Democrats hope marketing savvy will resolve woes

LET IT BE

Marketing has increasingly become an important tool for Thai politicians in communicating with the general public. It is of course normal during election campaigns for political parties and candidates running for office would rely on integrated marketing techniques to present themselves and their ideas - and to convince voters to cast votes in their favour.

While in between elections, both those in office and those who aspire will relentlessly find ways to continue communicating with their constituencies through various media channels available.

The now defunct Thai Rak Thai Party (TRT: 1999-2007) of ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra was probably the first political party in modern Thai political history to successfully employ the full cache of integrated marketing techniques. The Democrats, especially after TRT won the 2001 election, continuously accused TRT of utilising marketing to mislead the public. And if viewed only on the surface through advertisements and publicity events, it was understandable that many could have misunderstood the concept of marketing and attacked TRT as "propagandistic".

But marketing is different, so let us reiterate some of the definitions by Phillip Kotler, the world renowned marketing guru, as any student of marketing will already know:

"Marketing is the social process by which individuals and groups obtain what they need and want through creating and exchanging products and value with others" and,

"Marketing is an organisational function and a set of processes for creating, communicating, and delivering value to customers and for managing customer relationships in ways that benefit the organisation and its shareholders." In this context, the organisation is the country, the customers and shareholders its citizens.

TRT did not begin merely with the intention of creating publicity for publicity's sake. To be able to "sell" something you have to have a good product. Research and surveys were carried out to understand the needs and demands of the Thai people in all walks of life. The results formed a basis for the development of party platforms - where long hours were spent in hatching out the details of each programme, such as the 30-baht universal health scheme, the village fund, the farmers' debt moratorium, etc - projects and programmes which later were branded "populist" in nature.

The planning of advertisements and public relations campaigns came later, once the platform was settled: the "product" finished and ready for the "pitch".

The success of TRT, as attested to by landslide wins in both elections of 2001 and 2005, was thus a combination of the right agenda which the public wanted and participated in forming, and a comprehensive design for effective communication back to the general public.

What sealed the deal between the Thai voters and TRT or its legacy was the actual delivery of the promised programmes and projects, which few governments in the past were able to do, and thus completing the "social process" of "delivering value" to the people.

The Democrats adjusted their campaigns and geared them towards competing with TRT in 2006 but lost and, again in the last election of 2007 against TRT's off-shoot, People Power Party (PPP), where the Democrats again lost but the advertisements were more "slick" and the message as "populist" as TRT and PPP.

In the past nine months under the Democrat-led coalition government of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjaiva, there has been a surge in the series of advertisements - print, television, radio, internet - and publicity events presenting government projects, most notable of which have been the sufficiency community project, the "ton-kla" training project and the "Thai Kem Kaeng" programme. There are also billboards and street signs featuring the PM saying that he has delivered on his "promises".

Is there a difference between the two?

Again, viewing on the surface they may be similar, but there actually are significant differences.

First, when Thaksin became premier, contrary to critics' belief the TRT did stop campaigning, although the government continued to communicate in explaining the government's actions and the results achieved. Campaign promises must first be fulfilled in substance, with the assurance that they have been properly implemented; then, as all politicians will, can the party claim victory. The Democrat-led government has so far not delivered the "goods" and, in the rush of claiming credit, has jumped from project to project, leaving them unfinished and plagued with problems. For example, the sufficiency community project with TV ads featuring singers and the PM as the main presenter, asking those with "ideas" for community development to "exchange" them for "capital" i.e. financial support.

It turned out that with manipulation, the communities were left with projects they did not want but which were imposed upon them, becoming a national scandal that is still under investigation. The "ton-kla" training project, before the recent readjustment, was criticised for its waste and mismatching of the trainees' needs and courses offered.

Second, the funds used for election campaigns are either the party's or the candidate's, all of which are regulated and audited by the Election Commission (EC). When one becomes the government, the funds used for public relations are public funds which are taxpayers' money. It would not be appropriate to use it to build personal popularity. There is always a fine line, and many politicians in the past and present have crossed that line, even in Thaksin's administration.

Thaksin, in one of his cabinet meetings, did ask his ministers not to become "presenters" in their respective ministries' advertisement campaigns, following which there was a reduction though the instruction was not always followed.

PM Abhisit must be careful when his staff persuade him to participate in advertisements; his ministers must watch out, too.

Third is that the value of the messages delivered through marketing tools used must be truly beneficial for the public if public funds are involved. It is appropriate for the Ministry of Health to take out newspaper ads detailing how to deal with the swine flu; it may not be as useful to see billboards at intersections of the Governor of Bangkok with a face mask on, while the public does not have the knowledge to use masks correctly. In the case of "Thai Kem Kaeng," the wonder is: what's the rationale behind using borrowed money to buy media time and ad space? Pure propaganda.

Finally, but most important, is the substance of the projects themselves. I have heard some comments about trying to change the minds of Thaksin supporters through this publicity bombardment. But the Democrats forgot that all they were doing was just reinforcing the notion that they are not "the real thing". If PM Abhisit were to ask Pornwut Sarasin, the Democrat adviser and owner of the Coca-Cola business in Thailand, he would soon learn that people don't buy imitations, they yearn for the original.

Suranand Vejjajiva served in the Thaksin Shinawatra cabinet and is now a political analyst.

Relate Search: Thai Rak Thai Party, People Power Party, Election Commission