Politicians as Content Creators: Political Branding Strategies on Social Media and Their Impact on Voters

JurnalPost.com - Social media is no longer just a tool for communication and entertainment; it has evolved into a vital space for building political image. Politicians no longer rely solely on speeches, open campaigns, or mass media coverage to reach the public. They now appear as content creators, actively sharing their daily activities, producing short videos, following trends, and interacting directly with social media users.

This phenomenon was clearly visible during the 2024 General Election, as various candidates utilized Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube to build rapport with the public. The content displayed does not always discuss political programs or policies, but also showcases personal lives, social activities, humor, and various activities deemed engaging for social media users.

Political branding is an effort to shape and manage public perception of a figure to create a specific impression in the eyes of the public. Goffman (1959), through his dramaturgical theory, explains that individuals tend to present themselves in a planned manner before the public or front stage, while the more private side of life remains in the back stage.

This concept is relevant to the phenomenon of politicians acting as content creators. Through vlogs, daily activity videos, and documentation of direct visits or blusukan(impromptu field visits), politicians strive to project a figure who is close to the people.

Activities such as visiting traditional markets, densely populated settlements, coastal areas, or regions outside the seat of government are often used as content material. Visits to various regions, ranging from Papua, Aceh, and Central Java to Sumatra, can be showcased through videos that are packaged simply and appear spontaneous.

Through such content, the line between private life and political activity becomes increasingly blurred. The public feels as though they can get to know a politician directly, even though what they are seeing is actually a curated performance selected for publication.

Political Personalization and the Rise of Politicians as Content Creators

The phenomenon of politicians as content creators is closely related to political personalization, which is the shift in public attention from political parties and platforms toward the individual character of a politician.

Van Aelst, Sheafer, and Stanyer (2012) explain that political communication through media increasingly focuses on the personal characteristics of political figures rather than just their institutional positions or roles.

In the Indonesian context, this trend was evident in how candidates built their images during the 2024 General Election.

Some candidates emphasized simplicity, humor, and closeness to the public via Instagram or TikTok. Meanwhile, others relied more on speech videos, policy discussions, and activities with community leaders and religious groups.

These differing strategies show that every politician has a communication approach tailored to the specific demographic they wish to reach.

Some voters may be attracted to candidates who appear friendly and humorous, while other voters pay more attention to speaking ability, insight, or the demeanor displayed in discussion forums.

However, a problem arises when personal appeal becomes the primary consideration without being balanced by an assessment of track records, leadership capabilities, and the programs offered.

Viral Strategies and the Experience of Young Voters

The development of social media has also made political campaign strategies increasingly influenced by viral culture.

In the 2024 General Election, the use of music, dance, funny video clips, and various digital trends became part of political communication. Such content attracted significant attention from the younger generation, including those voting for the first time.

I personally have an experience related to this phenomenon. When the 2024 General Election took place, I had not yet reached the age to exercise my right to vote. However, I still followed political developments through social media, especially TikTok and Instagram.

At that time, I was interested in one of the vice-presidential candidates because the content displayed looked entertaining and was widely discussed. I even liked their posts because I felt interested and did not want to miss out on the trending topic.

Looking back, that interest was influenced more by how the candidate presented themselves on social media than by my understanding of the political ideas and programs offered.

This experience made me realize that social media has an influence in shaping political interest, even among people who do not yet have the right to vote.

Marwick (2013) explains that social media users tend to build a self-image like a brand marketed to the public. In political communication, a similar approach is used to create a character that is easily recognized and remembered by the public.

A politician can build an image as a humorous, simple, religious, firm, or youth-friendly figure. Such a character has the potential to increase popularity and emotional attachment with their supporters.

However, popularity does not always reflect leadership quality. Politicians who succeed in creating viral content do not necessarily have better ideas or policies than other candidates.

Between Authenticity and Planned Branding

One factor that makes political content interesting is the impression of authenticity or appearing as one truly is.

