A look at the television adverts of six leading political parties and what they say about the nature of those party’s campaigns..
THE REAL ANC TODAY
Volume 2; Issue 4.
HOW TO SPOT A NEGATIVE CAMPAIGN
By Gareth van Onselen
Introduction
One particularly tired criticism, peddled about the DA by the ANC in particular and some parts of the media in general, is that the party often campaigns ‘negatively’.
It is a criticism that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, however, and to prove my point I have collated the television adverts for some of the major political parties (broadcast in the run-up to the 2009 election).
By going through them it quickly becomes clear that the DA ran an extremely positive campaign.
(A quick word about the Stop Zuma posters, before someone suggests those constituted ‘negative’ campaigning. As I understand it, going negative means presenting something as dangerous or problematic when there is an equal chance it is in fact a positive development. It is a decision to define or emphasize something as entirely negative, either at the expense of something positive or by simply ignoring it. If something is objectively problematic, saying it is problematic is not negative, it is perfectly rational. And on this point I am quite confident there is enough evidence to suggest there are a number of things about Jacob Zuma and a Zuma presidency that fairly constitute cause for concern. At any rate, the Stop Zuma posters were up for one week of a two month campaign, the DA’s primary messages were ‘Vote to Win’ and ‘One Nation One Future’.)
That said, here are the adverts. I have ranked them from best to worst but have not relied entirely on their respective ‘positivity’ to make that judgment. I make no claims that this is any way scientific, just some thoughts designed to generate a bit of debate.
The Democratic Alliance
We start with the best, which I believe to be the DA’s . Here it is:
The ad is uplifting. It is well produced and its message is positive. It is also empowering, it tells you that you can make a difference and that you have a role to play.
The African National Congress
Next up is the ANC’s advert:
This ad, one of three similar adverts produced by the ruling party, is also very well produced, but less uplifting than the DA’s. It is less uplifting because it is based on a concession: things aren’t as good as they should be. It is hard to be positive when you have to account for your shortcomings first. To do this the ANC, as it always does, invokes the past. This is a powerful emotional plea but it does mean the advert is by its nature retrospective, instead of forward-looking. And then there is the Zuma clip at the end. Zuma is a polarising figure, so while he might energise ANC supporters, there is little chance his message would win over new supporters.
The Congress of the People
Third up – although, I would say, tied second – Cope:
The ad is also well produced, much simpler than the ANC’s. I put it on the same level as the ANC’s because it has a number of implicit problems, much like the ANC’s. Hope is, of course, a positive idea and a fairly strong emotional cord to pull on, but hope is also an idea that implies something more than carefully laid plans are needed – almost a bit of magic. Hope is the kind of thing you do when every other avenue is exhausted – you hope and you pray. Compare the idea to the DA’s message, which says you can make a difference by voting for the DA. Far more direct, far more tangible. The difference you can make is real. The other problem is that, with COPE being so new, there is very little substance behind that message, and therefore it is slightly less credible.
The Independent Democrats
Next we have the ID’s advert:
This ad is by all accounts a shocker, and I would have put it last were it not for the extreme negativity of the last two, which is the main theme of this post. It is poorly produced (the editing at the point where de Lille spells out the ID’s ’solutions’ is so bad each new sentence cuts off the end of her last). But perhaps the biggest blunder is relationship between the copy and the background music. The initial part of the ad is fairly depressing, as de Lille painstakingly describes her sorry reality and the soporific music really makes the whole thing fundamentally melancholy. At a certain point, around 40 seconds, de Lille starts talking positive – but the music doesn’t change! The consequence is that you are left with the distinct feeling that anything she and the ID has done is in vane, and we are all doomed. As a last ditch effort to lift the mood there is a final cheery song at the end, but by this stage one is struggling to see the screen through the tears.
The African Christian Democratic Party
At this point, things start to get negative. Have a look at the ACDP’s ad:
Right, well, I think that clears that up. Anyone battling to define exactly what constitutes a negative advert need look no further. Not much more to say about this ad, well produced I suppose but hardly inspiring. Perhaps a bigger problem with the ad, for the ACDP, is that they hardly have a reputation as a fighter on the big issues – crime, poverty, AIDS – they are more about family values and abortion. So, even if the advert did induce someone into wanting to vote out of fear, there is no real reason why they would chose the ACDP.
The Freedom Front Plus
But even the ACDP pales in comparison to the one produced by the FF Plus. Have a look at this:
Quite something, isn’t it?
