David Ocamb

As I’ve already discussed, it is vital to engage in negative messaging.  However, public affairs campaigns often face a seemingly insurmountable obstacle… how do you push back against a cause that has overwhelming public support?  When an issue advocacy group is defending a position that has 80% public approval, how can you possibly attack it?  The simple answer is… don’t attack it!  One very effective technique is to not directly attack their position but instead to push that group to the absolute extreme and reframe the debate attacking the group for holding an extreme position.  Read the rest of this entry →

The Boy Who Cried Wolf… The story of Judas… The Legends of King Arthur…  Ask the vast majority of Americans and they would instantly be able to tell you the plot of these stories.  Moreover, they would instantly be able to tell you the moral of the story.  So, what does this have to do with political or public affairs campaigns?  Absolutely everything!

The human brain is wired to think in terms of stories.  The Ancient Greeks realized this when they created their myths.  Even the Bible is written to take this into account, with Jesus using parables as his most effective teaching device.  A myth or parable takes abstract concepts, usually moral in nature, and puts them into a concrete context.  The human brain can then internalize them for later use.  Within any given culture, including the American culture, a group of these myths become the common basis for morality.

Americans are exposed to thousands upon thousands of messages every day.  In order for a political or public affairs campaign to break through this clutter and create an effective message, they have to use shortcuts.  That’s where the campaign narrative comes into play.  A campaign narrative is the overall story of the campaign.  It must tie into a preexisting narrative framework (one of the common myths that almost all Americans already know).  Read the rest of this entry →

As, I’ve previously stated, a strong political brand is priceless for candidates running for elected office.  The same techniques for creating a brand, however, also apply to public affairs campaigns for both issue advocacy groups and corporations.  When employed properly, this political brand can help an issue advocacy group bring in more money in donations, expand its volunteer base, gain credibility in the eyes of legislators and decision makers, make political alliances and even boost earned media exposure.  For a corporation, this brand directly impacts how the public will react during a crisis and will significantly aid their crisis communications. Read the rest of this entry →

Far too often, Democratic campaigns focus solely on “issues.”  They poll test exactly what has the electorate fired up and what they want to hear and then recite that back verbatim.  Republicans, conversely, focus solely on “values,” usually the three G’s (God, Guns and Gays).  Candidates repeat over and over again that they share the voters’ values. Neither side is necessarily “wrong,” but both Democrats and Republicans are failing to effectively create a brand that transcends the sum of its parts and builds an effective positive message that cuts through the political clutter, connects with voters and ultimately wins elections.

An effective political brand is composed of three equally important parts: experience, values and policy.  These three components do not exist separate from each other; in fact, they must work in concert to effectively build an effective brand.  That is why cookie cutter campaigns that we see far too often, where consultants will build essentially the same commercials and give candidates essentially the same talking points, are not the most effective, since no two candidates are exactly the same.   Read the rest of this entry →

In all political campaigns and some public affairs campaigns, negative messaging will provide the greatest return on investment in terms of the number of people persuaded for every dollar spent (See my previous post for further discussion).  However, not all negative messaging is created equally.  It is important to study the opposition research, polling and focus groups data, and overall race dynamics before deciding which type of attack to utilize and how to tie the attack into the overall campaign narrative.

Most first time candidates and corporate executives whose area of expertise is not public affairs instinctually believe attacking their opponent’s weaknesses damages them the most.  However, contrary to what most people would assume, destroying a soldier’s Achilles’ heel isn’t always the best attack strategy.  In fact, on some occasions, the most damaging attacks actually come from going after your opponent’s greatest strength.  Read the rest of this entry →

Every election cycle, journalists interview people complaining about all of the attack ads they’ve seen on TV and then their coverage turns to the talking heads who bemoan the demise of political discourse in America.  Yet, any historian can tell you that politics has been incredibly dirty since at least the Thomas Jefferson/John Adams race and has remained cutthroat since that time.  So, if the public and media complain about mudslinging, why have politicians always resorted to it and why do they continue to utilize it? 

The answer is easy.  It works. Read the rest of this entry →