POLITICS-PHILIPPINES: Candidates Prefer to Campaign Over Media

By Lynette Lee Corporal MANILA, May 12 (IPS) - "I miss those days when candidates would go from town to town, knocking on doors and shaking hands with the people," rues 65-year-old Honorato Guevara, a retired businessman who hails from Camarines Sur in central Philippines. "Then, I'd know when a politician is sincere by the way he smiles and shakes hands and answers questions directly about issues," he said in the vernacular. "Now, they're all on television looking like movie stars." Guevara does find the candidates' TV advertisements "quite entertaining". But how much of a deciding factor these materials -- the deluge that voters have seen, heard and learned from print and broadcast media -- will be in the May 14 national polls is another matter. On Monday, Guevara and more than 40 million other Filipinos will troop to the poll booths to cast their votes for their local representatives, provincial officials and senators. This "use by the candidates of the immense power of media in carrying their messages directly to the electorate" is a major factor to watch, according to Centre for Policy Research and Strategic Studies chief Winston Marbella. TV, which has 90 percent penetration in households in this South-east Asian country of 87 million people, has become the battleground for political discussions and debates in the threemonth campaign period leading to the Monday vote. "The voting public is so into media. They are media guzzlers," said veteran broadcast journalist Cecilia Lazaro, host of the acclaimed public affairs programme Probe'. "Television is still the No. 1 source of information for the public about the candidates and their platforms. If you look at the surveys done by independent research groups TV has overtaken radio, at least in the major cities in the country," said Yvonne Chua, a University of the Philippines journalism professor. She cites reports that in at least one province, political advertisements during the campaign season -- mainly by gubernatorial candidates -- accounted for 80 percent of TV stations' revenues. Clearly, access to media and advertisements goes to candidates and parties with more money -- something that critics say undercuts intelligent public debates and creates an unequal election battleground. On an average, 30-second primetime TV advertisements cost about 160,000 pesos (3,390 US dollars), and 60,000 pesos (1,271 dollars) for non-primetime per airing. Fifteen-second ads are all non-primetime and cost about 70,000 pesos (1,483 dollars). For print, a one-fourth page, full-colour advertisement can cost up to 69,000 pesos (1,462 dollars). Already, news reports say that two senatorial candidates have gone over the cap of 135 million pesos (2.8 million dollars) for print and broadcast media advertisements set by the Commission on Elections. Mong Palatino, head of the Kabataan (Youth) Party List whose blog www.mongpalatino.motime.com is enjoying brisk hits, said: "Wealthy candidates are taking

advantage of the corporate-dominated media in order to win the elections. Big business interests are packaged as public service. Mainstream media will favour the candidates who can afford the expensive rates charged by media owners." "Recent elections have become money-centred, which usually revolves around paid TV ads because candidates would like to achieve wider reach in less time as possible. Gone are the days when candidates go on different sorties to meet people personally," said Marlinda Angbetic Tan, lifestyle editor of The Freeman', a leading daily in central Cebu province. "They thought they might as well pay for a TV and radio ad." Palatino said that some candidates focused their campaigns in the capital, Metro Manila, due to easier access to mainstream TV stations easily. "Political rallies are held in time for primetime news programmes so they can be covered by live TV," he said. For politicians opposed to the government of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, and who call themselves the 'genuine opposition ticket', the media hold the key to reaching millions of voters. "The media are the preferred source of information among voters, especially television which has overtaken radio in recent years," opposition campaign manager Renato Constantino Jr. told IPS. "We have to resort to whatever's available to us and we've been forced to be creative," he said, adding that their campaign has been hampered not just by high costs of media campaigning but also by legal action filed by the government against the media. Despite this, a recent survey by the Social Weather Station's polling group expects a 6-4-2 win in favour of the opposition, followed by the administration ticket called Team Unity' and independent candidates. While TV advertisements are perfectly legal, some quarters believe that these divert the attention of voters from the real issues. For Palatino, "most of them are shallow ads made to impress and deceive people". Lazaro believes that the media -- including the so-called new media such as the Internet and SMS -- are here to stay. "This is good because it democratises things a bit. In the past, the sole dominant space was print media. Now, other platforms are opening up, especially for the youth. It also gives candidates opportunities to reach out to more people," explained Lazaro. "The bad side of this is the use of media is skewed in favour of those who have the money." Said Palatino: "A candidate has to spend 57 million pesos (1.2 million dollars) if he or she uses the allowed 120 minutes of TV air time for political ads. A candidate can also negotiate with media companies to grant radio or TV interviews to gain more media exposure. Only the wealthy candidates can benefit from this situation." Next to TV, radio is the most popular source of information as it is accessible in far-flung areas. Newspapers have not really benefited from the revenues generated by political ads, Chua said, although they remain the main source of news for the broadcast media. Lazaro says the Internet has been the "great equaliser" because it is practically a free medium, but Internet penetration is low at 9 to 10 percent). Despite this, many candidates have their own websites apart from their party's official sites or other websites put up by their supporters.

In the end, though, Lazaro said, what happens on election day is what counts. Given the history of Philippine elections and the role of fraud, she said, "manipulation at the canvassing will still call the shots at the end of the day". Still, some say that voters have become more discerning in their choices, so that a candidate's wealth will not necessarily translate into votes. "It's a combination of media exposure and track record, or awareness perhaps. All of these things come into play," said Lazaro. "There is an observation that voters are more mature today. Celebrity actors running for the Senate are faring poorly in surveys, unlike in 2004 when actors roundly won in the polls,'' said Palatino. (END/2007)
Send your comments to the editor

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37713

Television advertisement
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Television commercial) Jump to: navigation, search This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
Please improve this article if you can. (August 2007)

A television advertisement, advert or commercial is a form of advertising in which goods, services, organizations, thoughts, etc. are promoted via the medium of television. Most advertisements are produced by an outside advertising agency and airtime is purchased from a Media Agency or direct from the TV channel or network. The first television advertisement was broadcast in the United States at 14:29 on July 1, 1941, when the Bulova Watch Company paid $9 to New York City NBC affiliate WNBT (now WNBC) for a 20-second spot aired before a baseball game between the Brooklyn Dodgers and Philadelphia Phillies. It simply displayed a Bulova watch over a map of the U.S., with a voiceover of the company's slogan "America runs on Bulova time!"[1] The vast majority of television advertisements today consist of brief advertising spots, ranging in length from a few seconds to several minutes (as well as program-length infomercials). Advertisements of this sort have been used to sell every product imaginable over the years, from household products to goods and services, to political campaigns. The effect of television advertisements upon the viewing public has been so successful and so pervasive that it is considered impossible for a politician to wage a

successful election campaign, in the United States, without use of television advertising. In certain countries, France for instance, political advertisement is forbidden on television.[citation needed]

Contents
[hide]

1 Characteristics of television advertisements 2 TV advertisements around the world o 2.1 United States of America 2.1.1 Frequency 2.1.2 Popularity 2.1.3 Restrictions 2.1.4 Are advertisements also programming? o 2.2 Europe 2.2.1 United Kingdom 2.2.2 Germany 2.2.3 Ireland 2.2.4 Finland 2.2.5 Russia o 2.3 Asia 2.3.1 Malaysia 2.3.2 Japan 2.3.3 The Philippines 3 Music 4 Types of TV advertisements 5 The future of TV advertisements 6 References 7 See also 8 External links

[edit] Characteristics of television advertisements

Many television advertisements feature catchy jingles (songs or melodies) or catchphrases that generate sustained appeal, which may remain in the minds of television viewers long after the span of the advertising campaign. Some of these ad jingles or catch-phrases may take on lives of their own, spawning gags or "riffs" that may appear in other forms of media, such as comedy movies or television variety shows, or in written media, such as magazine comics or literature. These long-lasting advertising elements may therefore be said to have taken a place in the pop culture history of the demographic to which they have appeared. One such example is the enduring phrase, "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should," from the eighteen-year advertising campaign for Winston cigarettes from the 1950s to the 1970s. Variations of this catchy dialogue and direct

references to it appeared even as long as two decades after the ad campaign expired. Another is, "Where's the Beef?", which grew so popular that it was used in the 1984 presidential election by Walter Mondale. And yet another popular catch-phrase is "I've fallen and I can't get up", which still appears occasionally, more than a decade after its first use. Advertising agencies often use humor as a tool in their creative marketing campaigns. In fact, many psychological studies tried to demonstrate the effect of humour and indicate the way to empower advertising persuasion.

An animated TV advertisement Animation is often used in advertisements. The pictures can vary from hand-drawn traditional animation to computer animation. By using animated characters, an advertisement may have a certain appeal that is difficult to achieve with actors or mere product displays. For this reason, an animated advertisement (or a series of such advertisements) can be very long-running, several decades in many instances. A notable example is the series of advertisements for Kellogg's cereals, starring Snap, Crackle and Pop. The animation is often combined with real actors. Other long-running ad campaigns catch people by surprise, or even tricking the viewer, such as the Energizer Bunny advertisement series. It started in the late 1980s as a simple comparison advertisement, where a room full of battery-operated bunnies was seen pounding their drums, all slowing down...except one, with the Energizer battery. Years later, a revised version of this seminal advertisement had the Energizer bunny escaping the stage and moving on (according to the announcer, he "keeps going and going and going..."). This was followed by what appeared to be another advertisement: viewers were oblivious to the fact that the following "advertisement" was actually a parody of other well-known advertisements until the Energizer bunny suddenly intrudes on the situation, with the announcer saying "Still going..." (the Energizer Battery Company's way of emphasizing that their battery lasts longer than other leading batteries). This subliminal ad campaign lasted for nearly fifteen years, and was obviously shown at random times on television, often in the least-watched time periods. The Energizer Bunny series has itself been imitated by others, via a Coors Light Beer advertisement, in motion pictures, and even by current advertisements by Geico Insurance.

