‘While ground campaigning can energize candidates, campaign teams must take care to avoid getting caught in the mirage of the hype. It’s easy to fall into that trap when thousands show up and participate in the event…’

SURVEYS become a part of ordinary conversations as we count down to election day, for political observers and kibitzers alike. We’ll have more fodder in the coming months, given that the survey firms have started doing monthly surveys instead of per quarter in anticipation of the electoral exercise in May. The release of voter preference surveys will give you a lift or depress you, depending on who you are rooting for.

You might have heard this description of survey results often tossed out by pundits and talking heads alike: “a snap shot in time.” What does that mean, exactly? To put it simply, a survey captures public sentiment on certain issues at the time the field work was done.

This is why most surveyors take note of events and burning issues at the time the responses are taken, as these have a possible effect on public opinion.

But here’s the catch: while surveyors generally ask respondents where they source their news, there is no data about where exactly a respondent picked up a certain bit of information at that given time, in relation to a particular personality. For example, a certain respondent may register a preference or even a dislike for a particular candidate, but we won’t have insight exactly as to what the basis or source of that preference is. Perception in time is a product of an amalgamation of information from (usually) multiple sources.

To illustrate, respondent X mentions that she or he has decided on voting for candidate Y.

Respondent X also mentions that his source of news is generally TV, followed by radio or social media. While this gives important insight for media buyers, those reading the data cannot point to exact material or event that gave rise to that preference on the part of the respondent, for that particular time period. Even if the respondent said that they usually watch or read the news, it’s very possible that an opinion is influenced by a conversation with a friend or co-workers, or an article shared in a group chat.

Because of this, campaign teams endeavor to build out their verticals — generally divided between what is referred to as the ground and air war. The air war, as the name suggests, covers the broadcast component of the content — TV, radio, and in the recent decade — social media. The ground war involves pressing flesh — sorties, rallies, town halls, etc. A balance has to be struck between the two, with one complimenting the other. Why?

No matter how hard a candidate tries, there is a logistical limit on meeting potential voters within the official 90-day campaign period. Based on the number of provinces alone (81), a candidate cannot possibly visit each and every one to court voters; this is why candidates often make multiple stops in vote-rich areas like Cebu, Cavite, and Pangasinan to deepen engagement and exposure. Add to that the 144 cities, 1,490 municipalities, and 42,036 barangays, and you realize the physical impossibility of barnstorming your way throughout the entire country.

This is where the air war provides “presence” by way of TV, radio, and social media advertisements, and even radio interviews. A candidate visiting Toledo may be doing radio interviews in local stations in Dagupan, in order to maximize the day. Your radio ads can also be airing in Cagayan Valley, while your TV ads are showing on national stations. Just one of the many ways that candidates can maximize presence in other areas by building their verticals.

In terms of pesos and centavos, ground events generally cost less than air campaigns, due to the air time rates and production expenses, but have lesser reach in terms of the number of people. Again, each vertical has its own trade off, and campaign teams generally spend a good bit of time weaving a plan that involves multiple channels, taking into consideration resource limitations.

While ground campaigning can energize candidates, campaign teams must take care to avoid getting caught in the mirage of the hype. It’s easy to fall into that trap when thousands show up and participate in the event — while warmth and electricity are necessary by-products of meeting supporters, campaign teams should look at the participation with a very cold eye and see if that warmth is translating into actual numbers.

With 83 days to go, campaign teams must work triple-time to make every second count.

‘Moving forward, each and every day will now have to be a battle of conversion (or in the case of the frontrunner, keeping that support) which will have to be the deciding factor in deciding how the candidate moves in the next weeks.’

LAST Tuesday marked the start of the official campaign period for the national elections, where the clock starts counting down to the 90 days given to candidates and their teams leading up to the ultimate polls — election day. While each day in the campaign period is equally valuable, campaign teams put a lot of thought and effort into organizing Day 1, otherwise known as proclamation rallies. Rightly so, as one prefers to start with a bang instead of a whimper, knowing fully well that a great kick off will set the tone and vigor of your base for the rest of the season.

