Taking advantage of the proximity of the municipal and regional elections in our country and after starting the electoral campaign, it is undoubtedly interesting to reflect on a very current issue, the personal brand of politicians and communication as a tool for their election. In this sense, we could comment on certain things that may be of great interest to the candidates, although not only for them, but also for the people who, after all, have to reflect and make decisions to choose them. In the first place, comment that within political marketing there are many analogies with traditional marketing, so that premises that work with the latter, in many cases also work within political marketing Armenia Mobile Database. It is no less true that in these local and regional elections, the figure of the person who appears has a greater impact on the voting decision (purchase decision in marketing terms) than the company’s own brand, in this case the party for which it is presented.
So much so that many mayors decide on many occasions if not to dispense with the acronyms, if at least minimize their presence in written media and I don’t tell you anything when they speak as they “forget” the party for which they are presented. This strategy used by many candidates, It seems to me a disguised deception for the electorate, because although the person is voted, it is the party in which on many occasions it imposes the policies to be developed, the values to follow, the behaviors to be carried out, the arguments to be communicated, so it would be more honest to assume and make the party for which they are presented more visible and not try to disassociate themselves from it, with the consequent “confusion” for the people who must elect mayor / sa or community president. In these elections, the person who presents themselves and secondly the party they represent is voted on, but this does not allow us to ignore, forget, that each candidate is due to their reference brand and therefore, they must apply what the party considers it appropriate and with this type of action, to remove or hide the game I take it as one ”
It is perhaps for this reason that the political marketing that is done in this type of local calls, focuses much more on the personalist figure and attempts are made to reinforce, enhance or create the candidate’s personal brand image. For this, in many cases, communication cabinets are made available to many candidates that seek in too many cases and in a short time, to create a personal brand that is attractive to the electorate, to create the desire for those who appear. This can sometimes be achieved, other times it is impossible. Let me explain, it is likely that in large cities, where candidates are less known or at least go unnoticed by the vast majority of citizens, the ability to communicate in terms of creating, shaping or enhancing a brand image is more possible in less time, in small towns, It is an attempt that can even go against the candidate’s own interests! The logic is overwhelming, you can make up, enhance or reform what is not known, that has not created previous impressions, but not that in 15 days they try to change the impressions and prejudices that the electorate has. Sometimes this is taken as an attempt at manipulation that negatively reverses the candidacy.
I value very positively the efforts of how the parties unify electoral formats, in posters, advertising, image, etc Brother Cell Phone List which is not bad to unify the power of the party’s brand, that is, for the corporate image, however, that unification It also has an impact when it comes to achieving a differentiation with many candidates, especially as I tell you in reduced populations and of course I party with certain hindrances, this is a wrong strategy since it will not give the desired results, since the image is imposed corporate (damaged to the electorate) on the possible attractiveness of the candidate. That is why, perhaps standardizing excessively in terms of forms, forms or messages, is not a good strategy to obtain votes, either. since the competitive advantages of the candidate can be hidden behind the image of the party. I think that therefore it is not effective to remove the party’s initials from everything related to the candidate, or to standardize excessively until the image of the party is swallowed up by that of the candidate.
The extreme and proven need that political marketing has for communication (like any other marketing) and for experts in this matter, is achieving, as I see it, that the same few elections ago, communication advisers had the most innovative candidates, and We have come to the fact that in any village we can find people in charge of these issues, which I insist is positive. I think this effect is honestly good, what happens that this political marketing boom is producing in many cases or is going to produce results that may not be in line with what is expected by the candidates or worse still, it can have certain damages own candidates. By this I mean that political marketing, like any other type of marketing, requires strategies, objectives, actions and that this determines a certain impact, but for this it requires a level of professionalism that is missing in many candidacies. The problem of increasing demand for this function, and therefore for professionals in this field, is when anyone “knows” about marketing or anyone claims to know.
