by JAILEEN F. JIMENO

MONEY CAN’T buy you love — or votes, as some politicians who spent big on ads have found out.

Indeed, only four of the 12 biggest spenders on ads for the recently concluded midterm elections have made it so far in the Commission on Elections’ (Comelec) ‘Magic 12’ for the Senate. Two more from the list of those with deep pockets (as drawn up by the market research, information, and analysis company AC Nielsen) still have slim chances of sneaking into the Upper House at the last minute, but that means they spent a total of P242.9 million just to get to the bottom of the winners’ list.

Political and advertising experts say that’s because most of these candidates — or more accurately, their handlers — simply failed to come up with an effective campaign that would capture the imagination of voters. They forgot that the message, not money, is key to any campaign.

“You will see that many candidates did not study or plan their ads,” says Malou Tiquia, co-founder of Publicus, the only lobbying and political management firm in the country. “There was disconnect in communication framework and the product.” Tiquia handled the campaign of then senatorial candidate Mar Roxas in 2004. Roxas, who marketed himself via the popular ‘Mr. Palengke’ ads, topped the race.

	DEFENSOR TV campaign ad [video courtesy of YouTube]

Advertising producer Toto Espartero, who directed the ads of presidential candidate Eddie Villanueva in 2004, is more scathing in his review of the more recent batch of commercials for the 2007 candidates. He says of the ads, “Parang karnabal, walang laman, walang usapan tungkol sa mga isyu (They were carnivalesque. There was no content, no issues were discussed).”

Mercedes Abad, one of Pulse Asia’s analysts and head of TNS Global, a market information firm, says resonance, believability, and relevance should be the guiding principles in a political campaign. But these were not the only factors absent in most of the big spenders’ commercials. So, too, were, sound planning, accurate reading of voters’ aspirations, and respect for the intellect of the public at large, say experts. 

Tiquia says that the lack of planning in particular was why several candidates dumped ads and changed slogans in the middle of the campaign. Tags and taglines that seemingly had no leg to stand on in terms of history and identification with the candidate were used liberally — and, it turns out, disastrously.

A STRIKING example of this was former Presidential Spokesperson and Chief of Staff Mike Defensor’s first ad salvo as senatorial candidate: he was suddenly being called “’Tol,” a contraction of the word “utol (brother)” in the commercials in what could have been an attempt to make him “reachable.” Unfortunately, the attempt backfired, and hecklers were soon calling him “’Lol,” from the word “ulol (fool).” Some green groups also came up with a counter-campaign that featured him as Mike ‘PuTOL’ Defensor, an obvious play on ‘Tol and the Tagalog word for “cut.” According to several environmentalists, Defensor had a dismal record during his short stint as head of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, especially when it came to protecting the forests.

Oblivious to the heckling, Defensor’s handlers would even release ads that had the phrase “walking tall,” still an apparent reference to his new “’tol” label. But the connection between the English and Filipino words was lost to many. By the time Defensor’s camp began airing commercials that underscored his supposed achievements as head of the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC), many voters had already heard all the jokes about ‘Tol and may have been laughing too hard to listen anymore.

Tiquia says the “’tol” ads, which began with an introduction of the candidate followed by the endorsement of various people, were a waste of money. She points out that the people already knew who Defensor was, since he had been a congressman and had held various cabinet positions. Packaging Defensor as everyone’s friend as “’Tol,” she says, erased whatever achievements the candidate may lay a claim on from the many government posts he had held. When the HUDCC-related ads were finally shown, it was simply too late for the public to take him seriously.

Even Team Unity campaign manager and veteran political strategist Aurelio ‘Reli’ German concedes that there were “too many elements” in the Defensor ads that rendered them ineffective. One version featured him with comedienne Ai-ai de las Alas and sexy star Keanna Reeves. The others made use of common folk, but with showbiz talk show host Boy Abunda’s voicing the lines endorsing his candidacy. German says Abunda’s voice-over a la “The Buzz” only cluttered the ads, which were already confused in focus.

Since the counting of the ballots began, Defensor never made it near the winners’ circle. He gave up two weeks into the counting, saying it was “numerically impossible” for him to win. This despite AC Nielsen’s report that his camp poured in as much as P121.48 million in radio and TV ads.

Some observers say one crucial flaw of Defensor’s ads was that they failed to make the public forget his passionate defense of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo amid charges of widespread cheating in the 2004 elections. As one veteran analyst quips, “A strong association with a certain madame in the palace is the kiss of death for many candidates.”