I was quite curious how the pandemic would change the way that candidates conduct their ground campaigns, given that the massive gatherings of old now pose a bigger health risk.

It seems I got the answer the other day: most candidates went with conventional thinking and opted to show mass and scale in their events, with the requisite drone shots to emphasize crowd size.

You may laugh, dear millennials and fillennials, but the popularity of a candidate still influences a certain segment of voters, especially those who do not want to vote for a “sure” loser. A show of force is important in these milestone events (the second being the miting de avance) to create a bandwagon effect to rope in potential voters.

The possibility of a great narrative also comes into play when choosing the location of a proclamation rally. Again, most candidates will likely choose their own bailiwicks or home provinces. We saw this in the case of VP Leni Robredo (Naga), Senators Ping Lacson (Cavite) and Manny Pacquiao (General Santos) and Mayor Isko Moreno (Manila.) Only Bongbong Marcos Jr. opted to deviate from conventional wisdom and held his proclamation rally at the Philippine Arena in Bulacan instead of his home province.

The hometown connection is also tightly woven into their speeches, a retracing of their beginnings to create a shared feeling of being in the endeavor together. It is meant to be a call back to our tradition of sending off family and friends as they go off to conquer the world, with our support and best intentions. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why Marcos Jr. went in another direction, to concentrate on pushing his “unity” message without having to draw from family history all too much.

Some observers have raised the possibility of Marcos Junior’s venue choice as a nod to court the endorsement of the Iglesia ni Cristo (who owns Philippine Arena.) I don’t necessarily agree with this, as venue rental is not a card you bring to the table when it comes to negotiating endorsements, unless you want to insult the other party or dazzle them with your dilettantish ways.

Overall, the candidates chose their venues well, and were able to project the level of support that they have on their respective corners as they all go off and try to emerge as the victor in the polls. Moving forward, each and every day will now have to be a battle of conversion (or in the case of the frontrunner, keeping that support) which will have to be the deciding factor in deciding how the candidate moves in the next weeks. Will attending event X contribute to conversion? Will this interview allow the candidate to get more votes?

Or conversely: will showing up cause harm to our numbers? Will this video instigate backlash? These questions, and many others, should be foremost on the minds of the campaign teams as they work their plan for the next 87 days.

‘Will Junior’s strategy hold, or will the other four chip away at the myth Junior has built? Gear up, everyone. We are in for a very, very, turbulent ride.’

WE are less than a week away from the official start of the campaign period, dear millennials and fillennials. Whatever concessions were made before to maintain a veneer of propriety against campaign-related activities will now be out the window, as candidates and their campaign teams will be looking to maximize every possible minute out of the 90-day official period.

While running a national campaign is a challenging and complicated undertaking by itself, campaign teams need to be extra creative these days because of the limitations posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Previously, campaigns were only limited by the stamina of their candidates when it came to on-the-ground events; packing the day with interviews, rallies, caucuses, town halls, and similar engagements were the norm. Crowd size then was king — teams were always on the lookout for the best photos that will show jampacked gyms and standing room-only events when it came to sorties to show the bandwagon effect.

My guess is the more responsible candidates will police their own events, not wanting to be accused of tolerating super-spreader events at a time where Omicron is still prevalent in communities. The ones who don’t really give a rat’s ass will continue to campaign without a care in the world and will most likely try to sell the big crowds as the people’s desire to press flesh with their candidate. This will put local officials in a bind, as they will be the ones left to deal with the aftermath of any super-spreader event once the candidate leaves.

Our TV programs and YouTube viewing will likewise be affected, given that political ads will be more consistent. Candidates with limited resources will most likely have decided to save those resources for airing ads during the official campaign period, where material can be most direct in soliciting votes. Even the Senate race is quite tight, so more senatorial candidates will be jockeying to catch the attention of voters.

