How Divisive Politicians Play on Emotion to Win at Facebook - and Why Opponents Need to Take Note

Last week, I shared this graph, created via the Facebook-owned monitoring dashboard CrowdTangle, which shows that over the last year, One Nation Senator Pauline Hanson and Liberal MP Craig Kelly have generated the most shares, by far, among Australian politicians on Facebook.

As you can see here, in terms of direct engagement, Scott Morrison still comes out on top – which makes sense, given he’s the Prime Minister of Australian. But in terms of shares, Kelly and Hanson are beating Morrison almost 3 to 1, and Opposition leader Anthony Albanese isn’t even in the picture.

That’s important, because while direct engagement like comments and likes do increase the reach of posts on Facebook, the platform’s feed algorithm primarily looks to amplify content that sparks discussion, so shares actually generate even more reach. That’s because users are actively looking to spread that message in order to spark more debate. Comments are indirect share actions, while shares are direct.

That means that both Kelly and Hanson are essentially winning Facebook with their often divisive, often anti-science messaging. And that, whether you like it or not, is winning them votes.

Of course, some will dismiss these stats, saying that it’s only Facebook, and that it’s not indicative of what the general population believes, that it’s not an influential factor generally. But there are currently around 17.3 million active Facebook users in Australia, equivalent to almost 70% of the population. Consider also that 18.7% of the population is aged 14 and under (the minimum age for a Facebook account is 13), and it’s fairly clear that Facebook’s reach is significant.

This is a key factor, and the politician that wins Facebook is winning overall. There’s no other way to look at it – so why are Hanson and Kelly so successful on The Social Network, and how can their political opponents combat the same?

Divide and Conquer

Both Kelly and Hanson have found a haven for their divisive, aggressive political tactics on Facebook, similar to how Republicans in the US have used social media as a key platform to win support among American voters.

As noted, Facebook’s notorious News Feed algorithm is designed to maximize engagement, and keep people on the platform for as long as possible. Facebook’s engineers are incentivized to boost engagement, wherever possible, and that, at times, has lead to some even within the company feeling uncomfortable about the compromises they need to make for such.

Part of the problem here is that emotional reaction is not always driven by logic.

As explained by Forbes:

“Scientists have uncovered that humans feel first and think second. When confronted with sensory information, the emotional section of the brain can process the information in one-fifth of the time the cognitive section requires.”

So if you want to succeed on Facebook, you don’t need to be logical, you need to trigger emotion, which then sparks replies, engagement, interaction, etc.

And which emotional triggers work best in prompting engagement?

As per a review of 65k articles online, published by Harvard Business Review:

“Articles with a large number of comments were found to evoke high-arousal emotions, such as anger and happiness, paired with low-dominance emotions where people felt less in control, such as fear. On the other hand, social sharing was very connected to feelings of high dominance, where the reader feels in control, such as inspiration or admiration. Emotional valence was less-connected to virality, with the viral stories having both negative and positive valences. However, the researchers did find that negative emotions contributed to higher virality.”

That would explain the larger number of comments on posts from PM Scott Morrison, with Facebook users taking the opportunity to share their thoughts on his every announcement.

But again, we’re looking at shares here – as highlighted in the study, people tend to share content more often as a means of dominance, or asserting their world-view, and they use social shares as a support measure, underlining that their stance is, in fact, correct.

Worth noting, too, that negative responses lead to higher virality – so every time you see a post from Pauline Hanson that annoys you, that angers you, that you feel you need to comment on, doing so only contributes to the amplification of that message.

There’s a reason why TV stations keep getting controversial guests on. It’s not necessarily about supporting the station’s own agenda, it’s about maximizing reaction. More people talking about your show means more views of clips, and more exposure for your brand. It’s the ‘any publicity is good publicity’ approach, and it works. Every time Pauline Hanson is on TV, she ends up trending on Twitter.

Because we can’t help ourselves. Because we need to assert our dominance – either in support or opposition – through social sharing.

Which is where Kelly and Hanson excel in their Facebook efforts.

Stoking Emotion

This is the most popular post on Craig Kelly’s Facebook Page in the last 3 months:

The image relates to the arrest of a woman who had sought to organize an anti-lockdown protest on Facebook, the video of which went viral back in August.

