|
Dated: 01 October 2002
In the run-up to October’s General Elections, the barrage of advertising in both print and electronic media by the two major political parties gave rise to much debate about the effectiveness of the marketing strategies, (if indeed it was marketing), the cost of the advertising campaigns, the source of the funding and the quality of the productions.
Many in the advertising industry have expressed the view that while some of the ads were mediocre, others were pure genius. Already there are wagers as to which ads will get nominated for the Peer Awards. However, whether brilliant or not, how much did the advertising campaign affect the outcome of the elections, if any at all?
One advertising agency head, who preferred to remain anonymous, contends that while the advertising campaigns mounted by the major parties provided a lot of entertainment, and did in fact give rise to “unprecedented creativity in this kind of political campaigning”, the outcome of the elections had little or nothing to do with the media blitz.
This comes as the country continues to digest the closeness of the election results and ponder why the PNP held on to victory and why JLP failed to capitalize on its earlier lead, with many persons criticizing the lack of marketing in the campaign.
In an interview with Businessuite, Dennis Harris, Courts deputy general manager and finance director, noted that the advertisements put out by the political parties in the run-up to the recent General Elections were very strong, but thought it was an overkill.
By the time the elections were over, the Gleaner and Observer had carried 101 full-page advertisements for the PNP and 66 for the JLP. These and other printed advertisements, billboards, and printed material are said to have cost some $20 million, with three times that amount ($60M) spent on electronic advertisements and infomercials.
“The advertisements were very strong and you can see it everywhere. But in some perspectives, I thought it was an overkill, after a while they were quite burned out.” Harris said.
One of the things, which caught his attention, was the music, which accompanied the advertisements. “They turned out to be quite similar,” he said, and wondered then, given the similarity, why PNP and JLP had chosen the same music.
“After a while,” he said, “the music came out as something to tap your foot to, as opposed to something you listen to with a message. I guess it’s similar to what we do here at Courts, with a big prize.” But he stressed, “We have no one to compete with us.”
In general, Harris’ own interpretation of what the messages were trying to convey, was that the PNP, whilst “focusing on their achievements, the JLP was focusing on the Golding issue, during which time, he got more exposure than Mr. Seaga, thus sending a confusing message.”
Pollster, Don Anderson, managing director of Market Research Services, also thought that the political campaigns were devoid of marketing, particularly so on the part of the opposition, which he believed had a lot of things put down, in terms of a marketing plan, but he told Businessuite, “that seemed to have missed the boat.”
With regard to the PNP, he said, “I think they were a little bit more focused on marketing in the campaign, but to a large extent, they also missed the boat in terms of marketing in the long term, in the sense that there was a fair amount of detachment from the constituents, and therefore, a lack of focus on what was necessary to ensure that they win the next election.”
Anderson contends that from “immediately after the North East St. Ann by-election, the JLP should have put together a plan, and in a way, outlined it frequently, to many different audiences.” He argues that essentially, what the JLP could have done from a marketing perspective, was “right after they won that by-election, and recognized that they had a good thing going, they were ahead in all the polls, they could have put together a team of say, 16 people on a poster, with Mr. Seaga in the middle, and carry that platform team to the Jamaican electorate.”
Anderson stressed that the JLP’s emphasis on Mr. Golding was too late. “He should have been brought in much earlier, as part of the marketing plan, as part of that alternative team to run the country,” he said, noting that they could have focused on more critical issues. He said to a large extent the JLP did not understand what it was that was turning people on or off, and from that perspective, they missed out on the marketing.
They didn’t make the connection with the constituency and as a result found themselves playing catch-up, having to dig back and bury themselves into the constituencies, he said. “But by then, such was the disaffection in the community, with regard to the members of parliament, that it made things that more difficult, which, to a large extent, explained why the PNP lost support in so many different areas.”
He argues further, that “there was not that connection. The connection was broken and they didn’t seem to understand. But I give them credit for bringing in Dr. Paul Robertson (as campaign director) and Maxine Henry Wilson, as his deputy. And they came out early enough, and certainly convinced the people that they had something to offer.”