Similarly, expect swords to be unsheathed — clashes between candidates are likely to become more direct, as hot copies land on free media more often than cut-and-dried ones.

Those with limited resources for paid media (this refers to air/print space one can buy as advertisements) should already be prepared with a plan to get the most space out of free media to box out other candidates who may not be as sound-bite savvy.

Expect that the volume of fake news will likewise increase and will become more relentless as the days progress. Even the most well-meaning will fall for fake news of some sort, so it will be best if we are all on guard about the information we come across on social media and our chat groups.

A quick look at the latest surveys tells me that Vice President Leni Robredo, Senators Ping Lacson, Manny Pacquiao, and Mayor Isko Moreno will have to work triple-time to increase their preference among voters. All four candidates are polling at the single-digit to the mid-teens range, which means that they will have to have more than the usual strategy to gain ground on the leader of the pack. Presidential debates and interviews will provide considerable value to these four, and again allows voters to listen to them for a longer time than the usual media interview.

On the other hand, the son of deposed dictator Ferdinand Marcos, Marcos Junior, can unfortunately coast along the official campaign period. The name of the game for his team is to preserve and protect his numbers from any outside or self-inflicted cuts — which means that they will probably stick to their tactic of keeping Marcos Junior out of possibly thorny situations (like presidential debates) and only trot him out when they are completely in control of the circumstances. His main weapon will be his paid media assets — he will guard his flank by staying away from contentious issues and situations in order to stay true to his “unity” call.

Will Junior’s strategy hold, or will the other four chip away at the myth Junior has built? Gear up, everyone. We are in for a very, very, turbulent ride.

‘We need to be able
to test the mettle
of these candidates
as much as we can before
we all go to the polls.’

I CAUGHT the presidential candidate interviews by Jessica Soho and the GMA news team last Sunday, and it gave viewers the opportunity to listen and know more about the candidates’ stand on specific issues and well, to generally observe their body language for a longer period apart from media interviews and press conferences.

But first, congratulations to Jessica Soho and her research team for carefully crafted and researched questions. In the interest of fairness, all candidates who showed up were asked thorny if not difficult questions related to their past actions and criticism against them. All in all, it provided an informative platform for voters to get to know the candidates more, and is, I hope, one of many opportunities that will be available to voters leading up to the May 2022 elections.

I did not doubt that Vice President Leni Robredo would do well, as she truly does excel in interviews like this. Recall her performance during the vice-presidential debates back in 2016 where she consistently stood out among more seasoned politicians and caught the attention of many who had no clue who Leni Robredo was then. Now, faced with the backlash of many years of sustained propaganda and fake news against her, Robredo can use these debates and town hall events to show voters that she is more than capable of doing the job.

Sen. Ping Lacson was likewise impressive in his performance. Whether you agree with his positions or not, it’s clear that Sen. Lacson has a good command of the subject matter, and has a plan to address some of the issues confronting the country. I can understand Sen. Lacson’s appeal to a certain type of voter: those attracted to the strict military type, in the hope that the sort of style and discipline will transform the administration. The challenge for Sen. Lacson is to capture a broader base of voters beyond those who are already partial to him and his platform.

Mayor Isko Moreno’s strategy was clear from the beginning: continue to burnish his accomplishments in Manila and establish his connection with the masses by harking back to his background and life story. The first part is quite similar to President Duterte’s campaign strategy in 2016: the promise to transform the rest of the Philippines like he did in Davao City. Some watchers have already observed that Mayor Isko seems to be presenting a “Duterte Lite” image, which I suppose cannot be avoided given that both men have a certain manner and style.

I wouldn’t knock Sen. Manny Pacquiao’s performance either; he stuck to his positions and tried to explain as best as he could. While I do not personally agree with many of his positions and his approach to policy making, I did not doubt sincerity about wanting to uplift the lives of Filipinos. Good intentions count, but moving forward, Sen. Pacquiao has to show voters that he is capable of executing these plans on a much wider scale.

