June 1, 2007 · Posted in: 2007 Elections
Missing the message
ALMOST everyone running for public office believes that a considerable sum of money is needed for a respectable campaign. But as several candidates in the recently concluded midterm elections are finding out, pouring tens of millions of pesos into an ad campaign is no guarantee of a win.
Of those included in the media research firm AC Nielsen’s list of top 12 ad spenders among the senatorial candidates, only four so far are among the Commission on Elections’ (Comelec) winning dozen. The number one ad spender by AC Nielsen’s count, Team Unity’s Prospero Pichay, occupies a far 16th slot in the Comelec list.
Some political strategists and analysts say that many of the candidates’ handlers simply misread the political landscape and thought people were still easily swayed by glitz and glamour. But Filipino voters have apparently wised up, and now look for substance in the people they will vote into office.
For sure, there are still those who fail to see the real persona behind a candidate’s media image. Experts say, though, that more and more voters have become discerning — or at least try to be — and now look for clues on what the candidate will eventually do once he or she is elected into office.
For ads to appeal to voters and make them consider a candidate, therefore, the basic ingredients would be resonance, believability, and relevance, say experts. And these, they say, should not necessarily mean a hefty price tag.
We hope the piece, as part of i Report ‘s current series on Elections 2007, would help your readers look back at the elections in a new light — and perhaps reflect on how they arrived at their choices on election day.
Read on at pcij.org.
2 Responses to Missing the message
atyick
June 1st, 2007 at 10:34 am
I think many of the candidates really missed out on what voters were looking for in the elections. Future campaigns will continue to rely a lot on media hype to improve a candidate’s winnability. But the lesson learned from this election is that there are other factors that are increasingly becoming at least (if not more) as important as “visibility”.
I would take note of the Mar Roxas and Kiko Pangilinang campaigns in particular. Both had good and steady reputations that were built over a period of time prior to the elections. Roxas’ stint with the DTI, in particular, helped a lot and it is where he began building his palengke image. Of course, hard work, leadership, results was also a huge plus for both Roxas and Pangilinan. Again, reputation and not necessarily over-visibility in the media were good for them.
Pichay, on the other hand, had a say in almost every major issue that came out over the past two years painting a rabidly pro-administration perception. It didn’t work for him in the same manner that it didn’t work for Defensor. Something i can’t say of Escudero, who was also a stalwart opposition persona but never came across as rabid and blind.
Of course, the poor showing of Arroyo, Zubiri is something that can’t be explained readily. Even Angara, who arguably had the best track record among all the candidates.
Perhaps in some of these cases, it’s the ability of a singular opinion and/or act that solidifies public perception of a candidate. As with the case of Oreta who will forever be perceived as the “dancing queen”. And in the same manner, Angara whose “changing sides” may have lost more for him than what he gained.
Future elections will always center around personalities. It will take a long time for elections to run on issues. Hopefully, we are getting there. Voters now are more discerning not of the issues, but of the personalities. And a winnable personality can never be built overnight pinned on a few media commercials.
We have to remember that people read, people watch, and people think. The days of plain media visibility are long gone. I guess it is the search for substance (or at least the perception of it) in a candidate’s personality that may be a crucial factor. Of course, along with other odd bits and pieces like the ability to safely meander through the complicated political web unscathed.
On another issue, we are constantly harping about the amount that these candidates spend on their campaigns. Apparently, we have an idea of how they would recoup this “investment” when elected. Have we ever wondered how the losing candidates recoup theirs?
Patrick
gwaping
June 1st, 2007 at 4:31 pm
pinapahirap nyo pa ang analysis, it’s so simple… GO beats TU because of hate for Gloria, do you think Trillanes, Escudero and Cayetano got their votes because of discerning voters, nahhh…wait till next election when the negative Gloria factors won’t play that much anymore, everything will even out and the POPULARITY GAME will come back again…next election will be more exciting… Kabayan vs. Loren vs. Lacson vs. Villar vs. Mr. Palengke vs. Danding (probably) vs. Jinggoy (hayyy)