‘While ground campaigning can energize candidates, campaign teams must take care to avoid getting caught in the mirage of the hype. It’s easy to fall into that trap when thousands show up and participate in the event…’
SURVEYS become a part of ordinary conversations as we count down to election day, for political observers and kibitzers alike. We’ll have more fodder in the coming months, given that the survey firms have started doing monthly surveys instead of per quarter in anticipation of the electoral exercise in May. The release of voter preference surveys will give you a lift or depress you, depending on who you are rooting for.
You might have heard this description of survey results often tossed out by pundits and talking heads alike: “a snap shot in time.” What does that mean, exactly? To put it simply, a survey captures public sentiment on certain issues at the time the field work was done.
This is why most surveyors take note of events and burning issues at the time the responses are taken, as these have a possible effect on public opinion.
But here’s the catch: while surveyors generally ask respondents where they source their news, there is no data about where exactly a respondent picked up a certain bit of information at that given time, in relation to a particular personality. For example, a certain respondent may register a preference or even a dislike for a particular candidate, but we won’t have insight exactly as to what the basis or source of that preference is. Perception in time is a product of an amalgamation of information from (usually) multiple sources.
To illustrate, respondent X mentions that she or he has decided on voting for candidate Y.
Respondent X also mentions that his source of news is generally TV, followed by radio or social media. While this gives important insight for media buyers, those reading the data cannot point to exact material or event that gave rise to that preference on the part of the respondent, for that particular time period. Even if the respondent said that they usually watch or read the news, it’s very possible that an opinion is influenced by a conversation with a friend or co-workers, or an article shared in a group chat.
Because of this, campaign teams endeavor to build out their verticals — generally divided between what is referred to as the ground and air war. The air war, as the name suggests, covers the broadcast component of the content — TV, radio, and in the recent decade — social media. The ground war involves pressing flesh — sorties, rallies, town halls, etc. A balance has to be struck between the two, with one complimenting the other. Why?
No matter how hard a candidate tries, there is a logistical limit on meeting potential voters within the official 90-day campaign period. Based on the number of provinces alone (81), a candidate cannot possibly visit each and every one to court voters; this is why candidates often make multiple stops in vote-rich areas like Cebu, Cavite, and Pangasinan to deepen engagement and exposure. Add to that the 144 cities, 1,490 municipalities, and 42,036 barangays, and you realize the physical impossibility of barnstorming your way throughout the entire country.
This is where the air war provides “presence” by way of TV, radio, and social media advertisements, and even radio interviews. A candidate visiting Toledo may be doing radio interviews in local stations in Dagupan, in order to maximize the day. Your radio ads can also be airing in Cagayan Valley, while your TV ads are showing on national stations. Just one of the many ways that candidates can maximize presence in other areas by building their verticals.
In terms of pesos and centavos, ground events generally cost less than air campaigns, due to the air time rates and production expenses, but have lesser reach in terms of the number of people. Again, each vertical has its own trade off, and campaign teams generally spend a good bit of time weaving a plan that involves multiple channels, taking into consideration resource limitations.
While ground campaigning can energize candidates, campaign teams must take care to avoid getting caught in the mirage of the hype. It’s easy to fall into that trap when thousands show up and participate in the event — while warmth and electricity are necessary by-products of meeting supporters, campaign teams should look at the participation with a very cold eye and see if that warmth is translating into actual numbers.
With 83 days to go, campaign teams must work triple-time to make every second count.
