During the 2022 elections, a client invited me to join his campaign team. After discussing the terms, we decided to limit my involvement due to a fundamental difference in approach—he preferred reallocating funds from surveys to hiring showbiz personalities for high-profile events. He believed that voters are more drawn to entertainment and would respond better to a visible, celebrity-endorsed presence than data-driven strategies. To him, the emotional pull and excitement that celebrities bring would overshadow the insights and precision that surveys could offer in shaping the campaign’s direction.
In modern election campaigns, it’s not uncommon to see grand rallies, vibrant parades, and flashy events meant to capture public attention. These event-driven campaigns are designed to create impactful moments, but do they really resonate with voters at a deeper level, or are they merely spectacles that fizzle out once the event is over? This article delves into the strengths and limitations of event-driven campaigns and why political success may require more than memorable rallies and staged appearances.
The Appeal of Event-Driven Campaigns
There’s no doubt that high-profile events create a surge of energy and visibility. For candidates, rallies and public appearances serve as platforms to reach large groups at once, generate media coverage, and create a “buzz” that can ripple across social networks. Events also present a rare chance for candidates to connect with supporters face-to-face, leaving voters with powerful memories. These benefits make event-driven campaigns a strategic choice, especially for candidates seeking to gain visibility in a short amount of time.
In many cases, these events are meticulously planned to show the candidate in a positive light, using optics and messaging that play well on social media. A well-executed event can attract favorable press and online traction, and in the digital era, it’s easier than ever to spread these images far beyond the event itself. But for all the excitement they generate, are these moments enough to capture votes? Not necessarily.
The Downside of Relying on Spectacle
But while these events can create a significant impact, the buzz is often fleeting. Campaigns that rely solely on event-driven strategies run the risk of being perceived as superficial, lacking the substance that voters increasingly seek in their leaders. Here are some of the key reasons why relying solely on spectacles may not be enough to secure a win.
1. Inconsistent Engagement with Voters
Event-driven campaigns are typically sporadic, leaving gaps in communication between events. This stop-and-start approach can lead to disengagement, as voters often need consistent touchpoints to build trust and understand the candidate’s vision. Without a strategy for maintaining dialogue between high-energy events, campaigns may lose momentum, leaving voters with little to remember besides a distant rally or parade.
2. Overemphasis on Image Over Substance
Flashy rallies and well-orchestrated events can create memorable visuals, but they often prioritize optics over policy substance. For many voters, this approach can feel like style over substance, particularly when pressing issues are at stake. When campaigns focus on creating spectacles, they risk coming off as more interested in entertainment than in addressing voters’ concerns. Voters who feel that the campaign lacks depth may be turned off, perceiving the candidate as a figurehead rather than a real problem-solver.
3. High Resource Demands
Producing large events is resource-intensive. From logistics to staffing, security, and promotional expenses, the costs can add up quickly. These demands are especially challenging for smaller campaigns, which may drain their limited budgets and personnel on a single rally or gathering. With so much invested in a single event, campaigns may struggle to allocate resources toward other essential activities, such as grassroots organizing or digital outreach, that have a longer-lasting impact.
4. Limited Reach to Diverse Voter Groups
Events tend to attract supporters who are already motivated and enthusiastic about the candidate. While these gatherings can be invigorating, they may not reach undecided voters or those who prefer more personalized engagement. For campaigns trying to win over a broad coalition, relying solely on events can narrow their reach and miss opportunities to connect with different voter segments through varied approaches, such as community visits, direct mail, or targeted social media.
5. Short-Lived Impact
One of the main limitations of event-driven campaigns is their tendency to produce temporary excitement without long-term influence. After a rally, the initial excitement fades quickly, leaving voters with only a distant memory of the event. Unless campaigns have a plan to follow up and sustain that enthusiasm, voters are likely to lose interest, and the event’s impact will diminish over time. A series of isolated events cannot compensate for consistent, meaningful voter engagement over the duration of the campaign.
6. Vulnerability to Opponent Disruptions
Publicized events are susceptible to opposition countermeasures, whether it’s planned protests, competing events, or critical commentary that shifts the focus away from the candidate’s message. Additionally, logistical issues or unexpected disruptions during an event can backfire, giving opponents an opening to criticize the campaign. Events that don’t go as planned can damage the campaign’s image, particularly if mishaps are highly visible or picked up by the press.
7. Lack of Robust Data Collection
While large events can provide anecdotal insights into voter support, they often lack mechanisms for systematically gathering data about attendees’ concerns, preferences, and demographics. Data collection is essential for crafting a message that resonates with voters and for adjusting campaign strategy. Without these insights, campaigns may rely on assumptions rather than facts, missing out on critical information that could help them respond more effectively to voter needs.
8. Missed Opportunities for Grassroots Organizing
Event-driven campaigns may overlook the importance of building a grassroots base. Local supporters and volunteers are vital for mobilizing voters and creating a loyal support network, especially in the lead-up to election day. These grassroots efforts foster stronger connections, as local leaders and volunteers have personal ties to their communities and understand local issues deeply. Event-driven strategies that neglect grassroots organizing may struggle to engage voters on a personal level, weakening their foundation of support.
Balancing Spectacle and Substance
During the post-election analysis, my client admitted he had been stubborn, acknowledging the cost of his decisions—over two thousand votes lost. I replied that it was not just him who had lost but also the people, who missed out on the good governance he had promised. Time, effort, and resources had been spent on fleeting spectacle rather than on the substance of his platform.
Successful campaigns require a careful balance between spectacle and substance. While events can certainly boost visibility and build momentum, they should complement, rather than overshadow, a broader, multi-channel strategy grounded in meaningful voter engagement, clear messaging, and genuine commitment to public service.
Spectacles, however, should be based on data-informed insights to ensure they resonate with the audience and reinforce the campaign’s core message. By grounding show-stopping moments in research, campaigns can capture attention without compromising on authenticity or the issues that truly matter to voters. This approach transforms events from fleeting attractions into meaningful touchpoints that align with voter needs and build sustained support