Hi Everyone
Here are the notes on the No Campaign and the film No.
I could not my iTunes copy to play on the projector, so I have ordered a copy from the library for next week. We will watch it on Thursday. Tuesday’s class is cancelled because I have a legal matter in Victoria to attend to. I will send out an e-mail on Monday night to remind you.
Here is a link to a very brief reading on the movie No. For next week
Please e-mail your papers to me by midnight tomorrow.
For the blog: Discuss in the comment section the relationship between politics and advertising during the plebiscite campaign. Do you think the success of the No side was entirely the product of a well run ad campaign? What does that tell you about the way Chilean society had changed in the 1980s?
I personally believe that the success of the No campaign was due to the use of celebrities and what we now think of as ‘cheesy’ marketing…. although I do think it is worth remembering that it was the 80s..I think that says a lot about the way Chilean society moved towards a more democratic and capitalist view of politics and how media was consumed. In class I compared it to the use of celebrities during the Clinton campaign to say “no” to Trump. I think the No campaign really was a stepping stone for the way campaign ads were created, really attempting to focus on what people want and to have that ‘relatability’, which the Chilean society had not had from their government for decades.
I think the advertising for the NO campaign played a very important part in persuading people to go to the poles and vote. However, I don’t think it was the one and only reason. I truly believe people were tired of the Pinochet government and were ready for a change in leadership while wanting to see Chile head in a different direction, one that would move away from fear, violence, and instead promote democracy. That the NO campaign and voters were able remove Pinochet from government (or at least as president) demonstrated how ready and willing the public were to start a new way of live in Chile.
I think advertising was a big role during the campaign because it is what incited the people to go out and vote. However, it was not just the advertising, but also the strategies they used, such as the celebrities, the catchy songs, and the appeal to emotions. I don’t think the success of the ‘no’ campaign was only because of how well-run it was, but I do think that that is a big part of why the yes won. All in all, I think there were many people who got benefitted from Pinochet’s government, even if most were not, which did influence in the result.
I think that Pinochet government did not really know what the people wanted, and they failed to deliver in their ads. It is really hard to create a good TV ad that will get people stuck on a product or an idea. The NO campaign was more successful in that department, as their ads catered to people. I think they had more at the stake and therefore had some really creative ideas, like incorporating celebrities and athletes. I do think that clever ads definitely helped the campaign, but its also the people that were behind them who made it successful. They were respected and known in the masses, and people yearned for more culture in their lives. People were sick of following, I think, and the change was overdue.
I think to say that the success of the No side was entirely a result of the well run ad campaign is a bit simplistic, however it was a major factor that most likely ended up making or breaking the campaign. There was already dislike of the Pinochet regime before the campaigns and the reasons not the vote for the oppressive regime were many, however it took a media campaign to get this message across to the masses and ensure that everyone was aware of this. It seems to me that it was too late for Pinochet to “soften” his image after 8 years of oppressive, military rule, thus it makes sense that a campaign for change would gain such favour with the masses. Thus the negatives of the Pinochet are also a significant factor in the success of the media campaign. Yet the media campaign was also crucial to the win because it provided a united message of the opposition and clearly showed people that there was another option they could easily have by voting “no”. The use of celebrities and affect was very effective in swaying voters that were in the middle and getting people out to vote. The voter turnout was 97% which can be attributed to such a media push from both sides. If it had not been for the ad campaign it seems likely that the vote could have also gone in favour of the “yes” side.
I think that the media has influenced politics greatly in Chile, and around the world, because it provides a way to spread political agenda to masses that is accessible to all (regardless of class, literacy, and education level). Especially in Chile where 80% of Chileans had a television set in their households, along with those who relied on the radio, that is a much bigger audience than a few public rallies or speeches.
Even though the No campaign was technically successful, I do not think that the influence from the media was the only reason that the Pinochet team lost the election. It was certainly a major factor since around 80% of Chileans have tv’s and would have seen the ad run but I believe that many of the voting populace already was not in favour of Pinochet administration and the ad just added fuel to the fire so to speak. However, I do also believe that the No ad started the trend of the public relying on the media for information/opinions about candidates instead of taking in to account what the candidate is actually standing for. Like in the American election last year, people only saw Trump’s boisterous tv personality and listened to him go on and on and on about how corrupt/ineffective Clinton would be. Many Americans could not see beneath the persona he put on for tv and missed out on the racist, bigoted ideas he actually stands for. Perhaps unintentionally, the No campaign was a stepping stone in federal elections becoming popularity contests instead of who is actually the best person to lead a country.