[edit] TV advertisements around the world

[edit] United States of America

[edit] Frequency Television advertisements appear between shows, but also interrupt the shows at intervals. This method of screening advertisements is intended to capture or grab the attention of the audience, keeping the viewers focused on the television show so that they will not want to change the channel; instead, they will (hopefully) watch the advertisements while waiting for the next segment of the show. This is a technique of adding suspense, especially if the break occurs at a cliffhanger moment in the show. Entire industries exist that focus solely on the task of keeping the viewing audience interested enough to sit through advertisements. The Nielsen ratings system exists as a way for stations to determine how successful their television shows are, so that they can decide what rates to charge advertisers for their advertisements. Advertisements take airtime away from programs. In the 1960s a typical hour-long American show would run for 51 minutes excluding advertisements. Today, a similar program would only be 42 minutes long; a typical 30-minute block of time includes 22 minutes of programming with 6 minutes of national advertising and 2 minutes of local. In other words, over the course of 10 hours, American viewers will see approximately 3 hours of advertisements, twice what they would have seen in the sixties. Furthermore, if that sixties show is rerun today it may be cut by 9 minutes to make room for the extra advertisements (some modern showings of Star Trek exhibit this). Back in the 1950s and 1960s, the average length of a television advertisement was one minute. As the years passed, the average length shrank to 30 seconds (and often 10 seconds, depending on the television station's purchase of ad time). However, today a majority of advertisements run in 15-second increments (often known as "hooks"). TV advertisements are being identified by an ISCI code. [edit] Popularity In the U.S., the TV advertisement is generally considered the most effective mass-market advertising format, and this is reflected by the high prices TV networks charge for commercial airtime during popular TV events. The annual Super Bowl football game is known as much for its commercial advertisements as for the game itself, and the average cost of a single 30-second TV spot during this game (seen by 90 million viewers) has reached $2.7 million (as of February 2008). Because a single television advertisement can be broadcast repeatedly over the course of weeks, months, and even years (the Tootsie Roll company has been airing a famous advertisement that asks "How many licks does it take to get to the tootsie center of a Tootsie Pop?" for over three decades), television advertisement production studios often

spend enormous sums of money in the production of one single thirty-second television spot. This vast expenditure has resulted in a number of high-quality advertisements, ones which boast of the best production values, the latest in special effects technology, the most popular personalities, and the best music. A number of television advertisements are so elaborately produced that they can be considered miniature thirty-second movies; indeed, many film directors have directed television advertisements both as a way to gain exposure and to earn a paycheck. One of film director Ridley Scott's most famous cinematic moments was a television advertisement he directed for the Apple Macintosh computer, that aired in 1984. Even though this advertisement was aired only once (aside from occasional appearances in television advertisement compilation specials), it has become famous and well-known, to the point where it is considered a classic television moment. Despite the popularity of some advertisements, many consider them to be an annoyance for a number of reasons. The main reason may be that the sound volume of advertisements tends to be higher (and in some cases much higher) than that of regular programming. The increasing number of advertisements, as well as overplaying of the same advertisement, are secondary annoyance factors. A third might be the increasing ability to advertise on television, prompting ad campaigns by everyone from cell-phone companies and fast food restaurants to local businesses and small businesses. From a cognitive standpoint, the core reason people find advertisements annoying is that the advertisement's offer is not of interest at that moment, or the presentation is unclear. A typical viewer has seen enough advertisements to anticipate that most advertisements will be bothersome, prompting the viewer to be mercilessly selective in their viewing. Conversely, if an advertisement strikes a chord with the viewer (such as an ad for debt relief shown to a viewer who has received a late notice in the mail), or has entertainment value beyond the basic message (such as the classic humorous spots for Wendy's "Where's the beef?" campaign), then viewers tend to stay with the advertisement, and look forward to viewing it again.[citation needed] [edit] Restrictions Since the 1970s, advertisements featuring cigarettes have been banned from American TV. Advertisements for alcohol products are allowed, but the consumption of any alcohol product is not allowed in a television advertisement. Since the late 1990s TV advertisements have become far more diverse, and in addition household products and foods that are not new are no longer generally advertised as they were in the mid to late 20th century. [edit] Are advertisements also programming? Since the 1960s, media critics have claimed that the boundaries between "programming" and "advertisements" have been eroded to the point where the line is blurred nearly as much as it was during the beginnings of the medium, when television shows were sponsored by corporations. The only programs that were exempt from this rule were news

shows and information shows relating to news (such as 60 Minutes). Conditions on children's programming have eased a bit since the period of the 1970s and 1980s.

[edit] Europe
In many European countries television advertisements appear in longer, but less frequent advertising breaks. For example, instead of 3 minutes every 8 minutes, there might be 6 or 7 minutes every half hour. Specific regulations differ widely from country to country and network to network. Unlike the U.S., in Europe the advertising agency name does appear at the beginning or at the end of the advert. [edit] United Kingdom In the UK, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is funded by a licence fee and does not screen adverts. Nevertheless, on the commercial channels, the amount of airtime allowed by the Independent Television Authority and its successors for advertising has risen from 7 minutes per hour in the 1970s to 12 minutes today. With 42-minute American exports to Britain, such as Lost, being given a one hour slot, nearly one third of the slot is taken up by adverts. Other programs such as WWE Raw, WWE Friday Night SmackDown! or ECW on Sci Fi show promotional material that would be in place of US advert breaks. Freeview has provided a cheap entry level alternative to Satellite and Cable subscription services and has taken the penetration of digital television well over 80%. The growth of Multi-channel television has changed the face of TV Advertising making the medium effective for companies with niche products and a targeted audience. 30-second advertisements on digital channels like Sky News, MTV or E4 can be bought for less than 50, and adverts on more targeted channels like the Business Channel, Motors TV or Real Estate TV for less than 5 per 30 seconds. New TV channels are launching every week in the UK and advertising opportunities are plentiful. [edit] Germany As in Britain, in Germany, public television stations own a major share of the market. Their programming is funded by a licence fee as well as advertisements on specific hours of the day (5 p.m. to 8 p.m.), except on Sundays and holidays. Private stations are allowed to show up to 12 minutes of ads per hour with a minimum of 20 minutes of programming in between interruptions.. [edit] Ireland In the Republic of Ireland, the main Irish broadcasters RT and TG4 are funded by a television licence fee. Nevertheless both are permitted to screen up to 5 minutes of advertisement breaks every half hour (10 minutes every 1 hour) as defined by the Broadcasting commission of Ireland. TV3 and Channel 6 screen 12 minutes per hour. [edit] Finland

In Finland, there are two mainstream non-commercial channels run by the state owned broadcasting company YLE, that run advertisements only on very infrequent occasions, such as important sport events. The three main commercial channels MTV3, SubTV (a subsidiary of MTV3), and Nelonen ("Number Four" in Finnish), all run their advertisements during breaks approximately every 15 minutes. Since digital TV has been introduced, the number of TV channels has grown, with YLE and the main broadcasters all adding new channels (including some subscription channels). Analogue broadcasts ceased in August 2007 and the nation's TV services are now exclusively digital. A typical break lasts about 4 minutes. The length of individual advertisements can vary from a few seconds (7, 10 and 15 are common), but nowadays they are rarely over one minute in length. Many advertisements of supranational companies are dubbed from English language advertisements. Although Swedish is the other official language of Finland, the advertisements do not feature Swedish subtitles nor are any Swedish language advertisements shown. English language advertisements are also uncommon. [edit] Russia Russian advertising break includes 2 parts: federal and regional. It's shown for 4 minutes and 15 minutes per hour. Now Russian Government intends to decrease TV advertisement because of TV channels rating reduction.

[edit] Asia
[edit] Malaysia In Malaysia, a typical break lasts about 5 minutes. [edit] Japan In Japan, [edit] The Philippines In the Philippines, TV networks regulate the amount of advertisements that is shown. For example, GMA Network shows over 30 individual advertisements every break, while ABS-CBN has advertising loads less than the given amount. Cigarette advertisements have been banned in the country.

[edit] Music
Prior to the 1980s music in television advertisements was generally limited to jingles and incidental music; on some occasions lyrics to a popular song would be changed to create a theme song or a jingle for a particular product. In 1971 the converse occurred when a song written for a Coca-Cola advertisement was re-recorded as the pop single "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing" by the New Seekers, and became a hit. Some pop and rock

songs were re-recorded by cover bands for use in advertisements, but the cost of licensing original recordings for this purpose remained prohibitive until the late 1980s. The use of previously-recorded popular songs in television advertisements began in earnest in 1985 when Burger King used the original recording of Aretha Franklin's song "Freeway of Love" in a television advertisement for the restaurant. This also occurred in 1987 when Nike used the original recording of The Beatles' song "Revolution" in an advertisement for athletic shoes. Since then, many classic popular songs have been used in similar fashion. Songs can be used to concretely illustrate a point about the product being sold (such as Bob Seger's "Like a Rock" used for Chevy trucks), but more often are simply used to associate the good feelings listeners had for the song to the product on display. In some cases the original meaning of the song can be totally irrelevant or even completely opposite to the implication of the use in advertising; for example Iggy Pop's "Lust for Life", a song about heroin use addiction, has been used to advertise a cruise ship line. Music-licensing agreements with major artists, especially those which had not previously allowed their recordings to be used for this purpose, such as Microsoft's use of "Start Me Up" by the Rolling Stones and Apple Computer's use of U2's "Vertigo" became a source of publicity in themselves. In early instances, songs were often used over the objections of the original artists, who had lost control of their music publishing the music of Beatles being perhaps the most well-known case; more recently artists have actively solicited use of their music in advertisements and songs have gained popularity and sales after being used in advertisements. Famous case is Levi's company which has used several one hit wonders in their advertisements (songs such as "Inside", "Spaceman" and "Flat Beat"). Sometimes a controversial reaction has followed the use of some particular song on an advertisement. Often the trouble has been that people do not like the idea of using songs that promote values important for them in advertisements. For example Sly and the Family Stone's anti-racism song, "Everyday People", was used in a car advertisement which caused anger among people. Generic scores for advertisements often feature clarinets, saxophones, or various strings (such as the acoustic/electric guitars and violins) as the primary instruments. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, electronica music was increasingly used as background scores for television advertisements, initially for automobiles,[2] and later for other technological and business products such as computers and financial services.

