Strategic Communication vs. Microtargeting

 Microtargeting

During the past three decades, microtargeting has been portrayed as the dark art of political manipulation. As we have previously discussed, this has raised concerns regarding the democratic impact of such practices, as some believe it hinders informed citizenry and rational political debate. However, decades of studies have proved that microtargeting may be less effective than we think. Research proves that changing voters' minds is difficult, as most people are set in their political ideologies and identities. Microtargeting often reinforces existing beliefs, which mobilizes supporters but does little to manipulate undecided voters. 

Strategic Communication

On the other hand, strategic communication, while similar, is a broader approach that combines messages across multiple platforms to influence public opinions. While microtargeting "targets" individual data, strategic communication is far more expansive as it encompasses public relations, media relations, and campaign branding to create one, unified message that represents the electorate. 

Comparison

While microtargeting has the potential to manipulate voters, it is often more about mobilizing existing supporters rather than convincing undecided ones. In contrast to mass strategic communication, which targets the broader public opinion, microtargeting relies on data to deliver personal messages to specific groups. These ads reinforce political identities and increase engagement, but reflect a sad reality of an extremely polarized political culture. Overall, microtargeting serves as a tool for campaigns to activate their base, rather than control or manipulate the electorate on a large scale.

https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/micro-targeting-quantified-persuasion