The FF+ has a bit more credibility on crime than the ACDP – it has been outspoken on the subject for some time – so they picked the right issue to go negative on. I’m not saying crime isn’t an objective problem, it certainly is, but the thing about this ad – from the visuals, to the background sound, to the endless statistics that show up on the screen – is that it is designed to induce fear, and only fear. It makes no attempt to suggest any solutions. It is basically saying: ‘vote for us, or else’. You are left with a feeling (generated in large part by the background sound) that we are in some sort of post-apocolyptic nightmare where the sun never shines and people ran out of food six months ago. (On a lighter note, I like the implied parallel between Einstein and Mulder: As SAA might say, Einstein thought of it, but Mulder perfected it.)
Now, as a last thought, if there is anyone out there who still thinks the DA is negative, watch the FF Plus’s advert again. Then watch the DA’s.
(I couldn’t find nor have I seen, an advert for the IFP, but if anyone has a link for one, please send it through.)
Filed under: 2009 Election, Media | Tagged: ACDP, ANC, COPE, Democratic Alliance, FF Plus, ID, Negative Campaign, Positive Campaign, Television Adverts
Great post. I must admit that as a supporter of the DA, I found the campaign to be too negative. Comparing the TV adverts certainly does make me think twice.
The “Stop Zuma” was the one that was the most divisive in my opinion. I think your definition:
“As I understand it, going negative means presenting something as dangerous or problematic when there is an equal chance it is in fact a positive development.”
… is correct. But it should be noted that although the DA perceives Zuma to be objectively a bad thing, the swing voters probably did not. So by running this campaign message the DA alienated voters.
I think the “Stop Zuma” message was a terrible idea. There is even a stopzuma.co.za website, so you can’t say it was just a one week thing.
It left a sour, childish taste to the campaign.
Dear Mark
Thank you for your comment, and your support. The idea of a ‘negative’ campaign can be a bit misleading, I think. For example, if there is something dangerous or ‘bad’ – say a policy proposal or the actions of a particular individual – and you are obliged to highlight it, because not to do so would be to violate your commitment to promote or protect democratic ideals, you can be sure that, despite this, there will be people who will accuse you of being ‘negative’. I would argue, however, that you are in fact, being positive. Yes, you are highlighting a problem, but you are doing so with the best intentions, because you are a committed democrat and because you care about the future. At the end of the day, you cannot simply sacrifice principle to appease people, and I think Jacob Zuma epitomises this dilemma (although it wasn’t a dilemma for the DA!). FYI, the Stop Zuma website was set up when Zuma’s case was tossed out by the NPA, during the last week of the campaign.
Gareth
I’m also a DA supporter and although I understood the “Stop Zuma” campaign from the DA’s perspective (in terms of being, as I heard Ryan Coetzee and Helen Zille put it, a “one-man, Constitution-wrecking machine”) and I agreed with the message, I didn’t like its feeling and tone. It wasn’t a sentiment I felt good about (although I agreed with the intellectual rationale underpinning it.)
I think it worked both to attract some swing voters to vote DA as well as to alienate others. The interesting thing to find out would be which effect was stronger amongst the electorate.
On the definition of “negative campaigning” as stated above, it makes sense and I probably agree with it. I suppose I’ve always worked the understanding of “negative campaigning” as a style of campaigning that is more anti-your opponent than pro-yourself and that’s probably how most of the electorate understands it. They want to hear what a party stands for rather than what the party thinks is wrong with its opponent(s).
I wouldn’t say the whole campaign was negative, in fact I liked it much better than the feeble “South Africa Deserves Better” approach of 2004 (although “Vote to Win” was difficult to relate to if you weren’t a Western Cape voter). But I would definitely say that the “Stop Zuma” mini-campaign – at least in terms of the layman’s definition I state above – was negative.
What ultimately matters is whether or not it worked to attract swing voters more than alienate them. I think the jury is still out on that one. But in 2014, as in 2009, I still won’t be able to bring myself to hand out “Stop Zuma” pamphlets (or anything akin to that) when volunteering at a DA table. It’s just not the kind of face of the DA I want to present or reinforce to the public.
