How True Are Your Ads?

Gyanendra Kumar Kashyap

Soulful poetry, bombastic promises and beguiling slogans… you definitely can’t escape the great Indian electoral jamboree if you are an Indian. But do slogans really translate into votes?

“Bijli gul, paani gul, sever full, is baar Dilli sarkar ka dabba gul.” The ad campaign launched by the BJP during the 2007 Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) Election had certainly created a political advertising furor then. But two and half years down the line, a majority of campaigners (read: BJP members who are now councillors and must have shouted the slogan on the top of their voices then) can’t even recollect the slogan which had helped them dethrone the then ruling Congress party. And it’s just not one instance. In fact, a random survey conducted by us revealed that 66% of the total respondents couldn’t even recall the India Shining and Bharat Nirman campaigns (and at best were unable to differentiate between the two). Put a rupee value to it – the public at large is unaware of the fact that Rs.1.5 billion and Rs.2 billion worth of tax payers money was involved in India Shining and Bharat Nirman campaigns respectively – and the efforts seem to have gone down the drain.

So the moot question is - If the brand recall is such then why do political parties like Congress and BJP keep aside huge sums to the tune of Rs.1.5 billion and Rs.2.5 billion respectively as their advertising budgets. Do political advertising really serve the purpose? Or is the Rs.10 billion advertising extravaganza by political biggies just another revenue source for the ad agencies.

From 1984 to 2009, the political advertisement landscape has been more or less the same, in the sense that it has remained a convenient place to fallback for answers, both in the case of victory and defeat. Be it Rediffusion, Grey Worldwide, Crayons, or Utopia, they have either been praised for ‘brilliant’ campaigns or have been held guilty for their ‘horribly negative’ work. In fact, like any other brand, political brands too have shifted agencies as and when they couldn’t continue with that winning streak. But then, what is it that differentiates a brilliant campaign from a horribly negative campaign? If your answer is in the context of creativity, then you need to reconsider; because political ads have never been so creative. And if at all they have been, they have failed miserably. So what is it that attracts voters to vote for a particular political party?

If it’s not the creative design, then certainly it has to be the message that the advertisement sends across to its target segment. Though both BJP and Congress politically insist on the fact that neither India Shining nor Bharat Nirman was a political campaign, yet the subtlety with which the ads were used as ‘proxy campaigns’ to highlight their achievements makes them classic cases for consideration. In fact, there was nothing wrong with the Rs.1.5 billion plus Grey Worlwide’s India Shining (for the BJP led NDA government) campaign. Media loved it, even the tagline became an instant catchphrase for the booming Indian economy. Yet the common perception of the masses was that it was more of an elitist advertisement, with no recognisable face on the hoardings. Result: NDA lost the next election. The campaign that had become the catchphrase was suddenly vilified and the Rs.1.5 billion plus price tag was cited as an extravaganza. The post mortem analysis indicated that the ruling BJP while recognising the achievements of ‘India’ had completely forgotten about the teeming millions in Bharat.

Compare this to Percept/H Bharat Nirman Campaign (for the UPA government), at an estimated cost of Rs.2 billion, publicising the work of the UPA government. As per political pundits, the campaign connected more with the masses. In fact, this was one of the several reasons behind Congress’s thumping victory in the 2009 Parliamentary Polls. Did you notice that subtle change – ‘Bharat’ replaced ‘India’ and ‘Shining’ was substituted by ‘Nirman’? And this struck the right chord with the voters.

On comparative ground too, the two ad campaigns by respective governments speak volumes on what experts’ term as ‘positivity, inclusiveness, youthfulness and all the more pan India appeal’ as against ‘negativity, incoherence and ads of exploitative nature.’ Well, one can’t blame political analysts and experts for their ad analysis. Reason: At this juncture it’s important to note that political advertising and brand advertising are polls apart when it comes to measure the return on investment. While in the latter’s case a plethora of parameters (awareness, likeability, et al) needs to be considered, in the case former the return on investment on advertising can be judged almost instantaneously and on a single parameter – whether the concerned political party won the elections or not. This makes political advertising altogether a different ball game.

