Icon: enlarge
The new social media app Clubhouse: "Bubble in the bubble"
Photo: Political-Moments / imago images
SPIEGEL:
Mr. Hügelmann, at least since the excitement surrounding Bodo Ramelow's comments, Clubhouse has also been known to those who have not yet used the app.
Did you follow the performances of the Thuringian Prime Minister live?
Bendix Hügelmann:
On Friday evening I saw through my Twitter feed that something was going on at Clubhouse.
From Saturday on I listened live and followed the relevant discussions with Bodo Ramelow.
To person
Icon: enlargePhoto:
Bendix Hügelmann / Bendix Hügelmann / RVS
Bendix Hügelmann
, born in 1988, is a political scientist and communications expert.
He is doing his doctorate at the University of Hamburg on the influence of social media on voting decisions and individual behavior.
His main research interests include the use of Instagram for political communication.
In addition to his academic work, he advises political parties, politicians and companies on strategic communication.
SPIEGEL:
How did you experience his performances?
Hügelmann:
If in the fight against the corona pandemic even the impression can arise that a politician is not taking this fight really seriously, but instead distracts himself with mobile phone games in the middle of the most important decision-making round and then jokes about the Chancellor afterwards, then broadcast that is a fatal signal.
Everyone talks flippantly, but Ramelow is a professional, that shouldn't happen to him in this forum.
Therefore, I was very surprised at the incredible naivety with which Bodo Ramelow initially continued this discussion.
SPIEGEL:
He didn't apologize until Sunday.
Hügelmann:
He obviously only realized very late that he was in a completely public forum at Clubhouse - which to a large extent also consists of multipliers.
Ramelow should have recognized and admitted his misstep earlier.
So he looked offended and unsavory.
SPIEGEL:
How can that happen to a prime minister with media experience?
Hügelmann:
From a communication point of view, we are currently experiencing "learning by doing".
So it was only a matter of time before something like the weekend happened.
Clubhouse is a new medium that enables a very low-threshold exchange between political decision-makers and the electorate.
That has an enormous appeal and explains why this app has pulled through the relevant scenes like a hurricane in the last few weeks.
Whether politics, media, culture, journalism, science - the classic opinion leaders actually came to Clubhouse last week almost completely.
"Lots of politicians and journalists cavort here - and I see a certain potential for conflict there."
SPIEGEL:
At Clubhouse, people can come into direct contact with top politicians.
Isn't that a win for democracy?
Hügelmann:
You have to look at it on two levels.
I was recently in a room in which the FDP politician Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann was discussing data protection problems in the Clubhouse app with a young politician.
I could have virtually raised my hand there, joined the discussion group and joined the discussion.
This is an incredibly great story because as a citizen I can take an active part in a political decision-making process without much effort.
SPIEGEL:
And the other level?
Hügelmann:
Let's take a look at who is currently at Clubhouse.
This group is neither representative nor diverse, but extremely homogeneous, at least in terms of socio-economic background.
Lots of politicians and journalists cavort here - and I see a certain potential for conflict there.
SPIEGEL:
Namely?
Hügelmann:
You have to be aware of how clubhouse affects people who do not belong to this group, who have difficulties finding themselves in the media system or who have lost trust in the media and the political system in recent years.
If the impression arises that politicians and journalists are exchanging ideas on a Friday evening about how "Candy Crush" is played during the Prime Minister's Conference, that is a problem.
It encourages the completely unfounded accusation that politics and the media are in cahoots.
SPIEGEL:
After all, Ramelow's "Candy Crush" episode was so public - not just for clubhouse members.
Hügelmann:
That's true, and from my point of view it is also right that journalists take their impressions from the Clubhouse into account in their reporting.
At the same time, I wouldn't make the "Candy Crush" episode bigger than it is.
It also applies to Clubhouse: If you don't want something to be public, you shouldn't make it public.
SPIEGEL:
The homogeneous group structure is also due to the fact that each user can only invite two more.
Does the pseudo-elitist self-marketing harbor the danger that people feel left out?
Hügelmann:
Yes.
It's interesting which politicians are represented at Clubhouse.
The Union was there very early, the SPD is very present, the FDP and the Left Party are also represented.
Who almost does not appear at all, at least on the part of the political top staff, is the AfD.
SPIEGEL:
How can that be explained?