[edit] Types of TV advertisements

Political TV advertising Infomercials Product placement Promo (television program) Television commercial donut

Sponsorship

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_commercial

VANTAGE POINT

Beyond the TV Ads

Television is generally acknowledged to have the longest reach of all the media today, with audience access estimated at 96 percent of all Filipinos nationwide. Much has thus been said about TV's being the political battleground in the campaign for this year's elections BY LUIS V. TEODORO Business Mirror Posted by Bulatlat TELEVISION is generally acknowledged to have the longest reach of all the media today, with audience access estimated at 96 percent of all Filipinos nationwide. Much has thus been said about TV's being the political battleground in the campaign for this year's elections. The candidates' media gurus know this if they know nothing else. Thus the political ads that television-especially the two major networks ABS-CBN and GMA-7-is attracting even at this early stage, which should translate into hefty increases (by as much as 10 percent) in their revenues for this year. The key word is "revenues," which at the candidates' end means "expenses." The extensive reach of television means TV ads aren't cheap. A 30-second ad during prime time, for example, can cost as much as P250,000 ($5,149.86 at an exchange rate of $1=P48.454). A TV ad campaign can thus run to nearly a hundred million per station. Most of the candidates this year have turned to the Internet and to podcasts in an effort to cut costs and to "even the playing field". But the Internet suffers from limited access, despite the falling prices of PCs and laptops and the drop in the cost of connections to the Web. Romantics and optimists will tell you there's the proliferation of Internet cafes, but it's doubtful if most of their customers are lining up to access Noynoy Aquino's latest podcast or Ping Lacson's website. Television not only has the reach. It also has the captive audience that's glued to that popular soap during prime time into which a political ad can be inserted with little risk of anyone's turning the set off. If television is thus the field of combat where who gets to sit in the Senate floor or in gallery will be decided, those who intend to do battle in it better come prepared with the huge budgets required. While it's all very nice to point out how well-done some of the early-bird politicians' ads are, which of them are ineffective, and which can stand some tweaking, the real bottom line is the impact of this contest on us poor folk who will have to live with such consequences as Cesar Montano's or Richard Gomez's making it to the Senate. If what the elections this year and in the coming years will be decided by who has the most ads or the most effective ones, it means the golden rule of politics all over again-who has the gold rules. Who has the means will prevail, given the cost not only of airing TV ads but also of producing them. What about those who don't have the resources but who may have the brains to actually craft the laws this

country needs? If it's going to be a battle of the ads alone, they won't, or will hardly, count. Ergo, this year as in years past, it will be money politics all over again that will be in the winners' circle. Today the key question when it comes to the media's role in a democracy is how the less moneyed but possibly brighter and more principled can access the electorate to offset the inherent advantage of those whose war chests run into the billions. Not only can fair, relevant and accurate media coverage enable those who can't afford to pay hundreds of millions for ads gain the name recognition Philippine politics puts a premium on. Even more importantly can they inform voters about their plans and programs through thoughtful media coverage. In 2004, a Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility monitor of media coverage of the campaign and elections that year found that media, particularly TV, coverage was less than thoughtful. While there were initial efforts to make the coverage of the campaign meaningful, eventually the coverage regressed into the usual videos of candidates' out- of- town sorties. There was a preponderance of reports on who was leading whom in the surveys (otherwise known as the horse race). Television news also devoted entire segments to the doings of celebrity or celebrity-associated candidates (among them Manuel "Mar" Roxas, whose TV ads advantage was augmented by repeated coverage of his "relationship" with a TV anchor). The focus on the two main "contenders" for the presidency was to the exclusion of such candidates as Raul Roco. (The rare times in which Roco was covered almost exclusively had to do with his illness and departure for the United States.) There was no coverage of the crucial party-list elections except in those instances when these groups were accused of being communist fronts. Except for Mar Roxas, there was very little coverage of other candidates for senator, and zero on what the advocacies of the candidates were--or if they had any at all. Mostly the "issues" covered had nothing to do with platforms or programs, and everything to do with such scandals as an ex-wife's accusation that a candidate had not been providing child support. Given the quality of the 2004 coverage, it's safe to say that, except when they were shaped by fraud, the results were at least partly the doing of the media. The shift from print to TV ads during the campaign was already pronounced even before 2004. But that is not as important as how television-and the other mediawill cover the elections this year. The two major networks launched with much fanfare their commitment to sustained coverage of the campaign and elections this year. Let's hope they mean "better," and that, in exchange for the increased revenues they'll be making this year, they will provide the public information beyond what the ads provide. Published in Business Mirror/Posted by Bulatlat

BACK TO TOP PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION COMMENT

2007 Bulatlat

Alipato Publications

Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.

http://www.bulatlat.com/news/7-6/7-6-tv.htm

The Election Campaign TV ads are far from reality

05
March admin10:43 amAdd comment Our candidates in the national level have become busy this days. Some of them who are members of the same party that have agreed to meet once in while to conduct campaign together dont have anymore time due to the hectic schedules. And they preferred to campaign individually. But what is more striking is the idea that most of the candidates are offering services (if they win) that would uplift the life of Filipino people from the chaos. This is being shown regularly on TV. That this candidates are like superman, broadcasting to the world that they can do everything to satisfy and make life comfortable. This is one of the facts that ordinary voters believed. Why? because the level of campaigning is done in a superstitious way. Candidates (not all) should be the first to upgrade or enhance the way they should campaign. The dancing style, the singing style, the rampant use of unfortunates faces of children, faces of farmers and more are just an example that these future leaders are exaggerating the real scenario of the Republic of the Philippines. Let me recap the things happened on the last 20 years when Juan started to struggle for a better life. (Correct me if I am wrong) Pres. Aquino won the presidency because of the late NINOY, followed by FVR, then Erap and GMA, and also some of the Senators that are still on the go mentioning exaggerated thing. The leader during these times had all expressed their desire to uplift the life of Filipino. What had happened really is big. Juans once good life has turned out into a more harder life. Today, Juan is doubling his sacrifices just to maintain his life. Yet every election all of the candidates are shouting that they could ease some of the things that makes Juans life miserable. But the results are opposite. Juan doesnt know anymore what is right from wrong. Due to the fact that he (Juan) should work to earn a living, as long as he will be paid accordingly or be paid lower than the minimum wage, Juan is not thinking twice but grab the opportunity. That Juan knows, the riskier the job, the bigger the price at stake. Thus come up the rampant illegal activities. Candidates waste too much during campaign period. Though the COMELEC (Commission on Election) has guiding rules on the money to be spent on the campaign,

some of the campaign materials used could be easily declared that it was donated by a friend. It means that the money did not came from the candidate himself. Anyway this is none sense. After all, Philippines is the number 2 most corrupt country worldwide. Every candidates or the leaders of the State has all the ability and the capacity to serve the people. But it seems the change is far going to the benefit of the people but to the benefits of individuals pocket. Vote wisely! Vote wisely! Vote wisely! Vote wisely! Until your vote no more. http://www.uwidonews.com/2007/03/05/the-election-campaign-tv-ads-are-far-fromreaity/

GO mounts new media campaign blitz

By Dona Pazzibugan Inquirer First Posted 09:44pm (Mla time) 04/10/2007

MANILA, Philippines -- The Genuine Opposition has unveiled four 30-second television advertisements which, ironically, do not feature any of its 11 candidates. Neither do the ads, produced by an in-house staff, feature an endorsement from former President Joseph Estrada, who put together the ticket, including political figures responsible for his impeachment. The ads instead focus on four areas where the GO believes President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyos administration has failed to eradicate: corruption, hunger, high prices of commodities and human rights violations. The GO campaign headquarters on Tuesday launched the four 30-second ads, which carry the campaign slogan of Kontra sa nakawan, sagot sa kahirapan (Fight corruption, alleviate poverty). The ads mix television video footage and newspaper photographs and headlines, some from the Philippine Daily Inquirer, showing poverty, violent dispersal of rallies and the billion-peso scams uncovered during the Arroyo administration such as the Hello Garci election fraud scandal. Near the end of the ad is a voice-over narration: Malulunasan ang kahirapan pag natigil ang nakawan. Panahon na. Isang boto laban sa nakaupo (Poverty will end once corruption is stopped. The time has come. One vote against the incumbent). It wraps up with the GO logo and a voice-over of the campaign slogan. Campaign officials said the pictures and names of their senatorial candidates were neither shown nor mentioned due to limited time. One version of the ad started airing last week. Just one airing of a TV ad during prime time costs hundreds of thousands of pesos. The ads were supposedly paid for by GO and PDP-Laban, the party of Makati Mayor Jejomar Binay, Senator Aquilino Pimentel II and Senator Sergio Serge Osmea III, GO campaign manager.

The candidates are headed for Cagayan de Oro City on Wednesday for a rally at the Divisoria Plaza amphitheater. They were requested by Estrada himself to attend the rally. This was the second time the deposed president had intervened to compel candidates to attend a common campaign sortie. Last March, he personally called the candidates to gather in Davao City for a major rally. Of the 11 GO candidates, Sonia Roco and former rebel Navy Lieutenant Antonio Trillanes IV, who is campaigning while in military detention, will not be able to join the Cagayan de Oro rally. The candidates went on their own separate campaigns after the GO headquarters stopped organizing common sorties. After taking over as campaign manager in March, Osmea cancelled the usual motorcades and told the candidates to go to the provinces where they are not yet well known and to get more local media exposure.

