Lessons in Conveying Political Messages
(May 31– June 5 2008)
by Ma. Lourder Acosta-Alba
 |
| Ma.
Lourdes Acosta-Alba |
Having had considerable exposure to electoral and issue-based campaigns
but has not been directly involved in the planning process of such
undertakings, this seminar was a most welcome opportunity. For a
political neophyte (having been a first-time electoral candidate
in the 2007 elections) it was a particularly valuable learning experience
for me.
I was very privileged to have joined 24 other participants from
23 countries at the FNF’s prestigious International Academy
for Leadership (IAF) in a relevant forum on a practical subject.
I would describe the seminar as an introductory course on strategic
communication particularly as it applies to political (specifically
electoral) campaigns. It consisted of topics and exercises to
refresh, enhance and test our baseline knowledge and current know-how
vis-a-vis developing a communication plan relative to advocacy
actions particularly electoral campaigns.
The seminar methodology which was characterized by a good balance
of facilitators’ inputs, guest lectures, work groups and
plenary discussions made for a very productive and dynamic forum
among a diverse group of stimulating liberal-minded individuals.
The engaging facilitators, Arno Keller and Stephan Kapferer,
walked us through the key components of strategic communication
planning (whether for an organization or a campaign) namely, the
development of the vision and mission statements, the goals and
objectives, the core messages, and the time-action plan.
The Basics
For our first group exercise, we took on the task of developing
a vision. We were divided into four groups, with each group representing
a particular organization (i.e., a liberal party, an education
NGO, an association of entrepreneurs, and a women’s ministry).
As an NGO working for better education in a certain city, our
group was tasked to develop our NGO’s vision statement.
This exercise alone elicited a lengthy and lively discussion among
our group members making us realize how vision-setting can be
a difficult but worthwhile process (especially vis-à-vis
the critical assessment of our vision statements during the plenary
discussion).
The discussions on message development were likewise spirited
and instructive. The facilitators’ inputs focused on the
development of goals based on our vision and how to determine
if they are achievable and relevant (e.g., through SWOT analysis
and other methods). The next work group exercise entailed our
having to develop a particular goal for our assigned organization
and crafting the corresponding target image (or unique selling
point). It was quite an effort to translate the goal into a compelling
target image in simple, concise and comprehensible language, but
it was a fruitful, much-appreciated exercise.
Strategic communication which involves conveying the right message
to the right audience requires a research plan to identify and
define target groups, to measure their attitudes, and to test
ways to change their attitudes and behavior. Mr. Alexander Maus,
a political consultant provided the inputs in this respect. His
presentation on ‘Public Opinion Research Tools for Political
Planning and Targeting’ reinforced the observation that
political communication is becoming more science-based and professionalized.
A work group session also tackled media sources of political
information and electoral campaign tools and practices in our
respective countries. I shared with the group that in the Philippines
television is the leading and most helpful source of electoral
news and information especially about candidates, and that while
the use of the Internet in political campaigns is limited (unlike
in Malaysia and South Korea) the ubiquitous mobile phone and its
SMS application has proven to be a vital and powerful mobilizing
tool for public opinion and political action making the Philippines
a global leader in this regard. It was interesting to see the
similarities and variations in campaign strategies particularly
some country-specific campaign tools and activities that I found
really creative and innovative.
Trends in Political Communication
An overview of communicative trends in strong democracies like
Germany was quite informative. The facilitators discussed meta-level
trends such as personalization (candidates in focus), science-based/professionalized
campaigning, air war, negative campaigning, and new media (e.g.,
Internet, blogging, social networking, podcasting, YouTube). From
the perspective of Philippine political culture, I related more
to the discussion on micro-targeting (back-to-the-grassroots)
approaches such as voter-relationship management, rallying the
faithful, face-to-face/direct dialogue (e.g., door-to-door campaigning,
house caucuses, personalized e-mails and SMS), and the personalization
of politics.
New Media
Technological advances have opened up new communications channels
and media options to target individuals, groups and traditionally
hard-to-reach sectors, and these new channels offer the opportunity
to engage citizens and stakeholders in a meaningful dialogue
with less intervention and increased transparency. The discussions
on new media highlighted the potential and power of Internet
connectivity in political communication and mobilization. It
emphasized the link between digital/online and offline advocacy,
and how Internet and various Web-based tools like Facebook can
be powerful and effective platforms to enable offline advocacy
- for instance, to organize activities such as local meetings,
community events and protest actions.