Bongbong Marcos missed the opportunity to show skeptics that they are wrong about him, simply by not showing up. Given his past performance in debates and candidate interviews, his team must have had reservations with allowing him to speak in a space they do not control. Recall his interviews of late and it is clear that they are managing the appearances of their candidate, agreeing only to interviews where they are assured of soft ball questions and no thorny issues will come up. Is that a good campaign strategy? Yes, given that Marcos is leading the polls, it is best to veer away from events that may result in him losing points with the audience. Is that good for voters? No, because the presidency is so much more than scripted interviews and cutting ribbons. We need to be able to test the mettle of these candidates as much as we can before we all go to the polls. When you sit as president, many things will be beyond your control; you cannot insist on just staging and orchestrating running a country.

Dear millennials and fillennials, let’s all keep watching these interviews and debates as much as we can, and encourage family and friends to do the same. Let’s all push for an informed vote as we near the elections.

‘Sadly, there are the Novaks and PGs of this world who do not think twice about receiving or even facilitating special treatment, for
the sake of personal
convenience and gain.’

THE saga of the ruckus caused by tennis’ number 1 player Novak Djokovic has finally come to a close. Last Sunday, the Federal Court rejected Djokovic’s appeal to overturn the Minister of Immigration’s decision to cancel his visa. This slammed the door on Djokovic’s participation in the Australian Open, where he was expected to chase his 21st grand slam title.

Djokovic hopped on an Emirates flight post-haste to Dubai, and it is yet unreported where he is headed next. It is my understanding that the initial exemption for the unvaccinated Novak (prompting social media users to call him “Novax Djokovic”) did not sit well with many Australians citizens who have had to endure strict on-and-off lockdowns to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 virus. With rising numbers due to what is presumably the Omicron variant, it is quite understandable why Australians took Djokovic’s special treatment as an affront to their personal and collective efforts.

There was quite a bit of back-and-forth as well about Djokovic’s movements prior to December 16, 2021, when he allegedly caught the virus. What is not clear to me exactly is that the exemption was supposedly granted based on the allegation that he recently contracted the virus, and therefore was carrying some sort of immunity for a limited period of time. In any case, Internet sleuths quickly unearthed press photos of Djokovic in public (without a mask, if I may add) after he supposedly tested positive for COVID-19. At the least, these discoveries cast doubt on the declarations made by Djokovic in support of the exemption granted to him, and the Australian Federal Government did not back down from enforcing its own border policies despite an initial setback.

Djokovic’s fans lamented the decision to uphold the visa cancellation, and tried to console the former by saying that there was nothing else the tennis star could do to fix the situation. Actually, there is. He could’ve gotten vaccinated. It will be good for Djokovic to recall his unsolicited advice to Naomi Osaka (after the latter refused to attend a post-match press conference at the French Open) and practice what he mansplains: rules are rules.

Djokovic’s case reminds me of the anger over Poblacion Girl — while many Filipinos strive to dodge COVID-19 by following health and safety protocols, PG was allowed to flout the rules simply because she had the means to do so. While the drubbing PG received from traditional and social media was hopefully enough to set her straight in her ways (let’s not include the necessary uncountability under our laws,) the anger from ordinary Filipinos (as it was in the case of ordinary Australians) is quite justified. Isolation or quarantine is not a walk through the woods — it can take a toll on one’s mental health, not to mention one’s ability to earn a living for your family. Yet, because most Filipinos are afraid to give the illness to their loved ones, many choose to follow the recommended measures out of caution. Sadly, there are the Novaks and PGs of this world who do not think twice about receiving or even facilitating special treatment, for the sake of personal convenience and gain. Our authorities here at home will do well to emulate the enforcement of the Australian Government as a small but significant nod to the sacrifices of many Filipinos during this pandemic.

‘With less than six months to go before the end of the current administration, we cannot expect any redemption arc from the crop of officials running this country’s pandemic response.’