Copyright 2008 Inquirer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article.php?article_id=59616 http://www.cmfr.com.ph/_pjrreports/2007/june/0607_story06.html Why Pichay still lost

The Importance of Political Ads

by Rocel Ann G. Junio and Katherine Anne O. Laurio With its 95-percent reach among Filipino households (according to a July 2005 Asia Research Organization study), television has become the Filipinos most preferred source of news and information. No wonder that in this years elections campaign, candidates poured millions of pesos into television advertisements, hoping that their 30-second broadcast billboards would translate to votes. In an effort to level the playing field between the prominent and the lesser-known candidates, the ban on political ads was lifted in 2001, allowing candidates to flood viewers screens with their political advertisements. Selling a candidate Political advertisements are a special kind of ads. They sell a candidate instead of the usual goods. However, according to advertising professor and practitioner Eleanor Agulto, some of the principles of commercial advertising could apply to political advertising, thus the analogy between a political candidate and a brand. Jay Bautista, executive director of Nielsen Media Research Philippines (NMRP), a television research agency, said that selling an unknown candidate was like selling a new product. If theres a new product not known to anyone, TV or mass media allows you to introduce the product and make people aware of it, Bautista told Channel News Asia last March 20. Similar to a political candidate who is not a national figure, mass media allows him to

be seen and heard and make the voters aware that he is running. In line with the parallelism between political advertising and commercial advertising, most TV ads use the same devices in product advertisementsjingles, slogans, and testimonies, among other thingsto achieve brand awareness and brand identity, which were identified by Agulto as the major goals of political ads. Brand awareness and brand identity were achieved in the 2004 senatorial elections, when relatively unknown candidates like Pilar Juliana Pia Cayetano Sebastian and Maria Ana Consuelo Jamby Madrigal overwhelmingly won in the elections. Four months prior to election day, the SocialWeather Stations (SWS) reported that the two were not among the winning 12 candidates. But persistent airing of their political ads eventually proved to be the strategy that worked best for them as they were not only able to introduce themselves to the electorate, but had also successfully solicited votes. Genuine Opposition spokes-person Adel Tamano, however, looks at political advertisements as an alternative to the usual political sorties held by candidates during their campaign. While political ads and political sorties consume a lot of resources, he said that political ads assure wider access to voters and at the same time cost less than a full-blown national sortie. For candidates who are unable to or who do not have the ability or resources to go around the country [they] can do political ads, Tamano told PJR Reports. This statement coincides with Agultos observation that for a candidate running for a national position, political ads are indeed more cost-efficient compared to campaign sorties. Money matters Although seen as a better option, political ads are by no means cheap, especially when these ads are placed with the countrys media giants. A study by the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) showed that a 30-second ad aired during prime time in GMA-7 and ABS-CBN 2 costs P252,000 and P183,000, respectively. However, candidates were given discounts for bulk ad placements. The high cost of television advertising, however, has not deterred candidates from spending millions on these. For TV ads alone, an NMRP study disclosed that among the candidates in the 2004 senatorial elections, Manuel Mar Roxas III spent the most, shelling out P96.3 million. Madrigal invested P53.31 million while Cayetano spent P42.77 million. In contrast, when he ran in the 2001 senatorial elections, Manuel Villar spent a relatively low P38.57 million in total campaign expenses. For this years elections, the NMRP study (February 13 to May 1) showed that Surigao del Sur Rep. Prospero Butch Pichay Jr. spent P127.39 million for campaign ads, followed by Senators Joker Arroyo and Manuel Villar with P117.64 million and P104.35

million, respectively. The 2004 senatorial elections, however, showed that despite the specific number of minutes that each candidate could be given under the Fair Elections Act, the candidates had unequal access to airtime and ad space. For despite the supposed equal air time that was available to all, the candidates resources were simply not equal. In 2004, the less-moneyed candidates were either far off the Magic 12 or had a difficult time climbing to a safer spot in the list. For instance, Rodolfo Biazon, a senatorial candidate then, had a seesaw battle with Robert Barbers before clinching the 12th spot. Biazon could only say, I couldnt help it. I didnt have money! The fate of the candidates of Ang Kapatiran is thus as easily explained. Campaign director Boy dela Cruz said that although the group had qualified candidates, they could not afford to pay for political ads that would introduce them to the electorate. We have good products, di [lang] mai-package nang husto (but we could not package them well), he said. Because of this, the party turned to endorsements by friends in AM radio stations and columnists. The candidates also grabbed every opportunity to appear on television by attending forums and by commenting on issues. Media exposure Although a candidates success was often related to the frequency of his or her political ad, Agulto recognizes that media exposure also influences voters perceptions of candidates. She said that if this years political aspirants were to be examined, those who led in the media quick counts were actually media stars. Media made them, talked about them, created their brand image, she said. Such candidates are considered media stars because they were often seen on television, whether in news programs or entertainment shows, well before the campaign period began. In this instance, political ads merely served to reinforce previous media exposure, Agulto said. The experiences of former senator John Henry Osmea and former Manila mayor Alfredo Lim provide interesting examples. Despite being among the top 10 TV ad spenders in 2004, with expenses amounting to P52.01 million, Osmea lost. On the other hand, Lim spent only P4.43 million in TV political ads and won. Newsbreaks Spin and Sell: How political ads shaped the 2004 elections claimed that Lims victory was understandable as he was exposed to the media prior to the campaigns by being the host of a public service TV program and a radio program.

Opposition poster boy For Agulto, soldier Antonio Trillanes IVs media exposure before the campaign as the leader of the junior officers who took part in the 2003 Oakwood mutiny could be a reason for his strong showing in this years elections. Trillanes achieved brand awareness and brand identity, she said. Tamano, however, views Trillaness performance in the context of overwhelming public disapproval of the incumbent administration. We tapped into the anti-GMA (Gloria Macapagal Arroyo) sentiments Because there was really that protest, Trillanes was a perfect fit He was really the poster child of antiGMA sentiment, he said. Malaya columnist Ellen Tordesillas thinks that Trillaness inclusion in the Genuine Opposition ticket was a major boost to his candidacy but it was still handicapped by his detention, lack of access to media, and lack of money. Meanwhile, Michael Defensor attributed his poor vote delivery to his association with the President. When asked about the case of the candidates of Ang Kapatiran, Agulto explained that their inability to make it to the Senate should not only be blamed on their meager resources but also on their lack of publicity before and during the campaign. Ive listened to them, they have very good platforms, very good intentions and I think to a certain extent they have been successful despite the meager (political ads) Nevertheless, the ones who made it to the Magic 12 were those who were already known prior to the election season, she said. Mere media exposure, however, does not assure victory for a candidate. Agulto noted that success still depends on the type of media exposure one has. Negative publicity is not likely to make a candidate appear good even if one floods the TV screens with campaign ads. Two cases in point: Teresa Aquino Oreta and Vicente Tito Sotto III. When the media reported on their transfer to the administration-backed Team Unity (TU) despite their known association with former president Joseph Estrada, this apparently did not sit well with voters who perceived their move as having been motivated by political expediency. This was in contrast to the publicity received by senatorial candidate Francis Joseph Chiz Escudero, whose image of a young, aggressive, and charis -matic opposition representative in the House of Representatives boosted his popularity and ensured his position among the top five senatorial candidates.

Source of information Despite the power of political advertisements in reaching the electorate, the more crucial question is whether or not these ads are helpful in giving the public sufficient information about the candidates. According to an SWS election survey of 1,200 respondents randomly inter-viewed on March 15 to 18, most voters do regard political ads as helpful in choosing candidates. Twenty-four percent of the population considered political ads to be of very much help while 31 percent said these ads were somewhat (of) much help. But these ads were aired within very short periods, so how were they able to deliver crucial information such as platforms and track records? According to Tamano, candidates would produce fiesta ads, which show people singing and dancing, along with catchy jingles and slogans and brightly colored backgrounds. Agulto also said that viewers should not expect much from political ads since a candidates platforms and programs could not be contained in just 30 seconds. With political ads as a source of financial windfall, media organizations could not be blamed for airing them. To fill in the information gap, media outfits would present programs that provide information and encourage public discussion of important issues. One of these programs was GMA-7s Isang Tanong, where senatorial candidates were made to answer questions from media practitioners and fellow candidates within a time limit. Also, ANCs Senatorial Forum and Midterm Elections Forum invited senatorial candidates and party-list nominees to express their stand on certain issues. Such programs, some which incidentally scored high in television ratings, helped in educating voters and sealing the outcome of the elections. And so it is true that while political ads have the power to help a candidate, these have to be combined with other factors, the most important of which is the candidate himself. Veteran broadcast journalist Cheche Lazaro agrees. In an interview with the Inter Press Service News Agency last May 12, she said, Its a combination of media exposure and track record, or awareness, perhaps. All of these things come into play. n Rocel Ann G. Junio and Katherine Anne O. Laurio are journalism students of the University of the Philippines and University of Santo Tomas, respectively. They served as volunteers in the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibilitys monitor of media coverage of the 2007 elections. [ Back to top ]

Why some big ad spenders lost

By JAILEEN F. JIMENO www.pcij.org MONEY CANT buy you love or votes, as some politicians who spent big on ads have found out. Only four of the 12 biggest spenders on ads have made it so far in the Commission on Elections tally 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 chamber 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 thats 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. 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." a 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 chief of staff Mike Defensors 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, Defensors 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 Defensors 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 said that the people already knew who Defensor was, since he had been a congressman and had held various cabinet positions. Packaging Defensor as everyones friend as "Tol," she says, erased whatever achievements he might have claimed 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 Abundas voicing the lines endorsing his candidacy. German says Abundas 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 Nielsens report that his camp poured in as much as P121.48 million in radio and TV ads. Some observers say one crucial flaw of Defensors ads was that they failed to make the public forget his passionate defense of President 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." Being rabidly pro-administration may have also been a negative factor in the bid of Prospero Pichay for a Senate seat. So was the fact that for most of his nine years in Congress, he was known chiefly for his unwavering support of the moves to amend the charter. But his ads were certainly no help either, say experts, and in the end their repeated showing only added to his placement bills. To produce one version of a 30-second ad, German says, a candidate has to shell out from P.5 million to P2 million. Primetime slots cost as much as P252,000 per 30 seconds, or P500,000 per minute. AC Nielsen says Pichay spent P202.746 million in radio and television spots, making him the top ad spender among the senatorial candidates. But experts say his ad campaign was among the worst of the lot, and not only because it failed to land him in the top 12. German begs to differ, saying Pichays pitch was an "arresting but simple ad, with a very catchy hand signal." For sure, the ads tickled the Pinoy funny bone. Its main feature was the play on Pichays surname to make it akin to pechay or Chinese cabbage, giving his name more recall. Experts say to some extent the tactic worked, adding that Pichay could have expected an even worse showing if not for that factor. But although he started the joke at his own expense, Pichay soon lost control of it. "Pichay, itanim sa Senado," Senate)," his main slogan, was transformed into "Pichay, ibaon sa Senado" at corner stores. Others began calling him kinchay (Chinese celery). Still others came up with "Posporo Pichay, ibaon

sa hukay." His line, "Pangarap kong tuparin ang pangarap ninyo became fodder for text jokes and spoofs. The video website YouTube.com shows various versions of the Pichay ads, mostly of the young making outrageous wishes. The most unkind text message made the rounds just days before the elections. It reported that Pichay died, burnt to a crisp by the summer sun. One voters smart-aleck comment was also a typical reaction to the Pichay ads: "Bakit ko naman iboboto si Pichay, hindi naman siya humingi ng boto ko. Ang hiningi niya, itanim ko siya." "As a political strategist, Ill say it (the ad) was foul," says Tiquia. "The Senate is an institution, not a farm. Pechay has no connection to the Senate. There is dissonance there." She also questions the Pichay ads "pro-Pinoy" tagline and the accompanying fist-on-chest gesture, noting, "Its meaning was not explained. It has no history with the candidate." Rico Laguinday, media director of Club Media, which handled the placement strategy of Pichays ads on TV and radio, admits the media campaign was flawed. He says, "The ads had problems with content and believability. It was just full of promises. The message to voters was not clear." In all the six versions of his ads, Pichay mentioned no strategy on how he will fulfill the wishes of his supporters. Voters, too, have had enough of pangako or promises during elections. But there was a saving grace in the Pichay ads, advertising and political veterans say: the candidate was with ordinary people, unlike other campaigns in the past where candidates banked on the drawing power of bigname stars. To be continued

