COMPARING COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES OF PHEU THAI AND DEMOCRAT PARTIES
Main Article Content
Abstract
Political communication in the digital era is not only a process of transmitting information from the sender to the receiver, but it is also a space of power negotiation and meaning, where people can participate more equally. Under the environment where information technology has permeated daily life, this synthesis of knowledge emphasizes understanding five important factors that shape political communication to be effective and influential on people’s thoughts and behaviors. First, information management, which at present relates to IO strategies or Information Operations that the state and various power groups use to control discourse in the public space through designing issues, prioritizing news, and choosing appropriate channels. Second, prosumer engagement, reflecting that citizens in the digital world are not only news consumers but can also co-create content, express opinions, share stories, and create social trends. Third, information integrity management, which relates to fact-checking, dealing with fake news, and building credibility in a world with excessive and diverse information. Fourth, political branding management, linking the identity of political parties or candidates with emotions, memories, and values that people can feel involved with. And fifth, data analytics, using Big Data and AI to collect, analyze, and continuously assess people’s attitudes, allowing communication strategies to adjust in real time. These five factors are not separated strictly but are connected and reinforce each other, creating political communication with high dynamics, forming a political experience that aligns with the digital lifestyle, and deeply and sustainably influencing people’s thoughts, behaviors, and political participation
Article Details

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
บุญรอด ศรีสมบัติ. (2560). IO advanced: หลักสูตรการพัฒนาองค์ความรู้การก่อการร้ายและการก่อความไม่สงบสำหรับผู้บริหาร. (พิมพ์ครั้งที่ 1). กรุงเทพมหานคร: โรงเรียนเสนาธิการทหารบก.
พิกุล จันทวิชญสุทธิ์. (2561). การศึกษาวิธีการตรวจสอบข่าวปลอมของกองบรรณาธิการข่าวออนไลน์. กรุงเทพมหานคร: สถาบันอิศรา มูลนิธิพัฒนาสื่อมวลชนแห่งประเทศไทย.
พิจิตรา สึคาโมโต้. (2561). สื่อไทยในวิกฤตการเมืองเปลี่ยนผ่าน: เทคโนโลยีปั่นป่วน. (พิมพ์ครั้งที่ 1). กรุงเทพมหานคร: ศูนย์หนังสือจุฬาฯ.
สมบัติ จันทรวงศ์. (2530). การเลือกตั้งผู้ว่าราชการกรุงเทพมหานคร. กรุงเทพมหานคร: มูลนิธิเพื่อการศึกษาและพัฒนา.
เสรี วงษ์มณฑา. (2540). ครบเครื่องเรื่องการสื่อสารการตลาด. กรุงเทพมหานคร: โรงพิมพ์ธรรมสาร.
Albig, W. (1956). Modern public opinion. New York: McGraw-Hill.
An, J. (2025). Political branding and public perception in Southeast Asia. Journal of Political Communication, 37(1), 45-63.
Bennett, W. L. & Pfetsch, B. (2018). Rethinking political communication in a time of disrupted public spheres. Journal of Communication, 68(2), 243-253.
Campbell, R. et al. (2022). Coalition politics and party convergence in Southeast Asia. Asian Politics and Policy, 14(4), 510-528.
Chaihanchanchai, P. & Anantachart, S. (2024). Brand attachment and voter loyalty in Thai politics. Thai Journal of Communication Studies, 22(1), 30-52.
Culbertson, H. M. & Chen, N. (2013). International public relations: A comparative analysis. Oxfordshire: Routledge.
De Seta, G. (2021). Synthetic media and the politics of digital embodiment. Media, Culture & Society, 43(1), 23-39.
De Vreese, C. H. et al. (2018). Populism as an expression of political communication content and style: A new perspective. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 23(4), 423-438.
Etienne, M. (2021). AI and political communication: New challenges in the digital age. Journal of Digital Media Studies, 12(2), 45-60.
Flight, R. L. & Coker, K. K. (2022). Political brand attachment and voting behavior: Emotional alignment in political marketing. Journal of Political Marketing, 21(3), 245-267.
Freelon, D. & Wells, C. (2020). Disinformation as political communication. Political Communication, 37(2), 145-156.
Gadavanij, S. (2020). Contentious polities and political polarization in Thailand: Post-Thaksin reflections. Discourse and Society, 31(1), 44-63.
Gilardi, F. et al. (2022). Social media and political agenda setting. Political Communication, 39(1), 39-60.
Gollust, S. E. et al. (2020). The emergence of COVID-19 in the US: A public health and political communication crisis. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 45(6), 967-981.
Howard, P. N. et al. (2018). Algorithms, bots, and political communication in the US 2016 election: The challenge of automated political communication for election law and administration. Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 15(2), 81-93.
Kapoor, K. et al. (2022). Technopolitics and digital governance: Controlling the discourse in the age of information abundance. Information Systems Journal, 32(3), 465-490.
Kocaman, E. & Coşgun, T. (2024). Strategic positioning in digital political campaigns. International Journal of Political Marketing, 18(2), 78-95.
Kozinets, R. V. (2022). Algorithmic branding: The future of political persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 48(6), 1081-1103.
Shirky, C. (2010). Cognitive Surplus: How Technology Makes Consumers into Collaborators. London: Penguin Press.
Supalakwatchana, S. (2023). The Move Forward Party (MFP) political communication and its effects on voters’ perceived political ideology, attitude homophily, and the 2023 Thailand general election decision: Comparing four Thai generations. Bangkok: Bangkok University.
Yasa, R. (2024). Transparency, personal branding, and Gen-Z political engagement. Asian Journal of Digital Communication, 16(1), 56-70.