It’s official. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Grace Poe’s right to run for the presidency. This was always one of the contingencies for those running the campaigns of the other candidates. Who does this hurt? Who does this help? The answer, of course, lies in what the preference patterns are.
Platform
Preference is affected by many things, including voter values and interests. The easy answer to managing a campaign is that the candidate whose campaign platform best fits voter preference is the one who is selected during actual elections. Since election is essentially a numbers game, it is essential to ensure that the candidate’s platform appeals to a large proportion of the population.
The heart of a campaign platform is essentially a combination of promises designed to convince a voter to choose the candidate over other candidates. The campaign communication itself is then supplemented by candidate credentials.
An easy way to understand this is to think about leadership. In leadership classes, we say that the essential definition of leader is this: A leader is someone who has followers. Except for conditions of slavery, dictatorship or formal authority (and even then, you can choose to resign), the decision to follow belongs to the follower, not the leader. Why are promises important? They are important because followers will follow you only if they desire the future you plan to lead them to. Why are credentials (including track record) important? Because while others might desire the picture of the future you paint, they will only follow you if they believe you have the ability to actually make that future real.
For the candidate, this means many things. He must make promises that are desirable to a large proportion of voters. He must also choose promises that he actually has the ability to make good on. In addition, the good leader must choose to make promises that are actually good for the country. Sometimes, what people want is not what they need. Very often, the job of the leader is to educate citizens concerning what they should want. The other thing this means is that a candidate must somehow ensure that he has the ability to implement all of the promises that he must make because they are good for the country. This means not only educating himself. It also means developing the ability to source and leverage resources. It also means eliciting the support and commitment of individuals and organizations whose support he will require.
Unfortunately, it is not enough for the candidate to ensure he can actually implement his promises. Even harder is getting the voter to believe he can and will implement those promises. And, even after all of this, sometimes the voter will still choose someone else. Why? Well, perhaps the other candidate is actually better—has a better platform or has superior credentials or track record. Sometimes, the voter simply needs better information. Other times, and often enough that it can be frustrating, it is because your candidate simply isn’t likable enough.
Choice
Choosing a new president is very much like choosing to change.
In management of change, we always say that implementing change within an organization is often about convincing enough people to actually change. Rick Maurer says that there are at least three levels of resistance to change. The first is cognitive: I don’t get it. The second is personal and/or emotional: I don’t like it. The last one, most overlooked and seemingly illogical, can be the most difficult: I don’t like you.
What Grace Poe has, which Roxas struggles with, is that last factor. Poe is immensely likable. Roxas is bland.
This is a tremendous challenge because a presidential campaign is at heart a marketing campaign. It is about convincing voters to choose. This requires that the candidate have a clear and differentiated identity – what we would refer to in marketing as a brand. This is how voters will remember the candidate. It is the short cut they will use to compare him with others. It is the statement they will use to explain their choice to others – and even more importantly, to themselves.
Binay’s campaign focuses on referencing the Makati government’s track record of providing generally desirable benefits for residents. Duterte does the same by referencing Davao’s record on law and order. There are, however, very clear arguments against each of these candidates.
In fact, for many voters, without Grace Poe, Roxas would have risen to the top simply by a process of elimination. If that is to continue to be the calculus of voting for Roxas, then his campaign managers will need to find arguments against Poe.
Poe’s voice is unclear thus far. For those desiring change, any change, her very lack of a track record is an argument in her favor. She can be the face of change, her sheer likability providing an immediate anchor.
On the other hand, those who are managing the Roxas campaign seem to believe that Roxas is nothing but a variant of the liberal brand. If you pass by the Farmer’s Market in Cubao, you will find Roxas’ face plastered on yellow posters with the ribbon and the slogan “Daang Matuwid.” Is there nothing that Roxas can claim for himself?
The Roxas campaign has a good, solid candidate but throwing his CV at the voters will not work. He needs to have a clear and succinct message. He needs to build a clear identity.
This is every marketing person’s conundrum, of course. You have a good, solid but bland product. It can do many things. How do you choose the few statements that will create a good solid identity? How will you make it memorable?
Positioning is about a clear message.
Readers can email Maya at integrations_manila@yahoo.com. Or visit her site at http://integrations.tumblr.com.