Hügelmann:
One thesis: From the AfD's point of view, the system parties are discussing this with the system press.
This is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
All the AfD has to do now is to say: Look here, we have always said that we do the common cause.
I don't know if that is really the strategic background for the absence of the top AfD staff - but it could have something to do with it.
SPIEGEL:
Many politicians are on Twitter, on Instagram it took a comparatively long time to take action.
Why are so many politicians at Clubhouse so fast now?
Hügelmann:
Several things are running in parallel.
We are at the beginning of a super election year.
This means that the basic interest in new media phenomena, the desire to take place somewhere, are latently increased.
This means that politicians get involved more quickly with such a new platform - you just have to be there.
Then there is the pandemic.
For months, the ongoing corona restrictions have made a casual, direct exchange impossible.
Apart from the short episode in summer, there has been almost no opportunity for half a year to hold background discussions outside of talk shows or podiums, to exchange ideas at conferences or to start a conversation in larger groups.
These are completely normal, interpersonal needs that no digital tool has yet been able to replace.
A video conference requires a completely different commitment.
There is no such thing at Clubhouse.
SPIEGEL:
So it was exactly the right time for the app?
Hügelmann:
It is on very fertile ground.
In the election campaign, everyone has an interest in compensating for what is lost in times of pandemic.
Politicians aren't in the pedestrian zone because it's so efficient.
But because it sends the signal that everyone can ask their questions and get rid of their feedback.
"In the pandemic, the clubhouse is a promise for politics."
SPIEGEL
: So will the clubhouse play a major role in the election campaign?
Hügelmann:
The question of how candidates can create closeness to voters without physical contact is a major challenge for the parties.
In the pandemic, clubhouse is a promise to politics.
Whether the app can really play an important role will be decided relatively quickly.
SPIEGEL:
Would the Clubhouse have been so successful so quickly without a lockdown?
Hügelmann:
Maybe not that fast, but audio formats generally fit in well with the zeitgeist, as podcasts prove.
The basic idea of "social networking" based on audio is very clever.
The voice ensures a completely different commitment than a tweet with 280 characters.
Thanks to the intonation, everyone knows how something is meant.
This is also evident in the culture of conversation.
With the increasing number of users, however, it is only a matter of time before this changes, the first are no longer using real names and social control is reduced.
The half-life of the app determines whether the handling continues to be characterized by respect or whether it becomes Twitter in audio.
SPIEGEL:
How do Twitter and Clubhouse users differ?
Hügelmann:
There is a lot of overlap.
The Twitter bubble is probably 80 to 85 percent represented at Clubhouse.
Clubhouse, if you will, is a bubble in a bubble.
SPIEGEL:
Which new voters do politicians want to reach in this way?
Hügelmann:
That is the crucial question.
For every politician there is one
Appearance at Clubhouse extremely thin ice.
There is hardly anything to gain there, but - see Ramelow - a lot to lose.
In all likelihood, the same people listen to me there who would listen to my podcast, follow me on Twitter or tune in if I'm on TV.
Let's take a look at the current range: The largest rooms were visited by around 5000 people on the weekend.
On the one hand there are a lot of people, on the other hand you can reach this number of listeners with a well produced podcast.
"If you will, clubhouse is a bubble in a bubble."
SPIEGEL:
With less risk.
Hügelmann:
Exactly.
Of course, a conservative Stammtisch of the Junge Union can convince undecided voters.
However, it is problematic that in the belief that one is private, things are divulged that are not intended for the public.
Clubhouse fits into the gap of missing parliamentary evenings, but cannot replace them.
It is somewhat absurd that Mr. Ramelow initially assumed that everything he said stays in the room - in a room where 1,500 to 2,000 people are listening.
SPIEGEL:
Seen that way
the app should be the horror of every press secretary.
Hügelmann:
Unless the speaker is smart, sits down and has a second channel open at the same time to support his protégé as best as possible.
SPIEGEL:
Do you expect politicians to make clubhouse use more professional?
Hügelmann:
I firmly assume that it is.
Communication is the politician's craft.
Politicians will now deal professionally with Clubhouse and decide whether this is something for them or not.
The same applies to every social medium: presence alone is not enough.
Social media thrive on dialogue, this is especially true for Clubhouse.
Whoever only sends and does not respond to anything will hardly be able to profitably use social media.
Icon: The mirror