Advertising did take an important role in ending Pinochet dictatorship, but also another main key factor was the society being tired and seeing an opportunity to overthrow him. The success of the No campaign was not entirely the product of a well-run ad campaign. From the videos we saw comparing the No campaign and the Yes campaign, the style was pretty similar. I think the main reason the No campaign was so effective was by finally being a milestone for the Chilean society of being able to express their feeling without being overwhelmed that they were going to disappear from the map. That’s the big change the Chilean society saw in the 1980s.
I think the “no” side’s campaigns were very effective as advertising plays a huge role in politics and their side won the plebiscite. The media is one of the most powerful ways to shape a brand and through their advertisements they were able to show what their campaign was about and why it should be supported. The commercial with the national football player and his mother was very powerful, because it shows how the damage caused by oppression can be close to home and can happen to anyone. The advertisements brought awareness to the realities that Chilean’s were facing as a result of the Pinochet government and why there needed to be a change. In a country where television is such a central part of society it was important to get the message out where people can see it. The television advertisements played a role in the success of the campaign because it gave the campaign the exposure it needed to connect with the people and engage them to make a change.
The relationship between politics and media/advertising is obviously a very common thing nowadays, but at the time of the plebiscite, this relationship was quite new. Propaganda has always been used, but the No and Yes sides, to different levels of efficiency, attempted to persuade people through arguably more television friendly forms. I do believe the advertising could have been more efficient, but it was a sign of a capitalizing Chile and put a face to the discontent with the Pinochet regime. The No side eventually won but I don’t believe that the advertising was the major reason, rather it was the unification of the preexisting discontent which was only triggered by the advertising.
La efectividad de la campaña politica del “no” en Chile se asocia con el resentimiento popular generado por años de represión y la violación de derechos de los ciudadanos .Como pudimos observar el lado del “no” apela a los crímenes cometidos y a ideas optimistas como los son la democracia, la inclusión y la justicia social y política. Existe un contraste entre la falsa moral de la campaña del si donde se exacerba la imagen de Pinochet y la visibilidad del sufrimiento del pueblo ejemplificado en figuras públicas. A la vez, el plebiscito no era entre dos candidatos, pero entre las aspiraciones del pueblo y lo que representaba la preservación del regimen. El hecho de que la coalición, entre los partidos politicos que se oponen a la elección de Pinochet, no presentara definitivamente a un candidato durante el proceso de votación, sugiere que el “no” no representa la elección definitiva de la persona que sucedería a Pinochet.
During the time of the campaign I believe the “no” side was very effective through their advertisements. Their campaigns focused on the majority and were appealing to watch. When watching them they were focused on positivity and change and the inclusivity of everyone. Another one focused on the missing and had celebrity stars appear in the adds too to relate to people on a wider scale. Over all I think I was a decently run campaign for the time period and the circumstances of the people. Yet also I think people wanted change regardless, but the adds just helped push the fact that it was ok, and change was appealing to the vast majority.
During the plebiscite campaign, advertising and politics played hand-in-hand with each other. The advertisements used during the campaign could be seen as sales mechanisms used by the government as a way to influence and motivate people in choosing a side to vote for. Everything from the presentation, to the celebrity appearances, etc., appealed to different aspects of different political ideas which also thus appealed to certain demographics of people. I believe that no campaign was so successful not only through their advertising and plans for the country but as well because people did not want Pinochet which is why they voted opposite to him. The no side of the campaign raised awareness about political issues in Chile that were the result of the Pinochet regime and how they needed to be fixed because of it.
I think that the advertising of the No campaign might have affected the plebiscite more than the yes campaign for a number of factors. First of all, the No campaign intended to connect with people’s feeling, making them feel empathy for the families that had suffered a lot during the last few years. Althought the campaign affected the plebiscite I don’t think that is the only reason why it won. A lot of people were tired of how the country was not getting better for most of them or that a lot of persons kept dissapearing or being mistreated. The most important thing is that the campaign made people aware that they were not alone that there were more people willing to try to make a change to society.