Enli (2017) explains that political communication on social media can build an impression of authenticity through a delivery style that is spontaneous, personal, and not overly formal.

A similar point is discussed by Enli and Rosenberg (2018), who show how populist communication styles can make politicians appear more authentic in the eyes of the public.

In Indonesia, the use of everyday language, simple videos, and direct interaction with citizens often creates the impression that a politician has a closeness to the lives of the people.

However, a spontaneous impression does not always mean that content is created without planning. In political communication practice, the selection of location, camera angles, video editing, and even publication timing can be arranged to shape a specific perception.

This phenomenon shows that voters need to understand the difference between a politician's personal attitude and the image intentionally built through social media.

Papacharissi (2010) explains that the development of digital technology allows private life to become part of the public communication space.

Meanwhile, Marwick and boyd (2011) introduced the concept of context collapse, which is a condition where various groups of audiences with different backgrounds can witness the same content.

In such a situation, politicians need to convey messages that can be accepted by supporters, political opponents, and undecided voters alike.

As a result, some political content tends to use simple and easily understood messages, but at the risk of reducing the depth of discussion regarding public issues.

The Role of Algorithms in Shaping Political Perception

The success of politicians as content creators cannot be separated from the role of social media algorithms.

Digital platforms have systems that determine which content appears more frequently based on the activity and tendencies of their users.

Tufekci (2014) discusses how the use of digital data can be utilized in political communication to understand audience characteristics and tailor campaign messages.

Politicians and their communication teams can observe the types of posts that receive many views, comments, and interactions. Content with high engagement can then be used as a reference to produce similar material.

Nevertheless, Jungherr (2016) explains that the influence of social media on election results is a complex issue that remains a subject of debate in political communication research.

This means that a high number of views or likes cannot be directly equated with political support that will translate into votes in an election.

Furthermore, entertaining content does not necessarily provide useful political knowledge. Some users may simply enjoy funny videos without understanding the policy issues being discussed.

Risks of Polarization and the Spread of Misinformation

The use of social media as a means of political branding also carries risks to the quality of democracy.

Pariser (2011) introduced the concept of filter bubble, which is a condition where a person more frequently receives information that aligns with their interests or existing biases.

Sunstein (2017) explains that exposure to information dominated by similar views can strengthen polarization and reduce openness to differing opinions.

In the Indonesian context, Lim (2017) examines how groups on social media can form communication spaces that reinforce identity sentiment and political division.

This condition can worsen when political content is spread without going through a fact-checking process.

Wardle and Derakhshan (2017) distinguish information disorders into misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation. All three have different characteristics but can equally cause problems in public communication.

On social media, unverified information can spread rapidly through video clips, emotional narratives, or posts intentionally created to build or damage the image of a political figure.

The development of artificial intelligence technology also adds challenges through the emergence of synthetic videos or deepfakes.

Vaccari and Chadwick (2020) show that synthetic political videos can create uncertainty and influence public trust in information, even if they do not always succeed in making viewers believe the content of the video.

In my opinion, this condition is an important reason why the public, especially the younger generation, needs to possess good digital literacy skills.

Social media users should not immediately trust information just because the content is viral or shared by many people. Checking sources, context, and the truth of the information remains necessary before drawing conclusions.

Social Media as a Means to Increase Political Participation

Behind its various risks, social media still holds great potential to increase public political participation.

Digital platforms allow political information to reach groups that were previously less interested in following government developments or elections.

Bennett and Segerberg (2012) introduced the concept of connective action, which is a form of collective engagement that can develop through digital networks and content-sharing activities without always depending on formal organizations.

In this context, a politician's posts can be an entry point for the younger generation to learn about political issues, understand democratic processes, and begin to form views on public affairs.

Tapsell (2017) also explains that the development of digital media in Indonesia opens new spaces for public participation, although the structure of media ownership and power still faces the challenge of oligarchy.

Thus, social media has two sides that need to be considered.