In the final analysis, “the PNP did a very good job in conveying and convincing people that they had a number of achievements, and they timed it beautifully,” he said. Noting that “they opened the marina in Port Antonio, a highway here and there, major roads, Emancipation Park etc.”
Mr Anderson felt that those were examples of their recognition, that they needed to give the people a good reason why.
“By putting these things in front of people, communicating the things they had done, the cellular phone, the motor cars, water, housing, and other solid achievements, the PNP was saying, “here are good enough reasons for you to vote for us.” He said they understood more than the JLP, “that you have to give people good enough reason for them to vote for you and I think that in the final analysis, it was this which saw the PNP through the General Elections.”
Charlene Ashley, marketing director of Ashchar Consultants told Businessuite that she and her staff had been discussing that very question in the office: Was there any marketing in the campaign? She thought the PNP campaign, in particular, focused a lot on marketing the campaign, and creating the perfect image for the party. “And it obviously worked”, she said, “they are back in power, and it’s the serious elements we are looking at, showing the power of marketing.”
The PNP in particular, Ashley thought, did a lot of grass roots marketing and believes that it is “on-the-ground work that really mobilizes persons to any kind of action. And so said so done.”
She said that for many people, the PNP, going door-to-door with their aggressive campaign, explaining and discussing with them, the issues in their manifesto, coupled of course, with seeing the ads and hearing them, and talking on the different talk shows, were the elements of the campaign which mobilized them to go and put their ‘X' next to the head.
She thought on the one hand, the PNP campaign was well thought out, and that it was very strategic. “You can see that a lot of time, energy, and effort, went into it”, she said, noting that the quality of the graphics was strong, the headlines were simple, and that they looked at issues, which the party knew would have impacted emotionally on the nation. “And very wisely so. You can see the results of that,” she stressed.
Ashley felt that the JLP, on the other hand was late in starting, and that they didn’t have the money that was necessary, such as the amount, which the PNP had behind their campaign. “The PNP,” she said, “was a lot more creative with what they did, whilst acknowledging, “some of the JLP ads were very good, especially from their Generation 2000.”
“But again, marketing is a lot more than advertising,” she contends, “it’s the image you put out there,” adding, “and if I know that election is this year, I need to start creating the image from January, that my party is the perfect, or the preferred choice, as the persons and party to lead the nation. And that is what I thought they (JLP) were very, very late with”.
She said the PNP had realised that marketing was not just a two-week spate or a four-week spate, even though the four-week spate was the icing on the cake.
“It is a lot more than that. One will notice that with the PNP, a lot of their projects, coincidentally, quote unquote came to fruition this year, lest we forgot a lot of the other things that perhaps they had done over the previous years. That’s strategy, and all of that was marketing,” she claims, adding, “and PJ is a smart person and he always surrounds himself with very bright people, and it showed in his campaign.”
The other smaller parties, NDM etc., didn’t have the dollar value behind them, Ashley said, contending that they should have used the media a lot more. “They had some amount of advertisements”, she noted, but “they were not very well positioned, not very well thought out either”.
Recalling the final moments of the elections and the results, Ashley has this to say: “It was obviously a lot of excitement, I had the staff here both temporary and full-time, all sitting here listening to who had what to say. Half of it was hype, half of it, and I think that was what the PNP had over the JLP”.
She contends further, that the tagline, which JLP had for change, should have been pushed a lot stronger, “very, very strong”, she said, “and much earlier, from January”, she said, “they should have started telling people why there was need for a change.” She remarked, “We all knew that elections would be only a year away, so start convincing me from early, in every action. And every thing that you do, should be geared towards that”.
“Looking at those people who saw the results”, Ashley noted, “the companies who were successful in the marketing campaign, (you can tell) it didn’t happen overnight”. As a marketer, and perhaps an advise to the JLP, she said, “It’s a long process and you sit down, think about it and you strategise”.
|