It is fair to say that the NO campaign ads were a significant element of the political climate in Chile during the 1980s. On a global scale, these advertisement manifested perhaps a more radical and forward-thinking ethos to the anti-Pinochet agenda in Chile. The 1980s reflected a comparably different motive by the Pinochet government, in which there was a blatantly obvious attempt at changing the way the rest of the world viewed how Pinochet was running the country. It comes as no surprise that there was a motive to deny their leader these questionable actions. It may be further argued that the YES campaign was a direct response to these NO ads and it is important to recognize the unintended consequences of the Pinochet gov in that the people watched these adverts late at night and were able to see the deceitful lies of their own leader.
I do not believe that you could say the success of the NO side was due to a well run advertisement campaign. However, I do believe that you could say the advertisement campaign possibly resulted in more people coming out to vote. I don’t believe that advertisement alters someones political view, I don’t think an ad would change someones vote. I do think that since the Chilean people had been oppressed for so long the advertisement of the NO campaign allowed them to see they were not alone in their view. It would have made them more comfortable in voting No, as they saw it was something others were doing. Also, I believe that due to the limited amount of air time the No campaign ads received they were forced to display their message more clearly, “cut to the point”. This allowed the public to fully understand what they wanted to achieve, unlike the campaign run by Pinochet, which flooded the people 24/7 with constant media attention.
The prevalence of the No side was probably mostly due to the fact that people were informed regarding the opportunity they were offered to get rid of a dictator; thus, advertisements played an important role in starting conversation and encouraging people to go out and vote. Yet I think the fact that the Chilean people voted in favor of removing Pinochet from the presidency is also greatly due to the arrival of a new generation, a generation which had not been as exposed to the more severe years of the regime between 1972 and 1980. This meant that these people were more willing to openly defy the government and start movements like CADA, getting the word out and creating a new feeling of hope for change in Chile.
Throughout the campaign, the No side was extremely effective, and by connecting with their audience they were able to gather a large turnout for the vote. These advertising campaigns allowed other families to sympathize with those who had suffered. I believe that the No side’s advertising could have been more effective, but in the end, it was as effective as it needed to be. Regardless, the people wanted change, and although this ad campaign pushed this change sooner, I think it was bound to happen either way. Perhaps this type of advertising paved the way for future campaigns, and it allowed those in charge to realize how important it is to connect with your audiences feelings.
I think that the victory of the No side was equally due to the efforts of the advertising campaign and the consequence of the government being so awful to its own people. While the ad campaign was undoubtedly effective in convincing the chilean public to vote no, I believe that the role it had was more to push the public’s opinion over the edge. I think that one of the reasons that the no campaign was successful without having to paint the government in a bad light was because the Junta was already so awful that public opinion of them was low. The no ad campaign showed the people a path to a better tomorrow and they took it.
It wasn’t like the No side’s campaigning was the sole and utmost absolute determining factor in how the plebiscite would turn out, but it was definitely a big contributing factor. Prior to the campaign, there was already a lot of disenchantment and anger towards the Pinochet regime. These reasons were significant enough in and of themselves to encourage people to vote no. What the advertising campaign successfully did, however, was voice this message and the reasons loudly and clearly. By this point, it was too late for Pinochet to try to make amends with the public, so he was, in a way, bound to lose the plebiscite. So, this was another reason why it was easier for the no side to win. What the media campaign also successfully did was showcase a strong united front and ideology on the no side. It used famous athletes and celebrities to encourage people to go out and vote and it also helped to swing the voters who were undecided to the no side. The extremely high voter turnout was probably a direct result of the huge media showing both sides had. In general, it seems that, throughout history, media, especially TV, has influenced a lot of politics in Chile (as it has in many other countries in the world too.) TV is an excellent platform, especially in Chile (a place where, at the time, 8 out 10 people had a TV in their home) to spread messages to everyone, even illiterate people, and people who cannot be reached by, say, turning out to a rally.