As you can see, this post has had almost 10k shares on Facebook, a huge amount of extended reach. The post triggers emotional response – you either feel sympathy for the woman for opposing the Victorian lockdown efforts, or it makes you angry that a federal politician is essentially flagging support for anti-government action. It’s a perfect vehicle for Facebook engagement. That immediate, visceral response leads to amplification - and sure, it’ll get some people offside. But it’s also a rallying call for Kelly’s supporters.

You don’t agree with stringent lockdown measures to control COVID-19, here’s a Federal MP who’s with you, who’ll stand up for your beliefs. Kelly, and by extension, the Federal Liberal Party, are siding with the common person frustrated by the measures – while the post also takes a stab at perceived political correctness around the #BlackLivesMatter movement.

This is how Kelly gets so much engagement, because he knows what triggers emotional response.

Some of his other tops posts focus on:

• COVID-19 being overblown in terms of risk, quoting ‘experts’ who claim that it’s nothing to fear
• Suggesting that the risks of lockdown are far worse than the virus itself (lockdowns offer more opportunity for paedophiles, for example)
• Reports that hydroxychloroquine is a cure for COVID-19
• Comparing lockdowns to Nazi Germany

You get the gist – Kelly doesn’t post rational, balanced debate, he goes for the most emotional, aggressive stances and looks to use them to attack political adversaries.

And this is obviously a very emotional subject right now – many Victorians are frustrated at having to stay home, especially while other states get back to a level of normal. And even though the official data shows that the Victorian lockdown measures are working, political opponents are able to stoke these concerns for their own gain.

The lesson we learn from Craig Kelly’s approach to Facebook is that you need to take a side, you need to find divisive angles, and by exploiting the most emotionally charged elements, you can spark mass-sharing by giving weight to community criticisms, frustrations, counter trends, etc.

The question then, however, is how do you combat such – how can a more balanced, logical approach counter the emotional manipulation of those willing to give credence to such debates?

Fighting Back

The easiest answer is to beat them at their own game.

Politicians looking to win on Facebook don’t need to look to logic and balance, they need to look to emotion – so rather than the stale announcement videos and updates about new farming subsidies, the great work of volunteers, etc. Rather than that, politicians should look to amplify the human aspects of their announcements, and use that as the impetus for their posts.

For example, rather than focusing on farming subsidies, you could focus on the suicide rate among farmers, with this measure being used to support the industry.

Is that the way you want your campaign to go? Should you, essentially, ‘sink to their level’ in order to maximize reach?

That depends on how you look at it – I can tell you, with 100% certainty, that Anthony Albanese is doing himself no favours with Facebook posts like this:

Because who cares? There’s nothing to it, there’s no detail, no specifics. It’s just a photo op – and importantly, there is no emotion, there’s nothing to respond to, to spark debate, to get people sharing and discussing online.

That’s probably how Albanese, and most political communicators would prefer it, to keep things ‘on-message’ and open to all, sharing the latest happenings with his supporter base.

But again, no one cares. The way to gain traction, and resonance, on Facebook, is through emotional response. If you don’t trigger emotional response, you lose out. That’s it.

Albanese may not want to say ‘Women can’t work because childcare is too expensive’, or go harder: ‘Increases in family violence can be directly tied to lack of childcare options’, ‘National literacy levels are in serious decline due to inaccessible child care options’. Further personalizing these messages, and sharing emotionally charged elements of each, would be a far more effective strategy to maximize this policy on Facebook.

Traditional PR approaches won’t work – getting people to share your message is the only effective way to win.

And as the numbers show, winning Facebook is, indeed, critical. And with more and more smaller, local publications being forced to shut down due to the pandemic, where do you think people will be increasingly turning for their news and information input moving forward?

Winning Facebook is important, and politicians need to be aware of the tactics, and the stakes.

Here’s the thing – for years, gossip magazines have used these tactics. It’s nothing new, and it’s not surprising that they work on, essentially, a gossip-driven medium. The more politicians resist this, the more they lose out – and again, I understand the logic, the traditional media approach, the angling of announcements. But that’s not how Facebook works – and unfortunately, those more willing to spread rumours and focus on divisive, argumentative approaches, they’re winning.

Facebook’s not going anywhere. Re-aligning strategy is the only way to fight back.