Lolu Akinwunmi writes: Don’t let your opponents define and control your story

Every political campaign wants to define its candidate. But so does the opposition. While your campaign tells voters who your candidate is, what the candidate represents and why the candidate deserves consideration, opponents may be promoting a competing interpretation. The question becomes: Who controls the story, and whose version gains public acceptance?

 POLITICAL BRANDS CAN BE DEFINED BY OTHERS

Political brands are vulnerable to attacks. Old statements resurface. Contradictions are highlighted. Policies are criticised. Mistakes are amplified. And misinformation can spread within minutes; and so,

•  Ignoring every attack is not a strategy.
• Neither is responding to everything.
• The challenge is knowing when to respond, how to respond and when to move on.

 THE DANGER OF ALWAYS REACTING

Imagine a campaign determined by a candidate to spend the week discussing jobs:

• But on Monday, an opponent attacks the candidate's record. The campaign responds.
• On Tuesday, another accusation emerges. Another response.
• By Friday, the campaign has spent the entire week discussing subjects chosen by opponents.

It may believe it has defended itself successfully. But something else has happened: The opponent has taken control of the conversation. That is the danger of reactive political communication.

 THE JOHN KERRY EXPERIENCE

During the 2004 American presidential campaign, John Kerry's military service in Vietnam formed an important part of his political identity. An outside group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, challenged aspects of his war record through controversial advertisements. The claims were not properly and effectively disputed by Kerry’s camp, and the controversy became a major distracting campaign issue. The communication lesson is important: When an attack challenges a candidate's central identity, an inadequate or delayed response can allow damaging claims to dominate public discussion.

NOT EVERY ATTACK DESERVES A RESPONSE

When there is an attack, the campaign team should first promptly ask four questions:

1. Is it true? Denying an accurate criticism may worsen the situation.
2. Is it important? An obscure insult may not deserve attention.
3. Is it spreading or has the potential to spread? Monitor whether the allegation is gaining wider acceptance.
4. Does it threaten the candidate's credibility? Allegations affecting integrity, competence or experience may require particular attention.

 The objective here is not to answer every criticism. It is to distinguish genuine reputational threats from political noise.

RESPOND WITH FACTS, NOT EMOTIONS

When a response becomes necessary, first establish the facts by:

1. Correcting inaccuracies.
2. Providing evidence to support and strengthen your position.
3. Using credible independent sources where appropriate.
4. Keeping explanations clear and proportionate.
5. Importantly, avoiding repeating an allegation so frequently that your campaign becomes its biggest promoter.

Below should be the response pattern:

1. Correct
2. Clarify
3. Provide evidence
4. Then move on.

The purpose of responding is to establish the truth, not to prolong an argument indefinitely.

WHEN THE CAMPAIGN ITSELF GETS IT WRONG

Sometimes the problem is not an opponent's attack. The candidate makes an inappropriate statement. A campaign claim proves inaccurate. An official behaves irresponsibly. In such circumstances, automatic denial may cause greater damage. Good crisis communication requires honesty:

1. What happened?
2. What are the verified facts?
3. Who was affected?
4. What responsibility should be accepted?
5. What corrective action is necessary?

Credibility is not built by pretending mistakes never happen. It is strengthened by dealing with them responsibly.

SOCIAL MEDIA HAS CHANGED EVERYTHING!

Today's campaigns operate in an environment where rumours, edited videos and misleading claims can spread faster than official explanations. Artificial intelligence has introduced increasingly convincing fake images, audio recordings and videos. Even enthusiastic supporters can create problems by circulating unverified information. Campaign teams therefore need effective monitoring, verification and timely response systems. But speed must never replace accuracy. A hurried, inaccurate response can create another crisis.

BE CAREFUL…DON'T BECOME WHAT YOU OPPOSE

There is another danger. A campaign can become so obsessed with attacking opponents or defending opponents’ attacks that voters hear little about its own policies, values and proposals. Criticising an opponent's record is legitimate when supported by evidence. But criticism alone does not explain what a candidate represents.

TELL VOTERS WHAT YOU STAND FOR AND NOT WHAT YOU OPPOSE.

Every political brand needs a clear identity beyond its opposition to somebody else, and You Must Own Your Story! The most important principle is to establish a clear, consistent and truthful account of the candidate's record, values and proposals by:

1. Supporting claims with evidence.
2. Communicating clearly.
3. Addressing legitimate criticism.
4. Correcting misinformation.
5. Accepting responsibility where necessary.
6. And always returning to the issues that matter to citizens.

Your opponents will naturally attempt to define you. But your campaign must not become so preoccupied with answering them that it forgets to explain its own purpose.

THE CENTRAL LESSON

1. Don't let your opponent control your story or define you.
2. Respond only when necessary or required.
3. Correct falsehoods.
4. Protect credibility.
5. But never allow your opponent to decide what your campaign is always talking about.

NEXT: MSS SPECIAL 10: BEYOND CAMPAIGNING: BUILDING CREDIBILITY, EARNING TRUST

Please join me and feel free to comment, share and invite others to subscribe to The MarCom Strategic Series. Thank you.

‘Lolu Akinwunmi

Publisher, The MarCom Strategic Series (MSS)

lakinwunmi@primagarnetafrica.com