I think the advertisement did a lot of work to the success of no side, but that was not the whole reason for their success. There were already a lot of people who were against the regime, and the advertisement worked for them and some people who were confused. Also, the yes side, Pinochet, already lost trust from the popular so that the advertisement caused rather negative than positive effects for them. And those advertisements could work out because the government spread TV to almost every family so that they could spread their regime. However those TVs also worked in opposite way, either.
During the 1980s, Chilean society was heavily influenced buy advertising and media. Chileans also had widespread access to television. The relationship between politics and advertising was heavily used during the plebiscite campaign in Chile. The no side strongly relied on the use of advertisements and media as away to sway the voters to the no side and remove the dictator Pinochet from office. In one case the no campaign called out Pinochet on a news station in Chile, heavily criticizing Pinochet on live television. The Pinochet yes Side also heavily relied on the use of advertising during the election as well. Pinochet also restricted the times in which the “No” ads could be placed and he heavily controlled and influenced what was shown and seen on the television networks. Pinochet also used many ads depicting the “Yes” side as a more prosperous opportunity, and that choosing the no side would be a step backwards for Chile. Overall, I believe that the ad campaign run by the no side was a significant factor in the election and the fall of the Pinochet regime.
The use of the NO campaign played a very important part in making the persuasion of people to go to the polls and vote for a change. I also believe that the people themselves wanted a change from the Pinochet government as well. They wanted to see Chile head in a different direction, that was able to move clear of violence, democracy and fear. It was evident that the Chilean people wanted change, through the removal of the Pinochet from the president through the no campaign. This removal of Pinochet was from the people for the people but the use of advertisement was the driving factor that was able to make the people of Chile make a difference. It only takes one to feed the many.
What is not political? The conceptual contours of ‘the political’ itself is a political debate with political consequences. Political-analytical lenses can be applied to almost any topic dealing with a relationship between two or more beings. Even within ourselves, power plays an important role in self-regulation and expression. In terms of discourse, politics has a lot to say about the impacts of voice, message, exchange, communication, etc. Certainly, power is at play in marketing. And access power is what is at stake in political campaigns. I believe that the changes happening in Chilean society in the 80s had a lot to do with this turn in political media: most notably the widespread availability of TVs. As such, the discursive power inherent to a broadcast became yielded by political actors in this moment or democratic upsurge.
Mass advertising, if we consider it to be the most important factor in deciding the victory of the “No” campaign, would also indicate a cultural victory for North America over Chilean society. Consumerism and advertising having been born in the United States and spread by our Multinational Corporations, a certain malleability and ease of influence can be observed in the peoples whence the American affinity for responding en masse to advertisement has been most adopted.
During this campaign advertising played a very large role in the referendum. Both sides were very active in campaigning, but ultimately the victory fell to the No side. Ultimately, I don’t really think the advertising effected it too much. I believe the Chilean people mostly already knew what they wanted, for Pinochet to peacefully step down after almost 20 years and transition into democracy. However advertising definitely helped the No campaign, as it was a method in reporting the human rights violations evidence against Pinochet, which wasn’t able to be advertised before, displaying atrocities that people haven’t seen before. However i’m ultimately very pleased with the result of the election, as although i don’t believe Pinochet was as bad as some may make him out to be, it was still time for a change of power and a peaceful change into democracy when the opportunity arose. ‘
The advertising for the NO campaign played a really important part in persuading the Chilean people to go and vote. However, the success of the NO side was not entirely due to the advertising campaign. The people of Chile were genuinely tired of Pinochet’s government and his dictatorial style of government that they supported the NO side and wanted change. They wanted a change of government which wasn’t centred around fear or violence but one that would embrace and promote democracy. This shows that the Chilean society has changed as the people were taking a step towards being heard, and challenging the regime, rather than remaining silent.
During the plebiscite campaign, it could be argued that a career in advertising basically was a career in politics. The boundaries between the two being a fine line, it was clearly a time of change for Chile as it showed people they could voice their opinions without intense fear of repercussions. In my opinion the success of the No campaign can be entirely accounted to their marketing. When looking at modern day influence, small advertisements that are by no means as moving as those of the No campaign can have lasting effects on us whether we realize this consciously or whether it is simply subliminal. A strong example of how advertisements and subliminal messaging can effect the masses is shown in modern day society with Donald Trump, who frankly is not fit to run a country yet was able to convince a whole nation by advertising himself in a certain light.