Web 1.0 is now history, the creation of websites and the www revolution. We have now reached an era of e-revolution, where businesses without a website are doubtful, bank accounts are opened via email and presidential elections fully exploits the web and what it has to offer. The US presidential elections is one of the most important and followed event worldwide and this paper will analyze and dissect how both parties have meticulously thought out and executed their web presence and its significance to the message they have tried to carry together with the image they want to project. Skeptics may look at webpages in terms of a common template with the same structure, layout and content. This paper will try to look at how this might not be the case.

I have decided to look at the home page of both candidates Romney and Obama, so as to better analyze their key messages and tactics from a common

platform. I believe first impressions play a big role in formulating an audience’s opinion, especially in the context of elections. I am not someone who is very fond of politics and do not live in the US thus have no idea whatsoever about ‘left’ and ‘right’, the background of the parties and the general feel and perception of them by the US population or politics fanatics. Therefore my analysis will be un-biased, looking at the webpages from an advertising and communications point of view. By doing so, I will be focusing on the key similarities and differences and their significance in the communication process.

At first glance both sites look alike, the same tone of colors and headings. However, a closer look will reveal differences for example in terms of the aesthetics, choice and order of words, color tones, layout and photos.

Obama’s site, looks very professional and organised. It looks like a lot of thought has gone into the design and layout of the site. The general feel is very contemporary, the top banner with the campaign slogan “forward’ for example has a better impact by the way it is centered and the color and size of the font, than Romney’s Slogan ‘we need a real recovery” as for the latter, the text is lost in the background photo which also carries some texts.

Furthermore, the use of block colors and translucent banners in Obama’s site together with the plain grey background looks cleaner and more sophisticated than the textured grey background in Romney’s. This again fits into Obama's "forward" campaign, projecting a more modern, sleek and futuristic impression. One may even argue that this rightfully reflects Obama's personality and vision. The conservationist foundation of Romney's party, in turn does not project a very modern feel but rather sticks to a more classic, homemade feel. To facilitate this analysis, we can ask the questions- if Obama had to be a website, what kind of website would he be and if Romney had to be a website, what kind of website would he be. In both cases, the website personality matches the personality of the candidates on many levels.

Obama’s slogan design includes the Venus symbol (in the O of Forward), which is quite interesting, since Obama has always used his fight for gender equality

and women’s conditions as a selling point, one of the key attributes of his campaign. Is this a subliminal message to connect to the female electorate? The audience will have to take a closer look in order to notice this detail and yet it is there and serves a purpose, a strong message encoded in a symbol. Forward, with women at the centre of his plan. The slogan also includes a cross symbol which is an indication of religion and Christianity, a symbol which speaks to the very religious Latin American and African American demographics.

In terms of message balance, Obama has used a more rational approach whereby the key message is to move forward and his quest to help him move forward by using the “Get Barrack’s Back” focus. Furthermore, the other subheadings of the site include : “Get the facts”, “Get the latest” and “Get involved”. This copy shows that Obama's team has given more thought to the website and made an effort. It does not cost more to choose the right words and to make it pleasant for the reader and Obama's team seems to have gone the extra mile, using almost the same resources but carefully choosing the words and phrases for maximum impact. Also note the choice of font is more contemporary for Obama, part of the overall sleek design they have used.

Romney has used a more emotional approach by using phrases such as “We need a real recovery” or “Americans deserve more jobs and take-home pay” and even “Meet Mitt” the family man. There is no coherence of words or phrases when compared to Obama's tactical method. One, of the striking points on Romney’s website is the duplication of “ Learn about Mitt” with “Meet Mitt”, tends to show that Romney’s campaign is centered around him as a person, maybe one of his selling points, whereas Obama tends to be more about the actions and ‘involvement’ of the community-‘get involved’, ‘build this campaign’, ‘commit to vote’ and ‘volunteer this weekend’.

Obama’s main photo is a panoramic shot of him delivering a speech to a crowd of cheering supporters. This is a back shot where we do not see Obama’s face. His body is leaned forward, an alert posture defined by a man hard at work, leaning towards the crowd during the speech. The main message of this shot

from a subjective point of view is that of a hardworking man who has the support and appreciation of the majority and seems to say, join the mass and back this man up in moving America forward. The other photos on the site are grey so as to keep the focus on the main photo.

Romney’s photo on the other hand is a shot of him at the debate, he is pictured with a suit, a soft compassionate smile, he looks charming and instills trust. Body language specialists however will not agree. Instead, they would argue, in this shot the smile is un-natural, almost forced and his facial expression in general looks blasé. Then again, most uncritical eyes, would only see the former.

Mr. Obama’s has been previously praised for the effective use of social media during his campaign. It worked and we can see this strategy being deployed again on the site with a ‘Build this campaign’ option where readers and supporters can share on their facebook page and build a viral campaign. This again fits in perfectly with the ‘forward’ theme, as it shows that Obama is more current and relevant than Romney who only offers the options on his homepage at the bottom. Note that on Obama’s site, the option is highlighted and pinned to the top whereas Romney being more conservative does not attach the same importance to this tool.

The merchandise store and the donate buttons are aligned left for Obama and aligned right for Romney who also uses the word contribute instead of donate. What may seem alike, in terms of the action of giving money has been worded differently and has a slightly different appeal/interpretation. Donate relates more to the word to give, associated with charity whereas contribute is more about helping, a gesture of 'doing your bit'. This slight variation or what seems to be a slight variation will be interpreted and decoded differently- Obama asking to give money, whereas Romney is asking for help, both financial. Furthermore, donation is more an act associated with the more affluent, to make a donation whereas a contribution is more modest and humane, an act of kindness and instills a sense of community.

The two websites, have similarities, or what seems to be similar, with some slight differences. Differences of upmost significance to the campaign, image, identity and philosophy of each party. Differences which talks to respective audiences in contrasting ways and one may deduct that they are purposely designed to best fit the profile of their own target audiences. The results of the elections and the analysis of Obama’s performance does indeed strengthen the points made in this paper, for example the demographics of people who voted Obama were confirmed to be women (Venus sign), ethnic minorities, the younger generation (social media), Latin and African American (religious and the cross). Voters said Obama was more trustworthy, based on his poise and confidence, all well represented on the website (not chaotic) as well. Tactics that Romney did not adopt as reflected by his homepage. This paper has hopefully demonstrated a few of these key differences and similarities and its significance for the audience and lays a foundation for further detailed analysis and interpretation of the webpages.