One of the key challenges for any party or politician is controlling your political brand. Case studies are a useful tool. They show that has been done in the past.
Political Versus Administrative
Tension often arises between the political and administrative aspects of government in a democracy. Elected politicians set the strategy. This should (ideally) reflect what the voters want. Administrators, e.g., civil servants, carry it out. The problem is that there isn’t always a clear line between good administration and political choice. In political messaging this problem is very clear. Government communications explain the programs launching. The public needs to know. That said, it is easy for this to become boosting the government of the day. One might end up spending public money to brag about any parties’ achievements. This seems inappropriate. The party in power shouldn’t have unfair advantages. The line is clearly very hard to draw here. It often comes down to subtle differences.
Controlling Your Political Brand
Alex Marland in Brand Command reviews the problem of government/political communications. He focuses on the “Harper Government”. This was the Conservative administration under the leadership of Stephen Harper that ran Canada until 2015. Marland provides an even-handed analysis.
Marland points out that many communication choices may be simply effective administration. Centralization of authority in the Prime Minister’s office may be a concern to many observers. Yet, having different ministries haphazardly launch competing initiatives is hardly a problem-free solution. It would be a mess for the public to understand. Some centralization of control is surely necessary. Still, how much is too much? Some professionalization of communications is good to convey effective messages and ensure cost-efficiency. Again, when does this become Orwellian? Marland packs his book with interesting examples. The examples give the reader the ability to decide when centralization goes too far. People can disagree.
Practical Communications
There are also important practical details about communications in the book. For example, the Harper Government took their brand very seriously. The reader will see just how much attention to detail is needed managing a political brand. Anyone who has worked with events management people know this. They have an irritating attention to detail. I’m not criticizing. I would be terrible at it. Still, it needs to be done. (At a party conference I remember being maneuvered out of a shot. In my late 20s I was too old to be near the Deputy Prime Minister, in his 60s. He was going for a youthful background).
Why have such attention to detail? Consider the story of John Turner’s devil’s horns. In 1984 the Canadian prime minister spoke in front of a sign. This happens all the time. Events people should check the shot. That is a key task. Unfortunately, for Turner the shot wasn’t checked. This had a couple of forks. When photographed the forks appeared to be devil’s horns protruding from Turner’s head. That sort of thing doesn’t lose you elections. Still, it doesn’t help and is entirely avoidable.
The problem of unfortunate accidents only increases in an era of cell phone cameras and greater access to information. What should we learn?
Even minor back-ground gaffes must be avoided lest they are mocked in social media.
Marland 2016, page 312
Annoying staffers who make sure photos work do have a vital role.
For more on political marketing see here, here, and here.
Read: Alex Marland (2016) Brand Command: Canadian Politics and Democracy in the Age of Message Control, University of British Columbia Press.