Online campaigns are carried out by political parties, interest groups, and politically active individuals to influence, encourage, or disrupt public participation in politics across the world. Private firms are often employed to support the strategy, development, and delivery of these political campaigns. The work of these firms can be visible, such as through social media advertising but they also provide more niche and invisible technologies and services, including voter analytics and a/b testing, as well as more nefarious techniques for spreading misinformation.
For example:
Online campaigns can contribute to upholding democratic values by making information more accessible and politics more representative. However, online campaigns have come under scrutiny due to their central position in continued political disruption, such as their use for spreading misinformation, inciting violence and hate, and lacking the necessary mechanisms for accountability. This is exacerbated by the fact that private firms do not go under the same scrutiny as public figures in political campaigns. These behind-the-scenes technical experts and campaign consultants do not have to report on their work publicly, but at the same time decide how a campaign will be run: what tools will be used, what audiences reached, and what messages to share. Due to this involvement, the firms can impact the nature of political representation, democracy and public participation, such as by presenting information in short, snappy messages to fit a specific platform, reducing complex shifting political opinions into singular data points, or aiming to create profit rather than discussion. By examining the industry and the services they provide, we can change this ominous and vague threat of online campaigns to detailed descriptions of who and what we want to regulate, and in what specific ways we need them to change to benefit our ideals of democracy.
Our team used The Influence Industry Project’s archive of 500 companies working with political parties in over 30 countries to examine what services these firms provide. This archive is based on our previous open-source investigation (OSINT) in which we gathered over 800 sources evidencing that the industry exists - presenting links between the firms and the political parties. The sources are split into two types: primary sources, such as the firms’ websites and social media accounts, in which they describe their own work, and secondary sources such as academic research, newspaper publications, NGO research, and company databases, in which other people describe the work of these firms. From these sources, we can discover where the firms have worked, who they worked for, and what work they carried out.
Our findings are narrowed down to 35 distinct services provided to support political agendas across the world, along with the countries and, in some cases the specific political party.
Download the List of 35 Services HereDownload PDF Download the list above, or head straight to our interactive database where you can filter the private firms by services and the country they worked in.
Campaigns have always used different tools and technologies to achieve their goals. The influence industry project has used three categories to understand these tools: asset, intelligence and influence. Without the enhancement of internet- and data- driven technology, these tools traditionally looked like:
These tools have become increasingly varied, diverse, and ubiquitous in campaigns as digital technologies have increased the possibilities:
There has been some research on how firms provide these services to political campaigns focused on either specific tools (such as TV ads, social media advertising, and data gathering and analysis) or a more comprehensive set of services utilising the UK and US electoral finance databases. When the influence industry began our research in 2017, we already knew that we wanted to create and publish more international representation in documenting the role the technology and communications industry play in election campaigns. Subsequently, we have worked with partners to demonstrate the role of these firms in over 20 countries such as recently in Indonesia, Lebanon, Argentina, Paraguay, and Brazil.
We also carried out our own in-house research and ultimately documented 500 firms working with political parties across the world. While we recognise that this list was not exhaustive, as firms continue to start up, change names, and shut down, we also believe that with this snapshot, we can begin to ask questions of the industry. In this case, we wanted to understand what services they provide to the political parties.
Over three months, we examined over 800 sources, gathered through OSINT techniques, that evidence the work of 500 companies working with political parties worldwide. We undertook content analysis of the sources (such as industry websites and news articles) and developed codes of the services mentioned. We checked in with each other regularly to make sure we had a consistent understanding of the categories, and we double-coded a set of the content to make sure we were consistent between our interpretations – adjusting in response to these activities as needed. We ultimately created a list of 35 services.
Download the List of 35 Services HereDownload PDF
Download the list above, or head straight to our interactive database where you can filter the private firms by services and the country they worked in.
The final list of 35 services is neither exhaustive nor free from alternative interpretations. For example, new firms appear and some sources sometimes disappear (in most cases we could find them again on WayBackMachine), new terms get created for old practices (such as a shift from ‘data-driven’ to AI-enhanced), and some broader categories were hard to define (such as the difference between strategy fir campaigns and management of campaigns). We initially finished with over 50 categories but removed and subsumed a few which were more detailed versions of other categories, to allow the database to be more easily searchable and to remove categories which had blurry lines between them to be more consistent. We also removed some for not being related to digital influence.
We believe this limited snapshot can work as a benchmark from which we can analyse our ongoing commentary on the work of this industry and create comparisons with other datasets to continue to explore an opaque and under-investigated industry.
Many of these services fit well into our original three categories however there are three notable extensions to these categories from this analysis: firstly, some demonstrate foundational work that support all three categories, secondly there is strategic work that transcends these categories, and finally, some services were described not as a positive form of mobilisation but negative forms of campaigning. The services are categorised as such below:
Asset: Canvassing, Data Broker, Digital Listening, Opinion Research, Polling and Surveys. Intelligence: Analytics, Micro-Targeting, Political Messaging, Search Engine Optimisation, Voter Analytics. Routine Influence: Advertising, Apps, Branding, Design Services, Direct Mail Campaigns, Email Communications, Fundraising, Influencer Campaigns, Mobilisation, Phone-Banking, Public Relations, SMS campaigning, TV advertising. Disruptive Influence Techniques: Dis/Misinformation Campaigns, Inauthentic Behaviour, Negative Campaigning Foundational across all three categories: AI tools, Campaign Software, Media-Buying, and Volunteer Management. Above across all three categories: Campaign Management, Campaign and Communication strategy, Crisis Management, and Social Media Services.
Some of the categories overlap, such as canvassing, which is used to collect data and to conduct influence, as well as political messaging, which combines intelligence to formulate the messages to influence people.
Private firms play central roles in our political processes, regulations affecting the decisions of political parties, finessing their services based on their own political alignments and affecting how funds for democracy are spent. Regulation of platforms has been greatly discussed, but often with a focus on large platforms or with little understanding of the detailed work that goes into targeted messaging and influence campaigns. Detailing the services gives a basis to create more effective regulations and guidelines, as well as more comprehensive media literacy. The private firms currently profit from elections, with little accountability, and creating transparency is necessary to understanding influence.
Author: Amber Macintyre, Project Lead Tactical Tech Research: Amber Macintyre, Cassie Cladis, Katie Costello, Pedro Maia, Emma Neibig