Dear Zak
Thank you for your considered response. I understand your position. We are going to have to agree to disagree about the Zuma campaign. Speaking personally, I believe stopping someone who will undermine the office of the president and threaten our constitution is a positive and necessary thing. More importantly, I do not believe one should compromise that message simply because it may or may not have had an effect on swing voters (it did have an effect, by the way, our research shows it persuaded the majority of them to vote DA – which is why we won the Western Cape and did so well elsewhere). On issues of such critical importance as this, I do not think it is a matter of campaigning, it is a matter of trying to do what is best for our democracy. It is perhaps unfortunate that the whole Zuma drama came to a head the week before a national election, but that was not something the DA could control. Our message would have been the same whether there was an election on or not.
Gareth
Hi Gareth. Thanks for your response. I don’t think we’re in total disagreement coz I think the message was the right one and I agree we shouldn’t compromise on that.
The other problematic aspect of the “Stop Zuma” campaign was that it was viewed by many as an attack on the individual rather than an attack of the ANC or its policy platform. Of course I understand that Zuma is a symbol of what’s wrong with the ANC and its thinking but most people aren’t subscribed to SA Today or The Real ANC Today nor do they read the DA’s press releases on the website as I do, so their perception of the DA’s messaging in this and other instances doesn’t have the informed background that contextualises such messaging properly. I’m not saying that the DA’s messaging is only negative though.
Something else that this links to for me is the tension between being a principled opposition on the one hand and, on the other, an aspiring alternate government vying for power. There are some things we do and say that are entirely appropriate for our role as the former but compromise our goals as the latter.
I read a lot of articles about American politics and one of the debates happening within the Republican Party is around what they should do to arrest their shrinkage and grow their support base. They’re calling it the “purity vs big-tent” debate and one of the contentions is that they should rein in the polarising socially conservative messaging around abortion, stem cell research and same-sex marriage. Even if the positions are principled and a substantial chunk of the support base agrees, it may be necessary for the party to tone down in that regard or give less space and attention to it in their public messaging so as not to alienate moderate Republicans, independents and youth voters.
I’m a young, black South African and I worry about the mid- to long-term effect some of our messaging has on, especially black, youth who are potential supporters. I remember that the 1999 “Fight Back” campaign turned me off the then-DP in a major way and it delayed my becoming a DA supporter probably by about 4-5 years. I was lucky in having been able to take the plunge later in spite of that by being willing to revisit the “scene of the crime” and see past it to what the DA really is and offers. Also, now that I’ve read Tony Leon’s autiobiography “On the Contrary” I understand how that campaign came about and what the slogan actually meant.
My main point though is exactly that most people don’t have that understanding and it’s very easy for the ANC and other detractors of the DA to twist and distort what we say to reinforce the stereotypes about us. More often than not, that’s the impression that lasts in the public mind.
We took a huge leap forward with adopting the “One Nation, One Future” slogan and “Stop Zuma” seemed to be taking us a few steps back. I suppose this will be an ongoing debate within the DA of how true can we be to our principles by using certain messaging before it starts being counterproductive and working against our practical objective as a political party to grow and gain more power…
Dear Zak
Thank you once again for your thoughtful response, a pleasure to read such a considered opinion. We are indeed agreement on most things, I think. Certainly the DA needs to find a way for its message, its values and principles, to resonate with all South Africans (and black South Africans in particular). To do so, it needs to convince those people that it has their interests at heart and that it authentically cares about them and their concerns. And that requires a particular approach to communicating with those voters. That is difficult to do when one’s biggest concern is the leader of the ruling party; that is, when the problem is an individual, not an issue or policy – inevitably your concern then revolves around that person. But one must be careful not to transfer the problem itself, to the party highlighting it. With regard to the Stop Zuma campaign, the problem wasn’t the DA, it was Zuma. Look, I guess at the end of the day I am saying that I agree with all your points, only that Zuma (a particular individual) was too big a problem and too substantial a threat not to take a public stand on.
Gareth
It’s a tightrope we’ll have to walk for the forseeable future, especially given the ANC’s tendency to put forward ethically-challenged people as public officials. I think where challenge is to convey the right information to the public to build their understanding of the DA’s position before elections so that by the time we give our messaging at election time (which often has to be simple, short, sharp and snappy) there is some prior understanding. Obviously we can’t convince everyone but we can mentally “soften the blow” when we hit out with the hard messages.
If we stay engaged and communicative during the years in between elections, it will go a long way towards building that understanding. You might find this article interesting: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/05/11/how-message-discipline-killed-the-gop-and-how-they-can-fi/. I thought it had some useful stuff to say about political strategy, especially about maintaining a balance between campaigning and outreach.