Moreover, though negative ads do get the much needed eyeballs and in the future does generate recall, but they do not necessarily translate into votes (sales if can term them so). Jai Ho and Bhay Ho hit the media blitzkrieg almost simultaneously. While with Jai Ho (the Congress was inspired by the Oscar award winning movie Slumdog Millionaire and got the rights to use the same in its political campaign) Congress highlighted its achievements, with its follow up ad “Aam aadmi ke badte kadam; har kadam par Bharat buland” it only took the endavour further.

On the other hand the main opposition party (read BJP) focussed on the negatives and came up with Bhay Ho campaign. Apparently the campaign did not succeed in persuading the Indian voter. Nor did its follow up ad ‘Mazboot Neta, Nirnayak Sarkar’ strike a positive connotation with the masses. Raison d’être: Ads in the context of political advertising must be able to persuade the electorate by political messages based on parameters like trustworthiness, honesty, et al. And critics feel that latter had missed on them. In fact, the message the voter is now sending out to all political parties is – don’t take me for granted, and don’t expect me to be swayed by hype without substance.

For instance, cut the picture to December 2008 when during the Delhi State Assembly Election the BJP came up with the campaign “Mehengi Padi Congress.” Nothing was wrong with the ad, as a matter of fact it did highlight the problems gripping the common man then, but still BJP lost the election. Well, it’s a different issue that 90% (including the chief ministerial candidate Dr V. K. Malhotra) of the party members themselves found that the ad had a negative connotation. “We did highlight the problem, but what we missed was the solution. We did not tell the electorate how we would solve the problem. Further, we focused so much on the word Congress that in the end Congress won the election,” avers Anil Sharma, a BJP Councillor. Therefore, as the party gears up for the assembly elections in three states - Arunachal Pradesh, Haryana and Maharashtra – the focus this time will not only be the problems, but also on the solutions. As far as Haryana is concerned, price rise is its issue.

Similarly the main theme for Congress in the state of Maharashtra (where its ally is Sharad Pawar led NCP) is the developmental plank and sustaining the growth momentum. Says Ranjan Bargotra, President, Crayons Ltd. (the ad agency taking care of the Congress ads in the state assembly elections), “there is no point flooding the ads with information. We are highlighting issues which connect with the common man.” And critics agree with Bargotra. They too feel if campaigns highlight the work done by the collation governments, they can easily persuade the common man to vote for the party. Thus, as a policy measure the Congress ads are never designed to hit below the belt. “This in its own way differentiates the party and persuades voters to vote,” says a critic.

If you don’t agree, sample this, “Aisa pehli baar hua hai … No 1 Haryana” – the ad campaign of the government of Haryana which focuses on the developmental works (NREGS, NRHM, Electricity, SSA, et al) with rural masses in the background conveys a positive picture of the party and is successful in persuading the voters (Haryana government has already spend Rs.80 million on the campaign). Even their latest master stroke – 13 October ko, Sonia Gandhi ke naam pe, Congress ke kaam pe, mohar lagaye haath pe – is a crystal clear ad asking voters to vote for the party clearly on developmental planks.

In fact, a similar ad from the stable of BJP, “Jeetaga Gujarat”, which clearly cut across the clutter and asked people to vote for the development of Gujarat, struck the right chord with the voters at a time when the entire opposition was involved in mud slinging. Ditto in Karnataka wherein BJP had put across a host of questions along with the solutions. Result: The campaign which read “BJPyee Parihaare” (BJP is the solution) connected well with the masses and persuaded the Kannada voters to vote for BJP. All praise to Arun Jaitley who was hailed as the Chanakya of BJP.

Though, on retrospect it’s not always possible to pin point the reasons for failure of the ad campaign, but yet winning admen will continue to claim that they had a better understanding of Indian politics and political pundits will as usual sit and dissect the advertising threadbare. For a moment, imagine, had the BJP won, “Majboot Neta, Nirnayak Sarkar” could have been the new catchphrase. As Bagrotra points out, “Campaign plays a significant yet limited role and it’s performance that communicates it back to the people.”

PS: The article was written in October 2009 for 4P's B&M