Comparing 2011 General Election and 2014 Presidency Election in Turkey with Regard to Political Marketing

Leaders and political parties which are one of the products of political marketing are the political products. Social issues and the requirements that are the result of these issues determine the route map of leaders and the party programme. It is hard for a party and for a leader that do not embrace neither their grassroots nor the needers of the grassroots of other parties, to protect their position. Social media being used as a instrument of political marketing plays a crucial role in especially affecting young electorate at the present time. This instrument have been begun to be used by politicians actively in Turkey recently. Till the enact of the Law No. 5678 which made an amendment in 1982 Constitution in 2007, the President of Turkey had been elected by the votes of the parliamentarians in Turkish Grand National Assembly. As a result of the amendment in 1982 Constitution in 2007, Turkish citizens have become enable in electing the President of Turkey via referendum. From a different point of view, this amendment also, hereinafter, enables candidates to make their own propaganda in order to increase their votes. In this paper, 2014 Presidency Election in Turkey in which there were three candidates Recep Tayyip ERDO AN, Ekmeleddin Mehmet HSANO LU and Selahattin DEM RTA , is considered in terms of using social media. The aim of the paper is to present the differences of the propaganda instruments of the candidates that they used in election process, and how these instruments affected the results of the elections. It is also sought that how the usage of social media and number of followers affect the results of the elections.


Introduction 1.
Although the political sciences and marketing sciences are apart areas from each other, both areas benefit from certain techniques such as target group or market, the techniques related to target group or market, picking and fragmentation of target group or market, and of which the elements of marketing mix could be used.Since for years in west of the world but yet the recent years in developing countries, it is beholden that marketing instruments have begun to be run in political campaigns as an instrument of propaganda being conducted by political candidates.
The concept of 'marketing' can be defined in several ways.Some of the scholars define the concept as "an exchange operation towards to meeting basic needs and desires of people" … "to give some valuable things (commodity, facility or idea) to the opposite side in order to meet their each own needs between two or more sides, and to gain other valuable things (money, receivable, loan etc. )" (Mucuk, 1999: 3), whereas some defines it as "…the whole activities managing the products and services from producer to customer in order to satisfy customers and -at the same time-to reach the goals of company…" (Mc Carty, 1975: 19).
Prior to presenting the definition of political marketing, making the definition of 'politics' is crucial.Politics can be defined as "the science of behaviours taking a role in the formation of institutions related to political authority and in their operating" and it is asserted that the politics is constituted to respond a certain requirement of all structures and of all institutions in a society (K lal , 1987: 4-14).In this perspective, politics is -itself-such an instrument by which the social needs are expected to be met.Supporting this assessment, political marketing is defined as "all kinds of activities regarding promoting and introducing people -who are candidate to meet voters needs and desires-, or parties and their programmes to voters" (Özkan, 2004: 21).In political marketing, thus, leaders of political parties, parlamentarians, mayors and such people, and political parties, political propagandas and similar activities can be deemed as political products.Companies, however, use the marketing activity to create a competition advantage.As for in companies, political parties, leaders and programmes are also in a competition.In order to affect floating votes, political parties and leaders conduct their campaigns intensively via marketing activities (Okumu , 2007: 156).
Some scholars simulate arguments of politics and arguments of marketing as the following (Divano lu, 2008: 106): The differencies between commercial and political marketing are customer-wise manner -citizen-wise manner (the description of need, the description of target group, differentiated goods and services, strategies of superiorities), customer or social satisfaction -voters' satisfaction, integrated market -integrated marketing (Üste et al. , 2007: 216).
The political parties whose organizational culture is based on volunteerism achieve, recently, their runnings by the help of liaising with political consultancy companies without leaving volunteerism.These companies have integrated the elements of marketing mix into the political process and thus the concept of political marketing has become evident.While determining the place of the person in the political life, political consultancy companies researches initially to what extent the society contributes to the manner and behaviours of the person and with which processes, and to what extent a person has a freedom of action and election.
Political marketing has three customer group and these are "the ones would be member of parties, partisans and sympathizers of parties, the ones who have no other option though being not a partisan" (Limanl lar, 1991: 35).Political marketing, here, should call out these three different groups.The two aims of the political marketing are to peg the ideas of party members, potential members and voting people, and to change the ideas of voters not voting the party.Some of the aims of the party and its leader, however, should be to intensify the positive manner of the members of, the partisans of and the voters of party, to change the manner of floating votes on behalf of party, and to change manner of people from negative to -at least-floating.At this point, the main event is not the injustice in or among the level of income but the disparities between the level of income and their expectations (K lal , 1987: 67).Political leaders are successful to the extent that they could respond these expectations.The leader should be able to use his characteristics of selfreliance, steady character, honesty, vigor, creative intelligence, common sense and understanding (Y ld r m, 2011: 882).
The method taking party or leader to success is propaganda which is an instrument of political marketing.The definition of propaganda made by several scholars.Qualter's definition on propaganda is "the deliberate attempt by the few to influence the attitudes and behavior of the many by the manipulation of symbolic communication" (Qualter, 1985: 124).Domenach explains it as "an undertaking of attracting the view and behavior of society so as to provide to internalize a certain view or behavior of people" (Domenach, 2003: 17)."The intentional control, manipulation and communication of information and imagery in order to achieve certain political objectives" is another definition of propaganda (Rutherford, 2000: 279) Not completely denying the usage of internet or similar techniques, among some scholars there seems to be a consensus that it cannot replace face-to-face communication or etc (Johansen, 2012: 92).Some scholars, also, assert that with the arrival of new media such as internet, web TV or e-mail, the distribution function of political marketing will increase in complexity (Henneberg, 2002: 119).Similarly, Jackson infers from his research, in which he studies the members of parliament in United Kingdom in 2002, that email so far has not stimulated a relationship marketing approach (Jackson, 2005: 105).In addition to these studies, some directly work on new social media instruments.In their study, Bode & Dalyrmple suggested that Twitter contains a unique audience for political elites to target.These users extremely interested in politics, very likely to turn out at the polls, and wealthy enough to contribute to campaigns.The important finding of this study is that as politicians, pundits, and politically interested citizens continue to turn to Twitter as a source of information and a form of political expression (Bode & Dalyrmple, 2014: 22).Miller studied both Twitter and Facebook and called them new media in modern political campaigns.In his research he concludes that what makes new media attractive is cheapness, opportunity to enhance the images of candidates.But the shortcoming of this new media is its failure to reach a vast majority of voters (Miller, 2013: 342).Towner and Dulio, other scholars using the term new media for Twitter and Facebook -and also Youtube-, find new media likely "a futile proposition" and suggest that the rapid changes in new media require scholars to update the design and direction of future research (Towner and Dulio, 2012: 112).
In the light of all considerations above, in this paper it is, in brief, endeavoured to make an assessment of 2014 Presidency Election in Turkey, within the scope of Twitter and Facebook which are some of the instruments of new social media.The aim of the paper is to suggest the differency of the propoaganda instruments used by three candidates competing in 2014 Presidency Election, Recep Tayyip ERDO AN, Ekmeleddin Mehmet HSANO LU and Selahattin DEM RTA , and how these instruments affected the votes.Besides, it is also studied how the usage of social media and the number of followers affect the votes.The instruments of propaganda and usage of social media in number are left out of the scope for 2011 General Election as social media was not used effectively by the leaders in the Election.Therefore, a comparison between the two elections is done and a determination of the power of effect of the social media is tried to be done by through assuming the effects of other factors as equal.
Thus, the main assumption of the paper is set as "political marketing has a positive affect on votes".In this regard either political marketing techniques (social media and meetings) used by the candidates in the running process or the 2014 Presidency Election itself are also considered.In this context, the paper seeks to answer the following key questions: • What are the differencies between the candidates in terms of methods and instruments used by them?
• How did these methods and instruments affect the votes?
• Did the candidates increase their vote rate in 2014 Presidency Electon if compared with 2011 General Election?Analysis 2.

