October 11 2019, by Naomi Horstkamp
How not to respond in times of crisis
 |
| Source: Volkskrant, 2019 |
How not to respond in times of crisis
On the 25th of September 2019, Iris Weerdenburg gave an excellent example of how not to respond in a
crisis as a political party. For the 2019’s European elections, the Dutch
Socialist Party (SP) runt the campaign ‘Together we stop the European Elite’.
They aimed to attack Frans Timmermans by using satire, but the video was a
failure. The Socialist Party was highly criticized because of this campaign
video.
The frontman of the Socialist Party, Ron Meyer, was invited in the Dutch late-night show Pauw to respond to the critique. The reaction of the party’s leader to the critique? Denial. According to Iris Weerdenburg, this was a huge mistake. The wrong communication strategy led to greater damage to the reputation of the SP. It was better for the organization to apologize for the video since they took inappropriate actions which led to critical public opinion and I agree with her.
Nevertheless, the question arises if the choice for negative campaigning was a good idea in the first place? In the following blog, I dive deeper into negative campaigning and try to uncover why the Socialist Party PR professionals chose for this aggressive style of campaigning.
What is negative campaigning?
Negative campaigning means talking about the opponent
and when using a more aggressive form, this can be seen as attacking the other
candidate. Attacks can be related to the issue, but can also be personal. It
should be stated that this type of negative and aggressive advertising is new
for the Netherlands. Wherefore, I should give credits to the communication
experts for their courage to take this risk.
The ‘American attack approach’ by the Socialist Party is probably one of the most expensive advertisements we have ever seen in the Netherlands. The setting, cast and storytelling seem to be perfect. But negative campaigning can be tricky and slippery. In the worst scenario, the attacked opponent may gain more support from the public than yourself.
The ‘American attack approach’ by the Socialist Party is probably one of the most expensive advertisements we have ever seen in the Netherlands. The setting, cast and storytelling seem to be perfect. But negative campaigning can be tricky and slippery. In the worst scenario, the attacked opponent may gain more support from the public than yourself.
Video from Socialist Party: A message from Hans Brusselmans
Source: Youtube, 2019
Source: Youtube, 2019
Negative campaigning and attacking your opponent is
not smart in a multiparty system as the Netherlands. When you attack your possible
new ‘colleague’, it is less likely that they want to work together with you
later. The same accounts for the European elections, which makes this strategy
a strange choice. Does the Socialist party rather work together with the
Christen Democrats or Liberals than the Social Democrats?
Why did the SP choose for negative campaigning?
So why did the Socialist Party choose for this
aggressive approach in the first place? One of the possible explanations is
media coverage. Even though negative attack campaigning does not really exist
in a multiparty system, it has been argued that
when a party uses this type of campaigning, this leads to greater media
coverage because it is new and different.
Not only traditional media coverage is important, but also social media is more often used by public and governmental organizations. This phenomenon is called social media logic, whereas these organizations try to create popular and personalized content to reach a wide audience. This also may explain why the SP choose for a personal attack on the Labour party.
Furthermore, previous research showed that it is not uncommon that a party attacks another part with a similar ideology (SP vs Labour party, or SP VS Green Party). This is mostly done at the beginning of the campaign, to steal each other’s voters. If the attacks occur later in the campaign, it can have consequences for possible collaborations.
At last, studies suggest that a party who is losing in the polls is more likely to use negative campaigning to attack the party that is winning in the polls as they hope to make a win out of it. The image below clearly illustrates that this did not work for the Socialist Party. Instead, the attacked party won the elections and Socialist even loosed more.
Not only traditional media coverage is important, but also social media is more often used by public and governmental organizations. This phenomenon is called social media logic, whereas these organizations try to create popular and personalized content to reach a wide audience. This also may explain why the SP choose for a personal attack on the Labour party.
Furthermore, previous research showed that it is not uncommon that a party attacks another part with a similar ideology (SP vs Labour party, or SP VS Green Party). This is mostly done at the beginning of the campaign, to steal each other’s voters. If the attacks occur later in the campaign, it can have consequences for possible collaborations.
At last, studies suggest that a party who is losing in the polls is more likely to use negative campaigning to attack the party that is winning in the polls as they hope to make a win out of it. The image below clearly illustrates that this did not work for the Socialist Party. Instead, the attacked party won the elections and Socialist even loosed more.
 |
Source: NOS, 2019
|
So, what can we learn from them?
Negative campaigning in a multiparty system is tricky. Yes, an aggressive approach could lead to greater media coverage and more voters. But(!), it can also lead to a scenario where the benefits go the opponent. There is also a high risk for yourself. Negative campaigning can also lead to a division and discontent in your own party. So, did the Socialist Party PR professionals made the right choice by transmitting the American approach to the Netherlands? The implementation of the video may be perfect, but the outcome is disappointing. Dutch politics and society seem not to be ready for this battle.
About Naomi Horstkamp
Naomi Horstkamp is a communication student from the University of Amsterdam, especially interested in the field of political communication. Public relations, journalism and sports are her interests and she loves short bio's.
Negative campaigning in a multiparty system is tricky. Yes, an aggressive approach could lead to greater media coverage and more voters. But(!), it can also lead to a scenario where the benefits go the opponent. There is also a high risk for yourself. Negative campaigning can also lead to a division and discontent in your own party. So, did the Socialist Party PR professionals made the right choice by transmitting the American approach to the Netherlands? The implementation of the video may be perfect, but the outcome is disappointing. Dutch politics and society seem not to be ready for this battle.
About Naomi Horstkamp
Naomi Horstkamp is a communication student from the University of Amsterdam, especially interested in the field of political communication. Public relations, journalism and sports are her interests and she loves short bio's.
No comments:
Post a Comment