The new importance being given to political marketing stands out at present in electoral campaign for Delhi Assembly. The manner in which politicians and their parties in the fray to contest are going overboard to convince voters about their respective plans cannot be simply confined to their command over politics, communication strategies and so forth. Each party is trying to outshine its rivals with “lucrative” welfare-oriented plans for voters, if they succeed in commanding majority in the 70-member assembly. The manner in which “strategies” are being tried to convince the electorate seems similar to how companies try to attract consumers to buy their products. The latter rely on advertisements, as a part of their marketing strategy. It may not be perhaps ethically correct to describe political campaigns as advertisements but yes there is no denying that majority in the race have a set target, that of securing “votes” and win elections. A key goal of their campaign may be viewed as attempt to “market” their welfare-schemes to convince voters about their own credibility, just as various advertisements try and convince consumers about credibility of their respective products. This implies that politics in today’s world is strongly linked with the command the actors have on their respective marketing strategies. The results of loss/gain, that is defeat/victory are dependent on actual impact of their “marketing” moves- that is communication/campaign strategies. While benefits in one case are decided by consumers’ reaction, in the other by that of voters. Interestingly, not one but numerous marketing strategies have apparently been used by politicians at various levels. However, they have hardly been viewed as a part of their marketing strategies.
Interestingly, success of politicians in this field may also be viewed as a strong command that they have over “marketing” approach towards this field. It would not be wrong to view success of Donald Trump, from the stage of being selected as the Republican candidate to that of actually becoming the 47th President of United States to his being a great marketeer in this domain. By coincidence, it may be noted, the apparent attempt to target him, probably played an important role in this drive of his. His right ear was reportedly injured by a bullet. In India, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee hurt her leg while campaigning for assembly elections in March 2021. The lady moved around in plastered leg. Certainly, media coverage as well as voters’ attention gained by the two cannot be sidelined. It is possible, to a degree, their subsequent political success is linked with the same. To assume that genuine or manufactured cases of this nature can always contribute to political success would be wrong. But that at times such “marketing strategies” can also be tried cannot be ignored. Whether they work or not depends on people’s opinion about the affected politicians. Given that both Trump and Mamata were not new entrants at time of their respective injurious incidents, a certain opinion was apparently already held about them among the people. They, as suggested earlier, received greater attention of people and media which probably also aided their political drive. But if they were new entrants, people primarily held a negative opinion about them or if their key rivals were given greater as well as more positive importance, attention gained by their injuries would have had little or no impact on their respective electoral drives. Comparatively, if consumers are already familiar with quality of an item, change in its packaging or any other marketing move is least likely to change their attitude towards the same. The alleged incident of stones being pelted at Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Arvind Kejriwal’s car to as said, “eliminate” him may be viewed from this angle. In other words, there is no guarantee that media attention gained by this “incident” would be translated into votes for him.
The nature or varied styles of dresses used by different politicians may also be viewed a part of their “marketing” strategy to appeal to the voters. Where variety is considered, there is no doubt that Prime Minister Narendra Modi is in the lead. But this strategy has not always had the desired impact on voters. Ahead of West Bengal assembly elections, he donned the dress similar to one used by Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore but couldn’t help Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) defeat Trinamool Congress Party (TMC). Nevertheless, the importance given to their respective styles by certain politicians cannot be ignored. Mamata is seen only in a white saree. Quite a few male politicians still stick to their regional style of wearing dhotis. This apparently is their specific style of asserting their regional identity which bears importance as their political strength is primarily limited to their home states. Casual dress with an informal appearance usually worn by Rahul Gandhi is perhaps his style of identifying with the majority in the country and/or staying away from the image of appearing elitist/privileged. It may be noted, Akhilesh Yadav (Samajwadi Party-Uttar Pradesh) and Tejashwi Yadav (Rashtriya Janata Dal-Bihar) have chosen to give greater importance to kurta-pajama. A lot can be written on this aspect. What is relevant here is the importance given to it by majority of politicians to market/assert their image, as they’d like the people to view them as. Again, the guarantee of the same being easily accepted by people or convincing them substantially to cast their votes favoring politicians because of their dress is not there. Dress-code works in politics to a point but not after people have become quite familiar with politicians adhering to the same. Similarly, packaging works to a point but rarely after consumers are already familiar with quality of the product.
Ironically, the same may be said about usage of religious-cards, whether in political marketing or elsewhere. That this card has begun being extensively ahead of elections cannot be ignored. There definitely was a phase when voters were carried away by the same. This is hardly the case nowadays. The increasing tendency of voters to exercise their “marketing” calculations while judging politicians and their parties cannot be ignored. Chances of their being carried away by “religious” rhetoric may be viewed as minimal. What is apparently given greater importance by them is what their votes in whose favor may actually help them gain. Whether it is the case of economic calculations of politicians or of voters, at times, the final picture may not be actually decided by their decision. The craze for political marketing- with electoral value linked more with money-oriented schemes than with political ethics/values- certainly seems to be at its command without any guarantee to what stage to what/who may fall/rise after the “voting-power” has been made use of. The result may be based on swings in the market, that is the kind of alliance winners may decide on, if no party gets a majority!