MOST ordinary folk get triggered by many things these days, especially with the exponential rise of COVID-19 cases, the apparent shortage of over-the-counter medication for fever, colds, and cough, and the continuing lackluster response of the government, but one thing stands out: bringing back face shields.

One masseuse I know (who came back to Metro Manila from her home province a few months back) went on a long rant about face shields. Her main beef with it is that it does not seem to add any additional protection to the wearer, given that the transmission of the coronavirus is largely airborne. She also lamented the financial burden of buying face shields for ordinary Filipinos — “imbes na ipambili ng kape o ng gatas, gagastusin pa sa face shield.” This is the same sentiment echoed by security guards, grocery baggers, and cashiers that I’ve come across.

I asked her if she ever had a reason to get an antigen or PCR test since the pandemic started, and her answer was equally revealing: “Kahit meron, mahirap sa amin ‘yan. Ang mahal. Pag nagkasakit, pirmi na lang sa bahay at magdasal na hindi COVID.” Her sentiment is again, not unique: man on the street interviews done by media since the pandemic began go along the same lines, primarily because of one thing: it’s the hard truth. Same goes with the plastic barriers for jeepneys and motorcycle cabs: just unnecessary expenses for those who do not have much.

Which makes you wonder why most of our policy makers and decision makers seem blind to the reality, or even deaf to the voices of experts across relevant fields about efficient measures to curb the spread of COVID-19. While many are talking about increasing ventilation in establishments, our authorities talk about plexiglass shields and curfews. If I had a peso for every time a government official volunteered “face shields” as a precautionary measure, I’d be wading in cash.

The exchange between Mr. Jose Luis Jimenez (a professor from the University of Colorado and an expert in aerosols, atmospheric chemistry, and disease transmission) and one of the advisers of the task force something or the other over social media was quite instructive about why government is still lagging behind on addressing the recent surge: it fails to listen to the voices of other experts about ventilation (among other things) and treats contrary advice as an attack on all that is holy. Every suggestion is a critique, and politically motivated.

It seems that said government adviser was triggered by Professor Jimenez’s statements on the shared room transmissions of COVID, which was a hot topic of conversation on Twitter over the weekend. Jimenez’s Twitter feed collates a sort of COVID Hall of Shame for inefficient measures implemented by governments and institutions to address the pandemic, pointing out why these measures actually do not address (or even misunderstands) the problem. It’s very enlightening, I encourage everyone to read and learn how these can be implemented in your homes.

Business owners far and wide lament the lack of guidance from government when it comes to adequate ventilation. Truth is, most buildings are closed off and have little open or well-ventilated spaces (we are an aircon inclined landscape, after all.) This is why those selling air purifiers are doing brisk business, while consumers are left to their own devices to research and pick which device suits the purpose. A friend of mine had to research about low velocity high volume industrial fans in a bid to make his small café safer for outdoor dining. Others simply make do with opening windows or doors and using electric fans to get air moving indoors. As with most things, to each his own, yet again.

With less than six months to go before the end of the current administration, we cannot expect any redemption arc from the crop of officials running this country’s pandemic response. The best we can hope for is that we all survive this surge, and that the next administration will be much, much better in earnestly trying to lift everyone from this rut we are all in.

‘I hope we all make good use of our votes, if we are to have any hope of a quicker recovery from the gaping hole we find ourselves in.’

HAPPY New Year, dear millennials and fillennials! It’s the first week of 2022 and we are almost heading into the third year of living alongside this pandemic. As the weeks go by, the political class will continue to be consumed by the upcoming elections, while the rest of us ordinary folk concentrate on what matters to us — health, livelihood, food on the table.

But yes, if you thought that the political arena was already noisy last year, expect the volume to increase even more. Meanwhile, what’s already on the horizon as we enter 2022 (and hopefully, not 2020 too)?