Comparing the Candidates in Terms of Their Usage of Social Media
Social media and social communication are new propaganda instruments drawing its strength from people, carrying the people from passive to active following, consisting of people from all strata, to which politicans appeal for help in their campaigns, and about what they -on occasion-complain.The users who don't read or watch although prefering journals, magazines and television can share their thoughts in social media.The conventional methods of propaganda which can not respond to instant developments countrywide, such as visiting electoral area, are going useless, but one sentence shared in social media can be followed from all these areas.As stated in the previous chapter, in this paper Facebook and Twitter are regarded as social media or new media instruments, and analyzed.
Turkey is the 6 th in the World ranking while it is 1 st in Europe ranking in terms of the number of users of Facebook, with 31.247.120 users according to 2012 data which indicates that over the 40% of population of Turkey use Facebook.If this data is compared with the number of users of internet, it indicates that each nine of ten individuals has a Facebook account.At the 18 -24 age range, there are over 10 million users with a share of approximately 34% of total, whereas at the 25 -34 range 28% and 35 -44 range 12% (Sabah, 2014).The number of users of Twitter, however, reached a number over 11 million by the year 2014, which means that each 4 of 10 individuals using internet use Twitter.
These data indicate that the number of using internet, Facebook and Twitter is growing rapidly in Turkey.Following and taking into consideration this reality, it is obvious that the candidates of 2014 Turkish Presidency Election have to prefer to use the social media actively.
Selahattin DEM RTA had rather use his Twitter account actively than his Facebook account.The number of his followers in Facebook is 1. 197.739.The most of his followers are situated in stanbul and he is followed mostly by the age range 18 -24.He had 106 sharing in total, 17 of which are short-film, 82 of which are messages and photos taken in campaign running, and 7 of which are advertisements.Although he has two Twitter accounts, he had rather use @DegisiminAdayi account and run his campaign.In this account which has over 15. 000 followers, he released 1. 530 sharing, 172 of which are short film and the rest is 1. 222 messages.In addition to these accounts, he has also another web page www.selahattindemirtas.net over which he presented his next events.According to data released on his web page, he raised totally 1. 213.000 TL donation from 7. 119 donors.1He spent 1. 095.000 TL of the total amount for promotion materials, transportation and audio system.(http: //www.selahattindemirtas.net/, 2014).His site was created not only in Turkish but also in English and Kurdish.
Ekmeleddin Mehmet HSANO LU used his Facebook account actively which was created in 2014, 24 th of June and the number of his followers is 361.097.The most of his followers are situated in stanbul and he is followed mostly by the age range 18 -24.He had 134 sharing in total, 50 of which are short-film, 69 of which are messages and photos taken in campaign running, and 15 of which are advertisements.In his Twitter account "@profdrihsanoglu", he has 344.551 followers and he released 357 sharing in total, 15 of which are short film, 311 of which are messages and 21 of which are advertisements.If his Facebook account is compared to his Twitter account, it is inferred that he used his Twitter account actively rather than Facebook in order to share message, and that the number of followers in his Twitter account is more than the number in Facebook.In addition to these accounts, he has also another web page ihsanoglu.com over which he presented his next events and made a call for raise donation.He raised totally 8. 500.000 TL donation from an undeclared number of donors (http: //www.sozcu.com.tr/2014/gundem/iste-erdogana-yapilan-secim-bagisi-573957/).His web page was created only in Turkish Language.
Recep Tayyip ERDO AN has 6. 390.605 followers in Facebook.He has the most followers in stanbul, and most followed by the age range 18 -24.He had 98 sharing in total, 53 of which are message, 23 of which are campaign photos and 12 of which are advertisement.In his Twitter account "@RT_Erdogan", he has 4. 625.669 followers.In his account from which he released 180 sharing, he had 6 short films, 17 advertisements and 157 messages.It is seen that he used his Twitter account more active rather than Facebook.Recep Tayyip ERDO AN who presented his running events from his personal web page www.rte.com.tr, raised 55. 260.778 TL donation from 1. 350.796 donors (http: //www.trtturk.com/haber/cumhurbaskani-adaylari-ne-kadar-bagis-topladi.html, 27.08.2014; http: //www.rte.com.tr/, 16. 08.2014).
Candidates reached their voters also from Instagram and Youtube, but this lies outside the scope of the paper.An increase occurred in Recep Tayyip ERDO AN's "@RT_Erdogan" Twitter account by the start of the election campaign and the number of followers increased by 98. 606 followers.However, his Facebook account increased in number with 97.506 followers.Selahattin DEM RTA 's "@DegisiminAdayi" Twitter account followed by 15. 664 new followers, whereas his Facebook account followed by 21. 406 new followers.The effect of start of election was more in Ekmeleddin Mehmet HSANO LU's social media accounts than in other candidates.Thanks to the election, he created new accounts in Twitter and Facebook.His Facebook account and Twitter account were followed by 361.097 and 344.551 new followers respectively.The ratio of followers commented on candidates are as follows: on Recep Tayyip ERDO AN 49,60%, on Ekmeleddin Mehmet HSANO LU 39,82% and on Selahattin DEM RTA 10,28%.
Table 1 indicates the change in number of followers of candidates in Twitter from 9 th July to 8 th August.

