Did Flávio Bolsonaro lose the election because his advertising campaign was bad?
Updated: 7 hours ago
A political campaign is, in many respects, an advertising campaign. There is a product to be presented (the candidate), an audience that needs to be reached, a message, and a decision that needs to be influenced. An idea of the future, a set of values, and the image of a person who intends to represent millions of Brazilians are being sold.
In the 2026 presidential elections, Flávio Bolsonaro reached the second round ahead of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (Lula), however, he was defeated in the second round. The result raises an interesting question for those who work in communication: was his campaign unable to convince, or even dissuade, the remaining voters?
To understand just how far advertising can go, we cannot ignore one of the darkest chapters in the history of communication and the world: Nazi propaganda.
Although political propaganda existed long before the rise of Adolf Hitler, the Nazi regime took it to a level of organization and scope that profoundly marked the history of mass communication. In 1933, Hitler created the Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, headed by Joseph Goebbels. He was responsible for coordinating the dissemination of his ideology through virtually every possible means of communication: radio, film, newspapers, posters, books, theater, and even school materials. All with the aim of shaping how the population perceived reality.
Zeca Martins, in his book "Publicidade é isso aí" (Advertising is like that), cites 9 fundamental principles for the success of propaganda, which were exceptionally used by Goebbels for the success of the Nazi campaign. These principles are simplicity, appeal, sympathy, synthesis, surprise, repetition, saturation, dosage, and orchestration or reiteration of the message. If we analyze the campaigns of both parties considering these 9 principles, we can presume which campaign had a greater effect on the public, since all good advertisements and advertising campaigns share the same essence of these principles. It is important to emphasize that none of these principles were created by Goebbels or Hitler, but by Quentin Hitler in the 1940s. However, their systematic application, combined with the control of the media and censorship, brutally demonstrated the potential of propaganda as an instrument of social and political manipulation. Let's analyze some of these principles in relation to the candidates' campaigns:
For this analysis, communication materials related to both candidates were selected, including official materials, publications from supporters, and visual expressions from movements associated with their candidacies. Therefore, the comparison considers not only institutional advertising but also the communication ecosystem built around each candidate.
SIMPLICITY
Flávio Bolsonaro's campaign primarily used satirical illustrations to facilitate his voters' understanding of the situations presented, in order to ridicule and satirize situations and thoughts of the rival party. Lula's campaign, on the other hand, used recognizable symbols easily associated with his party to communicate his position directly, such as stars, the color red, and the famous "L," the main symbol used by his voters. It's important to note that both campaigns used criticism of the rival party to promote themselves, but with greater force on Flávio's side, for example, a song or chant created with the main phrase " Whoever stands still is a disguised PT supporter ." Despite Lula's party's speeches and criticisms of Flávio, his main chant was directed at his voters and not other candidates, such as " Worker, look here, I'm in the streets so your child can study."
Emotional Appeal
Advertising seeks to evoke feelings and create identification with the public. Flávio worked mainly with humor, indignation, national pride, and provocation, while Lula's campaign works with the idea of hope, belonging, solidarity, and memory, aiming to convey unity and promote the collective. These are different emotional appeals, and each audience receives them in a different way.
Synthesis
The message needs to focus its communication on a main idea; Bolsonarism uses dialogues and characters to convey its idea, while Petismo (supporters of the Workers' Party) uses impactful phrases, big headlines, and symbols to synthesize its political positioning.
Repetition and continuity
Bolsonarism primarily relies on references to patriotism, which perhaps wasn't a good idea. Even though the party's main colors are green and yellow, representing the Brazilian flag, many disapprove of associating the flag with a political party. Many Lula's party voters still wear the Brazilian national team jersey, not just the red one. And besides the red color of the Workers' Party (PT), stars and images related to workers' movements have been widely used by supporters since 1982.
Orchestration
The same idea should be developed in different formats, maintaining consistency in communication. Flávio's campaign worked with memes, digital illustrations (AI), and photographs of demonstrations. On the other hand, Lula's campaign features posters, documentary photographs, collages, original illustrations, and strong typographic compositions, presenting a visually more artistic design than its competitor.
Flávio focused his communication on everyday problems faced by the Brazilian population, such as debt, cost of living, and violence, which were the main themes of his campaign. Instead of presenting a detailed government plan, he chose to create situations with which voters could identify; at times, the campaign seemed more concerned with dramatizing reality than constructing a convincing representation of it. Flávio repeated expressions like "His government is a disgrace" and "Brazil will win," in addition to frequently exploring the contrast between the current country and the one he promised to build. However, repeating a phrase does not necessarily mean constructing a strong message. Different pieces need to develop the same idea and add something to the public's perception.
Another aspect of the communication, or lack thereof, in his campaign was the absence of topics such as education, hunger, housing, and climate change. The campaign gave considerable space to fear, security, and the figure of the candidate himself. This does not mean that the chosen topics were irrelevant, but it reveals a very specific vision of the country that he intended to present to the voter.
And Lula? Luiz Inácio's campaign followed a different path.
The candidate relied on his political career, the achievements of his previous governments, and the idea of continuity. His central concept, "Brazil ready for more," sought to convey the idea that the country had gone through a period of reconstruction and would be prepared to move forward in a new term.
His biographical narrative also played an important role. Lula was presented as someone who came from the northeastern hinterland, arrived in São Paulo, and built his political career based on the struggle for better living conditions. From an advertising perspective, having a real, recognizable story directly associated with the candidate's public identity is a huge advantage for his campaign. The campaign also presented programs and proposals, such as the "Pé-de-Meia" (a program offering savings and other financial aid), "Gás do Povo" (a program offering gas to the people), and income tax exemption measures. These were concrete examples that helped transform the discourse of continuity into identifiable achievements.
However, one of the main problems pointed out by experts was the over-reliance on the past. Professor Wilson Gomes, interviewed by Folha de S.Paulo, criticized precisely the absence of a convincing perspective on the future. In his assessment, there was a lack of presenting something new that only Lula could achieve and that would transform the lives of voters. The criticism makes sense when we think about advertising: a brand cannot eternally depend on its past achievements to remain relevant.
Another problem was the number of attacks directed at Flávio. The Workers' Party campaign used accusations and controversial episodes from the opponent's trajectory to weaken his image. Although this type of strategy can work to generate rejection, there is a limit between presenting relevant information about the competitor and making the entire communication revolve around him. At a certain point, the dispute seemed to have turned into a campaign about who was the worst candidate, instead of a clear presentation of who had the best project for the future, this type of communication being the most prominent advertising tactic used by both parties.
Ultimately, which campaign communicated better?
Flávio managed to identify issues that were part of Brazilians' daily concerns and transform them into simple, direct, and emotionally recognizable messages. Lula, on the other hand, had the advantage of a well-known political trajectory and concrete achievements that could be presented as evidence of his governing ability.
Flávio focused his narrative on problems, fear, and promises of change, without giving the same attention to a series of important social issues and a sufficiently comprehensive vision for the future. Lula, on the other hand, looked excessively to the past and was slow to build a future perspective that would justify a new term. It is interesting to note that Flávio's campaign didn't necessarily need more special effects, dramatic images, or impactful phrases. It needed a more consistent narrative, capable of transforming emotional identification into trust. Lula, however, needed to understand that his political history, while important, does not replace the need to present new ideas.
Ultimately, there's a difference between creating an advertisement that grabs attention and creating an advertisement that convinces. And that difference isn't just about aesthetics, but about the ability to understand the audience, select what truly matters, and build a coherent message from beginning to end.
Comments