The Good

Preliminary studies from other countries that dealt with the surge in Omicron COVID cases are reporting that while Omicron is more transmissible, their data shows less hospitalizations and deaths associated with the variant. While these findings may provide a modicum of comfort given our current situation, it does not change the fact that the new variant is here, and as some of us suspect, may have landed weeks prior to the announcement of the Department of Health confirming local transmission.

Another good thing is that government finally allowed those previously vaccinated to get booster shots early, something that our economic and medical front liners have been clamoring for some time. With growing evidence that vaccine protection tends to decrease over time (depending on the vaccine type) then boosters will give additional confidence to those who continue to brave the pandemic on a daily basis.

The Bad

While Omicron may mean less hospitalizations and deaths, the reality is that most Filipinos cannot even afford hospitalization, testing, nor treatment. The preliminary findings, if they hold, may mean a less difficult time dealing with the wave (as compared to our experience with the Delta variant,) it should not mean that government should be complacent about imposing the necessary measures to curb the surge. And for the love of all that is holy — this is not 2020. Government should already know by now which measures work. Even one death is one too many, and government must move swiftly to avert further cases by increasing testing and contact tracing.

This mess that PhilHealth has with private hospitals comes at a very inopportune time when ordinary folks need their health benefits to be available. It is unconscionable that PhilHealth has allowed this to go unresolved during the pandemic, but with the end of term approaching, expect the can to be kicked down the road for the next administration to deal with.

The Ugly

Despite the actual concerns of their constituents, expect our elected officials to have laser focus on their reelection bids. Sure, promises about making lives better and addressing concerns and problems will be made, but the big question remains — will they actually do something concrete about it, beyond flowery words?

A national election is a good opportunity to measure our elected officials, down to your councilors, provincial board members, mayors, all the way to President. I hope we all make good use of our votes, if we are to have any hope of a quicker recovery from the gaping hole we find ourselves in.

‘Which ones from the 2022 campaign season will make
its mark on the electorate?’

LAST week, we talked about expecting Christmas messages in the form of TV commercials (TVC) from candidates running for national positions. Since voters will be electing a full list of officials (local, party-list, Congress, Senate, Vice President and President) this coming May, that short run will be followed by harder political ads come January; more pointed in the sense that TVCs will stop short of asking the audience to vote for the candidate in question.

While digital media has been steadily rising in influence when it comes to national campaigns, the lion’s share of a candidate’s budget is still allotted for a decent air war.

Campaigns place much value into creating good ads. Apart from the huge expense, campaigns generally like to make sure that it gets maximum mileage from its TVCs. A good, hardworking ad is a gem, and can spell the difference between victory and defeat for a candidate. But producing a gem isn’t a walk in the park, as creative teams with political experience will tell you: your “client” is actually an entire barangay, with the candidate, their spouse, campaign manager, political advisers, etc. It’s a riot to get an ad out the gate, with multiple levels of approval needed.

With this in mind, here’s a list of memorable ads that we’ve seen through the years:

1. Joker Arroyo’s “Kung bad ka, lagot ka” TVC. The late Senator’s TVC in the 2007 senatorial race was the epitome of simplicity: done in black and white, with the South Park-esque avatar. It projected Arroyo as the one who will make the bad guys pay, and landed him in the eighth spot on election day. It continued the look and feel of Arroyo’s TVCs from the 2001 campaign: stark, simple, straight to the point. (It also helped the 2001 set was narrated by none other than Joonie Gamboa.)

2. Noynoy Aquino’s “Lagot siya sa nanay niya” TVC. His first run for a national position (2007 senatorial) leveraged heavily on the more known members of his family, as expected. The strategy was working okay but it wasn’t enough to make him land in the Top 12 in the surveys. In fact, he ranked at the 14th spot in the January 2007 survey of Pulse Asia, just before the start of the official campaign period. A month later, after the ad came out, Aquino was up six spots to No. 8, and ended up placing sixth in the race. The playful banter between mother and son must’ve struck a chord with Filipino voters, and probably reminded them of their relationship with their own mothers; it also gave that explicit guarantee that his mother will whack him on the head if he does something wrong.