Inasmuch as this session also posed questions on the risks
of employing new media for political purposes and the implications
of the so-called ‘mediatization of politics’ for
political participation, I would still agree that it is imperative
for less Internet-savvy groups and communities to keep up and
develop their capacities to engage the digital world in trying
to generate civic and political engagement especially among
the youth.
Political Branding
A particularly fascinating topic was political branding. The
resource person, Dr. Hans Bellstedt discussed how the qualities
of a good brand and the elements of effective branding or advertising
applies to political communication. His discussion on branding
candidates and political parties - employing modern marketing
and customer relations tools having cited recent experiences
in Germany and in the US primary elections was instructive.
The interesting examples of branding strategies of certain political
figures (e.g., Sarkozy, Obama, Clinton) showed how a clearly
defined brand image is key for politicians to be able to effectively
communicate to their respective target audiences. I particularly
found Dr. Bellstedt’s call for liberal parties to vigorously
tell “the ‘freedom story’ and ‘sell’
the strong ‘freedom’ brand amidst the wave of social
democracy rather compelling.
My initial impression about branding in the context of a political
campaign was that it was largely about image or a superficial
spin. It was a good to know after the presentation that political
branding goes far beyond image, that political leaders, for
instance, must first be worth branding and be good ‘products’
(with charisma, integrity, competence, etc.) before they can
be branded. I’ve realized that branding is now regarded
as increasingly essential in politics, for voters to have a
clearer understanding of what a candidate or party essentially
stands for.
This session underscored the importance of developing the right
message, and gave us a better grasp of how this is the core
of electoral strategy (or political communication for that matter).
Recalling the ineffective political ads of some Philippine senatorial
candidates during the 2007 elections, their message and image,
indeed, were not clearly aligned nor credible enough for their
ads to have any impact.
Political Marketing
This session tackled some of the developments in political
marketing and campaign strategy particularly the application
of direct marketing instruments and Internet technologies to
reach voters (political consumers).
The presentation on ‘Modern Instruments of Direct Dialogue’
by a dialogue communication expert was quite educational, offering
us a glimpse of the dynamics of modern, sophisticated politics
mainly in the context of German politics with a some examples
from France and the U.S. The guest lecturer, Ms. Kerstin Pehlwe
talked about present-day challenges faced by political campaigns
and asserted the need for a host of new communication requirements
(high authenticity; multi-mediality; integrated media approaches,
high interactivity; honest dialogue; less control over messages;
daring to be different; high mobilization; and, new standards
for effectivity), and new tasks for political communication
(authenticity and respect; emotion and orchestration; innovation
and leadership; creativity and proactive behavior; holistic
approach and integration; trust-building; relationship-building
and maintenance).
What I particularly learned from the presentations is that
all political ideas and messages ultimately depend on them being
communicated to a target audience, with precision, efficiency
and above all credibility. Many of us from the developing countries
lamented our belief that given the reality of our respective political
cultures and systems working towards this ideal situation will
indeed be a huge challenge.
Recap
The seminar definitely equipped me with a better understanding
and appreciation of some key elements and techniques in the effective
communication of political ideas and messages, particularly of
the application of some principles and elements in research, advertising
and marketing. It also offered us insights on how to refine communication
strategies and capacities vis-a-vis the advocacies we are currently
pursuing in our respective countries, which (should) include spreading
the core messages and values of liberalism.
The relevance of having a strategic communication plan for any
kind of campaign or advocacy action resonated with us throughout
the seminar. An important take-home point for me is that such
a plan enables an organization or a political candidate to be
proactive, credible and successful.
There are also some questions that I took home with me such
as: ‘What kind of information environment is best for citizens
of a democratic society?’, ‘What patterns of political
communication are deemed desirable?’, ‘What are the
appropriate forms of communication for a politician?’
The seminar, as a whole, was a truly rewarding and enriching
experience, one I would consider to be a significant milestone
in my political journey. I commend the Friedrich Naumann Foundation
for its laudable initiatives like the IAF seminars which target
potential change agents and leaders, and will always be grateful
for having benefited immensely from my participation in the Academy.