Comparing the Candidates in Terms of Their Meetings Held
Selahattin DEM RTA started his campaign running from stanbul in 15 th July and met his voters by visiting Kocaeli and Bursa in 16 th July, in 18 th July Basel and Paris, in 22 nd July stanbul, in 23 rd July Mu , in 24 th July Bitlis, Siirt and Tekirda , in 25 th July Antalya, in 26 th July Ayd n, in 27 th July Manisa, in 28 th July irnak, in 29 th July Hakkari, in 30 th July stanbul, in 31 st July Hatay, in 1 st August Mersin, anl urfa and Gaziantep, in 2 nd August Bingöl, Tunceli and stanbul, in 4 th August A r , in 5 th August Van, in 6 th August Diyarbak r and Adana, in 9 th August zmir.He gained his votes most in irnak, Hakkari and Diyarbak r with the ratios 83,13%, 81,27% and 64,10% respectively, whereas least in Bayburt, Yozgat and Çank r with the ratios 0,75%, 1,00% and 1,00% respectively.His ranking in irnak, Hakkari, Diyarbak r, A r , Mu , Van, Siirt and Tunceli, the provinces where he visited during his running, is 1 st , whereas in Bitlis, Bingöl and irnak is 2 nd and in other provinces is 3 rd .He gained his votes most in Bayburt, Rize and Gümü hane with the ratios 80,24%, 78,90% and 75,09% respectively, whereas least in Tunceli, irnak and Hakkari with the ratios 14,67%, 14,83% and 16,63% respectively.He did not prefer to make any running visit to the provinces where he was voted most, in contrast to his opponents who made the reverse.His ranking in Konya, Kahramanmara , Malatya, Sakarya, Erzurum, anl urfa, Ordu, Kayseri, Samsun, Yozgat, Tokat, Gaziantep, Kocaeli, Bursa, Ankara, Bilecik, stanbul, the provinces where he visited during his running, is 1 st , whereas he is 2 nd in Bal kesir, Denizli, Manisa, Eski ehir, Hatay, Van, Antalya, Adana, Tekirda , Mardin, Ayd n, A r , Diyarbak r, zmir, Mu la, Mersin.ISSN 2039-9340 (print) Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences

