Popularity is no assurance that people will vote for you

There are two things to consider if you want to win the elections---you need to have a very high awareness rating and a high trust rating. For some, however, the more people know they are in the running, the least likely people will vote for them.

Take the case of two very familiar political brand names---Francisco Kit Tatad and broadcaster Rey Langit. In the recent Pulse Asia survey, Tatad’s awareness level is higher than Ruffy Biazon's (Tatad’s awareness is at 55% while Ruffy Biazon’s at 52%), but Biazon is ranked 13-15, while Tatad is at 17-25. Same case as Langit’s, whose awareness is a high 59% but with a very, very low voting preference of only 9.2%. Meaning, both Tatad, Langit and Biazon benefit from the equity of their political brand names, but enjoy differing trust or voter conversions due to the association of the name with that of actions either considered good" or "bad" by the electorate.

Brigadier General Danilo Lim’s awareness is just a tad higher than Atty. Alexander Lacson’s 33% but the detained general’s voting preference rating is higher than both Tatad and Langit’s. Atty. Lacson who is very fortunate to have landed at the 13^th to 15^th slot, similar with Ruffy and TG Guingona who enjoys the equity of their father’s political legacies. Lacson is fortunate that he is at the same situation as that of TG and Biazon who have better and more campaign monies than him. Atty. Lacson and General Lim do not have the same machinery and the same political brand name recall as what these two candidates enjoy but, both candidates are actually fighting and contending with these two political veterans for the top spots.

Lim and Lacson have strong chances of winning because the more people learn and know about them, the more their trust ratings improve. In Atty. Lacson’s case, I don’t think that people say they’ll vote for him merely on that name association with Senator Panfilo “Ping” Lacson or what I call the “rub of the incumbent”. It has been months and Atty. Lacson has been campaigning vigorously throughout the country and people already know that he is no relative of Ping Lacson. Therefore, what he needs to do is simply reach out to more people, go to sorties more than the others and surely his ratings would improve.

What General Lim has to do is transcend his campaign from new media to mainstream to allow more voters to know that he is running. His problem is not about trust nor vote conversion---his problem is simply make more exposures and maximizes his mainstream media exposures.

Another classic and very interesting case is that of Nereus Acosta. His awareness and voting preference ratings are both low---21% for awareness and about 4% voting preference. Acosta has to triple or quadruple his efforts. This shows that he is not connecting with his base or audience and not converting more new followers behind his campaign. His political party association is also not affecting his candidacy. He needs to maximize his association with the Liberal Party and that of his closeness with Noynoy Aquino so that, even at 15% increase, that will be a very substantive surge.

Susan “toots” Ople is doing a better job—28% awareness but a low voting preference of 6.1% compared with only 4% of Acosta’s. Analyze though that even for example, Ople increases her awareness rating to that of Lacson’s, she will still not make the 19% voting preference rating grade that Atty. Lacson has. Why? Because it is not just awareness that Ople has to contend with---it is trust.

Ople shares the same fate as that of Biazon and Guingona’s. Guingona has a high 73% awareness rating but a lower voting preference of 19.7%---lower than Joey de Venecia’s voting preference of 24%. These four candidates share a common trait—they carry the “equity” of very strong political brand names. Unlike Bongbong Marcos, however, Ople, Biazon and Guingona’s ratings are far from the re-electionists’ ratings. These exposes their weaknesses, which I think are not about increasing awareness---it is about grassroots support. These three candidates have, obviously, weaker grassroots or sectoral support bases because if they have wider and stronger machinery, they would have topped or even placed themselves in the Magic 10.

De Venecia III, I think, already transcended whatever “negative perceptions” his name association bears by positioning himself as a newbie in politics. I am a grassroots organizer and what people say about him is positive. The things which his father did before and even his father’s closeness with the administration did not dent nor even affect Joey de Venecia’s anti-Arroyo stand. Fact is, De Venecia III enjoys a higher than usual voters preference ratings simply because he has in fact, strengthened his grassroots organization. These sectoral organizations work behind the scenes, getting the message across and practically “selling the political brand name”. The De Venecia III brand equity so to speak, is being accepted by the masses simply because these sectoral organizations which are actively working for him have higher credibility and social acceptability than those organizations supporting other candidates.

Among the Magic 12 senatoriables, the case of Bongbong Marcos and ZTE-NBN whistleblower Joey De Venecia III is very interesting. Marcos and De Venecia have high awareness ratings, hovering in the 85-89% mark. With that, they have high conversion rates—26.3% for Bongbong and 24% for De Venecia III. If you review previous surveys, you will notice that both candidates’ awareness ratings have stayed for months now, within that range, and yet, they have sustained their conversion rates or voter’s preference rates. Their problem is not higher awareness. Their issue is simply conversion, or increasing the public’s trust with them. Simply put, De Venecia III and Marcos must increase or widen their grassroots organizations to get more people committed to their candidacies. Whoever gains more sectoral support, wins and increases his survey rankings.

What do we learn from this? First, a candidate should not just convey his message—trust and credibility must be high for that message to gain traction. Second, traction not only means using all mainstream and New Media channels—it has to be communicated via the sectoral or grassroots channels for more conversion. If you have an 89% awareness rating but only 26% will vote for you, your problem is not exposure—it is sectoral. The more effort you throw in terms of expanding or widening sectoral or grassroots support, the more you increase your survey rankings. And lastly, this survey just shows that it is not just having or bearing the name of a martyr or having the rub of the incumbent that will probably make you win. It just increases your awareness levels. Having a name, so to speak, does not assure you of victory---it may even backfire against you. If the name you bear has some political baggage, do the De Venecia III way---re-position yourself and allow the public some room for “re-imagination”. That way, you preserve or gain something from the name while putting more value into it by doing the exact opposite of what that name was associated with before. If you, on the other hand, enjoy the “rub of the incumbent”, you just slowly work from that position, and work your way up to the top by conveying that the person that bears even an indirect association with the political brand name is better than the real thing.

Patricio Mangubat is a pseudonym . It means "country fight". Yet, the one behind this name is real. He can be briefly described as a long-time activist as well as a communication strategist. He once taught at the University of the Philippines and at Dela Salle University. He blogs at The New Philippine Revolution. Aside from writing, he recently opened a roast chicken business, Manok King. He blogs at filipinovoices.com and New Philippine Revolution.

Photo: “Nacionalista Party Rally at Tanza, Cavite” by Victor Villanueva, c/o Flickr. Some Rights Reserved