A recent news episode called "We The People" aired recently on an Indian news channel, that debated whether Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power because of good strategic digital marketing and communcation, and whether the incumbent Congress' candidate - Rahul Gandhi - lost due to a lack of such strategy.
The debate was essentially about whether a solid marketing plan can mask a weak candidate. The BJP (the winning party) claims that their product (candidate) was so strong, that a good campaign only assisted his victory, but did not win it for him. They also claim that the congress had such a poor candidate that no amount of packaging and social media communication could prevent his downfall.
It remains unclear how much marketing can mask a truly weak candidate, but Modi was able to shape his persona with social media, and used twitter as a platform to give real time updates on his opinions, his ideology, and his actions. Moreover, the BJP mastered the art of social media communication during the elections and was able to gain large amounts of traction within the Indian urban educated middle class.
The Congress had no one to blame but itself for it's lack of foresight. After all, we had seen this happen once before, in a certain 2009 election when Obama's amazing online marketing techniques (be it his Redditt AMA or his photogenic smile) helped him win a tough race.
If one trend can be established at this point, it is the fact that in the realm of the digital world, personalization is the best marketing tool. Through authentic content and commentary, Obama was able to humanize himself when compared to Hillary, and Modi was able to demonstrate that he had kept up with the times (signalling both development and modernization) through his online activity.
Obama's digital director Teddy Golf stresses the importance of personalized content delivered in context when he stated,
No comments:
Post a Comment