The main problem that can be seen in many candidacies is to see how they forget the most important thing in marketing, who is going to buy your candidacy and only carry out activities that had an impact on other elections, on other candidates. This is an unequivocal sign of professional incapacity in political marketing and in any type of marketing. If we continue political campaigns in these elections, we will realize a more generalized process than is recommended and that I believe is not recommended, such as copy-paste, or strictly shooting campaigns that were very successful in other markets. You can see how actions and format of other campaigns are copied, actions designed for other markets are implemented, and that certainly speaks of a high level of knowledge of other campaigns, but not of marketing and much less of political marketing. In marketing, the first premise to respect is that either you focus on the needs, tastes, desires and expectations of your customers (voters) and, after all, people, or you will not sell the product (they will not choose your candidate) .
This is a maxim that is always fulfilled! Therefore I like that interest and relevance that the world of communication is taking in marketing in general and in political marketing in particular, but we must not forget that communication is another tool of marketing and as such, it can be given different uses, but I think it is a mistake to use it as an end in itself, forgetting the wishes and needs of customers / citizens. I am surprised when content problems are seen, of things wrongly done, and it is argued that it is a communication problem, of not communicating well, this is ignoring or giving a power to communication that it does not have and that if it has, it is called deception . Not everything can be worth in communication, this should be very controlled, issues such as misleading (illegal) advertising, lies, defamation, lack of respect, All this is not allowed in traditional marketing, why on many occasions in political marketing? Why should this be more permissive with these actions that are even carried out consciously as part of the campaign strategy? In these 15 days of campaign it seems that anything goes and even that sometimes it is allowed, well, “we are in the campaign”. It should not be that way because of the image of politics and politicians for society.
There are many restrictions controlled by the electoral board but little control over the campaign, messages, forms and content of the candidates, which, although they may be legal, are not ethical, or are simply assumed lies. Why should this be more permissive with these actions that are even carried out consciously as part of the campaign strategy? In these 15 days of campaign it seems that anything goes and even that sometimes it is allowed, well, “we are in the campaign”. It should not be that way because of the image of politics and politicians for society. There are many restrictions controlled by the electoral board but little control over the campaign, messages, forms and content of the candidates, which, although they may be legal, are not ethical, or are simply assumed lies. Why should this be more permissive with these actions that are even carried out consciously as part of the campaign strategy? In these 15 days of campaign it seems that anything goes and even that sometimes it is allowed, well, “we are in the campaign”. It should not be that way because of the image of politics and politicians for society.
There are many restrictions controlled by the electoral board but little control over the campaign, messages, forms and content of the candidates, which, although they may be legal, are not ethical, or are simply assumed lies. It should not be that way because of the image of politics and politicians for society. There are many restrictions controlled by the electoral board but little control over the campaign, messages, forms and content of the candidates, which, although they may be legal, are not ethical, or are simply assumed lies. It should not be that way because of the image of politics and politicians for society. There are many restrictions controlled by the electoral board but little control over the campaign, messages, forms and content of the candidates, which, although they may be legal, are not ethical, or are simply assumed lies.
We know of magnificent communication campaigns from the technical point of view that had no results for the products or services that paid for them and this, which can be a leap to stardom for the agency, is the ruin for the client company. Perhaps this is happening a bit in political marketing, there is an effect that I detect in many current candidacies and in the very near past where communication and everything related to it have been overvalued, good campaigns have been developed but then the results do not follow. Communication, I insist, that it must be taken for what it is, that it has its rules and premises, which must be used well to achieve good results, but if it is intended that everything can be done, this communication is because it is intended to deceive Or tell half lies in the format of truth citizenship to politicians . In political marketing, taking into account the real information available to citizens, which is often scarce, distorted, non-existent or ill-intentioned, perverse communication can place people unsuitable for the general interests in places of power, and I think this is all the opposite of what marketing intends, good marketing, which is nothing other than what is offered must meet the expectations of those who buy it.