Home Institution Watch TV Corners Ad Placements

TV Corners Ad Placements
Written by Aries Rufo WEDNESDAY, 28 FEBRUARY 2007 Underscoring once more its primacy over other forms of mass media, television has been cornering the bulk of political advertisements this campaign season, according to a report prepared by an advertising firm for a senatorial candidate. The report, which was shared to Newsbreak, shows that as of February 23, senatorial candidates had placed political ads totaling P142.672 million. It was almost two weeks since the campaign period for senators started. Of the said amount, only P1.5 million were reserved for print

advertising; the rest were for TV ads. There were no advertisements on radio monitored as of that date. Eighty aspirants registered with the Commission on Elections for the senatorial race, but only 17 bets have so far have bought airtime and print space to project their candidacy. Of the 17 senatorial candidates who have been monitored to have placed political ads, only four bought print space. These were reelectionist Manuel Villar, Zambales Gov. Vic Magsaysay, Surigao del Rep. Prospero Pichay, and a certain Joselito Cayetano (who is widely believed to be a tool of the Palace to confuse voters with his use of the same nickname, Peter, and surname as opposition candidate Alan Peter Cayetano). The rest of the senatorial candidates poured their advertising budget onto TV. The biggest spenders on political ads so far are Ralph Recto, Edgardo Angara, Villar, Pichay, Loren Legarda, Tessie Aquino-Oreta, Mike Defensor, Francis Pangilinan, Joker Arroyo, Panfilo Lacson, Alan Cayetano, Miguel Zubiri, Francis Escudero, John Osmea, Vicente Sotto III, and Richard Gomez. Six of these 17 candidates were early birds, purchasing ad placements masquerading as non-political in nature but were actually subliminally meant to create awareness for their candidacy. These ads were shown before the start of the official campaign period. Former Senator John Osmea, one of the six that made ad placements before the campaign period, said there are three basic phases in the showing, airing, or publication of political ads. The first phase, which is before the election period, is meant to create awareness about the candidate. The second phase, during the campaign period, is to create the brand for the candidate. The third phase is to make the voter want to vote for you. In the first phase, TV already cornered the placements. Based on the advertising agencys report, re-electionist Edgardo Angara has spent the biggest amount for political ads before the campaign periodP25.224 millionfrom November last year to February 23. Only P1.684 million went to radio airtime; the rest went

to TV spots. Another early bird, Recto, spent P19.637 million for his thinly disguised ads, exclusively on TV. Escudero put his faith in radio, spending P5.267 million for radio airtime. He, however, shifted to TV when the campaign period began, shelling out P5.527 million already. Of the four candidates who bothered to place ads in print media, Villar spent most: P852,983. The figure, however, pales in comparison to the TV spots he bought, which amounted to P20.467 million. Magsaysay, an administration candidate, is far second, spending P169,320 for print advertisements. He has not procured TV slots for political ads. Pichay, of the administration slate, has shelled out P25,394 in print ads. His TV spots, however, have amounted to P20.596 million. Joselito Cayetano has paid P36,000 for ad placement in the print medium. The print medium is the favored outlet of five party-list hopefuls, totally shunning TV: Ang Kapatiran, Kakusa, Ahon Pinoy, Puwersa ng Bayaning Atleta, and Biyayang Bukid. http://www.newsbreak.com.ph/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3148&It emid=88889062

Catering to Pinoy Taste

Written by Glenda M. Gloria SUNDAY, 25 FEBRUARY 2007

How political ads are designed and appreciated in the Philippines is determined by various factors, including the position a candidate is seeking. A political ad made for a presidential candidate may not be effective for someone running for the Senate. A presidential candidate puts out an ad to convince voters about his qualifications or to show his believers why they should stick it out with him. A candidate seeking the presidency is usually already known to most voters, and advertising helps sell his positive qualities to a broader audience, highlights the things he stands for, and tries to distinguish him from the rest of the pack. Its foolish to run for the presidency if one has a public awareness handicap. A case in point is that of evangelist Eduardo Eddie Villanueva, who decided to run for president in 2004 at the last minute. Not many people outside his religious circle knew him, and Villanuevas ads failed to rescue him from that predicament. The way his first ad was designed illustrates a fatal assumption: that Villanueva was already known in the rest of the archipelago. The ad featured many prominent personalities from basketball players to artists who all declared that they were voting for him. Twenty seconds of the 30-second ad dwelt on them; Villanueva, a not-toowell-known candidate, appeared only toward the end.The Senate race is a different game altogether; you can be a relative unknown and still make it by trying to make yourself known during the campaign. SUPERMAKET VOTING

The new faces in the 2004 senatorial raceSenators Pilar Juliana Cayetano-Sebastian (Pia Cayetano) and Maria Ana Consuelo Madrigal (Jamby Madrigal)are the classic examples. They were beneficiaries of what political consultant Marilou Tiquia describes as supermarket voting that afflicts many Filipinos. The more familiar an election brand becomes, the more chances it has of being recalled by the voter on election day. Truth and issues become secondary in a contest of name recall, which the 2004 Senate race was all about. Supermarket voting may also be true in the case of Tiquias client, Manuel Roxas II, who danced his way to the Senate in 2004, buying the property rights to the popular song, Mr. Suave, which added spice and color to a well-organized and heavily funded campaign machinery. Set in a place familiar to the poorpalengke (public market)the Roxas ad was a concoction of everything that a Pinoy wants in a political advertisement: image, body language, people.A study on political advertisement, done by Kane Choa for his undergraduate thesis at the Ateneo Department of Mass Communications, reveals that Filipinos react favorably to ads about a candidate mingling with ordinary folk or showing empathy for the poor. This type generates warm feelings. It also reflects the political culture, which is patronage-driven and feudal and puts a premium on peoples relationships with politicians.Choa contrasts this with what happens in the US, where voters tend to appreciate explicit political ads with clear-cut messages. Advertisements of presidential candidates George W. Bush and John Kerry show them talking directly to the audience about their plans on very specific issues. Americans prefer these to ads that use metaphors or songs because Americans belong to what academics describe as a low-context culture, where people rely on explicit verbal messages and are more straightforward in dealing with each other. The Philippines belongs to a high-context culture, where what is said is less important than who said it and how, Choa says. The meaning lies in the bigger environmentevents, relationships, images, etc. This explains why political ads with a catchy, popular tune and on-thestreet images turn into big hitsnever mind if they fail to say what the candidate stands for. A focus group discussion (FGD) sponsored by NEWSBREAK and Pulse

Asia after the 2004 elections bolsters this thesis. Most respondents from the poor communities said that what attracted them to the ads were the jingle, the presence of a celebrity endorser, and, lastly, the candidates message. There are few local studies on political advertisement. Researches on previous elections focused on the usual parameters: violence, campaign strategies, cheating, among others. In a series of forums on the impact of political ads sponsored by the Philippine Association of National Advertisers in June and August 2004, the issue was dissected like it was a new epidemic and all sorts of cures to it were discussed. Political advertising and packaging is not new in the Philippines, however. A GAME OF THE VETERANS Media Celebrities Who Became Senators (1992 and 1998, when the ad ban was imposed)

Orlando Mercado Former radio and TV broadcaster Re-elected, 1995-2001 Joseph Estrada Former action star Elected Vice President, 1992 (cut short his term as senator) Elected President, 1998 Ramon B. Revilla Former action star Elected, 1992-1998 Re-elected, 1998-2004 Vicente Sotto III Former TV host, comedian

In the 1960s, the likes of former Presidents Ferdinand Marcos and Diosdado Macapagal hired professionals from advertising and PR agencies to help them reinvent themselves. Such professionals remain very much in the industry today, Aurelio Reli German and Greg Garcia III, to name two of them. German, who has his own PR agency (and who now manages the campaign of the administration senatorial ticket), helped package four presidents Ferdinand Marcos, Corazon Aquino, Joseph Estrada, and Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Garcia, a marketing veteran and former chair of the Hemisphere-Leo Burnett advertising firm, was with the Marcos campaign, too.

Elected, 1992-1998 Re-elected, 1998-2004 Freddie N. Webb Former basketball player, TV actor Elected, 1992-1998 Renato Compaero Cayetano Lawyer with TV/radio show Elected, 1998-2004 Loren Legarda Former TV reporter, news anchor Elected, 1998-2004 Robert Jaworski Popular basketball player Elected, 1998-2004 Source: Senate of the Philippines

In 2004, he designed the political ads of presidential aspirant Panfilo Lacson.Advertising used to be merely a token component of the overall campaign strategies of national candidates. From the 1960s to the 1980s, election campaigns followed the traditional route: big rallies, motorcades, poblacion stops. Political ads consisted mostly of crudely printed materialsleaflets, posters, komiksand campaign jingles that were sung in rallies and played on the radio. Reaching voters took a lot more effort: one had to press their hands, listen to their woes, and rely on ward leaders to deliver their votes come election day. Campaigns, for the most part, were done in a personal manner, and the media were not big enough to reach most voters. In the 1960s and 1970s, only the rich could afford TV sets, and candidates spent more time and money on rallies. Radio was the most popular medium then, but nothing could beat the personal appearance of a candidate in a town or city.

