Electoral alliances and political agendas aside, there was something about the Congress campaign that caught the public imagination. Its campaign tune, ‘Jai Ho’, matching its central slogan ― ‘Aam Admi Ke Badthe Kadam, Har Kadam Par Bharat Buland’, offered optimism, inclusion, association with all.
In contrast, the Left campaign appeared to be a series of complaints and cribs. The BJP (Bharatiya Janta Party) campaign was hinged on ‘Kushal Neta, Nirnayak Sarkaar’ and focused principally on governance and security, which are not issues with which people can readily identify.
‘Aam Aadmi’ is a phrase that works each time, every time, in a country where the common man’s loudest expression of his views is the pressing of the (EVM) button. The Congress’ marketing revolved around talking to the common man about his issues in the sharpest manner possible. The result was communication which people could relate to.
The BJP, on the other hand, was present everywhere, but didn’t seem to make the right pitch to the right person. Was India looking for a neta who is strong? Yes. Does the country view the Government as crucial? Of course it does. These are things that the electorate take for granted from its leaders. But the common person identifies with the government only through knowing what the government does or would do for him or her.
Further, the ‘Majboot Neta’ rhetoric was an open invitation for the Congress to remind people of Kandahar, where Advani’s leadership was shown to be not quite strong enough.
From a marketing communications angle, it was interesting to see how, on the whole, positive messages won the day in terms of dominating the debate, even if these did not win every seat.
It is a basic tenet of brand communications that affirmation evokes a positive response. Negative campaigns rarely work, least at times of depression.
Every situation presents problems and opportunities ― in responding with solutions to those situations (which is, after all, what an election campaign purports to do), the branding exercise, consciously or inadvertently, focuses on either.
Where the Congress reminded people about opportunities seized and offered, the BJP and the Left talked about problems. The BJP offered promises but no solutions. At a time when economic crisis was at the top of everyone’s minds, such messages fell far short of expectations. It’s not surprising that the vote base for the Congress (and not just the number of seats) improved so dramatically.
It zeroed in on identifying specific target segments within its overall audience, identified issues that had immediate appeal to these segments and projected a number of credible leaders. The messaging about youthful leadership and young India was fresh, echoed a truth that everyone knows (in a country where 40 per cent of the population is below 25 yrs) and has never heard addressed by political leaders in such a focused, sincere manner.
On the other hand, there was projection of experience and effective delivery, especially in the person of Dr Manmohan Singh. The country saw ― and sees ― him as effectively proactive in dealing with the latest terrorist attack in Mumbai and addressing the issues arising from the global recession. And it is still impressed with the way he dealt with what is commonly seen as the constant carping of the Left ― patient over several differences through four years, ending with being prepared to risk losing his ‘seat’ of power rather than bowing before pressure on an issue that few people understood and most found unreasonable, faulting the Left.
Over the nuclear issue, the Nandigram and other issues, the Left took the ‘high’ road, failing to explain, and even failing to understand people’s concerns and interest. It lost its audience even before the election campaign took off.
The BJP also seems to have missed the lessons of its debacle in 2004. It remains unsure of its target audience, presuming a popular obsession with religion over livelihood, terrorism over sustainable development. Its campaign on strong leadership, governance and security, zeroed in on terrorism and insufficiently addressed development.
Projecting Narendra Modi as a future head of state would not have gone down well with the vast majority of peace loving Indians, who view him with suspicion after the Gujarat riots of 2002. No brand would want to have brand ambassadors who have a cloud of grey hanging over their heads.
Further, any publicity is not good publicity as the Varun Gandhi episode showed. Compare the BJP’s defence of Varun Gandhi’s reported speech with the Congress’ strategy of withdrawing Sajjan Kumar and Jagdish Tytler almost immediately after protests about their candidature.
After seeing itself finishing second to a young and energetic Congress for the second time in five years, it is time for some introspection for the saffron party, not least in terms of the way it marketed itself. There is no doubt that brand BJP suffered from quite a few bad marketing decisions.
Running an election campaign is about gauging the pulse of the electorate. Just like creating a great marketing campaign. The brand which has its ears to the ground always wins.
No comments:
Post a Comment