3. Koko Pimentel’s “Zombie Vote.” In 2012, Sen. Koko Pimentel released a political advocacy ad (as TVCs are called when aired outside of the official campaign period) showing a zombie being allowed to register despite well, being a zombie. Quite novel and funny, it urged viewers to register for the 2013 elections to ward off election-related cheating, and here Pimentel draws from his experience in the 2007 senatorial race. He placed 13th but was eventually proclaimed as the rightful winner by the Senate Electoral Tribunal.

4. Manny Villar’s “Sipag at Tiyaga” series. While Villar eventually placed third in the presidential polls, his high numbers in the months leading up to the elections were a result of his strategic advertising plan. Who can forget the earworm that was “Dagat ng Basura?”

(Fun fact: the real title of the jingle is “Naging Mahirap.) I was already working for the Noynoy Aquino campaign when this juggernaut of a jingle came out, and I can tell you that I still sing it from memory until now. It was catchy, singable, and very inspiring; it carried Villar’s campaign until its collapse just two months before the elections.

5. Mar Roxas’ “Mr. Palengke.” Roxas placing No. 1 in the race and garnering the highest percentage of votes (57.81%) was buoyed by his “Mr. Palengke” TVCs, anchored on the popular Parokya ni Edgar hit. Catchy, upbeat, and extremely LSS material, it showed Roxas in a role that voters already associated with him due to his stint as DTI Secretary. The recall of Mr. Palengke is so strong that until this day, Roxas is still called “Mr. Palengke” when people see him in person.

6. Leila de Lima’s “Yan ang Hustisya.” Who could forget Sen. Leila de Lima’s Great Gatsby inspired black and white masterpiece? In a season full of colorful and upbeat jingles, De Lima’s ad made waves for the unique creative concept, and stood head and shoulders above even the ads of some presidentiables. It was also widely authentic and built on De Lima’s image as a no-nonsense Justice Secretary. It secured her the last spot in the Magic 12, after consistently polling high during the campaign period.

There you have it dear millennials and fillennials, an initial list of memorable ads from campaigns past. Which ones from the 2022 campaign season will make its mark on the electorate?

‘One thing you cannot allow is to skew your projections away from what the data tells you. Optimism is one thing, rose-tinted glasses, another.’

YES, dear millennials and fillennials, it’s the second week of December, which means that most of us have the holidays on our mind. While COVID is still here, the relatively low number of new cases in the last few weeks have given us some hope about being able to gather with family and friends in lower risk settings, something that was not the case during the last Christmas season. As I am certain that no one wants to end up as a statistic come January, I hope all of you are taking the necessary precautions to keep safe while spending time with those outside of our respective bubbles.

For those in the campaign circles, the holidays will offer a momentary respite from all things election related. Those with sufficient funds will not let the season go to waste: soon enough we will see holiday greetings from candidates, wishing you and your family so-and-so. As such, shoots for the holiday ad segment should be wrapping up, and material sent to the editing room for various revisions and what-not.

That respite is, however, preceded by a nail-biter: the release of the public surveys for the last quarter. While serious campaigns do have their own internal surveys to track their progress, the public surveys still hold much value for any campaign.

For one, public surveys still have an impact on public perception. While it is true that surveys don’t win elections, it is commonly accepted that some voters still have that mentality that they do not want to vote for a losing candidate. More importantly, would-be donors also factor in the results of public surveys when it comes to determining how wide the purses would open for candidates jockeying for support. While personal relationships and history with would-be funders also play a role in how big that check will be, those who do not have that personal relationship will ultimately be measured as to their viability as determined by their placement in the public surveys.

The results of a public survey should serve to anchor the feet of campaign workers firmly to the ground. When one works in a campaign, it is quite easy to drink the kool aide — especially for those engaged in voter-facing activities (sorties, town halls, etc.) Enthusiasm from your own voters and supporters can be intoxicating; it can energize those putting in long hours.

