In the last edition of Vértices we talked to Alicia Peñaranda, political scientist, political consultant and creator of digital content. Known as La Poplitóloga, Alicia seeks to stop political consulting from being the privilege of the few. Her focus on 'pop politics' has made her a familiar face to young audiences and has allowed her to bring politics closer to the people from a popular language. 

In this space we talk about political communication and how it can help civil society to boost their campaigns and strategies.  

What is pop politics and how do you think it can help civil society make its causes more attractive? 

Pop politics is politics as seen through popular culture. This concept is from an Italian professor named Gianpietro Mazzoleni, from the University of Milan, who relates it to the idea that political communication should resemble entertainment culture. I'm interested in "pop" as the popular, and I associate it with everyday conversations with the codes and symbols that ordinary people use to talk about politics. A person, in the living room of his house or in the street, does not talk about technical issues; what interests him is to put qualifiers and imaginaries to the reforms, which makes us give our opinion from our stereotypes or beliefs.

Not all communication is politics, but all politics has communication.

As far as social issues are concerned, there is something I repeat a lot: not all communication is political, but all politics has communication. Every cause needs to communicate and frame its problem well. To make it popular, you have to make it close and easy to understand, but first it must be strategic, because that is what allows creativity, disruption and innovation. Thanks to social networks, all causes want to be creative and cool, but you can't be creative without a strategy behind it. The call is to also professionalize communication in organizations.

What role do emotions play, why is it so important to appeal to them in political communication and how can this be applied in social campaigns?

We must reconcile ourselves with emotions, because it has been demonstrated that we are not rational beings in our choices. We have a part of our brain that is rational, but there is another part that is automated and linked to social or individual habits that we have repeated. When we calmly accept that human choices have a great emotional charge above rationality, we know how to communicate to human beings from the political point of view.

This is not something new. Marcus Tullius Cicero, in 68 B.C., wrote the first manual of political communication, called 'Breviary of electoral campaign', where he tells his brother who is going to run for the consulate: "Talk to people's emotions, don't talk about politics. Make friends with people, get them to believe in you." We human beings haven't changed that much; that's why political communication is based on appealing to emotions. This does not detract from the debate, which should be based on facts, figures and reality, but communication has to reach the limbic brain, which is not the rational brain.

What are the key differences you have noticed in communication strategies between the private sector and politicians and social organizations?

The private sector wants to sell and does not waste any money. Its communication must always be effective. On the other hand, in the public and social spheres, we see other discourses. Notice that the most popular candidates in the world, regardless of whether we agree with them or not, have been businessmen. Trump, when he ran for president, said, "I'm going to use technology to know where I'm going and where I'm not going." That's what entrepreneurs do. If McDonald 's is going to open an outlet, they study the market first because they don't want to lose money. Politicians and organizations, on the other hand, often act without that approach. We all want our ideas to be bought and for that we have to use the same sales channel and make that measurement between what is there, what can be spent and what has to be earned.

The human right is a fact, the framework I am going to put to talk about it is not.

So, quantitative and qualitative research is essential. Today, anyone can do a virtual survey, even if it has some limitations in terms of reliability. Social organizations have an advantage to do focus groups and evaluate if their discourse or campaign is connecting with the public. However, in the social or public sphere we are often a little afraid of this, we say "how can they not understand that what I am defending is a human right that is being violated". It is assumed that it should not be marketed. But it is not like that, although the human right is a fact, the framework I am going to use to talk about it is not. I can measure, test, prove, talk to others about that framework. 

What prior steps must civil society take to put an issue on the public agenda?

Because of this question I asked myself many years ago, I came to the conclusion that there are four steps, which I call the "4 P's". The first is to identify a clear problem and its origin. Here, even market theory gives us clues: What is the problem? Who is morally to blame? What are the consequences? The second P is the principles or values that the problem is violating. The third is the audience: who am I talking to? That audience must feel that the problem affects them. And the fourth P is the proposed solution, which must be directly connected to the problem, not something disconnected like a doctor prescribing an X-ray for a headache.

The strategy is what unites the 4 P's, so that it solves the problem, reminds you what the principle is, the public feels cared for and connected and finally decides to buy the proposal. That is what the cause has to be able to achieve. From the narrative, you achieve a storytelling that connects very well with people.

What happens when the problem affects only a minority?

So, what is the public of that cause? Because the audience cannot only be the one that is already convinced. There has to be another audience to achieve the result, not to convince them to understand the problem, but to push it up the agenda. All causes have started as minority causes, such as feminism, the fight against segregation and racial discrimination. The first thing a cause must do is to become important on the agenda. Then, it is to design a narrative aimed at several audiences, not just one, but with a message that makes each audience feel identified.

How can social networks be used to enhance this work?

I think the clue has already been given to us by social networks, and many people have not realized it. The clue is to humanize. When a cause - be it an organization, a movement, a company or a party - has people behind it, you have to show who they are, because there are organizations that seem 'faceless'. Who are you? Who is behind it? What does that person feel? Where does he or she live? Why is he or she crying? That's why individual influencers have more power than the big traditional media, because we know the influencer: we know where he goes, what his family is like, what he laughs about.

All causes have people behind them, and it doesn't mean that there isn't a collective, but that collective also has relationships. Why don't we show the process? How did they get to know each other? How do they congregate? The community is not about a robot or a stone; it is about people who generate empathy, and that is why we must humanize the causes. To be authentic, to be naked in the networks, on television, in Congress. It is not just showing figures and data, but saying, "I came here because this episode in my life marked me, and it led me to mobilize this cause."

From a political consulting perspective, how do you adapt a strategy or campaign that is not working to reposition the message?

The first thing is to understand why it is not doing well, and that is what the SWOT is for. You have to analyze the weaknesses, threats, strengths and opportunities. In these cases, the ideal is to forget about threats because you cannot control them and focus on strengths, on what you are doing well and seek to improve it. Without a strategy, everything falters. 

You can adjust the speech as many times as you want, but the purpose does not change.

We have to evaluate every day. I always ask myself these questions: What are we doing right? What are we doing wrong? What could we be doing better? What should we stop doing? 

It is important to look for references: How have others done it? What problems have they had? Learn from those experiences, measure a lot, and if something fails, go back to the beginning. It is never a bad thing to reconfigure, but what you cannot change is the purpose. You can adjust the speech as many times as you want, but the purpose does not change.

What are the most frequent mistakes you observe in social campaigns or projects?

I believe that most large social and political projects fail because of human and interpersonal relationships. Working as a team is one of the biggest challenges. You can have the noblest cause in the world, but if people don't know how to have empathy, emotional intelligence, listen to and respect each other, projects fall apart. Yes, it is true that each person can do a job, but to make a social change you first have to make a personal change. We must ask ourselves every day: How am I becoming a better person?

What would you recommend reading or consuming to those who are working in political communication and social causes?

I'm going to do some promotion of my political strategy courses, but I also recommend studying a lot about political propaganda. There's a book called Political Propaganda, which was written after World War II and discusses types of propaganda and counter-propaganda. Study political communication with the greats, read about storytelling, read Cicero, his Breviary of Election Campaigning, or Max Weber's The Politician and the Scientist, which is excellent for reorienting the desires of politicians or cause leaders.