3.
When the total number of followers of the candidates in social media are compared, it is clear that Ekmeleddin Mehmet HSANO LU reached a number of followers more than his opponents.He, however, couldn't increase his votes as much as his opponents.Another weakness of him is that his personal web page was created only in Turkish.Though it is a positive distinction from the two other opponents that he preferred a face to face communication, he caused a decline in the votes of the two parties -even in the provinces he ranked in first-which stated him as a joint candidate, when compared to 2011 General Elections.
In spite of his negative opinion against Facebook and Twitter before his candidateship of Presidency, he is the first in terms of having followers in these social media instruments.He did not have any visit to five cities where he ranked first, except Konya.His votes, however, declined slightly in Central Anatolia, Aegean, East and Southeast Regions.His votes, also, declined 3,83% by random provinces, likewise there is a ratio of 4,16% decline in the provinces where had visits.
Selahattin DEM RTA is the candidate who had most sharing in social media instruments with a ratio that is five times more his opponents.He increased his votes in 2014 compared to 2011 in where he visited, but decreased in anl urfa, stanbul and zmir although he visited.Although he decreased his votes in stanbul and zmir with the ratios 48% and 22%, respectively, in comparison to 2011 General Elections, he increased his votes in where he visited during his campaign.However, the decline in his votes in stanbul and zmir shows that there is an overall decline in both random and other provinces he visited, by affecting the average with a ratio of 3,83%.
In conclusion, it can be suggested there is no explicit causality between the number of followers in social media and the results of 2014 Presidency Elections in Turkey.It is, however, remarkable that there is a close relationship between the comment or tweet shared by followers and the votes that the candidates gained in 2014 Presidency Elections.Consequently, it is possible to deduce that political marketing through social media has positive affect on 2014 Presidency Elections in Turkey.

Table 2 :
The Provinces in Which the Candidates Are the First

Table 3 :
The Candidates' Vote Numbers, The Comparison of Provinces and Metropolitans Candidate The Number of Metropolitan Voted The Number of Province Voted Vote Rate

Table 5 :
Selahattin Demirta 's Election Success in Provinces Run Campaign, The Comparison Analysis of PresidentElection (2014) and General Election (2011)Recep Tayyip ERDO AN started his running from Samsun in 5 th July and visited Erzurum in 6 th July, Ankara and Denizli in 8 th July, Tokat in 9 th July, Yozgat in 10 th July, Antalya in 12 th July, anl urfa in 13 th July, Sakarya in 16 th July, Tekira in 17 th July, Bursa in 18 th July, Ordu in 19 th July, Hatay in 20 th July, Adana in 23 rd July, Mersin in 24 th July, Eski ehir, Bilecik And stanbul in 25 th July, Diyarbak r in 26 th July, Van and Mardin in 31 st July, Kahramanmara and Manisa in 1 st August, Bal kesir and zmir in 2 nd August, A r , Kocaeli and stanbul in 3 rd August, Ayd n and Mu la in 6 th August, Malatya and Gaziantep in 7 th August, Kayseri and Ankara in August 8 th , and Konya in 9 th August.
To sum up, Recep Tayyip ERDO AN finished the 'rivalry' first in 56 of the 81 provinces, whereas second in 23 and third in 2. Selahattin DEM RTA had finished first in 10, second in 5 and third in 66 of the 81 provinces.Ekmeleddin Mehmet HSANO LU was first in 15 provinces, 12 of where are the provinces he visited in his campaign.He was second in 53 provinces, 13 of where are the provinces he visited.He, lastly, was third in the rest of the 13 provinces.