Like your social media feed, your own perception must be supported by what the data says. While no algorithm runs our everyday experiences, it is always best to step back and assess efforts based on a combination of factors. For example, I have heard of some who tend to skew even their own internal survey results to pander to their candidate; this sort of behavior, while not commonplace, is certainly very damaging to a campaign. Also, such behavior does not bode well for the public in the sense that the candidate is not astute enough to discern the truthfulness of the information given by those around him or her.

One thing you cannot allow is to skew your projections away from what the data tells you. Optimism is one thing, rose-tinted glasses, another. In any case, we will see the complexion of the race with the release of the public surveys; it’ll give teams another chance to recalibrate their strategies going into the last stretch before the start of the official campaign period. Interesting to see who pivots, and who stays the course.

‘…some mistakenly use social media platforms as just a virtual billboard, posting content
so followers can see but not really thinking about how their content can make people get away from their keyboard and move.’

LAST week, I had the pleasure of attending a webinar hosted by the newest social media strategy agency in the Philippines, The Bureau PH. The discussion centered around crafting a winning digital campaign and is quite timely seeing as we are heading into the 2022 national elections. Mr. Gregor Poynton was the guest speaker for the webinar, and the panel discussion was moderated by Mr. Donald Lim, COO of Udenna Corporation. Mr. Dindo Manhit of Strabase, Mishy Co of Peg Social Media and Marketing Director of the Bureau PH, and myself sat as reactors to Mr. Poynton’s presentation.

Mr. Poynton shared a lot of useful points from his experience in many campaigns in the United States and United Kingdom; at one point, he was part of Blue State Digital, a digital strategy and technology firm that was instrumental in former US President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign. The international and local experience shared among the members of the panel made for a very lively discussion, to say the least.

One particular point made by Poynton struck me the most: “Digital is everyone’s job.” This rings very true, though those in the campaign circles still need to grasp this fully. It’s not a surprise that most campaign veterans (especially those of the elder generations) tend to approach social media gingerly, in most instances leaving it to the younger ones to navigate. After all, social media as another pillar of Philippine elections (equal to the traditional air and ground campaigns) did not really pick up until 2016. It was (somewhat woefully) a general agreement that the recognition of the importance of digital in traditional elections tends to be uneven from candidate to candidate.

Studying the past national campaigns will also give insight on how social media was used in those periods: for example, in 2010, the early days of Facebook saw presidential candidates and their campaigns marking milestones such as follower count. Slowly, this gave way to other milestones such as reach, views, and engagement. Yes, the goal posts for success on social media keep moving, and so must campaigns if they want to stay above the noise.

Those entrusted by their candidates to craft and execute a winning social media strategy, in most cases, need to elbow their way to get a seat at the big table to participate in making big decisions, and not just as an afterthought (“Post niyo nga ito.”) Tied to this is Poynton’s second major point: “Make everything you are already doing social.” He emphasized that “social” in this context means building communities and not just being present on social media and using technology; it means doing things that will build relationships with and engage your audience, going beyond the usual metric of likes and shares. Quite an important point to make, seeing that some mistakenly use social media platforms as just a virtual billboard, posting content so followers can see but not really thinking about how their content can make people get away from their keyboard and move.

While campaigns can make great strides with a properly executed digital strategy, those present emphasized that social media alone does not win campaigns. It must be executed in sync and in tandem with other weapons in a campaign’s arsenal, such as a sound political strategy, real volunteer engagement, and last but not the least, a message that resonates with a wider swathe of voters. In other words, it must be a successful marriage of the ground and air war, where digital is not relegated to the kiddie table and just expected to post and upload content for documentation.

You can still catch the discussion on The Bureau PH’s Facebook page. Many thanks to The Bureau PH and Mishy Co for the chance to sit and chat with fellow travelers.