.
Or, in one sentence, should the government and regulators take back control.
This article was re-published from the conversation based on the creative sharing authorization.
Read the original text.
Catherine Domet received funding from the ESRC, and the UK electric power Academy received funding from the ESRC and the UK college.