On one hand, social media can expand access to information and increase public political engagement. On the other hand, the same platform can be used to build excessive branding, spread misleading information, or reinforce polarization.

The Importance of Ethics and Political Content Regulation

The use of social media for political activities is inseparable from the legal provisions applicable in Indonesia.

Law Number 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections regulates various aspects of election administration and campaigning, including prohibitions on certain actions that could cause conflict or disrupt the democratic process.

In addition, Law Number 1 of 2024 concerning the Second Amendment to Law Number 11 of 2008 concerning Electronic Information and Transactions regulates a number of prohibited acts in the use of information and electronic systems.

The use of public personal data, including in political communication activities, must also pay attention to the provisions of Law Number 27 of 2022 concerning Personal Data Protection.

The existence of these rules is important to ensure that the use of technology in political communication continues to uphold responsibility, honesty, and protection for the public.

However, regulation alone is not enough. The awareness of politicians in conveying information responsibly and the ability of the public to evaluate content critically are also important factors.

Voters Must Be More Critical Than Just Following Trends

The phenomenon of politicians as content creators shows that the way the public knows and evaluates political figures has changed.

Social media makes it easier for politicians to reach the public through approaches that are personal, engaging, and close to everyday life. This strategy can increase popularity while opening up space for political participation, especially for the younger generation.

However, the public should not make digital popularity the sole measure in determining their political choice.

My experience following political trends on social media during the 2024 General Election serves as a lesson that interest in a candidate can arise because of entertaining content, not solely because of an understanding of the candidate's programs and capabilities.

Therefore, voters need to get into the habit of checking track records, understanding ideas, comparing work programs, and seeking information from various sources before giving their support.

Politicians may use social media to build closeness with the public. However, such branding should still be accompanied by honest, open political communication that provides useful political education.

Ultimately, a high-quality democracy requires not only politicians capable of creating engaging content but also a public capable of critical thinking.

Because being popular on social media does not always mean someone is the most worthy of leading. Voters need to look further than just the content appearing on their screens.

Bibliography

Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2012). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 739–768. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.670661

Enli, G. (2017). Twitter as arena for the authentic outsider: Exploring the social media campaigns of Trump and Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election. European Journal of Communication, 32(1), 50–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323116682802

Enli, G., & Rosenberg, L. T. (2018). Trust in the age of social media: Populist politicians seem more authentic. Social Media + Society, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118764430

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday.

Jungherr, A. (2016). Twitter use in election campaigns: A systematic literature review. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 13(1), 72–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2015.1132401

Lim, M. (2017). Freedom to hate: Social media, algorithmic enclaves, and the rise of tribal nationalism in Indonesia. Critical Asian Studies, 49(3), 411–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/14672715.2017.1341188

Marwick, A. E. (2013). Status update: Celebrity, publicity, and branding in the social media age. Yale University Press.

Marwick, A. E., & boyd, d. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810365313

Papacharissi, Z. (2010). A private sphere: Democracy in a digital age. Polity Press.

Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. Penguin Press.

Sunstein, C. R. (2017). Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton University Press.

Tapsell, R. (2017). Media power in Indonesia: Oligarchs, citizens and the digital revolution. Rowman & Littlefield.

Tufekci, Z. (2014). Engineering the public: Big data, surveillance and computational politics. First Monday, 19(7). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v19i7.4901

Law Number 1 of 2024 concerning the Second Amendment to Law Number 11 of 2008 concerning Electronic Information and Transactions.

Law Number 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections.

Law Number 27 of 2022 concerning Personal Data Protection.

Vaccari, C., & Chadwick, A. (2020). Deepfakes and disinformation: Exploring the impact of synthetic political video on deception, uncertainty, and trust in news. Social Media + Society, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120903408

Van Aelst, P., Sheafer, T., & Stanyer, J. (2012). The personalization of mediated political communication: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism, 13(2), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884911427802

Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policymaking. Council of Europe.