I say this because political advertisements being aired and published now are all basically saying the same things. There’s really not much difference among them. In my observation, here are some of the most glaring similarities insofar as TV ads are concerned:

1. the ads communicate the message that their candidate is a saviour of some sort
2. visual elements are mostly the same — candidates mingling with ordinary people, distraught people, poor people, etc.
3. the ads highlight at least one all-encompassing promise
4. the ads end with a cheesy slogan
5. the ads are backed by a catchy song

Advertising experts may say that with the limited allotted time — usually from 30 seconds to 1 minute — there’s hardly any room to include more substantial information therefore they just make do with using the elements enumerated above. I suspct there’s more to it than just that. I think the candidates and/or their campaign managers are just afraid to take risks and would rather just stick to tried and tested methods.

The website www.media-awareness.ca provides us with a more comprehensive list of political advertising techniques. Here it is lifted from their website:

1.  Patriotism: The ad stresses the candidate’s love of and service to his/her country.

2. Gender: The ad presents the candidate as appropriately “manly” (or feminine) to make viewers trust him/her.

3. Family: The ad uses images of ideal families to give you a positive image of the candidate.

4. Excitement: The ad tries to create a sense of energy and excitement around the candidate.

5. Star Power: A celebrity is telling you that they support the candidate.

6. Bandwagon: The ad tries to create the impression that everybody already supports the candidate.

7. Put Downs: The ad insults the candidate’s opponent.

8. Facts and Figures: The ad uses facts and statistics to support the candidate’s policies.

9. Just Folks: The ad portrays the candidate as a “regular guy” (or girl).

10. Heart Strings: The ad tells a story that makes you feel good.

11. Sounds Good: The ad uses music (with or without lyrics) to be memorable, entertaining and exciting.

12. Cartoons and Animals: The ad makes its point with cartoon characters or (usually symbolic) animals.

13. Weasel Words: The ad includes promises that sound good but lack details.

14. Integrity: The ad tries to convince you that the candidate is honest and trustworthy.

15. Fear: The ad tries to frighten you into voting for the candidate (or at least not voting for his/her opponent).

(to see the list on their website go to this link)

Entry 12, cartoons and animals, is interesting. I’m sure you can make the connection yourself, but if you ask me I’d say the word reptilian comes to mind — and chicken too. I’m actually more interested in entry number 8, facts and figures. Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t think this is a standard feature in local political ads, is it? Anyway, this leads me to the main point I’ve been making all this time: Our political candidates are all just pandering and none of them are audacious enough to add more substance to their political advertisements.

This is quite unfortunate considering that more and more people are now demanding real and useful information. I’m of course talking about detailed plans. The way I see it there is an untapped opportunity here for any candidate to set himself or herself apart from the rest. This opportunity is especially perfect for candidates who are trailing behind perception-wise. Since they’re in the lowest rungs anyway they should be willing to take more risks with how they communicate their message. Instead of the usual pandering stuff they can come out with truly informative ads.

Runnning time a limitation? No problem. Just follow the format used for those one-minuter radio or TV reports. An example would be an ad featuring just the candidate talking about one specific issue and providing some specifics on exactly how he/she plans to address it.

Senator Noynoy Aquino’s “Hindi Ako Mag-Nanakaw” ad shows us that one can already say a lot of things in a one-minuter ad. Unfortunately, substance-wise it does not make the grade. Fortunately, this is easy to fix. Simply removing all the pandering stuff and keeping the focus on just one particular issue would easily do the trick.

Candidates, especially those who are lagging behind, should seriously consider this approach. In terms of cost, information-filled ads like the one I’m suggesting will obviously cost much less. The budget deprived can even create one just using a webcam and uploading the end-product on the internet. If the message is really good, the ad may even go viral.