Skip to main content

Positive Messaging can work - Jim Watson wins Mayoral race

Not that it's too surprising, but Jim Watson is now the new mayor of Ottawa. What is interesting about Jim from a PR perspective is that from everything I saw he ran a very clean, positive campaign.

His Web site had no mention of any of the flaws associated with his electoral competition and was 100 per cent focused on why he was the best candidate.

His messaging was positive and focused on solutions as opposed to simply making people feel scared about voting for one of the other candidates.

His demeanor during interviews is very laid back, almost self-effacing. Even after winning the race, as you can see in the video below, he continues to carry himself with a very humble demeanor.



In essence he comes across as a nice, trust-worthy guy who isn't about how great he is, but rather about how he can be of service to those in Ottawa. 

While there are obviously a wide array of variables behind why Watson won, what his campaigned showed was that the public is receptive to positive messaging - that trust and honesty can trump fear and mud-slinging; that realism (while lacking glamor) can trump ostentatiousness.

Now I'm not a political guru by any means, but I think we're seeing a maturation in how the public absorbs and analyzes information. I think a lot of it has to do with 10-years of Karl Rove style messaging (fear and mud-slinging), the impending results of voting based on emotion over reason, and the worst recession since the great depression - basically people are no longer reacting the way they use to in response to fear-based or over-zealous messaging.    

What people seem to react to now is honesty and messaging that doesn't seek to incite emotion or create confusion, but rather messaging that simply gets right to the heart of the matter (even if it's not what people emotionally want to hear).


If I'm correct in this, then that is great news for PR folks whose natural predisposition is not to 'spin' or 'manipulate' but rather to communicate information in as accurate a manner as possible.

Kudos to Watson on winning the mayoral race - it looks like nice guys sometimes finish first.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Featured Post: Where Can You Buy My Books?

Interested in purchasing one of my books? Below are the links that will take you to the right place on Amazon. A Manufactured Mind On Amazon On Kobo On Barnes and Noble On iTunes Obey On Amazon On Kobo  On B&N  On iTunes  The Fall of Man Trilogy Days of Judgment (Book One) On Amazon On Kobo On B&N On iTunes System Crash (Book Two) On Amazon On Kobo On B&N On iTunes A Fool's Requiem (Book Three) On Amazon On Kobo On B&N On iTunes

E-cigarettes: A PR battle Health Canada cannot win?

So I've now been using an e-cigarette (e-cig) for two months and thought I'd talk a bit about how I see the upcoming battle between Health Canada and e-cigs going. First though, let's do a quick overview of what exactly an e-cig is. Basically an e-cig vaporizes liquid that contains nicotine. The vapor is then inhaled. People who use e-cigs are called vapers (not smokers). Because the liquid is atomized (ie. vaporized), not burned the way tobacco is, vapers do not consider themselves 'smokers' in anyway. An e-cig is comprised of basically three components: The tank - this is the component that holds the juice (sometimes referred to as e-juice or e-liquid). The atomizer - this a coil and wick unit that atomizes the juice. When the coil is heated (from the battery) it atomizes the juice that has soaked into the wick. The battery - batteries for e-cigs come in various capacities (some last 8 hours, others 40+ hours, depending on their size).  The ba...

More evidence of the Internet Revolution

Bell ushers in new era with CTV deal  So Bell has purchased CTV.  Not really that big a deal under normal circumstances, except when you realize why they did it... Driving convergence this time, the Internet-enabled mobile devices such as smart phones and computer tablets are threatening home television’s lock on viewers. Bell, like its rivals, wants to offer more content to its subscribers, however they receive the signal. Viewers are increasingly interested in watching their favourite shows on their phones while they ride the bus or sit in the park, and the cable and phone companies that have served as middle men between viewers and broadcasters were in danger of being marginalized. You know what sort of worries me about this kind of acquisition? It's clearly an attempt to own (control) content. When they say marginalized what they really mean is service providers being nothing more than dumb pipes - providing connectivity to the internet and nothing more. As ...