The media were further stunted by Marcoss martial law regime, which limited the ownership of newspapers and broadcast stations to its friends and cronies. When Marcos scheduled a snap presidential election in February 1986, he had on his side most of the media, with the singular exception of the so-called mosquito or opposition press. What followed was a classic clash between traditional and guerrilla advertising. The Marcos government ran a radio and TV spot ad about a woman speaking weakly and portrayed as walang alam (ignorant) housewife, referring to his rival in the race, Corazon Aquino. Even if they had money to counter that propaganda, the political opposition could not find space and time in the Marcos-controlled media. Recalling this during deliberations on the ad ban, former Sen. Rene Saguisag, a human rights lawyer during the Marcos regime, said: What we found then was that no newspaper was willing to run any advertising for Laban (Aquinos party). Thus, Aquinos allies fought back with the rudiments of a Third World campaign. They composed jingles, taped them, and passed them on to neighbors and friendswhich proved to be more effective in the long run. Photocopying, too, was the name of the game, recalls pollster and veteran marketing man Anthony Abaya. The anti-Marcos opposition had a stinging sloganTama na! Sobra na! Palitan na! that simply overwhelmed Marcoss negative ad against Aquino. POWER OF THE INCUMBENT The downfall of Marcos in 1986 changed the media landscape and, in some ways, politics itself. In the first senatorial elections after Marcos, some candidates used political adsnot yet popular as an election tool at the timeto enhance name recall. As early as then, the media showed their power. Two candidates associated with the media, former movie actor Joseph Estrada and former TV and radio broadcaster Orlando Mercado, easily won as senators in 1987. After that election, Congress saw the need to control political advertising, ostensibly because only moneyed candidates could use it to enhance their chances of winning. The ban was meant to level the playing field. The unwritten motivation for this was that the incumbents could do without ads; they had a built-in advantage anyway, which was their daily access to the free media. The ban, embodied in An Act Introducing Reforms in the Electoral System by Amending Certain Sections of the Omnibus Election Code and for Other Purposes, was signed into law in 1987 and saw its first

implementation in 1992, the first presidential elections held after Marcos. It also covered the 1995 senatorial and 1998 presidential campaigns. To gurus of political advertising, the effect was disastrous: the ban shut out newcomers from the race and ensured the reelection of those with ready access to the public and the mediaincumbent officials as well as media and film celebrities. Indeed, from 1992 to 1998, while Congress dragged its feet on lifting the ban, at least eight celebrities from the media, sports, and entertainment industries made it to the Senate (see list). Media organizations, such as the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP) and the Philippine Press Institute (PPI) lobbied hard for the lifting of the ban, and, in 2000, Sen. Raul Roco, a former film producer and known civil libertarian, pushed for it as head of the Senate committee on constitutional amendments and revision of laws. Suddenly, incumbents began to realize that perhaps the only way to stop the phenomenon of celebrity politics was to give politicians access to advertising. ===============

(These are excerpts from Spin & Sell: How Political Ads Shaped the 2004 Elections, published by Newsbreak. To buy a copy of the book, please email editorial@newsbreak.com.ph or ads@newsbreak.com.ph .) http://www.newsbreak.com.ph/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3143&It emid=88889062

The media industry and indecency

Scrubbing the airwaves

Jul 21st 2005 From The Economist print edition

America's media firms are struggling to contain Congress's anger about indecency

MORE than any other industry, America's multi-billion-dollar entertainment business is caught in the crossfire of the country's culture war. Media firms have always had to walk a fine line between giving adults realistic shows and shielding children from sex and bad language. But thanks to the current political clout of social conservatives, TV and radio firms are under more attack than ever for allegedly corrupting America's youth. Congress is threatening to increase sharply fines for airing indecent material, and some politicians want to regulate cable and satellite TV for indecency for the first time. Over 80% of American homes subscribe either to cable or satellite TV, but only broadcast television, which is technically free, is subject to indecency regulation. The media industry fears that new rules could damage its business model.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the media industry's regulator, defines indecency as language or material that describes

sexual or excretory actions or organs and which is considered offensive by contemporary community standards. Solely for the sake of children (present in one-third of American homes), indecency is forbidden from 6am to 10pm on broadcast TV and radio. In contrast to obscenityillegal all the timeindecency mostly consists of swearing, partial nudity and sexual double entendres. America's current battles over indecency began in 2003 when Bono, a rock star, said this is really, really fucking brilliant at a live awards show. The FCC decided to do nothing. Then came a glimpse of Janet Jackson's breast during last year's Super Bowl, outraging some viewers. Pressed by Congress, the FCC reversed its decision on Bono and said it would get tough on indecency. In 2004 it fined media firms nearly $8m, five times what it had levied in the previous ten years combined.

Expletive deleted
For these firms such fines are puny. Yet fearing what future measures might be deployed against them, they have increasingly censored themselves. Last year several TV stations declined to air Saving Private Ryan, a war movie with lots of swearing. Clear Channel, a big radio firm, axed Howard Stern, a shock jock: he is going to satellite radio, free from indecency rules. Losing Mr Stern and other outspoken personalities partly explains why broadcast radio's rate of growth has slowed, says Lawrence Haverty, a fund manager at Gabelli Asset Management. The media industry faces a powerful bipartisan coalition of politicians who see votes in cleansing the airwaves. Republicans are leading the effort, but some Democrats are joining innot surprisingly, as many parents do seem worried. A recent study by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, for instance, found 60% of parents very concerned about the amount of sex their children are watching on TV. One defensive strategy for the media industry is to play the moralising wing of the Republican Party off against its substantial libertarian wing, which is opposed to giving the government more power to censor. Viacom, News Corporation and General Electric's NBC have together enlisted the support of the American Conservative Union, Americans for Tax Reform and the US Chamber of Commerce. Advances in technology, these groups argue, mean that the government no longer needs to police the airwaves for indecency. Many parents now have V-

chips in their TV sets to block out risqu material. Set-top boxes for cable and satellite TV also give parents control. Intriguingly, opposition to the censorship lobby is coming even from some in the media industry who might be expected to favour it. Even some explicitly Christian broadcasters worry that religion itself could come under attack from a future government with increased power to censor TV. This administration is friendly to us, but a future government might head in the direction of Canada where a broadcaster can have its licence revoked if it refers negatively to homosexuality, says Stuart Epperson, chairman of Salem Communications, a Christian radio company. Campaigners against indecency have cleverly seized on the idea, opposed by most broadcasters, that customers should be able to purchase programming la carteie, buying only those channels they want their children to watch and not paying for anything else. Cable and satellite firms currently sell standard bundles of channels. Even when it is possible to buy a single channel, such as HBO, viewers still have to buy a basic package of dozens of channels before they can do so. Anything that jeopardises bundling cuts to the core of the economic proposition of both TV distributors such as Comcast and the content conglomerates such as Disney, says Craig Moffett, an analyst at Sanford Bernstein. Other industry experts, however, reckon that the industry would cope. A la carte first made headlines a few years ago when John McCain, a senator, championed it as a way to lower TV bills. His efforts culminated in a study by the FCC which concluded, late last year, that la carte would in fact raise the cost of TV for most people. The media industry, it said, would respond by charging more per channel for a narrower range of channels, and would also pass on to customers the extra costs of offering individual choice. Even so, the Parents Television Council and other family groups are making headway in their campaign for la carte. Ted Stevens, chairman of the Senate's commerce committee, is said to favour requiring a family-friendly tier of channelsa mild version of la carteas does Kevin Martin, chairman of the FCC. A family-friendly tier would be a bundle of channels with material suitable for children. This does not alarm the media industry as much as pure la carte because the principle of bundling would broadly hold, and they could charge a fairly high price for it.

Lawyers advising media firms are talking tough. If Congress tries to extend indecency regulation to cable and satellite TV, directly or by requiring a family-friendly tier, we will try to get indecency laws for broadcast TV thrown out entirely, says a lawyer for one media giant. Past rulings in this area by both the Supreme Court and lower courts show that judges are mostly reluctant to trespass on the constitutional protection of free speech. Perhaps they would agree with TV firms that indecency laws no longer make sense. Analysts reckon that pressure from Congress and from Mr Martin will anyway prompt distributors and content firms to offer a family-friendly tier to avoid something worse being imposed. It would be a political expedient, but also a viable and logical compromise, says Mr Moffett. Safe in their liberal strongholds of New York and Los Angeles, it is easy for media executives to underestimate the strength of public feeling against indecency on TV. Look at the top shows, says one, such as CSI, which is all about murder, and Desperate Housewives', full of sex. But that misses the point. For the sake of children, a large part of the public wants something done. If media firms do not cater to this demand, Congress probably will.

Back to top ^^

E-Mail Print

Recommend

Del.icio.us Facebook Digg Share this

Related Items
From The Economist

Content regulation Jul 21st 2005

Transatlantic cleavage Feb 5th 2004

Country briefing

United States

More articles about...

Television

Websites
The Federal Communications Commission has information for parents concerned with indecency on television. The Parents Television Council is trying to banish indecency from TV and radio. The Kaiser Family Foundation published its survey last year. The Pew Research Center issued a report on opinions of indecency measures. Salem Communications is a Christian radio company. GovTrack.us has news of the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005. See also Ted Stevens, the White House, the Supreme Court, Viacom, News Corporation and NBC. Advertisement

http://www.economist.com/business/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4199162

Analysis: In statements and ads, Romney presents something of a candor gap

BOSTON (AP) -- As a presidential contender, Mitt Romney has the looks, the money and the campaign machine. He also has something of a candor gap. When confronted with questions that might conflict with his message of the day or political record, the Republican candidate has shown a tendency to bob and weave or simply dismiss history. He has done so all year, providing an easy target for his opponents. "If you aren't being honest in obtaining the job, can we trust you if you get the job?" Romney rival Mike Huckabee asked on Sunday during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press." This past week, Romney did it again over questions about whether he was planning to air negative ads -- in particular on the subject of illegal immigration -- against John McCain. The Arizona senator has been surging in New Hampshire, where Romney is angling for back-to-back victories after a hoped-for win in this week's Iowa caucuses. "I haven't made any decisions on what issue ads might come forward, down the road, but those aren't what we shot today," Romney told reporters on Wednesday. "What we shot today was just me to camera." On Friday, his campaign went on TV with a new commercial, a so-called contrast ad that did not feature Romney speaking, but a narrator comparing his record to McCain's on immigration and tax matters. On Saturday, the campaign announced a second spot, focused entirely on McCain's immigration record. In between Romney also released a third commercial, criticizing Huckabee for increasing spending and pardoning criminals while he was governor of Arkansas. The ads Romney mentioned to reporters -- the "closing arguments" in which he speaks directly to Iowa and New Hampshire voters -- have yet to air. Statements from his campaign accused McCain of initiating the negative ads with personal criticisms of Romney, as well as a mailer to New Hampshire voters attacking Romney's own immigration record.

"Senator McCain has a troubling history of neglecting substantive issues and getting personal in his attacks against those who happen to disagree with him," said Romney spokesman Kevin Madden. "It's the McCain way." Romney started the year with a similar example of candor deficiency. On Jan. 8, when he staged a "National Call Day" to kickoff his campaign, he called a news conference to herald his unprecedented one-day take of $6.5 million. When the multimillionaire was asked whether he might spend his own money on his campaign, Romney said that scenario "would be akin to a nightmare," since he was relying on popular support for his campaign. He added that he reserved the right to donate, though. In reality, Romney had already donated to his political committee at the time of the question. A campaign finance report he released in mid-April revealed he contributed a $2.35 million check by the time of his "nightmare" comment, starting the prior October. He has gone on to loan a total of $17.35 million to his committee, although the total could be more. His next report won't be made public until the end of January. As the year has progressed, there have been more examples, not just of artsy language, but of ignorance of or embellishments about his personal and political history. In April, Romney said, "I've been a hunter pretty much all my life," only to have aides reveal he had gone hunting only twice at the bookends of his life: once, during a summer visit to an Idaho ranch as a 15-year-old, and again, in 2006, when he participated in a bigdonor excursion to a Georgia game preserve on behalf of the Republican Governors Association. A subsequent check with state officials revealed no hunting license for Romney in any of the three states where he has homes, and Romney himself later confirmed he did not own any guns. The ones in his house, which he had mentioned publicly, were owned by his son Josh. More recently, Romney told a national television audience on Dec. 16 that he had been endorsed by the NRA while running for governor in 2002. A day after his appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," Romney told reporters that he had checked with the gun-rights group "and they said, 'Well, we didn't give you the official endorsement,' but they phone-banked members ... in Massachusetts, encouraging them to support my candidacy, so it was, if you will, a support phone bank, which is not an official endorsement." The hunting gaffe in particular has provided easy shots for other candidates. "I don't go around saying I was lifelong golfer because I once rode in a golf cart when I was eight years old," Huckabee said, adding that, "You are not going to hear me making up stuff about my biography."

In his new ads against McCain, Romney also looks past his own record on tax cut and immigration matters. He criticizes McCain for twice voting against Bush administration tax cuts, although while governor at the time, Romney told members of the Massachusetts congressional delegation he "won't be a cheerleader" for proposals he did not agree with. "But I have to keep a solid relationship with the White House," The Boston Globe reported in 2003. Similarly, Romney accuses McCain of backing an immigration bill this year that provided "amnesty" for illegal immigrants, even though it required them to pay fines and stand in line with legal immigrants if they wanted to become citizens. Romney bases his criticism on the bill's inclusion of a so-called "Z" visa that, once obtained, would have allowed illegals to remain indefinitely if they did not pursue citizenship. Among the bill's backers was his party leader, President Bush. Yet in March 2006, Romney sounded sympathetic to the idea of integrating illegals into U.S. society. "I don't believe in rounding up 11 million people and forcing them at gunpoint from our country," Romney told The Sun of Lowell, Mass. "(T)hose that are here paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process towards application for citizenship, as they would from their home country." (Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.) http://www3.wsvn.com/news/articles/voice_your_choice/MI71900/
NATIONALISTIKO DOS

ardeepineda

Naitanong na rin sa wakas sa isang senator ang matagal nang tanong na bumabagabag sa aking isipan, bakit gumagastos ang mga politiko ng daang milyong piso sa kampanya, para lang sa posisyong P30,000 isang bwan lang naman ang sweldo?

Tinanong si Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago ng ABS-CBN ng nasabing katanungan. At kanyang iminungkahi na, dahil mababawi mo, may tubo ka

pa! Oo, dahil maliban sa P120 milyong pork barrel ng isang senador sakanyang anim na taon na termino, meron pa siyang nakukuhang miscellaneous millions buwan-buwan. At hindi pa diyan kasama ang sweldo ng isang senador na P30,000. At kapangyarihan.

Congressmen at Senators lang ang may pork barrel. Subalit hindi pwedeng walang lagay ang mga lokal na opisyal na nasasakupan ng mga nasabing senador at kongresista. Sa mga pondo pa lang ng mga estraktura, at mga kung ano-ano pang proyekto sa mga probinsya/siyudad, umaabot ng milyon ang kick-back ng mga governors, mayors, na nahahati pa ito sa iba pang local public officials.

Kung saka-sakali mang nabalitaan mo na may balak gawing siyudad ang inyong probinsya, humanda ka na. Dahil kapag itoy natupad, mas malaki ang maipapataw na buwis sa mga taong nakatira dito. At sa pagtaas ng singil ng buwis, gayon din ang pagtaas ng kita ng mga tiwaling public officials.

Wag kang magtataka kung may mga proyekto ng gobyernong hindi matapos-tapos sa mga lugar niyo. Dahil estratehiya ito ng tiwaling opisyal sa inyong lugar para taasan pa sa susunod na taon ang kanyang budget.

Sa tipikal na sitwasyon, ang isang tao ay binibigyan ng budget para sa isang taon. Dito niya kinukuha ang gastusin para sa lahat. Gusto man nating maging efficient at magtipid, hindi pwede. Bakit kamo? Dahil kapag hindi mo naubos ang budget mo ngayong taon, sa susunod na taon, mas mababa na ang makukuha mo. Dahil kaya mo naman palang mabuhay sa mas maliit na budget. You do the math/logic.

Isipin mo, kung sinasabi ng ating mga politiko na tumatakbo ako para makatulong sa bayan, bakit kailangang magpatayan ng magkalabang panig para lang sa nasabing posisyon? Bakit hindi na lang sila magtulungan, total, parehong pagtulong naman sa bayan ang kanilang pakay?

Bakit ganito ang politika sa Pilipinas? Kalian kaya magbabago ang ating mga politiko. At ang mga bagitong politiko, lagi na lang nagiging TRAPO (Traditional Politician). Kung sinasabing role model ang mga taong ito, bakit sila ang gumagawa ng katiwalian?

Naniniwala naman ako na may mga taong matitino na nakaupo sa pwesto. Subalit paniguradoy mangilan-ilan lang ang mga ito. Marami at talamak pa rin ang mga taong umaabuso sa bansa na nakaupo sa pwesto.
POSTED BY ARDEEPI NED A AT 06:32 PM | 50 ANG NAGPARAM DAM HTTP:/ / AR DEEPI NEDA. T ABU LAS. COM / 2007/ 04/ 2 6/ @1411146/

BOBO'to Na Ko posted by YHOTSKI (Feb 23, 2007 @ 12:38AM) views: 468 "Laging naniniwala hindi nagsasawa Nahilo sa gayuma kaya nagwawala Laging umaasa ano bang meron sya? Paulit ulit lang naman pinapaikot ka" -Sandwich, Walang Kadala-dala

Ilang buwan na lang Eleksyon na naman. At gaya ng dati, pakalat-kalat sa kung saan-saan ang ilang politiko para manuyo ng tao at sila'y iboto. Merong artista, merong bagong sabak sa politika, merong mga nagbabalik, at meron ding mga dati na.

Syempre kanya-kanya pakulo ang mga loko. Animo'y Santa Claus na pumapasyal sa lugar mo para mamigay ng konting tulong at regalo. May namimigay ng damit. Kilokilong bigas. Mga delata, minsan nga, may kasama pang naka-sobreng pera para hikayatin ka na iboto sya.

Araw-araw kapag lumalabas ako ng bahay, kaliwa't kanan kong nakikita ang mga posters nilang makukulay. Pero sa totoo lang, hindi ko naman maintidihan ang tunay na layunin nila. Ilang buwan pa ang lilipas bago mag-Eleksyon, pero laganap na ang kidnapan, patayan at agawan ng kapangyarihan. Hangga't kayang daanin sa dahas makuwa lang ang kapangyarihan kahit na maubos ang kayamanan, gagawin manalo lang sa halalan. Sabi

nga sa isang kanta ni Blakdyak "Di bale na maubos ang kayamanan, basta't manalo lang sa halalan" Goodboy tlga!! Ganito kadumi ang Eleksyon sa ating bansa.

Naitanong ko sa sarili ko bigla, ano kaya ang pakiramdam ng isang politiko?

Parang awa 'nyo na... Vote! YHOTSKI for TongGresman "Madali syang lapitan mahirap lang hanapin."

Mga Platorforma ni YHOTSKI 1. Sasahuran nya ng "minumum wage" ang lahat ng tambay 2. Ipapa-Air-con nya ang buong Pilipinas. 3. Ipapakulong nya lahat ng Drug Pusher, Kriminal at maging ang mga panget sa Pilipinas 4. Ipagbabawal nya ang sasakyan sa kalsada para maiwasan ang traffic. Kumpirmado. Walang boboto sa'ken ano?

Kanina, merong isang nakakatawang politiko ang sumugod sa barangay namin. Hindi ako sigurado kung kabilang sya sa tinatawag na "Nuisance Candidate" o ano. Pero natuwa talaga ako sa kanya. Kakaiba kasi ang pakulo nya. Sya pa nga lang yata ang politikong gumawa nito. Kapag lumapit 'sya sayo at kinamayan ka, bigla ka nyang aabutan ng kalendaryo at isang sachet ng Nivea lotion. Astig diba? Hindi mo tuloy alam kung matutuwa ka o maiinsulto. Naisip siguro ng politikong 'yon na kutis gagamba na lahat ng tao sa Maynila kaya ganun. Meron naman akong nabalitaan. Pero bago ang lahat, gusto ko munang magpasalamat sa programang "24 Oras" Dito ko kasi 'to nabalitaan. Isang sikat na tao ang planong sumabak sa politika. Nanghihinayang ako sa kanya dahil alam kong mabuti syang tao at mukhang ginagamit lang sya ng ilang nasa pwesto ng politiko. Kahit na halata ng nakararami na ang pagsabak nya sa politika ay parang napipilitan lang. Mabuti na nga

ang imahe nya sa sambayanang Pilipino, pasasamain nya pa. Sabi nya pa minsan sa isang interview sa kanya "Gusto kong mapagka-isa ang mga Pilipino kaya ako tatakbo" Ang hindi nya alam, napagkaka-isa na nya ang sambayanang Pilipino sa bawat laban nya. Sayang talaga dahil iniidolo ko sya sa pagiging pambansang kamao nya.

Bukod sa iba pang kandidato na ang pinamimigay lang ay 2007 Calendar, sabay kamay sayo at konting pambobola. meron din namang nangangampanya na may "ginintuang puso" Sya yung kung tawagin ay "Hulog ng Langit" Namimigay ng manok mula sa Kenny Rogers na may kasamang rosaryo at holy water. Sa tingin ko nga, okey syang iboto. Sa tingin ko kasi, hindi na nya maiisipang mangupit sa kaban ng ating bayan dahil mayaman na syang tao. Kung taga-Maynila kang katulad ko, kilala mo sya.

Sabi ng ilang tao na mas maraming nalalaman sa takbo ng politika sa ating bansa. Sa isang-daan raw na taong tatanungin mo, sampu lang ang may pakielam sa takbo ng politika sa ating bansa. Yung iba, ang isasagot lang sayo "Kahit sino naman ang iluklok mo, wala namang pagbabago" Sa malapitang tingin, totoo ang sinasabi ng nakararami. Wala naman talagang pagbabago kahit na sino ang iluklok mo. Marami pa ring Trapo at Kurakot na politiko. Ang VAT na binabawas sa mga binibili mo, nadadaanan lang ng pag-aari mong sasakyan ang lubaklubak, binabaha, madidilim na walang ilaw na kalsada. Meron pa rin tayong mga kababaihan na madalas pagsamantalahan ng mga walanghiyang Kano na yan. Ang hindi maubos-ubos na Abu Sayyaf na ilang taon ng nakikipag-barilan sa mga sundalo natin pero hanggang ngayon hindin pa rin sila nauubusan ng bala. Marami ka pa ring makikitang pulubi at mga batang pakalat-kalat sa lansangan. kung hindi nagbubungkal ng basura para maghanap ng kakainin nila, kung hindi naglilimos, kung hindi umaakyat sa mg pampasaherong sasakyan para punasan ang iyong paa kapalit ng konting halaga, kung hindi nagpapasuso ng sampung anak nila habang sakay ng de-karitong bahay nila, makikita mong sumisingot na lang ng solven para malagpasan ang araw-araw na hamon ng gutom at kahirapan. Kung saan para malagpasan ang hamon ng gutom at kahirapan, kailangan pang mang-isnatch ng Cellphone at mang-holdap sa mga Jeep, FX at Bus. Meron pa ring mga doktor na pinipili na lang bumaba sa pagka-nurse para makipagsapalaran sa ibang bansa dahil mas malaki ang sahod kumpara dito sa atin. Nagbabayad pa rin tayo ng pamasahe na taon-taon nagtataas.

Bakit ka pa boboto?

Merong iba dyan na gustong makiealam sa kalagayan ng ating bansa pero wala namang nalalaman. Yung may nalalaman naman, walang habag sa kanyang bansa at sa karamihan. Puro pansariling kapakanan lang ang pinagtutuunan.

Kaya ang ilang tangang Pilipino, doon sa kalye ang punta pag may hinaing sa politika. Kinakasangkapan ang kalyeng Mendiola/EDSA at hinihikayat ang bulag na masa

Paulit-ulit lang naman. Pinapaikot ka.

HTTP:/ / TRI ST ANC AFE. COM / FO RUM / 94770

Taxable Benevolence
By Susan M. Aquino Date Published: April 12, 2007

Print-friendly version Email to a colleague

With the constant bombardment of political ad campaigns on television, radio and print media, one can no longer escape the political fiesta that has become a staple of Philippine elections. Watching a favorite program on TV these days also means having to endure the constant barrage of political slogans of candidates either asking us to plant him in the Senate or asking us to forgive her for past transgressions. With the national and local elections just around the corner, constant exposure and name recall are two of the important factors that may spell the difference between winning and losing. To stage a political campaign obviously costs a lot. A recent news item disclosed that a political ad campaign during prime time TV costs about P301,133.00 for thirty seconds. The Fair Election Act or Republic Act No. 9006 grants each bona fide candidate or registered political party a total of 120 minutes of television advertisement throughout the campaign period. A cash-awashed, monied candidate must have a whooping P72.3 million funds to be able to consume said 120-minute air time. Moreover, the Rules and Regulations implementing RA 9006, allow an official candidate of political parties to spend a total of P3.00 for every registered voter in the constituency where they filed their certificate of candidacy. As for political parties and coalition, they are allowed a budget of P5.00 for every voter currently registered in the constituency or constituencies where they have official candidates. Translated into the number of registered voters in this country, the allowable amount seems to run into millions not to mention the undeclared sum that would be needed to

mount a vigorous campaign. It is not surprising then for these candidates to rely heavily on political contributions from friends and supporters to be able to sustain the campaign momentum until the end of the campaign period. What then is the proper tax treatment of political/campaign contributions? Are such political/campaign contributions considered taxable donations and therefore subject to the donors tax prescribed under Section 98 of the Tax Code? Under the Civil Code of the Philippines, a donation is defined as an act of liberality whereby a person disposes gratuitously of a thing or right in favor of another, who accepts it. Thus, for political/campaign contributions to qualify as donations, the contribution must be given purely out of the generosity of the donor without expectation of any payment or favor, material or otherwise, from the donee. It was argued that the giving of electoral contributions cannot be construed as an act of liberality without any consideration since the act of giving such contributions constitutes an attempt on the part of the giver to influence the results of an election by supporting candidates whom he/she feels would serve his/her interests. The argument seems to say that political contributions are not without strings attached to be considered as a donation but in reality, given for a valuable material consideration to be collected, so to speak, after a candidate assumes the position. To a certain extent this argument may seem to be correct in light of the present realities of Philippine politics. The Supreme Court (SC), however, had taken a different position in regard to this issue. In the recent case of Manuel G. Abello et. al. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Court of Appeals,, G.R. No. 120721 dated February 23, 2005, the SC ruled that political contributions are in the nature of taxable gifts as they comply with the three elements of a donation, which are: a) the reduction of the patrimony of the donor; b) the increase in the patrimony of the donee, and c) the intent to do an act of liberality. Without making moral judgments on the argument that political contributions are not strictly without consideration, the SC emphatically declared that the purpose of the giver cannot be considered as a material consideration to remove said act from the definition of a donation which to my mind though, does not seem to complement the third element of a donation. The Abello decision echoed an earlier ruling of the BIR which described a political contribution to be a taxable gift on the ground that it is made without any intent to repay and is merely for personal affection, charity or philanthropy (BIR Ruling No. 344-88).

Accordingly, since political contributions are considered taxable gifts, the same are subject to the donors tax. An exception to this rule, however, is provided under Section 13 of Republic Act 7166 (The Act Providing for Synchronized National and Local Elections), which clearly exempts political contributions duly reported to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) from the donors tax. With the election fever continuing to heat up and as contributions continue to flow into the campaign kitties of candidates, supporters of political candidates should carefully consider the tax implication of political contributions before making their contributions. Since the amount of the donors tax is generally significant, i.e., 30% of the gross donation if the donation is made to strangers, it would be best to properly report the political contributions to the COMELEC to avoid unnecessary tax risk. Political contributions that are not properly accounted for in accordance with COMELEC rules are exposed to possible assessment for deficiency donors tax. The practical difficulties on the part of the BIR in monitoring and running after these unreported contributions, though, is another matter. A related and equally important issue is the deductibility of the political contributions as business expenses which will be discussed in my next article.

HTTP:/ / W WW . PW C. COM/ E XTW EB/ I NSI GHTS. NSF/ D OCI D/ A4E0DF6 B9603B32 5C A2572 BB00263352

AD AGENCY HITS LACSON POLITICAL ADS

MANILA, April 17, 2004 (STAR) McCann-Erickson Phils., creator of the Beat Game TV advertisement for its client Coca-Cola Export Corp., is crying foul over the disregard for intellectual property rights displayed by presidential candidate Sen. Panfilo Lacson in his latest political TV advertisement. Lacsons TV ad uses the familiar moves, snaps and chant -like melody that are unquestionably lifted from phenomenally successful Coca-Cola Beat Game TV campaign, the advertising agency said in a statement. This, it said, was done without seeking prior consent from McCann-Erickson or its client. The close resemblance of the two TV advertisements has already misled some viewers and consumers into believing that the candidates ad is either part of the

Coca-Cola Beat Game TV campaign series or paid for by McCann-Erickson and CocaCola in support of Lacsons candidacy. The work in question is prejudicial to the reputation of McCann-Erickson, which adheres to a strict global policy that disallows McCann agencies worldwide to participate in any form of partisan politics. Republic Act No. 8293 or the Intellectual Property Code states that copyright is vested in an original work from the moment of creation. Original works include pictorial illustrations and advertisements. They are protected from copyright infringement and violators can be sued. McCann-Erickson Philippines has requested Lacson to stop airing his TV ad.
HTTP:/ / W WW . NEW SFLASH . ORG/ 2004/ 02/ PE/ PE00 3052. HTM